Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is quite a lot in the petition, and it might help the petitioner if the Scottish Government could provide the context of roadside litter awareness campaigns and say who has been responsible for delivering them over the period in which this Scottish Government has been in charge, since 2007. It would be useful for the committee to have that context.

I would like the Scottish Government to detail who has been responsible for any specific campaigns. I am aware of one that was run by Keep Scotland Beautiful from 2016 to 2019, but I am also aware that there has been varied responsibility for delivering litter awareness campaigns more generally. In 2011, there was the “Dunna chuck bruck” litter awareness campaign in Shetland, which I might have to declare as an interest, as I funded it.

It is important that the Scottish Government tells us how much funding has gone into roadside litter awareness campaigns each year—if it is generous, it might expand that to litter campaigns in general—and who is responsible for delivering them. It should also tell us what the assessment of the dumb dumpers phone line was. That was a national phone line, but if you call it now, you are instructed to call your local authority, which might not necessarily be set up to deal with the issue.

We should also ask the Scottish Government for further information on the national litter and fly-tipping strategy delivery group’s communications sub-groups—what a mouthful—including what actions will be taken at the national level to improve communications about littering. It is important that that action is taken nationally, as this is not purely a local authority issue. We should also ask what engagement has been done with stakeholders. It would also be worth asking whether the littering provisions in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 will cover unintentional littering from commercial vehicles—I hope that they will, because the 2024 act will not deliver a circular economy if it does not deliver on litter.

It might be interesting to talk to other stakeholders who might have an interest in the issue. Rachael Hamilton mentioned those that manage our trunk roads, including Transport Scotland. I know from paddle boarding under the Friarton bridge how dangerous roadside litter can be, because lots of individuals will throw various things over the side of the bridge.

Finally, on extended producer responsibility, I would like us to ask how the Scottish Government is engaging with producers to help to co-ordinate litter collection and therefore reduce disposal costs, which I know many of the large companies and small producers are keen to do.

The petitioner mentions research from Australia—it has a similar healthcare system to ours—which showed that when BE FAST was used in a live medical setting the result was quicker detection and treatment and better outcomes. What is your assessment of how many strokes FAST might miss? Are we talking about one in five, one in 10 or one in 20?

I will perhaps start with Professor Majid. In relation to your previous point, are you aware of any work around the use of artificial intelligence to triage potential stroke victims?

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government will take the actions that have been highlighted by the convener. In addition, it has committed to introducing a natural environment bill. On that final point and—I hope—to allay some of the petitioners’ concerns, in closing the petition we should write to the Scottish Government, asking it to put on the record its plans and timescales for the natural environment bill. The Government’s response said that it will happen in due course, which is similar to the response that I received on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which was due to be introduced in the 2016-17 programme for government but was not introduced until 2023. That is why I am keen to at least get an update on the timescales for the natural environment bill, which should, in theory, adequately address the petitioners’ concerns.

I think that a ministerial statement would be very helpful but, as members will be aware, that is ultimately a matter for the Scottish Government and the Parliamentary Bureau.

The petitioner should be congratulated. I recommend closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has, in writing, recognised the importance of predator control in its engagement with the committee, is reviewing the funding for future environment and climate schemes and will consider predator-control funding as that develops.

I am also interested in BE FAST as a stroke screening tool. What is your view of the current evidence surrounding BE FAST and other stroke screening tools, and how could the evidence base improve?

I think that the nub of the issue is that James Bundy’s father received video from the Scottish Ambulance Service that ruled out a stroke, so an ambulance was not dispatched. From the evidence that we have heard, the issue appears largely to be about capacity and the need to prioritise patients. Ultimately, the NHS is free at the point of delivery, and, in my view, capacity management should not come into an evidence-based approach to triaging people. Yes, there might be people who present falsely, but that is a matter for the Scottish Government, which can provide capacity and allow people to access the treatment. I invite the panel to take a step back and answer this question. If there was capacity in the system, would your reflections on BE FAST be the same?

Mr Torrance has highlighted Dundee, but it would be useful to know the overall picture in every council area in Scotland because we would then be better able to ascertain where the pinch points might be.

Yes.

This is a massive issue. I am aware of surgeries in my region where patients are looking at 1,000 calls to see a doctor, which is unacceptable in relation to both treating health conditions and providing preventative care. The result is that many people present at accident and emergency departments because that is the only way that they can see someone.

The Scottish Government’s response that the “information is not known” to it is inadequate. If you are in charge of delivering healthcare in Scotland and you do not know how it is delivered and whether that system is adequate, that is a big problem. Therefore, the first thing is to ascertain that information.

I will segue to the point that the petition refers to same-day-only appointment systems. In my experience, many practices largely deploy that approach but they might also have some other appointments available. Therefore, in essence, it is a same-day-only appointment system, but that might not be captured in the data, because the surgery offers a few alternatives. For example, there might be some advance appointments, or, if someone was able to speak to a receptionist on the phone, they might be offered an appointment the following day, so that would not fit in with the definition of a same-day-only system. We need to ascertain that in order to understand the information.

The Scottish Government also said that it is not looking to take a similar approach to that of NHS England. That is okay, but, in that case, what is its approach going to be?

There are almost two parts to the issue and I cannot see that the Scottish Government has provided an answer, other than by referring to some general principles that do not really help people to get appointments.