Chamber and committees

I support what Jackie Baillie said about the submission from Roseanna Clarkin. It was quite shocking to learn that the vendor, Covidien UK, was supplying Parietex mesh, which has been subject to Food and Drug Administration restrictions in the United States because it has been directly linked to postoperative complications and adverse effects in patients. Perversely, we are in a position in Scotland where we have fewer medical clinical protections for patients than in the United States. I am sure that if you asked the average person in the street which jurisdiction they think offers more protections to patients, they would say Scotland, when as a result of the Government’s decision, that is not the case.

It is critical that we pursue the issue. The submission from the Shouldice hospital offers an insight into an alternative model that is quite compelling. In light of that remarkable evidence, it would be worth asking the health secretary to engage with it directly and perhaps look at the opportunity to set up a pilot project in Scotland with a particular hospital or surgical centre, to see whether we can adopt those methods. We could use the pilot as a control against standard procedures and see whether it produces demonstrable effects that could improve patient care.

I would be interested to hear from airspace operators—the main scheduled carrier, which is Loganair, and others who use the airspace, such as the training school at Dundee airport—to understand what their concerns might be. I do not think that we have heard anything from them.

The petition is incredibly important. During COP26, the RSPB did a fantastic showcase on Scotland’s rainforests, which was an eye-opening educational experience. Not many people realise that rainforests exist in Scotland in the temperate climate. There is probably a need to mobilise a broader debate on the issue. We ought to consider taking evidence from a wider group of stakeholders to broaden the base of the evidence that we obtain. I am thinking of Forestry and Land Scotland and the RSPB as two suggestions.

It is an urgent concern, particularly with the invasive growth in ancient woodland and the displacement that is caused by conifer plantations, which I think were originally planted for the first world war. That was the origin of the Forestry Commission; it was about the need to rapidly grow timber for the war, but it has had severe long-term effects over the past century.

Is it worth making the lead committee aware of the petition, in the sense that it might be worth an inquiry into the basis on which public appointments are made to the boards of CalMac and CMAL? I am approaching it less from a rural perspective and more from a shipbuilding perspective, but my understanding is that the boards are problematic, to say the least, in how they govern those agencies. There is very little public oversight of the characters who have been appointed to the boards. There is a potential for conflicts of interest and there is ignorance of many other aspects of how the organisations should be operating.

Further to that, given that the new national planning framework is currently being developed, it might be an opportune moment to try to be clear about feeding those issues into the process. I cannot remember off the top of my head which minister is leading that effort, but it would perhaps be worthwhile engaging with them in light of the evidence being raised.

I was similarly taken aback by the issues raised. It is an issue I had not considered properly before. The petition is very appropriate. I am particularly interested in the Scottish Law Commission’s idea that it could look at developing a project around this if the suggestion was submitted to it. It might be worth the petitioners exploring that idea in addition to petitioning the committee.

It is the sort of thing that might be appropriate as a members’ bill. Maybe there is a mechanism for our committee to flag up the petition to colleagues in Parliament who might be considering a members’ bill but do not necessarily have a project in mind. It might be a candidate worth taking up. Perhaps we should be making fuller use of the members’ bill process, and the petition could be a candidate.

The point about the capacity to deliver the course is interesting, and I think that the SQA’s response is fair. I am not aware of the number of people in Scotland who are qualified in BSL, but it might be worth trying to establish a route to a solution with Scottish Government colleagues.

It might also be worth trying to engage with the further education sector, perhaps including certain colleges that might be able to offer BSL as a qualification. On that basis, if we are able to establish some understanding about the logistics of delivery, it might enable the SQA to work towards developing a qualification that could be offered.

We might not have a BSL teacher in every school in Scotland, but the course might be offered at a school or a college within a local authority area and that would allow interested students to apply to do the course. I am sure that there is a way of working through the issue that has been identified, and it might be worth looking at how we can bring stakeholders together to see whether we can hammer that out.

I was quite alarmed by the Scottish Government’s submission, in the sense that it suggests that authorities should not use good practice guidance and planning as leverage. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do and should be actively encouraged. There are very few forms of leverage available to democratic politics over capital of this nature and scale. If you can drive a harder bargain on behalf of communities to capture more ownership of these projects, that would be a worthwhile thing to interrogate. I am simply asking—without any real thorough justification—why is it not seen as good practice?

Further to the minister coming to the committee, it would be good to probe that particular matter in the context of national planning framework 4 and how that could be changed. It is a timely issue to explore, particularly with the recent commentary around the ScotWind leasing round and how people felt that that might not have been the best possible deal.

I share the petitioner’s concerns, having had dealings personally with Barrhead Travel in my region, which is one of the largest travel agents in the UK. It has raised concerns that the package of support was designed largely for hotels, hospitality venues and tourist attractions, which might be affected by the cessation of inbound tourism, and that similar consideration was not given to businesses that are involved with outbound tourism, and particularly travel agents. The support is geared towards travel agencies with premises but, even then, because of the way that the scheme is constructed, some businesses with multiple premises or companies such as Barrhead Travel, which employs nearly 500 people, do not necessarily qualify for support.

There is a major concern that there is a gap in the way that the system and schemes have been designed. The Northern Ireland model is certainly worth investigating as a benchmark. Before Christmas, I raised the matter with Ivan McKee, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, and I was not convinced by his response. He made a point about having engaged with Barrhead Travel and, in effect, the company disputed that that was the case. There is clearly an issue about the level of engagement with the industry, and that is not to mention the issue of the design of the support structures. Clearly, people feel that they have been let down.

It is therefore appropriate for us to interrogate the matter further. We should write to the Scottish Government to raise the issue of the Northern Ireland scheme and ask why it has not been emulated. Perhaps we should also seek evidence from stakeholders. I nominate Barrhead Travel, but it might be worth investigating the position of other major participants in the sector.

I noted the petitioner’s requests and the feedback that we received. In particular, I noted that the Scottish Government said that it did not believe that the use of body cameras would necessarily be appropriate for all front-line clinical staff, given that the safety risks vary considerably across different job roles.

Obviously, there are also patient confidentiality issues. That concern has been reiterated by the BMA. Confidentiality, breach of trust, sensitivity, data protection—[Inaudible.]—wide. However, I think that there are certain instances in which the use of such devices might be appropriate and might be worth considering more thoroughly.

To that end, I propose that we write to the Scottish Ambulance Service to request more information on its trial of the use of body cameras and to ask when it expects the trial to conclude and how the findings from it will be utilised. I also propose that we write to the Scottish Government to ask what plans it has to review the findings of the Ambulance Service’s trial and to scale up the use of the measure, should the trial prove to be successful and it be deemed appropriate for the use of body cameras to be tried out more widely.