Chamber and committees

I am grateful to Mr Kerr for his contribution this morning. I find myself largely in agreement with it.

I should say that the witnesses that we heard from last week were not enthused about moving from FAST to BE FAST. To be fair to them, there were various reasons: they thought that it would bring people from the emergency department to the stroke department who would then be referred back to the emergency department. A separate issue was the overload problem that Mr Kerr mentioned. There was also a hint of a suggestion that the general public are not quite sophisticated or clever enough to cope with and spit out six letters as opposed to four. I must say that I was not particularly impressed by that argument. On the other hand, we have heard from a newly published document in America that BE FAST was found not to work as well as FAST. We will want to study that.

However, we should pursue the matter further. Perhaps we should write to NHS Fife seeking further information on the BE FAST pilot trial that it undertook. We heard in NHS Fife’s written submission that it undertook a pilot scheme, but it did not say what the findings were, including any available analysis and evaluation of the pilot.

We might also write to NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which offered to carry out a pilot—it was the only health board to make that offer, and it did so gratis; it was voluntary, not conscripted. The minister Jenni Minto said that she would be sympathetic to a pilot, although she did not go as far as advocating for it.

Were there a pilot in Ayrshire and Arran, it would have to be properly and rigorously set up so that its findings had statistical validity. That might involve a bit of thought and organisation by the experts—otherwise, to put it bluntly, it is rubbish in, rubbish out. If Ayrshire and Arran wants to do that, I think that we should contact the board and ask whether it would be willing to consider that further with the relevant bodies, with the Bundy family also contributing if they wish to do so.

We could also write to Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service seeking further detail about the training programme and resources referred to during the round-table discussion and specifically about the guidance being produced for clinicians to increase awareness of atypical stroke symptoms, such as changes to balance and eyesight, that are absent from the FAST acronym but would be present in the BE FAST one.

Lastly, there would probably have to be some sort of public awareness campaign prior to the launch of the pilot so that people in Ayrshire and Arran are aware that it is happening. I think that a modest public awareness campaign would continue to create further interest and awareness nationally, because I am sure that newspapers and the media would cover that campaign very well in the way that, to be fair to them, they do. That in itself would be an opportunity to continue raising awareness and arguably, as Mr Kerr has said, to save further lives, which must be a good thing.

I suppose that I should declare that I am still on the roll of solicitors and am registered with the Law Society of Scotland, although that is more of an expense than an interest, albeit a merited expense.

The thesis of Mr Miller’s petition is that he is calling for the legislation to be amended to enable the dismissal of property factors or for other regulations to be laid that would achieve the same aim. It seems to me that two things should be said about that. First, I think that Mr Miller is concerned not about tenement properties but about housing estates with open land that requires maintenance. The difficult issue of green belt has been a running theme with which I grappled—unsuccessfully, I should confess—during my time in your shoes, minister.

Secondly, it seems to me that the nub of Mr Miller’s concern is not so much the issue of who is the factor but of how much they charge. In her evidence to the committee on 13 November 2024, Sarah Boyack cited an example in which the charges had increased dramatically, with quarterly fees rising from £300 to £800 pounds.

If I am right that the nub—the beef—of the issue is not so much who the factor is but what they are doing and whether they are fleecing the owners, the owners’ problem is that going through the ordinary cause procedure in the sheriff court is too expensive. I know that they are absolutely right about that and can say beyond peradventure that only the very rich or those who are on legal aid can litigate in ordinary cause courts and that the cost deters everyone else.

I understand, minister, that you are providing the orthodox answer—as perhaps I did; not always but too often—that there is a remedy. The orthodox answer is that people can go to court and that is fine, but they cannot go to court because they do not have the money to go to court, so that is a theoretical remedy and not a practical one.

I will suggest a possible solution, although I do not know whether it will fly. We have, as alternatives to the ordinary cause court, the small claims court and the summary cause court. The small claims court is intended as one to which parties can go to explain their case, first in writing and then in person to the sheriff, with no lawyers involved—at least, lawyers should not be involved, although companies often send King’s counsel. That is absurd, but that is what they do. Expenses are not usually awarded by that court unless there is an abuse of process. I am not talking about the summary cause court but about the small claims court, because summary cause is similar to ordinary procedure and practice, in which lawyers end up being involved.

There could be a stipulation regarding charges that are shown to be excessive in accordance with simple evidence given by a tradesman about the ordinary rates for that trade. A change from £300 to £800 per quarter is an absurd increase by any account. The example that Sarah Boyack cites is an increase of almost 300 per cent and we have no reason to doubt that that is correct.

Would the answer not be to confer privative jurisdiction on the small claims court and give the sheriff in that court the power under legislation, if, in his discretion, he finds that the factor has overcharged and abused the system and a claim has been completely excessive, to say, “Look, you’ve abused your power. You’re no longer the factor”? That could be set out quite simply in law as a matter of principle. I checked “Gloag on Contract” and I think that the claim would be dealt on a quantum meruit basis. I have no doubt that Jill Clark and Megan Stefaniak can correct me if I am mistaken on the law.

I do not expect the minister to be able to answer that, because I have not given her notice of my question—I thought of it only last night when I was looking at the committee papers. I wanted to set out my suggestion and I am grateful to the convener for allowing me to do so at some length.

The evidence that we have heard from our colleagues today indicates that there has been a lack of response from health boards. I do not know why that is, but that is the situation. Because that is the case, Katy Clark sought to obtain relevant information but has not received it. Were we to close the petition today, the petitioners could easily and legitimately lodge a fresh petition, calling for the data to be analysed. Rather than have all that delay and extra work, we might as well keep the petition open so that we can ask for the information that Katy Clark has, quite rightly, sought. I am aware of the evidence that Clare Adamson gave on behalf of her constituents. Plainly, those who are affected have been affected very profoundly.

Do not get me into even more trouble than I might already be in, convener. [Laughter.]

The serious point is that at least one practice in my constituency—Culloden medical practice, with which I have been working on the upgrade of its facilities—cannot accept, and is not accepting, new patients. More and more people are moving to the area within its curtilage, as it were, but the practice has said that it is full and it cannot take any more patients. That has caused enormous problems. The practice has worked for years and I have tried to support it and other practices in the constituency, but they feel that they have hit a brick wall, and I know that the issue is not unique to Inverness.

Spending 8 per cent of the budget on primary care and the rest of it on hospitals therefore seems to be an imbalance. I think that that is the meat of Dr Shotton’s point—she is arguing not so much for more expansion, but for general practice to be allocated a greater share. She has pointed out that, frankly, most of the daily legwork is done by our very hard-working general practitioners.

I wanted to make that point on the record, with the request that the clerks perhaps try to make it a bit more succinct and less wordy. I would like to get the cabinet secretary’s views on that and find out whether the Scottish Government might wish to emphasise primary care in the deployment of its capital budget in the future in order to help practices such as the one at Culloden.

I am pleased that the Inverness Courier, in its wisdom, has chosen to lodge the petition. I thank it for doing so and for championing the issue, which is of massive concern to everyone in Nairn as well as the wider north-east. In one way, it is quite a modest ask. It is not demanding that the whole project be completed by a certain time. It is simply asking for the Government to publish a clear timeline for the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn, and for the construction of a bypass for Nairn.

You have outlined the sad history of the work to dual the A96 by 2030. Thus far, £90 million has been spent on preparatory work for the dualling of the A96, but not one centimetre of tarmac has been laid. Many people, including me, find that almost incomprehensible.

In the Government response in defence of the lack of a timeline, a number of points are made, which I will cover briefly, in the hope that the cabinet secretary might appear before us to give evidence on that and other transport measures, as we might have mooted before. I hope that that will give her some indication of the issues with which she will be concerned and which will certainly be put to her.

The first point is on the made orders, which are an important milestone in the statutory process to determine which properties require to be compulsorily purchased and which ancillary roads need to be adjusted to fit in with the new road. Those are the two main made orders, although there are subsidiary ones. The response says that they were made on 12 March 2024, which is quite true.

There is something that the response does not say, however. I have a document here—I believe that we are not allowed to brandish documents, otherwise I would do so right now—from Transport Scotland. It is a 2016 document, which states that the made orders were expected to be published later that year. Well, that was 2016; we then got to 2024. What happened?

It used to be that draft made orders were displayed on the Transport Scotland website. They were displayed in draft, and they were ready for ages in draft. The year in the provisional date on this draft was 2-0-1-blank. In other words, it was planned that this work would be done nearly a decade ago. It was also promised in the 2011 manifesto and slightly before that by Alex Salmond.

The first point that I want to make is that no explanation has ever been given as to why there was a delay of eight years, which is the longest delay ever in respect of reaching this important stage of the proceedings. That is point 1.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has a personal enthusiasm for taking the issue on, to be fair to her. She is the fourth transport minister that we have had in four years, which is not terrific. Setting that aside, the submission says that the reason for the delay is that

“It is fundamental that ... authorities allow sufficient time to properly consider the range of procurement routes available”.

How much more time do they need? I do not want to be too political, but the Government has had four years of this parliamentary session, and I have raised the issue, as members will appreciate, fairly frequently during those four years. That is point 2.

There are two final points that I want to make. I do not want to go on forever, convener—I have a habit of doing that.

There is a proposal, which is that fair notice be given to the cabinet secretary.

I have tried to consider the petition carefully. As a solicitor formerly in private practice for a quarter of a century, I dealt with quite a lot of matrimonial work and the financial settlement on divorce, which, as the minister said in her reply, is covered by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

One understands that both parties to divorce usually have very strong feelings and often feel that the division of the cake is unfair, and one can sympathise with that in certain circumstances. However, the Government has set out clearly that it is not in favour of that policy, and there is really no prospect whatsoever that it will change those principles.

I think that the 1985 act is a very good piece of legislation, and I want to make one specific point clear, which may not be immediately apparent. Under the act, the assets that fall to be divided between the parties are classified as matrimonial property, that is, property that is brought in in anticipation of marriage or property that is acquired or created during the period of the marriage, from the date of the marriage until the date of the separation or raising of the writ, if there has not been a separation.

In other words, the point is that, if you get married at, say, 50 and then divorced at 55, and you took out a pension when you were 25 and you still have that pension, then only the proportion of the pension attributable to the time period relating to the date of the marriage and the date of the separation falls to be taken into account. That is because the law recognises that there needs to be a recognition of the contributions of both parties in bringing up children and so on. If there is one breadwinner, the other spouse—usually, though not always, the female—may often have substantial childcare responsibilities.

The law is quite sophisticated. It seems to me to have stood the test of time. It seeks to be fair and, although the petitioner feels that it is unfair, I am not persuaded by her arguments. Therefore, on this occasion—I have not said this for a while—I agree with the Scottish Government.

Well, that is interesting. “Algorithms” was the word that I was unsuccessfully hunting for.

I think that we have probably pursued the issue as far as we can at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, so I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis of four factors. First, the guidance on the visibility of pedestrian crossings is set out in the UK-wide guidance on the design of pedestrian crossings. Secondly, national planning framework 4 highlights safe crossing, pedestrian priority and reduced street clutter as desirable qualities. Thirdly, the Scottish Government considers that it is for local authorities to identify streets that are in need of decluttering. Fourthly, the day-to-day enforcement of the pavement parking prohibitions, along with consideration of reporting systems, is also the responsibility of local authorities.

Taking account of those factors, I recommend that we close the petition.

Which health board were you referring to?