Chamber and committees

I do not, at the moment.

I am always looking for a chance to agree.

I suppose that our primary function is to give voice to petitioners. I agree with Mr Torrance that there is zero chance that Food Standards Scotland will move on that, for the very good reason that, as I understand it, raw milk can carry salmonella, E coli, listeria and campylobacter—I think that I have pronounced that correctly—and can cause food poisoning. We have seen very serious illnesses and death with other foodstuffs as a result of food poisoning. Therefore, it is a very serious matter, indeed, and I agree that it is most unlikely that that view will change, irrespective of what further information we get.

On the other hand, we have a duty to the petitioner. The petition is new—it has just been lodged—so, as Mr Sweeney said, it would be interesting to know why the sale of raw drinking milk has been made legal in England and what the experience has been there. I do not know that we are in a position to conduct a detailed inquiry, but, in the interest of fairness to the petitioner, that question should be asked, because it is not clear to me why it has been legalised in England, given that the health experts in Scotland say that the risks are so serious that the ban must remain in place.

As a relative newbie to the committee, perhaps I am being a bit softer than Mr Torrance, but we owe some kind of duty to the petitioner. We could write to Food Standards Scotland, and perhaps to the Food Standards Agency in England as well, to ask why, in England, the sale of raw drinking milk is legal. It would be interesting and illuminating to know why they have legalised that in England and whether, having done so, they have had any cases of food poisoning, for example.

We could ask NFU Scotland as well, but I suspect that its members will be concerned about the reputation of dairy farmers, because it is a highly specialised area—

I agree with Mr Stewart’s recommended course of action and, in doing so, I express my gratitude for the information and help that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre. We had a briefing earlier, for which we are grateful.

In the light of that, I hope that we can put in the letter to the minister the information that we received about the possible distinction between the use of falconry for hunting purposes and for exercise purposes. As well as the issues that Mr Stewart has enumerated, we should ask that regard be paid to whether that information might form the basis of her seeking guidance and advice from NatureScot, which, I gather, deals with operational and strategic arrangements for licences in general, to see whether it can recommend a way that would enable the sport of falconry to continue to be practised in the light of the distinction that we have had the benefit of hearing about this morning from SPICe.

In addition to that, I hope that we can write to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to clarify the circumstances that would constitute an offence, and whether a person could be charged and prosecuted. Again, that might benefit the legal authorities, which are the only ones that have the right to decide whether there should be a prosecution. To be fair to her, the minister has no such locus and that line cannot be crossed. We should ask the prosecution authorities in what circumstances they might be minded to consider criminal proceedings. Perhaps we should also set out in the letter the distinction that we have had explained to us this morning, so that they can see a potential solution but also the quandary that falconers face, and appreciate that the committee is taking the issue seriously.

What I am asking for, convener, is that the letters to the legal authorities and to the minister should go to some lengths to set out our concerns about what we have heard, and our desire for a solution to be found that involves everybody working together to that end.

I forgot to say that, at the very end of the letter to the minister, we could perhaps politely indicate that all members of the committee feel particularly exercised and concerned about this matter, and it is therefore our intention to pursue it. We should indicate that we are treating it very seriously indeed, and perhaps thereby inject a little bit of lead into the ministerial pencil.

I am working on it.

We should write to Highland Council to seek its views on the issues that are raised in the petitions and to ask for further information on its plans to develop alternative routes to the Stromeferry bypass.

Rhoda Grant has pursued the issue doggedly for a number of years, and rightly so. In doing that, she has raised a conundrum. If my memory serves me correctly, Highland Council has a geographical area of more than 25,000 square miles, which is nearly a third of the landmass of Scotland. Its area is 20 per cent bigger than Wales and is bigger than Belgium, and its budget has to cater for the area’s huge network of roads.

Convener, you alluded to the figures and the petitioner’s point that the cost of the repairs that are required is in the tens of millions. When writing to Highland Council, therefore, could we specifically ask whether, given that it has such a disproportionate responsibility for roads maintenance in Scotland as it covers a third of the land mass, its budgetary allocation is fair? As a Highland MSP, albeit one who represents a constituency, I absolutely share the sense of grievance that the petitioner has, which underlies the petition, so I want to add that to our particular request.

I would also be interested to formally ask for the views of local communities via their community councils. I think that that includes Lochcarron as well as Stromeferry and Achmore, Plockton and Applecross. I do not know whether there is anything else that Rhoda Grant thinks we might usefully do, but if there is, I would be most interested in giving that sympathetic consideration as well.

I was not on the committee at the time that the evidence was taken but I have read the evidence and it covers both the desirability of kids learning to swim and the importance of that skill as a lifesaving device, which I notice Mr Torrance raised in the evidence session.

In light of what Mr Choudhury has said this morning, I feel that, although we probably should close the petition for the technical reasons that have been set out, it might be helpful if, in addition to the work that you have suggested, convener, we write to the minister stressing that we are closing the petition because there is no mandatory curriculum and, in that respect, it is a technical reason.

However, we could add that, although we welcome the progress that has been made, some local authorities are still not offering provision. There are concerns that deaths have arisen perhaps because of lack of ability to swim. Each of those cases would probably be subject to a fatal accident inquiry. We do not know whether those inquiries have taken place but, if the deaths occurred recently, they probably have not.

In the letter, we could say that we have advised the petitioner to consider bringing the petition back in a year, and ask the Scottish Government to confirm that it will not neglect attention to that matter, but drive it forward with COSLA colleagues and, in particular, that it will try to advance the causes that Mr Choudhury has spoken to eloquently this morning, and that the petitioner has advocated us to pursue.

I agree in principle with Mr Sweeney’s recommendation, because the health and social care partnerships have a direct role to play. I wonder whether, in the first instance, we could raise the specific point in the letter to the minister and perhaps couple that with a request that she provide us with an update on what progress has been made in using the substantial amount of money—I cannot remember the figure; was it £500 million?—that has been set aside for the pursuit of drugs policy objectives in general. The indication that the minister gave was that that was to be used, in large part, to hire relevant personnel, whether as employees, consultants or contractors.

In the case of the provision of services to detainees in police custody, that might well involve the provision of budget for doctors, or other health professionals, who would be hired by the police. I am sorry—I am being a bit long winded, convener.