Chamber and committees

I meant the ScotSTAR service itself. At the moment there are eight centres, but if there were only three, might the call on that resource, for transferring people to just three centres that are further away, be greater than is case at present, when there are eight?

Fine. Thank you very much.

Could you give us clarity on the intention of the best start report with regard to the final number of units? Obviously, we have eight, and there was a recommendation to move to between three and five, and the recommendation ended up at three. The committee is concerned to know whether there is scope to move beyond that figure of three towards the five that was within the range of parameters that were discussed.

What about the question whether there should be three, four or five units?

Our second agenda item is a very important evidence session, during which we will consider cardiac and stroke care issues that have been raised in various petitions. I am delighted that we are joined, again, by the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto—a semi-frequent guest at our proceedings—and by Scottish Government officials working on the long-term conditions policy: Kylie Barclay, senior policy manager; Martin Macdonald, stroke senior policy manager; and Will Wood, unit head. I welcome you all. Thank you for joining us.

Our evidence session will cover recurring themes and issues that have emerged from the committee’s consideration of petitions PE1989, which calls for an increase in the number of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces; PE2048, which calls for a review of the FAST—face, arms, speech and time—stroke awareness campaign; PE2067, which calls for improved data on young people affected by conditions that cause sudden cardiac death; and PE2101, which calls for defibrillators for all primary and secondary schools in Scotland.

The committee recently had a round-table discussion that teased out a number of the issues relating to the petitions. The discussion left the committee more convinced in some respects than in others. For example, we recognise that a lot of modern schools are being built outside of town, which is, potentially, not where a defibrillator might otherwise need to be. At the same time, there is now a map of defibrillator access across Scotland, and we are concerned that, in certain areas—particularly Glasgow and the west of Scotland—there is an obvious deficiency. I was able to put that question to the First Minister at the Convener’s Group meeting. He did not agree with all aspects of the question that we put, but he at least recognised that defibrillator access is something of a postcode lottery and that that is not ideal with regard to people’s ability to survive these issues.

Minister, do you wish to say anything by way of an introduction, or are you happy for us to go to questions?

Thank you, minister. We are at the stage in the political cycle when we are drawing our work together and looking for outcomes, because the parliamentary session ends in March.

Speaking on a personal level, I applaud the proactive engagement that you have had with David Hill’s parents, Rodger and Sharon, as well as with James Bundy and his family. The petitions were motivated by particularly personal tragic circumstances, and I know that you have invested a degree of time in engaging with them and consulting them as the way in which the Government might react and proceed has evolved. We are now at the business end of the various petitions before us.

I will start on the subject of defibrillator access, usage and community response. The public access defibrillator placement map has identified gaps. There is fantastically widespread availability, and we can see how much that has grown, as you outlined, in the course of this session of the Parliament. One of the interesting things to note is that some defibrillators do not get used very much, whereas others get used more often. That is interesting, as it points to the importance of placement and where everything should ultimately be.

People still largely rely on community fundraising and generous external sponsorship, and that has been a successful strategy, in that it has allowed for the defibrillators that we currently have to be located where they are. However, for more deprived communities—we can see them on the map, in Glasgow and the west of Scotland—is that a reasonable approach that will allow us to avoid having a postcode lottery? I am interested in how the Government plans to plug that gap. Is it through direct intervention and support, or is it through cajoling people or trying to identify people who might be available to lead efforts in communities or who might be generous enough to sponsor units in those places? Clearly, we do not want people who live in areas where there is a gap in provision to have less chance of surviving than those who live in areas where provision has been more obviously achieved.

You mentioned Steven Short. He made the point that community responder units might be another way of ensuring that we access individuals quickly. How might the Scottish Government expand and sustain community responder schemes and give confidence in cardiopulmonary resuscitation defibrillator use? We all know that early bystander intervention can make a tremendous difference in getting a successful outcome. I was impressed with how he articulated that as a potential route, but how might that suggestion become something closer to an implemented strategy?

What causes you to hesitate on the BE FAST programme, minister?

That was very helpful. I am sure that it will help inform colleagues as we proceed.

We have been joined by our parliamentary colleagues Tess White, Ruth Maguire and Rachael Hamilton. After the committee has asked questions, time permitting, I hope to invite them to ask questions that they might feel have not been properly addressed.

Chief constable, I listened to all of your statement with interest and care, and I am grateful for it, but was there an underlying admission in there that Police Scotland got something wrong? If so, why?

Yes. Notwithstanding the wall of negativity that we have received from officialdom, with a view to penetrating that wall with further efforts, are members content to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

Concessionary Bus Travel Scheme (Asylum Seekers) (PE2028)

PE2028, lodged by Pinar Aksu on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer on behalf of the VOICES Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.

Paul Sweeney, our MSP colleague, joins us for our consideration of the petition, as he has done previously. Good morning, Paul.

The committee last considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We received a response from Transport Scotland, which states that the working group that is responsible for designing a pilot scheme to progress free bus travel for all asylum seekers has reconvened this year and was due to have its first meeting in May. It also indicates that officials are considering, and would discuss with the working group, whether it is possible to include people seeking asylum in the statutory national concessionary travel schemes in the longer term.

In August, in a response to a written question, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity said that it was

“anticipated that the pilot will commence in the Autumn.”—[Written Answers, 19 August 2025; S6W-39566.]

However, in an additional submission, the petitioners indicate that they are still waiting for the pilot to begin, and they continue to urge the Scottish Government to commit to a sustainable and long-term solution.

I recall that we raised the issue directly with Humza Yousaf, the then First Minister, at an earlier stage. The scheme was agreed and then disrupted. We were then told that the petition’s aims were once again being pursued, but although the will is supposedly there to make it happen, the matter seems to be going on for a little bit longer than we were told. Before the committee considers what further it might do, I invite Mr Sweeney to comment.