Peter and Paul, you have already made your views on some of this quite clear. I am not disagreeing—the compelling evidence that we have heard today very much backs up what was said earlier about how the whole process seems to be stacked against you, even if you are in the right process and moving forward. If you are not moving forward—if you are at the back of the queue and you are waiting, waiting and still waiting—there is a bigger problem to manage.

We questioned the previous witnesses, Professor Gill and Professor Mullen, about some of the aspects of responsiveness. They talked about a lack of data, a mismatch of the data supplied and the need for more investigation into some aspects of that data. They saw a gap in some of that. I get the sense from you that you also believe that to be the case.

As a committee trying to understand how to respond to customer concerns about the SPSO, if we do not get the data and you as individuals or organisations do not get the data, it is difficult to make an assessment. Through data, we can understand the process. It may be the case, however, that data is limited or somehow manipulated. You have given evidence of seeing that, Paul. Age Scotland understands that people sometimes get run out of the process because of the length of time that a complaint takes. People’s cases are being run down and, because of their age, they may expire by the time that the case progresses. That may happen in some people’s processes. The data that we collect and the data that is provided is vitally important for trying to analyse where we take the whole process and how we, as a committee, can then manage to see how effective the SPSO is. Peter Stewart-Blacker, you want to come in.

Absolutely. You have indicated in your submission that there are no real concerns about the quality of the complaints handling service or the process. Assessing whether that is the case requires data, and you have also indicated that there is a lack of data when you are trying to analyse that. What data should be available to enable you to make a more informed assessment? That is where we want to try to get to. By having more data, you might then be able to assess how successful the service is or how the process is working. If there is a lack of data, you cannot really see whether the SPSO is fulfilling its role.

In some ways, individual rights seem to be diminished. I put that to Jan Savage, given her role

There is not a complete picture, as you identified. The issue has been addressed in the past, but it has not been resolved yet, so we still think that there is more room for improvement.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone would not connect. I would have voted no.

Good morning. You have all touched on the challenges that we have faced and that we continue to face in managing the processes for our sectors. Professor Portes, you touched on potential successes in how things have progressed. Are there specific areas and sectors in which there has been real change, with activity going from vibrant to non-existent, and are there others in which there was an acceptable level of activity and there are now further opportunities? We have heard that some organisations have relocated their offices to other locations to try to develop and expand some of their processes to ensure that they can tap into opportunities, whereas other organisations have not done that but have been reasonably successful. Do you believe that there is an opportunity to try to do that as we move forward? I ask Professor Portes to answer first.

In your letter and your opening statement, you mentioned the “proportionate approach” that you are taking to EU alignment and the fact that you are not being complacent in guarding against any future risks. In that respect, it is vital that records are kept and information is shared, and our tracker report has identified some of that. What do you see those risks as being? Will you expand on some of the risks that we now face, in comparison with those that we thought that we might face when we started the process?

You identify the opportunities that might arise; it is undoubtedly the case that a number of opportunities might arise. Whether there will be conflict in the future depends on where the risks are and where there is potential for divergence. In the past, we have heard about power grabs and things being done in a confrontational way. A problem could still potentially arise if there was such a difficulty, given the amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved, to which you referred.

As we look to improve the situation—you have identified that you believe that the new UK Government might want to be more aligned with the EU than the previous one—what progress do you think that we will see in the next 12 months or whatever?

I am delighted to contribute to the debate, and I commend my colleague Roz McCall for securing time to debate what is an important campaign.

When it comes to stroke, time is of the essence. Being able to quickly detect a stroke can mean the difference between a person’s full recovery and the loss of their life. I am therefore delighted to support and assist with the Bundy family’s BE FAST campaign, which seeks to expand the stroke awareness signs by adding balance and eyes to the list of symptoms.

When Tony Bundy suffered a stroke in 2023, the limitations of the current FAST test system meant that his stroke was not detected until too late. Tragically, that meant that Tony Bundy’s stroke was fatal. The lesson that we can learn from Tony’s tragic passing is that the early detection of a stroke can save lives. It is important that the Government listens to the campaign and ensures that future stroke policy is always based on the most up-to-date evidence.

As the BE FAST campaign highlights, a wealth of evidence needs to be considered. For example, the campaign speaks about research by the Scottish Parliament information centre, which found that the FAST test may miss up to 40 per cent of strokes. The BE FAST test may play an important role in the diagnosis of certain types of stroke.

It is safer for someone to decide to go to A and E and be told that they have not had a stroke than for them to sit at home and dismiss their symptoms until it is too late because those symptoms do not fall into the FAST criteria.

Given the compelling case for BE FAST, I believe that there should be a trial of the criteria in the national health service in Scotland. I look forward to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care covering that in his summing up, because the right decisions at the right time are vitally important. Possibly, a single health board could begin to look at a trial. I know that the Government is keen to listen, and that suggestion was discussed when I met the cabinet secretary and the Bundy family. I hope that the Government is now able to take action and work with Public Health Scotland and other health boards to allow a trial of those criteria to be looked at. A trial period in one health board area could allow data to be collated on the benefits of BE FAST. Data is vital in ensuring that we have facilities and information for stakeholders and those who work in the system, and it could be used to make an informed decision about stroke policy across the whole of the NHS.

Regardless of the outcomes of the BE FAST campaign, it is clear that it has already been effective in shining a light on the importance of stroke awareness. I have felt privileged to help the Bundy family in supporting Tony’s memory. That tragic example shows us all the necessity of such awareness. I have no doubt that members from across the chamber will join me in wishing the whole Bundy family well in the future. I urge the Scottish Government to listen to the campaign and to treat it with the seriousness that it deserves, because saving people is what we should be trying to achieve.