Chamber and committees

I have a small addendum to Mr Stewart’s recommendation, which I entirely support. The Scottish Government’s short-life working group includes representatives of the taxi and private hire trade as well as representatives from Transport Scotland, local authorities and Unite the Union. Could we ask the Government to specify who those representatives are and whether they are sufficient? Is the group rather top-heavy with people from public sector bodies and not sufficiently representative of the range of interests in the taxi and private hire sector? Could we ask the Scottish Government whether the membership of the short-life working group might be extended to include greater representation from the people whose lives and businesses are affected?

I guess that there are certain benefits to being an ex-minister.

To get back to the point, did you, Mr Gallant, ever get a response from the Scottish Government about the idea that it could pay for what is being suggested this morning—for which there is a very strong case—by limiting, reducing or shaving off the benefits of people, such as myself and many others, who are over 60 and are entitled to the free bass pass, even though they are well able to afford it? Did you ever get a response to that?

In addition to the suggested contents of the letters to RICS and the Law Society of Scotland, I wonder if we could add further inquiries about the complaints process. That might include asking for information on the number of complaints per annum, the number of complaints that have been upheld and the number that have been rejected in comparison with the total number of home reports.

When I was a solicitor—albeit in a different century from the one that we are now in—my experience was that most surveyors were pretty professional and thorough. I am very surprised that a hole in the roof was not spotted. That sounds like a pretty patent defect, as opposed to a latent defect. I would be interested to know how widespread such complaints are and what the upshot has been for the people who have made complaints. The petitioner says that her experience was pretty dismal, and it would be good to get the bigger picture. Could those matters could be added to the letters?

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for coming along. If I may say so, Mr Gallant, you make a strong case for the extension of concessionary travel to people with a disability on the grounds of equity and avoiding discrimination. I hope that the Scottish Government will respond sympathetically after the review.

I want to ask about one point that you raised before the petition was lodged. You explained that the cost of providing free rail travel for disabled people could easily be met by raising the starting age for free travel for senior citizens from 60 to 61. I must say that I hope that the Scottish Government will consider that suggestion. Fortunately—or unfortunately—I am 65, so for the past five years I have been entitled to a free bus pass. I have never taken it up, but frankly I am a bit puzzled about why I, as a fairly well-paid person, should need that support, on the grounds of equity. I would far prefer that people with a disability had access to free rail travel than people who can afford their own public transport costs.

I have got that off my chest, convener. Without revealing secrets, I know that the Scottish Government previously considered that point at my instigation, but nothing ended up happening.

I preface my remarks by saying that I still feel as if I am serving my apprenticeship on this committee, so it may be slightly premature for me to say this. I wonder whether we are moving a bit beyond the specific ask in the petition towards a general tour-de-table discussion about the rail service in Scotland. That is perfectly interesting and valid, but to go back to what the petition says, it is very narrowly focused. I am not dismissing any of the points that have been made before the committee today, but is it not our primary role to focus pretty forensically and ruthlessly on what the petitioner has actually asked for, rather than fish every sea in the ocean? Let us stick to our own waters.

Thank you. I thought that that would be the answer; obviously, it is the answer that one expected.

I have one more question, which has two parts to it. First, are the witnesses aware of any data on the availability of healthcare staff to administer methadone in police custody? I ask that general question because questions have been raised by the petitioner and others about there perhaps not being sufficient, appropriately qualified medical staff to do the job of ensuring proper treatment in police custody.

Secondly, the petitioner has asserted that, in NHS Grampian, there is inappropriate prescription—as he considers it—of a drug. From memory, I think that it is dihydrocodeine. Is either of the witnesses able to comment on whether that is inappropriate, in their view? Do they have any information with regard to that?

In saying that, we will perhaps make direct inquiries to NHS Grampian to be fair to it, and put that point to it, as is right and proper.

I am most grateful to Dr Hunter for that very useful clarification. We can pursue that further.

I go back to the first question, about the availability of healthcare staff. As neither of you is able to give us information about that, can you suggest from whom we may be able to obtain information? If the answer is that there is nobody from whom we can obtain such information because records are not properly kept, does that not point to a lacuna in the system of oversight of the application of correct treatment and sufficient medical personnel available to deliver it for those people in police custody who require it?

Yes. I agree with Mr Stewart.

The petitioners are probably not alone in suffering inconvenience from the illegal parking of camper vans in inappropriate places, and there is no doubt that it happens. However, the Scottish Government response might be correct in that I am not sure that the particular prescription advocated by the petitioners will necessarily solve the problem.

It also occurs to me that, as a matter of road traffic law, and perhaps criminal law in relation to illicit parking or local byelaws—I am sorry; I do not know whether you have considered that—the petitioners’ reference to aires is very helpful. I discovered when I was tourism minister that aires exist as facilities for caravans, camper vans and so on outwith settlements, with provision of services such as water and sewage facilities. They are serviced sites. They are very prevalent in France, which apparently has a network of aires, but we have not got off the mark with them here. I wonder whether, in an effort to solve the issue another way, we could ask the Scottish Government to consider promoting aires—I know that VisitScotland is keen on that—as something that would qualify automatically under the rural infrastructure fund, which again appears in our deliberations today.

I realise that that is not quite what the petitioners want, and I have some sympathy with them, because this is a big problem in the Highlands, particularly on the single-track roads that serve small communities. Illicit parking in lay-bys is another problem, particularly on the NC500 in the Highlands.

Aires would be the proper long-term solution. It would make everybody happy; holidaymakers could enjoy the countryside as they travel around in their camper vans, if that is what they choose to do, and locals could avoid being inconvenienced by that third-party pleasure.

Good morning to both witnesses. I would like to ask both of you two questions. First, how important do you feel it is to embed the medication-assisted treatment—or MAT—standards in practice, especially for ensuring that individuals receive appropriate medication while in police custody? That is a point that David Strang made clearly in his opening remarks.