Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

Dr Fenton, my next question is for you, although I appreciate that you might not have the answer. My previous question has sparked a train of thought. How has people’s inability to get access to treatment after diagnosis contributed to excess deaths? Has that been a contributory factor?

Okay. Would any of the other witnesses like to come in on that question?

Okay. Will you clarify another issue for me? The bill deals with the requirement for the signature to be witnessed. However, would it make more sense for the legislation to require that anyone who is going to be a named person be given sight of what it means to be a named person and then to acknowledge that? I think that Murdo Fraser made that suggestion.

Dr Fenton, following up on that process, I note that, in its evidence, Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland states that access to doctors was an issue. Doctors have talked to the committee about the enormous strain that they are under, but there seems to be a perception among the public that people cannot get to see their GP. Clearly, it has been necessary for processes to change in order to deal with the pandemic, but will people just have to accept that getting access to a GP will have to be done differently?

Right. Would you like to come in on that as well, Lawrence?

The last point that I would make is that we are not quite out of the pandemic yet, either.

I do not know whether you addressed this earlier. You have to find a balance for all the competing sectors. Does that mean that you will consult over the coming year in relation to 2023? Will you be able to get everybody in the room to thrash out the problems?

I apologise to my fellow committee members and to the panel. Unfortunately, my internet connection has been terrible and I have lost large chunks of the evidence session, so I apologise if my question has already been asked. It is specifically for Dr Needle and the scientists.

Clearly, cod is a very sensitive animal when it comes to its spawning. We have differing and competing challenges in the cod box area. Do we want to save the cod in a way that means the socioeconomic impacts are not felt by humans, or is it better to find a solution that saves the cod, given its sensitivity to all the other activity that is going on around it?

That is a fair point. However, in the evidence that we heard last week, everybody told us, “We want to save the cod.” It appears to me that, given the sensitivity of the animal that we are trying to save, the precautionary principle is the one that we would have to take. Is that correct?

I am sorry, but I am hearing only bits and pieces of the conversation.

I urge the cabinet secretary to get the fishing communities into the room to talk to each other about what needs to be done for next year. I will not support the motion to annul, because the precautionary principle is correct in trying to protect the cod stocks. We have heard from every stakeholder. They have all said the same thing, which is that they want the cod stocks to be protected. Clearly, there have been issues with the process, so it would be great if that could be improved, but, at this point, I will not support the motion to annul.