Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am impressed by how much Mr Golden knows about rubbish.

Yes. I know that the petitioner will be disappointed but, as you said in relation to a previous petition, convener, a lot of work has been done up to this time by the clerks to get a response from the minister and the petitioner. Were there any prospect of any reform, it would be our duty to explore and examine that, but my personal view—members may take a different view—is that there is no prospect at all of the Scottish Government changing its mind. If there is a different Government in the future, the petitioner might bring the issue back, if she so wishes.

If I phone up and say that my balance and eyesight are affected, what does the triage do? You have protocols and matrices—I do not know what the right word is—that determine the response given by the NHS operatives. However, I am not sure to what extent they are qualified—excuse my ignorance, Dr Cook. If I am asked whether I feel dizzy or I have slurred speech and I say, “No, but my balance is affected and my eyesight has suffered a bit”, what would you do then?

Thank you all for your responses. I understand that the issue is complex and multifaceted, and that the role of education is vital. A and E facilities not being available after 5 o’clock, where that occurs, is an obvious and very serious failing, and a gap in the service. I do not gainsay any of that: I accept it all. The petition is concerned with one aspect, and one aspect alone, although I am sure that the petitioner would welcome a much improved service in all those respects.

However, I go back to this question: given that what is involved is a potentially life-threatening condition, and one that the petitioner’s family lost their father to, does that not, when it comes to determining whether a pilot should be carried out, tend to push the balance towards conducting a proper test, as Mr Watson has said, with a set of pre-arranged and fixed criteria governing both the role of the Ambulance Service and the consultants and other clinicians involved? Surely, if a health board is willing to do that, it would be beneficial.

If, as the consistent evidence that we have heard from all four of you suggests, that does not work, then it does not work, but there seems to be a very strong presumption that people are not quite smart enough to be able to deal with complex matters. That could be interpreted as being somewhat dismissive—or a word that is even stronger than that, to be frank. After all, we are talking about a life-threatening condition. Some people, as Mr Watson said in his opening answer, lose their lives as a result of not coming under the FAST criteria.

Is the idea not worth trying? If it does not work, you will at least have tried it, and you will have a better cohort and evidence base on which to proceed as you focus largely on all the other issues that you have fairly and reasonably brought to our attention.

I am persuaded by what both of our visiting MSP colleagues say. I profoundly believe that the current system is inherently flawed, as the petitioners have maintained throughout the lengthy sequence of correspondence that I have read in preparation for this meeting.

We have a lot to learn from the Romans, including the first principle of natural justice: nemo iudex in causa sua—which means that no one can be a judge in their own cause.

The current basis of complaints in the health world and in education—for example, the GTC, which has been mentioned—is that the organisations deal with complaints against their employees, but it seems to me that their first instinct is usually to defend the system—the employee—against the complainant. It is almost a genuflection, and I have seen it time and again for 25 years.

I am grateful to the petitioners, because they have highlighted the existence of an inherent flaw. Child safeguarding is probably the most sensitive and important area that we could possibly conceive of, as both of our colleagues have said.

I find the cost argument to be utterly unconvincing. The petitioners have pointed out that the cost of the child abuse inquiry is likely to be £300 million. It seems to me that, in the future, we should try to tackle the cost of the existing system rather than worry about the cost of a national whistleblower’s office that will be minuscule in comparison with the cost of the damage that has resulted.

I strongly support the petition and I think that we should write to the minister. If colleagues are similarly minded, I feel that we have a sufficient evidential basis, particularly given the lengthy exchange that has taken place between the minister and the petitioners. There is no point in my rehashing it, but it is full of cogent relevant facts and material that the minister has not addressed in any way. Some of the very modest, minor work that the minister says is going on, such as making inquiries about what is happening at the moment, should have been done long ago, when the petition was first lodged. It is a bit late now.

There needs to be a whistleblower. We should not shilly-shally or dither and swither around but should instead urge the Government to get on with it and make that recommendation to the committee. Given that numerous members have registered their concerns about the issue, our impression is that there is widespread concern across the parties. Therefore we should get off the fence and recommend that there be a whistleblower. That should be considered in conjunction with the petitioners and others who can provide useful information about the whistleblower’s role, their remit and how the process would operate. As I have said, the costs would be very modest in comparison with the existing costs.

Thank you. It would be very helpful, convener, if Dr Cook would follow that up with a letter setting out what the protocols say—just for our information, on a sort of factual, evidential basis.

I am talking about the public. I understand about the professionals.

I have one further question for Dr Cook, if I may. I do not mean to neglect the other witnesses, but the question relates to NHS 24. Many people’s experience of NHS 24 is that it is not quick. It can be extremely slow, and there are practical reasons for that. People are often told that they will get a call back from a GP, for example, and that can take quite a long time. I am not really making a criticism, Dr Cook, but I am genuinely curious. What role does NHS 24 have in relation to strokes? Given the risk of very quick death, surely NHS 24 is really not the applicable service for strokes.

In the triaging that goes on in the first interview, how do staff who are dealing with those cases take account of the BE part?

I want to follow up on what Dr Cook said about making the distinction and FAST not being a measure to exclude people but to include people. I understand the distinction, but the two issues of balance and the loss of fully functioning eyesight—balance and eyes—are not included in FAST, so, as far as the public is concerned, it is exclusive. We are using an information and awareness campaign that does not include two of the factors that, in the case of the individual who tragically lost his life, appear to have been the symptoms that were detectable.

I am playing devil’s advocate a little bit but surely, as far as the general public is concerned, FAST is exclusive, not inclusive, by definition.

Which health board were you referring to?