Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will ask one supplementary question. I think that the witnesses will be aware that the petition that is before the Scottish Parliament was occasioned following the sudden death of the petitioner’s child. The petitioner’s child underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive in nature than the petitioner had originally thought it would be. Obviously, anyone’s death involves grief, sadness and bereavement for their family, and the post-mortem issue is very sensitive. That is otiose—I do not need to tell any of the witnesses that, because they deal with the matter in their professional work.

However, obviously, the death of a child is particularly hurtful and causative of long-lasting, perpetual, eternal emotional harm, and that is really why we are taking evidence today. With that backdrop, are there any particular strengths or weaknesses in relation to the use of a scan after the death of a child, most especially an infant or young child?

Thank you.

Good morning. I have questions first on quality assurance and the efficacy of CT scans as opposed to conventional post mortems and, secondly, on the cost aspects.

On quality assurance, the petitioner claims that scanners are 99 per cent accurate in establishing the cause of death. However, a submission to the committee from the chief coroner highlights guidance on the use of imaging in post mortems. It references a joint statement from the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathologists on post-mortem cross-sectional imaging. I am told that the most recent version of that details the strengths and weaknesses of imaging in establishing the cause of death. For example, it details its accuracy in establishing deaths from trauma, stroke and heart disease and its limitations in diagnosing deaths from conditions such as sepsis and poisoning. I guess that I have—[Interruption.] Excuse me. I am sorry—I will just turn my phone off. My apologies, convener.

With that introduction, which I thought might be helpful to set the background, I have three questions. I will come to Dr Adeley first. First, how do PMCTs compare with traditional post mortems in terms of accurately establishing a cause of death? Secondly, can the witnesses detail the main strengths and weaknesses of using imaging in post mortems? Thirdly, what proportion of deaths could have their cause accurately established by using imaging?

I will try not to be so long winded this time, but, as a lawyer, I always find that a bit difficult.

How do the costs of the post-mortem CT service compare with those of traditional post mortems? Secondly, are the post-mortem CT scans generally provided free of charge or is there typically an out-of-pocket payment? If so, what is that usually set at?

I was agreeing, but I was just going to request that we ask for some supplementary information, if I may.

In the submission of 14 March, under the heading “Concerns voiced to me”, the petitioners raise the following question:

“If the old military road improvements work well will this kick the permanent solution into the long grass?”

That has been mentioned, but another point, which I do not think has been mentioned, is:

“The selection criteria for the Medium-Term Solution did not consider ensuring we have a two way road which stays open when it rains and is free from traffic lights, road closures, and convoys—a fundamental requirement of the people who actually use the road, and we would have assumed is the role for which Transport Scotland exists”.

I just wanted to read that into the record, because those are the petitioners’ concerns, and our job is to get not only a general response from the minister but a specific response to what appear to me to be legitimate points that the petitioners have raised.

They existed far before then. The issues have certainly been debated for quite a long time. If there is to be a Scottish Government review, we should at least find out when it expects to hold it.

It is worth establishing that, but I think that the detailed responses from BEFS, RICS and the Law Society clearly set out the parameters of the home report. As is confirmed by my experience as a solicitor, it is more than a basic valuation report, but it is far less than a detailed structural report, which would cost huge amounts of money. The limitations of the home report are clearly stated on it and, in practice, most solicitors are pretty good about advising clients about those limitations. Moreover, the surveyors have to have liability insurance and undergo professional training. The system is pretty well understood and works pretty well in practice.

Imposing a blanket strict liability, which is what the petitioner wants, would simply mean that the cost of a home report would go up exponentially in order to pay for the additional professional liability insurance premiums that would automatically ensue. I say that not because I want to prejudice the outcome of any review, but because it would be risky to raise the petitioner’s expectations, although I understand that some individuals might have experienced hard cases. I cannot comment on individual circumstances.

What is the additional cost or is there a range of additional costs?

I am asking whether a payment is asked to be made from the family in the case of extra costs for the CT scan, as opposed to the traditional invasive post mortem.