Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next continued petition is PE1992. I am delighted to say that we are joined by the petitioner, Laura Hansler—a very warm welcome to the committee, Laura.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011, and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling work by 2025, and creating a memorial to those who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A9.

As well as the petitioner, we are joined by Grahame Barn from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland. A warm welcome to Mr Barn as well.

We are also joined by a number of MSP colleagues, and others will be joining us later. First, we welcome Edward Mountain, who joins as a reporter on the petition for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Mr Mountain will be assisting us in our consideration of the petition, including during today’s evidence sessions. It is nice to have you with us.

We also welcome Murdo Fraser and Kate Forbes, who I understand may be following proceedings online at present but will join proceedings later. Mark Ruskell may also join us. We have apologies from Jamie Halcro Johnston, who had hoped to join us.

All members who join us will have an opportunity to contribute at the end of the second evidence session. We have also received a written submission from Rhoda Grant, who is unable to join us due to other committee business.

A positive galaxy of parliamentary investigative talent will be brought to bear as we pursue the inquiry. After we have heard from our two witnesses, we will suspend briefly then hear from Transport Scotland.

I understand that, in the first instance, the petitioner would like to make a short statement. I am very happy to invite her to do so.

If Jackie Baillie does not mind, I will ask her for clarification. The petitioner feels that his figures came from a ministerial response received to one of your questions. Have you been able to understand or establish why there might be a discrepancy between the two sets of figures?

It would be useful to write to the Scottish Government to seek an explanation for the discrepancy in the figures. We should also draw attention to the report that has suggested that there could be a link with Covid. We could refer back to the petitioner’s long-standing association with the issue, the fact that it is all about prevention and that circumstances have changed. In the light of all of that, it could be that it is necessary to do a little more than had previously been suggested. Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that, on the petition’s clinical objective, which was to rule out the use of mesh in all circumstances, we had previously taken the view that we had heard sufficient evidence not to support it in principle. Is that the point that you wish to make, Mr Torrance?

I return to the fact that the use of imaging does not require a change in the law. There was no change of the law in England when the practice was changed; it was just changed. It did not require parliamentarians to change the law; it required direction and discussion.

How?

Thank you very much, Lord Advocate. The points that you have made have been raised in the written submissions that we have received, and they are very much appreciated and understood. In part, what has surprised the committee is that, in our investigation of practices elsewhere, we have seen the function that you have just identified evolve both to the satisfaction of the people in question and in a way that has proved to be equally effective. Those are the areas that we would like to explore this morning.

I will open the questioning. Everybody understands that, if there is any suggestion that the circumstances surrounding a death are suspicious, a completely different criminal procedure is undertaken, but where no such suspicious circumstances are anticipated, is there scope for greater involvement of the next of kin and their views with regard to instructing a post mortem?

Mr Barn, good morning and welcome. In 1993, we had George Bush Snr, Boris Yeltsin and John Major, and “Jurassic Park” was the top movie of the year. Your submission rather suggests that dinosaurs still rule the earth and Transport Scotland, when it comes to the way in which contracts are awarded. It seems to be the central point of your case that the process that is in place will not encourage interest.

I have to say that I am struggling here—I feel as though I am wrestling with a ball of cotton wool. Are you saying that the pathologists would have to be the ones to decide whether there were modern operational practices that would mean that there were alternative ways of fulfilling their function?

There are around 56,000 deaths in Scotland each year and 12 per cent of them require a post mortem. In a submission to the committee, the Royal College of Pathologists stated:

“there are significant pressures on pathology, post mortem and forensic services across Scotland. With grossly inadequate facilities and staffing levels being the reality of current provision.”

I should earlier have recognised our colleague Monica Lennon, who has joined us this morning. When she raised in Parliament the issues of delays and backlogs in the post mortem service, the Lord Advocate explained that

“The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service aims to conduct its investigation and advise the next of kin of the outcome within 12 weeks of the initial report of the death in at least 80 per cent of those cases.”—[Official Report, 6 October 2021; c 3.]

Can you confirm whether those pressures on the post-mortem service exist in Scotland? What proportion of post mortems are currently reported within 12 weeks?