Seòmar agus comataidhean

Some of the questions and answers that we have heard this morning have been quite vague. I acknowledge that you are giving your views about your roles and responsibilities, but we are trying to investigate the petition and to draw out as much information as we can, in order to assist the petitioner. As the convener said, there is no need for a change in the law to allow for the use of imaging.

Previous witnesses have told us about the time saved by the use of imaging. We have heard that scans can be used to establish a cause of death in 94 per cent of cases and that 92 per cent of those post mortems were non-invasive. It is obvious that using that equipment for scans is of real benefit to individuals. The process saves time for professionals and the fact that it is quicker can give some reassurance to the next of kin. You have already told us about the targets that you have set and want to achieve within your service.

Mr Shanks may be the best person to answer this. Do you acknowledge that imaging could have benefits both for the service and for the next of kin? Should you consider procuring imaging services, in order to ensure that we have a better service for clients, for service users and for yourselves?

It would be useful to get a flavour of your views and opinions on the proposed memorial. As I indicated when I spoke to the petitioner, it appears from your previous comments that you dismissed that type of memorial on the ground of road safety concerns. Now that you have heard from the petitioner what the intention may be, do you have a similar view, or has your view been changed?

Thank you.

The memorial is one of your wishes in your petition, but it appears that Transport Scotland has dismissed that because of road safety fears. I commend you for bringing forward the proposal, but what is your view on Transport Scotland’s position and how do you respond to the fact that, from my reading of the papers that it has provided, it is quite dismissive of that proposal?

As I said, I commend you for that proposal, because I think that something of that size and stature is required, if you wish to ensure that those individuals are remembered in the correct manner. You have indicated that you have some ideas about where that might be located. What discussions have you had with communities that might wish to have that memorial in their area?

You have made some very valid points, convener, and Katy Clark and Jackie Baillie, too, have outlined the situation that we find ourselves in. I am happy for us to keep the petition open.

We have a number of options for action. I suggest that we write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight the petitioners’ latest submission and seek information on the outcome of the exercise by the Scottish Association of Medical Directors to explore the availability of non-mesh surgery in individual health boards—that is vital—and on the development of NHS Scotland’s scan for safety programme. Specifically, we should ask when it will begin and how it will be rolled out.

We could also write to the British Hernia Society for its views on the action that is called for in the petition and for information on its work to develop a hernia-specific registry, which is important. Those are my suggestions, convener.

I acknowledge that. However, given the strong case that has been made in communities the length of the A9, which has been called the “spine of the country”, I think that doing something of that nature would go a long way to managing community involvement. I look forward to hearing how that might progress, depending on how things move forward.

It could be many things. It could be a lack of training or equipment—I do not know. I am making an assumption that there is a barrier because, from what you have said this morning, I am not convinced that Scotland should not be doing what is done elsewhere.

You have given information and evidence to suggest that it would be up to the professionals to decide. In my opinion, the professionals are not doing what I have described, because there is a problem. If there is a problem, it may be that a barrier is in place, or some kind of logjam that is causing the situation to occur. That is my interpretation, but it would be good to get your view on whether you think that there is a similar issue.

I support Mr Ewing, convener, because I think that there is an opportunity here. I would like to hear from the visitor management steering group as to where we are. I propose that we keep the petition open for some more deliberation.

I concur with Mr Ewing, because the clarity is not there. Mr Whittle and Mr Ewing have identified that the process can result in confusion and the idea of individuals and organisations not getting the chance to have their say. As we have identified, some pressure groups and organisations can be good at getting their message over, but it might not necessarily be the same message for everybody in a community.

Communities require an input, although some people are of the opinion that a project will happen anyway—local authorities make a decision that is then overturned, and the community does not want it. A lot of effort goes into some of this, and the “meaningful say” is problematic in the extreme with regard to what happens. I certainly concur with all of that.