Chamber and committees

Mr Whittle has made a number of reasonable points, and there is no doubt that many applications for wind farm developments can be extremely controversial. All of us who have rural constituencies or regions are well aware of that; there are frequent objections.

I am not coming at this from any preconceived view, but it is difficult sometimes to detect the extent to which residents who live within a reasonable radius of a proposed development are either for or against; in other words, there is a more basic question of what a community is. If there are, say, 300 people who live in an area within a few kilometres of a proposed development and 30 of them object, how significant is that? If 250 were to object, most people would think that that is very significant. The point that I am making is that it is sometimes difficult to detect who the community is and the extent to which the objectors represent a majority view or a minority view in the community. One or two people can make vocal objections. They are entitled to do so and often do.

My recommendation is that we write to the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning to highlight the submission of 26 April but seek clarification on the Scottish Government’s definition of ensuring that communities can have “a meaningful say” on planning applications. We should include two particular requests. One is for a response to the question of what a community is. Is there any guidance for planning authorities on the number of people in an area affected by development who have to object before that is considered “meaningful”? Secondly, what does “a meaningful say” mean? That does not seem to be a particularly clear criterion to include in guidance. Clarity should be the key in guidance so that everybody knows where they stand.

If communities can have a meaningful say, does that mean that others who wish to make representations—individuals, businesses, charities, non-governmental organisations and local authorities—should not have a meaningful say? I would not have thought so, but I do not know, because I do not know what “a meaningful say” is.

If a community council were to put in a representation, given that they are generally elected—there are not always elections if there are not enough people—should that be given greater weight than representations from a few individuals who are not on the community council? Once one looks at the options, it becomes more and more difficult to determine what “community” is.

I want to comment on the process, having listened carefully to what Paul Sweeney said and respecting his considerable interest in the matter and the work that he has done on it. He suggests that we should take evidence but, given that he also states that Glasgow City Council is looking at options, the practical option for the committee may be to wait to see the results of that work by the council in order to hear its view as the local authority. After all, alongside other representatives, it is well placed to voice the views of Glasgow. If we first see what it recommends, that will give us a clearer thesis on which to proceed. If that is procedurally an appropriate way to proceed—I am not making any judgments on the merits—we could perhaps keep the petition open pro tem until that work is done.

Mr Sweeney might be able to tell us how long that work will take. It could take three months or three years—who knows? I wonder whether Mr Sweeney feels that, rather than shut the petition now, we should keep it open to see what the local authority has to say about the options. As he said, the council is looking at a variety of options, and this year, I am sure, is absolutely not straightforward by any means.

I suppose that it is relatively early in the life of the petition. Given the point that you have made, convener, it seems that, on the ground of equity, in some cases, looking at other evidence, such as continuous assessment and the progress that a pupil has made over the course of the period to which the examinations relate, would be helpful. We are all conscious that, for every pupil, the results of their examinations for qualifications can determine their future. There is a lot at stake, and it is a huge moment for those children and their families.

I noticed that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills stated:

“Alternative evidence will not be needed for the Appeals service this year.”

That is a statement and an assertion. I wonder whether we might invite her to flesh that out and state with a bit more detail why that view should now be the case whereas previously it was not. Are there not circumstances, particularly where there are elements of difficulty, problems or trouble in the life of a child, such as an interruption to their education through ill health or other issues of that ilk, that may well merit the consideration of alternative evidence?

It may be that the system provides for that separately—I do not know; I am not an expert on it at all. However, I am sure that, over the years, we have all had cases in which the outcome of an examination has been very much out of line with the prediction and that, in turn, has led to lots of soul searching and problems in individual cases.

Given the importance of the issue to children in general, I would not want to close the petition now. I hope that I am putting this clearly, but I would rather seek from the cabinet secretary a much greater explication of why it is that alternative evidence would not appear to be relevant this year when, in principle, prima facie, there are surely many circumstances in which the consideration of alternative evidence is not only appropriate but essential.

The Scottish Government has replied very clearly and at considerable length, and the issue has been looked at considerably before. It seems to me that there is very little, if any, prospect of any change.

From work that I have done over the years, some people take the view that those who are subject to long-term imprisonment by virtue of having committed crimes for which they are required to be incarcerated and have their liberty withdrawn should not enjoy the benefits of freedom, which include the right to vote. I make that comment for the record because many people have expressed that view to me very strongly over the years.

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.

As always, Jackie Baillie has set out a strong case for that for which she advocates.

In considering whether we should recommend a STAG report be produced, I wonder whether we should get a little bit more information. I say that because the national park authority’s submission raises about 10 points—Ms Baillie will know them well—all of which seem to me to be likely to involve very significant cost and difficulty. I am not suggesting that we should not recommend that there be a STAG report, but I would like to know how long it would take to get the report and what the process would involve without being obstructive to the matter in any way.

The petitioners’ proposal would involve crossing the west Highland railway line twice, require various tunnels and steep land contours, affect sites of special scientific interest and water courses and involve crossing the Sloy power station pipes. I am fairly familiar with much of that area and it seems to involve such a level of difficulty that the STAG process might take a year or so.

I am sorry to go on a bit, but I raise that because I know that, throughout the west Highlands—not only in Jackie Baillie’s constituency but the adjoining ones in Argyll and Lochaber—the road has long been the subject of an overwhelming desire for improvements for all concerned, as I think that everybody would agree. I am not being obstructive to Jackie Baillie’s proposal, but, if we are going to make the recommendation, we should know whether it will take three months, which would be fine, or three years. If it is going to take three years, I am not sure that I would want to support it.

Convener, I do not know whether it is appropriate to ask Ms Baillie for her comments on that; I have not had a chance to discuss that with her.

I endorse what my colleagues have said. What the petition calls for might be desirable in many cases, but to create a universal right would impose an obligation on local authorities that is simply unenforceable and undeliverable. We must always be mindful of supporting the petitioner as far as we can, but we also have to be mindful of the financial realities that local authorities face at the moment. They would not thank us for suggesting that we impose something that is plainly beyond their capability when they are under real pressure to deliver fundamental basic services across the board.

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?