Chamber and committees

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imprisonment by virtue of having committed crimes for which they are required to be incarcerated and have their liberty withdrawn should not enjoy the benefits of freedom, which include the right to vote.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.

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 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.