Chamber and committees

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?

Thank you, Mr Fraser. I noted that there is a mysterious statement to be made in the final half hour before we rise for the summer recess, the content of which we know not at this time. Perhaps we can all live in hope. I return to Mr Ewing.

PE1962, which seeks to stop motorhomes being parked overnight outside formal campsites, caravan parks and aires, was lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure they are only parking in designated and regulated locations. We previously discussed the petition on 23 November 2022, when, members will recall, we were keen to explore the promotion of aires as an alternative solution to the challenges presented by the petitioners.

The Scottish Government has stated that a camper van and motorhome working group was set up and has explored the unique challenges created by motorhome and camper van users in Scotland, with facilities being part of its consideration. [Laughter.] I do apologise. The group will report its recommendations to the visitor management steering group at some point this year.

The petitioners’ recent submission states that new facilities will not be effective in addressing the issues that were raised in the petition and that strict restrictions must be enforced against unregulated camper van parking, wherever that might take place. They highlight an incident where a camper van renter was displeased because the rental company had promoted the vehicle as fully self-contained, incorrectly implying that campsite facilities would not be necessary. The petitioners state that that is the mentality that they wish to stem. Financial challenges are also highlighted by the petitioners, because they are ineligible for the support that not-for-profit establishments might get.

I will try to contain my obvious associated hysteria. Do members have any comments that we might wish to consider?

I understand. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, I was on a visit to the Jewish archive at Garnethill. When you are up at that height and trying to leave, you are aware that the brutal truncation of a lot of the infrastructure around there, which persists, had a detrimental effect on the heart of that area of the city. At one time, it was quite central to Glasgow, and now it is almost peripheral to it, with the centre having shifted much further in the other direction. The road really brutalised what was a significant part of the city at the time.

This is a fascinating conversation, but I will move on.

Our second item is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those, PE1864, which was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, is on increasing the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to achieve that by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments; empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process; and appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries. When we most recently considered the petition, on 18 January, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government setting out recommendations that are based on evidence that we have received over the past two years.

We are joined by Brian Whittle MSP. I will invite him to comment in a couple of moments. In response to our submission to the Scottish Government, the new Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has accepted two of our recommendations and committed to exploring the benefits and disadvantages of altering the 50MW threshold and the scope for planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farm developments. We have received a submission from the petitioner that welcomes that commitment, which is good to hear.

In relation to our recommendation on ensuring demonstration of local support as a key material consideration in the decision-making process, the minister mentions that local opinion and evidence feature strongly in planning assessments, and he highlights the provisions introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 that are intended to strengthen the voice of communities in the planning process. Although the petitioner has welcomed the Government’s commitment on thresholds, she remains concerned that there is no definition of what ensuring that communities have “a meaningful say” looks like in practice, drawing parallels with the First Minister’s recent comments on highly protected marine areas and engagement with coastal communities. Before I ask committee colleagues to comment, does Brian Whittle have anything to contribute?

That is an entirely reasonable observation. It is a hostage to fortune in any event, as it is a term that allows everyone to be thoroughly dissatisfied in due course, because they will take the view that their say turned out not to be meaningful.

Okay. Potentially, not only is there no definition of what “a meaningful say” is, it should perhaps be clear whether people are responding in an official way on behalf of their community or more personally.

Sorry, I did not—