Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. I want to put to you a point that Mr Barn made. Four of the sections have made orders. In two sections, the made orders were made well over a year ago; the other two were made more recently but still some time ago. Mr Barn said that, as soon as things reach that point, the contracts are ready to go. People are ready to press the button and ready to go into procurement, provided that the Scottish Government provides the money. Did you ask the Scottish Government to provide the money for each of those sections as soon as they reached made orders? If so, what was the response?

That’s what they all say. [Laughter.]

I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for shedding light on the new information that there are linkages between Covid-19 and thrombosis, as well as other linkages, which would suggest that there is a need for further consideration of what preventative interventions may be appropriate in identifying cases where there is a risk predisposition. It would be well worth putting to that to the minister.

I am new to this and I do not know the petitioner, but having read through the papers, I picked up that the loss of his daughter was a crushing blow. He has been through the mill. One death is one too many and I bear that in mind when I refer to numbers. However, there is a clear conflict between the figures that he has provided, which indicate that there are 11,400 deaths per annum in Scotland, whereas the figures in the Scottish Government’s submission indicate that there were 380 deaths from blood clots in 2021 and a total of 1,925 where blood clots were mentioned on the death certificate—380 as an underlying cause and 1,545 as a contributory cause. In turn, the petitioner replied saying that:

“It is not the first time the Scottish Government has quoted one set of figures when there are other figures which reflect the case I put forward”.

I would be interested to learn more about that and to tease out why the figures that he refers to are roughly 10 times greater than the figures that the Scottish Government uses.

Whether or not there have been 1,000 or 10,000 deaths, it is such a serious thing; the consequences can be fatal in serious cases. Whether there is a public information campaign or other specific actions that are taken on the basis of proper clinical considerations about preventative action, we need more information on the matter from the Scottish Government. I do not have a view on whether we want to do that by letter or in an evidence session.

It is perhaps for the committee to consider the matter later, but my first reaction would be to recommend that you as Lord Advocate make a specific series of recommendations about how the injustice suffered by the parents can be remedied. I will admit that it is not a straightforward matter, but then I have discovered that very few things in Government are. Nonetheless, this is an important issue, and just because something is difficult does not mean that Governments can fail to discharge their functions.

From memory, the figure that was provided in the tender for Tomatin to Moy as the estimated value of the contract was £115 million. Can you explain from your industry knowledge whether that represented a detailed estimate after ground investigations had been done? In other words, how robust is that figure as an accurate indication or estimate of the likely cost of the project?

The point that I am making is that it is perhaps wrong to postulate that £115 million was a proper estimate at all; it was more or less a stab in the dark. We do not actually know whether that figure was a valid basis for a yardstick of value. Is that a fair comment?

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.