Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is. I am very grateful for Monica Lennon’s work in taking up this matter so diligently, which is a credit to her. We should write to the Scottish Government to highlight the HM chief inspector of prosecution’s view that consideration of the delivery model for forensic pathology is required, and that the Scottish Government should lead that work. In passing, I note that it was evident that the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate passed the buck in their evidence by saying that it is primarily a matter of medical evidence. They were, if you like, not taking the lead, so the Scottish Government should take the lead in that regard.

In addition, we should highlight the issues and suggested improvements to pathology services that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the petition, including the lack of clear direction and fragmented nature of the service, which is leading to challenges in resolving issues as they arise and the inconsistent and unclear communication with the next of kin, as well as the suggestions that tissue samples are returned to the next of kin and that CT scanners are used as an alternative to invasive post mortems. Thanks to the petitioners, Monica Lennon and the committee’s work, we have had a lot of evidence about each of those issues, so there is no point in rehearsing all that.

We should also highlight concerns in forensic pathology services about value for money, affordability, sustainability and contractual terms, as noted in the HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland’s annual report. We should highlight COPFS’s call for a national forensic pathology service.

We should recommend that the Scottish Government brings together service providers, the Crown Office and stakeholders to consider the key challenges that face pathology services as identified in the petition and the inspectorate’s report, takes ownership of and leads the development of a delivery model for pathology services, and ensures that any delivery model facilitates continuous and long-term improvement of pathology services.

In conclusion, that is all a bit dry—it is MSP-speak—but at its heart is the concern that the next of kin’s wishes should be respected and taken into account, and that they should be treated with dignity and respect in the desperately difficult situation that they face.

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask how it can be confident that specialist diagnostic testing and treatment, as set out by the petitioner, are available when required and, secondly, that healthcare providers are aware of the possible side effects of Covid-19 vaccines and apply that knowledge when considering treatment for symptoms that might have arisen as a result of the vaccination.

By way of comment, I add that I recently read in one of the more serious newspapers of doubts about one of the Covid vaccines being raised by a reputable organisation. I will not go into the details, because that would not be appropriate; I just wanted to mention it, as it is the subject of some current controversy. We need to drill down a little more and write to the Scottish Government to raise those concerns.

Therefore, one understands it.

For that reason, I have a series of suggestions. Given that the issue seems to be primarily a local government responsibility, we should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek further detail on best practice for local authorities regarding the presence and behaviour of dogs in cemeteries. We should also write to Police Scotland to request information on the breakdown of offences under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, specifically in relation to those that have taken place in cemeteries, in order to ascertain whether there is any pattern of enforcement by the police in this matter.

Furthermore, we should write to the Scottish Government, seeking an update on the implementation of the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016, and specifically on whether proposed regulations for the management of burial grounds might address the issues raised by the petition.

There is a lot of ground to cover, so I will just read the text from our briefing paper.

Yes, I tend to agree that we have exhausted every avenue, so I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government will not widen the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry’s remit to include abuse in different settings, that the Government has taken steps to raise the profile of the national guidance for child protection with religious organisations and, finally, that the Scottish Government is monitoring national data to track implementation of the national guidance.

As the convener said, our focus is not so much on trying to carry out a post-mortem; the focus is more on prognosis than on diagnosis. It is about how we can put this right as quickly as possible. Do you, as a seasoned and experienced politician, think that it is fair to say that other parts of Scotland have done quite well from transport infrastructure projects over the 25 years of devolution during which both of us have been servants in the Parliament? I am thinking of the Borders railway, the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the massive improvements to the M74 and the M8 and the magnificent Forth crossing—and, well, Edinburgh chose the trams. Other parts of Scotland have had massive investment, which is welcome, but do you agree that it is now, if you like, the turn of the Highlands?

I will add that it has been brought to my attention by fishing representatives that, whereas HPMAs policy, as such, was dropped—after various representations of various types were made to urge the Government so to do—I understand that it is a widely held belief in fishing circles that NatureScot is busily working on that topic to pursue what some feel might be HPMAs by another name. I have not seen the factual basis for that, but I wonder whether we might, to take a belt-and-braces approach, write to NatureScot to ask whether it is doing work in that area, and, if so, what that work is, who has asked it to do it and what role in and input to its deliberations, if any, fishing representatives, such as those representing fishermen in the Clyde and the vicinity, might be having.

I note the tragic loss of the petitioner’s three-year-old son and that the petitioner lives opposite where his son is buried. He talks about the family witnessing up to 100 people exercising their dogs daily, with dogs being let off leads or on long leads, resulting in their urinating and defecating on graves and damaging teddies and so on that have been left in memory. I just thought that I would mention that because, plainly, the petition is somewhat unusual, but there is a human tragedy behind it.

Sure. We did, as a party, promise it in manifestos in 2007, and ever since. From 2011, the dualling promise had the target date of 2025. We have seen an extract from a Cabinet paper from November 2018 advising that the use of private finance would mean that the 2025 completion date could not be met. How can that be squared with the assertion that it became clear only in 2023, last year, that the 2025 deadline would not be met?

I think it is fair to say that we have heard evidence from industry that the civil engineering contracting world knew from 2018 at the latest that the 2025 target was not going to be met in practice, because the scale of the work that was required could not have been done in seven years. As you pointed out, I was in government as well, and I have said on several occasions that if there is any responsibility that we must accept for the failure to dual the A9, I am part of that, although I never had portfolio responsibility for it and I did not receive papers on the matter from 2018.

Do you feel now that, because the target was such a major promise for so long from both the SNP and the Scottish Government, an apology should be given to the people of the Highlands? It is fair to say, in my perception at any rate, that the issue has been met with considerable dismay and concern in my constituency and in the Highlands in general, especially in view of the tragic loss of life that we have seen.