Seòmar agus comataidhean

The petitioners have specifically requested that they be given an opportunity to speak to the committee, but it would have to be a prelude to our trying to bottom out with the new minister exactly how matters could be realised instead of our just getting a lot of good will without any outcome being achieved or the desirability or otherwise of the outcome being assessed and responded to.

As a result, I might be minded to keep the petition open and accede to that request from the petitioners, as a precursor to speaking further to the new minister, who I understand has been presented as having vast experience of parliamentary life and an ability to resolve even the most intractable of problems. We will be very happy to put that ambition to the test.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to accede to the petitioners’ request on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Is a record of that engagement kept?

Thank you. The Lord Advocate identified two situations. I think that the committee fully understands that, where there is any suggestion of a suspicious death or a death of unknown cause, different rules must pertain. However, the Lord Advocate also suggested that a post mortem can identify underlying systemic health deficiencies.

Children are excluded from post-mortem scanning—my understanding is that that does not work with young children; their bodies have not developed to the point where that would be appropriate. The professionals in England to whom we spoke told us that 94 per cent of all causes of death are established by use of scanning and that a similar percentage of their post mortems were non-invasive. I know that one of my colleagues will be pursuing that issue later.

You carry out post mortems when you identify that they are essential. The term “essential” seems to me to be very general.

What percentage of post mortems that are conducted involve the brain being removed?

I understand that, but my understanding is that removing the brain is more a matter of routine in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Elsewhere in the UK, it is not routine practice simply to remove the brain in the way that we seem to do here. I wonder whether we have fallen behind medical practice elsewhere in the way in which we are proceeding.

Is that record open to inspection?

If a relative were to assert that they did not feel that there had been any engagement, a record would be publicly available that would demonstrate that, in fact, their assertion was not correct.

I have been here for 16 years so I get that bit. To which minister in the Government would the responsibility fall?

Our final petition is PE2018, which was lodged by Helen Plank on behalf of Scottish Swimming. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help keep our swimming pools and leisure centres open by providing financial investment for pools. The petitioner notes the important role that swimming can play in supporting the physical and mental wellbeing of people of all ages and highlights that, pre-Covid, swimming was one of Scotland’s highest-participation sports.

As noted in the papers, a report in November 2022 by Community Leisure UK found that 95 per cent of Scotland’s leisure facilities are at risk of closure, with swimming pools facing an increased risk of closure, due to the cost of the energy that is required to operate such facilities; I believe that that has been the subject of recent parliamentary questions. Members might also be aware that increasing financial pressures have recently led to the closure of three public swimming pools in West Lothian, as well as Bucksburn swimming pool in Aberdeen.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has repeatedly called on the UK Government to use all the powers at its disposal to tackle the cost of living crisis and to provide appropriate energy bill relief to leisure facilities. The Scottish Government response goes on to acknowledge the financial package that has been provided by the UK Government to support swimming pools in England, noting that, in deciding how to allocate the resulting consequentials, it will consider what support can be provided to the sport and leisure sector in Scotland. I think that that too has been raised in the chamber. The Scottish Government also states that it is working with sportscotland to examine the facilities estate in Scotland.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which highlights the estimated social value—some £55 million—that swimming contributes to society and notes the role that swimming pools play in helping to keep people active, particularly women, people with disabilities and older people.

Members will also note from our papers that we have received a submission from our colleague Tess White MSP, a former member of the committee. She is unable to join the meeting but wanted to express her support for the petition and to highlight concerns about the closure of Bucksburn swimming pool in her region.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?

If you are supplying us with further information to follow up on the point that you discussed with Mr Torrance, it would be helpful if we could have information on the scope of and timescale for the review that was identified.

Earlier, the Lord Advocate referred to changes in the law being the responsibility of parliamentarians and not the Crown Office, which is there to apply the law. However, the use of imaging does not require any change in the law at all. There is no provision in law that needs to be changed to achieve that. Alexander Stewart will pursue that.