Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would be useful to write to the Scottish Government to seek an explanation for the discrepancy in the figures. We should also draw attention to the report that has suggested that there could be a link with Covid. We could refer back to the petitioner’s long-standing association with the issue, the fact that it is all about prevention and that circumstances have changed. In the light of all of that, it could be that it is necessary to do a little more than had previously been suggested. Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that, on the petition’s clinical objective, which was to rule out the use of mesh in all circumstances, we had previously taken the view that we had heard sufficient evidence not to support it in principle. Is that the point that you wish to make, Mr Torrance?

I return to the fact that the use of imaging does not require a change in the law. There was no change of the law in England when the practice was changed; it was just changed. It did not require parliamentarians to change the law; it required direction and discussion.

How?

Thank you very much, Lord Advocate. The points that you have made have been raised in the written submissions that we have received, and they are very much appreciated and understood. In part, what has surprised the committee is that, in our investigation of practices elsewhere, we have seen the function that you have just identified evolve both to the satisfaction of the people in question and in a way that has proved to be equally effective. Those are the areas that we would like to explore this morning.

I will open the questioning. Everybody understands that, if there is any suggestion that the circumstances surrounding a death are suspicious, a completely different criminal procedure is undertaken, but where no such suspicious circumstances are anticipated, is there scope for greater involvement of the next of kin and their views with regard to instructing a post mortem?

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.

That is certainly a question, but I would note that, every year, 6,000 people in Canada are operated on successfully. There is also a consequential saving to the health service when a patient recovers, as they do not require constant additional medical support and treatment. I realise that there are issues to weigh up here, but I do not think that they should be casually dismissed just because of that.

According to Katy Clark, despite all the assurances that we have received about the consequences being discussed with individuals and the alternatives being properly represented to them, the petitioners still believe that that sort of thing is not happening universally. Therefore, I would be interested in getting the latest update on that matter from the Scottish Government. When the minister gave evidence along with health officials, assurances were given to us that further work was being done to provide more updated information material, and we would like to understand the status of that work and the impact that it has had.

It might well be that that will lead to our seeking to bring the cabinet secretary, rather than the minister, before us. After all, it was the cabinet secretary who first came before the committee and on whose initiative a lot of action was initially progressed. However, I think that that will be a decision for a subsequent meeting.

Do members have any other suggestions? Is the committee content with what I have proposed?

Members indicated agreement.