Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government has replied very clearly and at considerable length, and the issue has been looked at considerably before. It seems to me that there is very little, if any, prospect of any change.

From work that I have done over the years, some people take the view that those who are subject to long-term imprisonment by virtue of having committed crimes for which they are required to be incarcerated and have their liberty withdrawn should not enjoy the benefits of freedom, which include the right to vote. I make that comment for the record because many people have expressed that view to me very strongly over the years.

What is the additional cost or is there a range of additional costs?

I am asking whether a payment is asked to be made from the family in the case of extra costs for the CT scan, as opposed to the traditional invasive post mortem.

As always, Jackie Baillie has set out a strong case for that for which she advocates.

In considering whether we should recommend a STAG report be produced, I wonder whether we should get a little bit more information. I say that because the national park authority’s submission raises about 10 points—Ms Baillie will know them well—all of which seem to me to be likely to involve very significant cost and difficulty. I am not suggesting that we should not recommend that there be a STAG report, but I would like to know how long it would take to get the report and what the process would involve without being obstructive to the matter in any way.

The petitioners’ proposal would involve crossing the west Highland railway line twice, require various tunnels and steep land contours, affect sites of special scientific interest and water courses and involve crossing the Sloy power station pipes. I am fairly familiar with much of that area and it seems to involve such a level of difficulty that the STAG process might take a year or so.

I am sorry to go on a bit, but I raise that because I know that, throughout the west Highlands—not only in Jackie Baillie’s constituency but the adjoining ones in Argyll and Lochaber—the road has long been the subject of an overwhelming desire for improvements for all concerned, as I think that everybody would agree. I am not being obstructive to Jackie Baillie’s proposal, but, if we are going to make the recommendation, we should know whether it will take three months, which would be fine, or three years. If it is going to take three years, I am not sure that I would want to support it.

Convener, I do not know whether it is appropriate to ask Ms Baillie for her comments on that; I have not had a chance to discuss that with her.

I endorse what my colleagues have said. What the petition calls for might be desirable in many cases, but to create a universal right would impose an obligation on local authorities that is simply unenforceable and undeliverable. We must always be mindful of supporting the petitioner as far as we can, but we also have to be mindful of the financial realities that local authorities face at the moment. They would not thank us for suggesting that we impose something that is plainly beyond their capability when they are under real pressure to deliver fundamental basic services across the board.

I will ask one supplementary question. I think that the witnesses will be aware that the petition that is before the Scottish Parliament was occasioned following the sudden death of the petitioner’s child. The petitioner’s child underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive in nature than the petitioner had originally thought it would be. Obviously, anyone’s death involves grief, sadness and bereavement for their family, and the post-mortem issue is very sensitive. That is otiose—I do not need to tell any of the witnesses that, because they deal with the matter in their professional work.

However, obviously, the death of a child is particularly hurtful and causative of long-lasting, perpetual, eternal emotional harm, and that is really why we are taking evidence today. With that backdrop, are there any particular strengths or weaknesses in relation to the use of a scan after the death of a child, most especially an infant or young child?

Thank you.

Good morning. I have questions first on quality assurance and the efficacy of CT scans as opposed to conventional post mortems and, secondly, on the cost aspects.

On quality assurance, the petitioner claims that scanners are 99 per cent accurate in establishing the cause of death. However, a submission to the committee from the chief coroner highlights guidance on the use of imaging in post mortems. It references a joint statement from the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathologists on post-mortem cross-sectional imaging. I am told that the most recent version of that details the strengths and weaknesses of imaging in establishing the cause of death. For example, it details its accuracy in establishing deaths from trauma, stroke and heart disease and its limitations in diagnosing deaths from conditions such as sepsis and poisoning. I guess that I have—[Interruption.] Excuse me. I am sorry—I will just turn my phone off. My apologies, convener.

With that introduction, which I thought might be helpful to set the background, I have three questions. I will come to Dr Adeley first. First, how do PMCTs compare with traditional post mortems in terms of accurately establishing a cause of death? Secondly, can the witnesses detail the main strengths and weaknesses of using imaging in post mortems? Thirdly, what proportion of deaths could have their cause accurately established by using imaging?

I will try not to be so long winded this time, but, as a lawyer, I always find that a bit difficult.

How do the costs of the post-mortem CT service compare with those of traditional post mortems? Secondly, are the post-mortem CT scans generally provided free of charge or is there typically an out-of-pocket payment? If so, what is that usually set at?

I was agreeing, but I was just going to request that we ask for some supplementary information, if I may.