 Good morning, and I welcome everyone to the seventh meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2022. We are taking some evidence first off as part of agenda item 1, consideration of continued petitions. Petition number 1804 is the first of those to Halt Highlands and Islands Airport, limited air traffic management strategy. This is a petition lodged by Alasdair Mackeaghan, John Doeig and Peter Henderson, on behalf of Bimbecila Community Council, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt a Highlands and Islands Airport, limited air traffic management strategy project, and to conduct an independent assessment of the decisions and decision making process of the ATMS project. We last considered this petition on 2 February, where we agreed to write to the Civil Aviation Authority and to hear evidence from the petitioners and prospect today, and then again on 18 May from Hial. I am delighted that we are joined by the two representatives of MSPs who have been following this petition at its various torturous stages of progress through our proceedings. Rhoda Grant and Liam McArthur are welcome to you both. I am delighted to welcome Peter Henderson, who is joining us virtually, to one of the petitioners who will give evidence today. Firstly, I would ask members if they have any questions that they would like to explore with Peter. Peter, is there anything you would just like to say before we launch into questions to you? I still have some concerns that I would like to raise. I do not know if you would like to hear them. I was hoping that somebody from Hial would be there to answer them, but they do not seem to be. Why do not we move to the questions? That might bring out some of the reservations that you still currently have. We will see what comes as we do that. The first question basically teased that up, which is to ask what concerns you may have about the agreement between Hial and Prospect Raid Union on the future development of air traffic control and, if so, how they may be addressed. One of the first things is the Digital Audit Scotland Assurance of Action Plan, published in October 2021. On page 11, it said that it became evident from the remote tariff procurement and SCS Reba 3 design that the programme in its current form exceeds the programme budget, which is £48.4 million. I was hoping that Hial could explain that, because I think that is probably what drove them back to the negotiating table, rather than listening to anything that the committee and the petitioners have said. That is one thing. You want to know whether it was a cost-driven change of heart rather than a mea culpa we might have got a wrong change of heart? Yes. Basically, I would like to know, did the remote tariff procurement and the design of the remote tariff centre at New Century House play a part in writing off the entire programme rather than anything that we have done, because I suspect that that is the truth? The second point, if I can raise a second point, Hial was due to take over the running of summer radar from the National Air Traffic Service last September. It is pretty straightforward transferring an existing radar service into Hial's control. It was due to take over in September, then December, then this April, and nobody now knows when or if it is going to take over the summer radar from that. The story seems to be that they have recruited nine controllers, but they have not managed to train them. Some have left, and the programme may not take it over until a year from now, which seems to be a bit disastrous. Considering that Hial actually wants to have a centralised radar service for all the airports based in Inverness, if they cannot recruit in staff for one airport, how can they recruit in staff for all the airports and guarantee that they can provide a service? Inverness already struggles to provide controllers, and it shuts twice a day every day and probably will do for a year. The radar part of it shuts. My worry is that, if Hial centralised all radar, who are they going to prioritise? Are they going to prioritise summer and Inverness airports over all the other airports to make sure that they can provide a service to them? Are they going to shut other airports to man in Inverness and Summer? I do not believe that they are capable of running a centralised service, which is what they want to do. They cannot staff, recruit or train from Inverness at present or somewhere, so how can they do it for all the airport systems? You have looked for an independent assessment. What do you think the independent assessment would deliver? I think that it would shine a light on how we have a team appointed by Hial, because we have existing Hial management. They have exhibited that the HMS project that they said was the only way forward has failed miserably. They still want to progress with an air traffic management system that centralises, it seems to be failing at the moment. The current management and teams in place do not seem to be able to run this properly. I would like somebody from the outside to ask why that is the situation and why it still threatens the reliability of our air traffic services. We do not seem to have progressed. The HMS still exists in principle, but the aims are changing, but they still seem to want to centralise rather than start from scratch and have a proper look at it. None of this project has worked, yet they keep stumbling on the same people and making the same decisions. If you take the view that you do, how do you think Hial should have approached the development of this project in the first place? By listening to their staff, which they refuse to do, and by listening to their communities, which they refuse to do, which is why we took the list to the Petitions Committee, why our politicians backed us, why our local councils backed us. The staff are now being engaged with, because Hial was basically forced into that situation. Prospect, the union are now actively trying to sort out the mess that has happened, and yet there seems to be a whole new HMS being developed without any oversight, as far as I can see from anybody outside of Hial. Plainly, from the submissions that you have given subsequently along from the petitioners, the concerns that were expressed, what did you feel Hial's response and management of those concerns was? Initially, they ignored everything and said that HMS was the only way forward. There was a sudden change of heart, which I suspect was brought about by budgetary constraints, which meant that they could not achieve anything. Now they are looking for a way out, so they have decided to negotiate. They have not really been honest and open about anything all the way through, as we have found out. Just a final question from me, which sits slightly on the back of evidence that we have received. What evidence would you have that the Civil Aviation Authority would ultimately authorise anything that was unsafe? Well, they would not authorise anything that is unsafe, but we were at a meeting with the regulator, the CA regulator, and he summed it up saying that, if you came to me and said that you want to fly a rocket to the moon, I would say that, in principle, that is fine. If you then came back to me with a cardboard rocket, I would turn you down. Hial seemed to be coming up with a cardboard rocket most of the time. It is not until the final phases that the CA will sign something off. They have encouraged Hial to scope some trials of the surveillance system that they wish to use. There has been no word on whether Hial actually wants to do those trials, and it unfoot the bill. They seem to be sitting back and waiting for regulations to change in their favour, rather than actively seeking solutions. The CA should not sign off anything that is unsafe, but they will wait until the whole project has been decided on and then sign off on whether or not they will accept it. They do the same and control their space. You can put everything in place. The final judgment is doubt that the CA, if they decide that something is not suitable, will tell you why it is not suitable, and you can either try to change it or not. Hial is trying to operate out with what are existing regulations. It is new territory that Hial needs to fund solutions for. How would you like to see how involved community is served by its airports in the development of future plans and proposals? Rather than coming out with a done deal, they need to at least have a consultation that is put out in public, in much the same way that other Government departments do. Those are our aims and our goals. Would you like to comment on them? A consultation should mean just that. They should actually listen to what people say and have a conversation with them. What we want on the islands is a good reliable service that does not let us down. Coming up with ideas that remove all the resilience from our local areas is not a good idea. They just need to be a little bit more open, and they have not been. They seem to make a decision and expect everybody to go along with it. That is not really what... Is there any question? The final question, convener. This is your opportunity here. The committee will take evidence from representatives of Hyal and Prospect. Is there any particular issues that you would like us to raise with them and why? Well, the evidence from Hyal, as I say, the Digital Assurance Scotland Assurance of Action plan, when they say that the remote-term procurement and rebath redesign for the programme exceeds the current budget, does that mean that two aspects of the entire project cost more than £48.4 million? Is that what drove them back to the negotiating table? Why somewhere a radar, a mess and way behind schedule? If they cannot take over an existing radar service for all the airfields, how can they be expected to run a centralised radar service for all the airfields? Hyal, in his evidence previously admitted, said that none of the petitioners are directly involved in the programme or directly impacted by it. Well, we are impacted by everything that Hyal does, because we live in the communities that their airports serve. Had we been involved in it from the beginning, it might not have developed into the mesh that it is if they would have listened to us, which they refused to do. I have a problem with Hyal management still being the same people, still making the same bad decisions and still trying to run a project. I hope that they have learned the lesson. As prospects said, I hope that they will work and listen to the people rather than continue bullheaded as they have done. We have achieved an awful lot in this. We have managed to… The HMS programme has basically dissolved. There is nothing much left of it, so that has served our purpose. However, I think that it would have failed anyway, purely on cost, without us even intervening. Thank you very much. We have received quite strong representation from Hyal that the change… We will be meeting them on 18 May, so we will be able to put some of the points that you have raised directly to them. However, this change is not window dressing, that it is for whatever motivation we can chase that issue. That this is not simply a cover in order to bring back the proposal that has now been set aside again in five years' time. That has been quite robustly positioned in the paper that we have received from them. Do you, as petitioners, accept that? Well, I actually hoped that by asking the questions in the way I did that they would come back in a robust way and make it very clear that they were not going to revisit this, because it was still a bit vague. They still wanted to have a remote tower in Vanessa, for example, which you could not see the reason why. We probably accept now that they are not going to go ahead with the HMS, as they said. As I said, we have achieved a lot, but most of it has collapsed. They still seem to want to have controlled airspace at some of the airports and radar. That is fair enough. They have withdrawn the applications to the civil aviation authority for the airspace changes. We will find out when they have redrawn HMS where they intend to go. However, when they come up with their plan, please try to run it by the communities and make it very public what the plan is and ask for our input on whether or not we think that it is okay. You have talked about the openness and honesty in this whole process this morning. It is quite evident from your concerns that you have raised and the community feeling that they have not been listened to and have not had the impact that they wanted out of this whole process. You have talked about lessons being learned, and you hope that that is the case. And where do you see that the management handled the concerns that were expressed by the proposal initially? Were they completely flawed from the beginning, or were there any areas within what they produced that had the potential and the opportunity to be seen as open to the community and willing to anticipate that process? Basically, every single point that we ever raised initially was rebutted with the reply that HMS is the only way forward. There are no other ways, without it, nothing else can be done, so we must do it. The islands impact assessment was very negative for just about the effects on all of the islands. They still said, all that we need to do is mitigate. They said that we just need to mitigate this rather than address the problems. There was constant rebuttal of everything that we said, from a staff level right away through to MPs and MSPs. It has all been in the newspapers, it has all been all over the place, it is all in the evidence that we have met. Then there was a sudden change. Yes, modernisation, HMS modernisation would be extremely useful to have radar or some form of surveillance at the airports, but taking people out of the airports was a step too far. I can remember when I worked for Hyal, myself and colleagues laying out our concerns and being told that we would raise safety concerns and we were told that it was a matter of opinion. I left, I could not take it anymore because they would not listen. What is the point of that? When you get a culture that does not listen, you stop raising concerns, and that is a worry. From a community level, I think that Bimbacara community council did an extremely good thing. Even there is no word yet on whether or not Bimbacara air traffic is definitely going to stay. It seems to be the story that Bimbacara air traffic will stay, which it should, and the same with WIC, but we need to sign concrete about that. You mentioned the opportunities that the community has had, and I believe that the community needs to be congratulated on its endeavours because they have highlighted that. You have worked with politicians and other groups in the community to ensure that that was kept very live, and that has been to your credit. What do you want to see different? What do you want to see them trying to achieve if they come back and they are going to come back with something for the future? Basically, there has been quite an outcry saying, can we not have people who live in the communities on the boards of organisations like Hyal and CalMac? If you have people who live in the community interact with the community and have feedback from that community, as you do with your MSPs, your MPs, you can feed directly in people who are remote to understand what we are going through. All the airports are run as individual airports, but they need to have some sort of feedback from the customers about whether, if Hyal decides to make a change, they need to examine whether that change is going to be for the good or the bad. How they go about doing that is difficult to say, but putting it in the local papers and making some sort of announcement. All I know is that everything that they have done has just been stonewall. We are doing this and we do not care what you say. Quite often, the people who live in the communities are the staff that work at the airport. The people who work at the airport are the best measure of how the community feeling is. Hyal just needs to listen to what their staff say. I feel that they still do not. If I were to go to my airport manager and say, this is all complete shambles, and we actually got the board in at Kirkwall, spoke to them directly and said that this will never work as you want it to, it is a mess. We spoke to them face to face and they just said, yeah, yeah, okay, we will look into it and continued anyway. What are you meant to do? A final question from Fergus Ewing. Good morning, Ms Henson. I just joined this committee recently, so please forgive me if this question is covering ground that may already have been covered in the history of the petition thus far. In asking for an independent assessment, I want to get a sense of who you think could conduct such an assessment and how that person or persons might be appointed, and the reason I ask is this, that it does seem to me that the Civil Aviation Authority have, if you like, that role of conducting a proper assessment of any proposal, and given that they are the statutory body in the UK charged with responsibility to regulate air safety, and given the critical importance of that function, it doesn't seem to me to be immediately obvious who else, other than the CAA, could really be expected to carry out an assessment of something that, at the end of the day, is designed to protect people against air accidents, which would almost certainly result in fatalities. I just wanted to get a sense, Mr Henderson, of who and how you think an independent assessment could be carried out in practice. Well, the CAA oversees the rules and regulations regarding aviation, so yes, when it comes down to safety, they are the ultimate arbiter. When it comes to throwing money at a project that was never going to work, which is funded by a taxpayer, which was damaging to communities, which was run by an organisation that refused to listen to its own staff concerns, then I suspect that somebody in Government, because Government funds HAL and Transport Scotland funds HAL, somebody in Government needs to look at just how these decisions are made regarding the services that are provided at airports and the ideas that are bandied about. I mean, it's not so much, yes. Everything that HAL comes up with is, you know, there's an aviation safety aspect to it, but centralising staff to Maness, deciding to take over an existing radar contract from the National Air Traffic Service at summer, which has run reliably for decades, and then finding that they can't even staff it and they're a year behind schedule, you know. I mean, these are managerial tasks, which seem to be badly handled. Ultimately, the HAL board meant to examine the management of HAL and pull them up on mistakes that they've made. Well, obviously, the HAL board just rub a stamp stuff. They have done all along. They don't seem to understand the things that they are signing off. So are you suggesting that somebody from— Sorry, I mean, I got the gist of that, and it's more a question of the finance and the managerial aspects of how HAL have failed, as you would see it, so it's thus far. Is it just to be clear somebody in the Scottish Government that should carry out this independent assessment in your view? I believe so, because, you know, nine million pounds have been chucked down the drain on something that we said all along wouldn't work in the way they wanted it to, and we were just told it's the only way. It's my way or the highway, you know, and that's not our way or our organisation. Thank you very much, Mr Henderson. That's been very helpful. Thanks for your persistence in pursuing the petition, and we will be seeing HAL on 18 May, so we'll be able to take forward some of the specific questions you've asked and pursue them with them on that date. But thank you very much for your time this morning, and I now suspend the committee for a few moments. Hello again, welcome back, and we now move on to our second witness this morning in relation to PE 1804 on the HAL plans, and I'm delighted to welcome David Avery from Prospect, whose name has been referred to and brought up in evidence on numerous occasions in our deliberations, so you're very welcome to be with us this morning. We've read your most recent, or at least Prospect's most recent response to events in our papers ahead of this morning's session, so I'm going to move straight into questions, if I may, and ask Paul Sweeney to start. Thank you, convener. Welcome, Mr Avery, to the committee, and thanks for your submission so far on behalf of your members in HAL. We just wanted to kick off by asking how confident are you that the arrangements for development of a new air traffic control strategy will produce results that are acceptable to your members in HAL? I mean, I am reasonably confident that new direction is far more palatable than where we were before. It's still not—it wasn't members' preferred choice. They would still have preferred local deployment. However, this did achieve all of our goals around protecting local jobs, preventing the downgrades of two airports, and we have assurances that for at least five years that will be the case, which if you consider it's a government body, they have ministerial direction five years is a reasonable guarantee of no change. Whether or not HAL are able to deliver, I am more hopeful they are able to deliver this system, the previous one. This is replicating what they already have in Sumbra, what they've already had in Sumbra for decades. It's established technologies, established procedures in a way that what they are proposing with their remote towers project simply wasn't. So I think this is far simpler. It's far more likely to be delivered. It's still not easy, but I think it still has a better chance of delivering than their previous proposals. Thanks for that. We did note in your letter to the committee on the 7 March this year that working groups on the future of air traffic control at Wickham, Bimbacol in particular, the working groups weren't yet to be established. Have you had any further information about whether there's progress on that? Would you still like to see that happen? Is there a need for that? I'm pleased to confirm that actually the working groups haven't been set up because they haven't been needed. The company's given us the same assurance for both those airports that there will be no downgrade of service for at least five years, at which point there will be a review and a review looking at with an open mind rather than a review with an aim to justify a decision. That's been again the goal that members have been seeking. They're not the same airport, they have very different communities, very different needs and at no point are they going to be two separate reviews because I think it's not necessarily the same solution for the two airports in the long term. When did that change of view in relation to Bimbacol, when was that confirmed? That's quite recent and not something that we were aware of from our papers. Yes, so it was subsequent to the last submission that was made. I don't have the exact date, but Bimbacola I think may have been about four weeks ago. Wick is very recent within the last week. I think the main consideration for a lot of people has been safety of aviation safety in relation to these changes. What is your union's position on the implications of these changes that will be featured out in control for aviation safety? Our view has always been that radar is a welcome improvement. It's a vital safety tool for any controlled airspace, with any scheduled commercial traffic. It would provide an improved safety service. It would also potentially open up markets to other airlines who aren't prepared to fly without radar, all of which we see as a positive. Controlled airspace again is welcome. There is acceptance that were those two things to be done that you could then phase out procedural control, and again that isn't something the members are opposed to assuming it is done in the right way and done in a safe way. So there has always been an aim to seek to make safety improvements. Where we disagreed was how high we are intending to do it, and ultimately whether or not remote towers would bring its own set of problems with it. I wonder if I could ask you, do you think that there are any particular lessons that could be learned by Hial about the way that they've handled this whole thing from your perspective? Absolutely. Involvement of staff, involvement of communities, I think being more sceptical of consultants, all of which are lessons I hope Hial and indeed other organisations have learnt. I've been very critical of how Hial kicked off this project without public consultation, very little staff consultation and the views of staff frankly disregarded. The justification of the case based on the report of one consultant, which wasn't the direction the rest of the industry was moving, we've had no major remote towers announced in the way that Hial wasn't going to do them anywhere else in the UK in the last five years. So their original view that they were at the bow wave of a tide of change is just clearly not the case. This project has never been subject to public consultation. I think it's absolutely a major change in services, a major change in the way that air traffic would be delivered and I think it still should be. I think the time to do that would be at the point to which Transport Scotland's Infrastructure Board have approved the case. Obviously, as I said before, this petition has quite a long history and I've just come into this although I've been aware of it in the following matters but plainly progress has been made, partly a result of the work that Prospect have done and the engagement of MSPs and of petitioners indeed. So progress has been made. Do you now feel that that progress covers some of the defects as you would see it that you've just described? In other words, are you confident now that going into the future that Hial will listen to staff more, will engage with communities more because you've been, as I understand it, in the thick of it? I'm hopeful that that's the case. They are involving staff far more in the current phase of the project. I'm not particularly sited on community engagement. Currently the work is of a pretty technical nature rather than the kind of work you would want to take out to the communities for having a discussion but that will come in the future. I mean particularly questions around schedule, deployment, staffing levels, opening hours are all questions which I think communities would rightly want to have a view on. These are hugely important to all the islands served by Hial and lifeline services in many cases I guess. What about the financial side? Do you have an idea about how much Hial has spent on the now aborted air traffic management strategy? No more than what is in the public domain. So the papers I see don't include commercially in confidence numbers and I wouldn't be able to discuss those. I would suggest that that needs to be put to Hial. Okay, do you think that these should be made public or are there good reasons why that should not be the case? I think it's not for me. It's a unique to say whether or not they should or shouldn't. It's a public project. I think there has been a significant expenditure on this. I think it is worth looking into some of the decisions that have taken us to this point and that would include the costs incurred. And just finally, I mean if that is the case and that should be looked into, you heard from the petitioner who I think confirmed that he felt it should be the Scottish Government that should take charge of that analysis, that independent analysis, which surprised me a little bit because I'd thought that perhaps what was envisaged by the petitioner was an individual independent, not only of Hial but the Scottish Government. But be that as it may, if you think that this should be analysed and that the costs incurred today should be studied, do you have an idea about who the right person or the right body to do that work would be? So I've only thought about it recently having listened to Peter's evidence. My view would probably be old at Scotland. I think you don't need to be an aviation expert to look at the problems within this project. I'm not an aviation expert. I'm professionally a scientist. But I've learned a lot having done five years of dealing with this project. But the issues, the specialist issues, those relating to IT, air traffic engineering, air traffic control and so on, those you can seek advice from various learned sources. They're looking into the questions around decision making, around finance, around confidence and risk and management of risk. I think these are the kind of questions which all at Scotland are professionally able to deal with. Of course after this committee, if you have further thoughts, because these questions are being sprung on you, but if you have further thoughts, you'd be very keen to receive them. Thank you very much, Mr Ewing. Alexander Stewart. Thank you, Mr Ewing. You talk about the lack of communication and the lack of consultation in this whole process as to what was happening with the staff in the communities. Can I ask about industrial relations and how that is progressing and what impact that handling of the whole affair has had on industrial relations with reference to Hyal and your organisation? Hyal is a very different organisation to almost any other one that I deal with and it always has been. I've been involved with it for seven years, so significant time before this. Indeed, my predecessor expressed the same view and he dealt with it for far longer. They're the only airport, the only ANSP, under public ownership in the manner they are, so they're not an algeast of Prestwick or Nats which are run as private companies. They are run as a public body, but they are then not like any of the other public bodies because they have significant commercial elements, very highly operational staff. Their aim is to achieve a service delivery in a way that most of the public bodies don't. So they're already a difficult company to deal with because of those challenges. Industrial relations have been strained, but we've never fallen out, we've never stopped talking, we've always had good discussions even through the industrial action periods. I am hopeful that with the new engagement with staff that there will be more involvement in staff in decision making, not just within traffic but across the board within Hull. From that, you talked about lessons being learned in this whole process, but it's vitally important that lessons are learned as to how to manage the staff and the industrial relations that will take place in the future. What would you like to see how I'll try to achieve to ensure that that does become a reality? So I would like them to, whenever making any decisions which relate to staffing or service delivery, involve their staff at whatever level. So whether or not that's a change of opening hours or a change in a security protocol or something big like air traffic control changes, that the staff who are involved in delivery of service are actually involved in those decisions, that the communities are involved, that there aren't things just sprung on them as this is now what we are going to do. I'm hopeful that that change will happen, but it's a large organisation, it's a very difficult organisation, just the disparate nature of multiple airports, so it's not going to happen overnight. The previous witness, we were exploring what's brought about, the change of view in Hyal, and he was skeptical that it was our investigation into these matters or our representations or your representations indeed, and that it was all down to a realisation that the costs involved in all of this were no longer sustainable. What do you think the cornerstone of their change of approach has been? Well, I have to say, I wasn't inclined to look gift horses in the mouth and question their motivations when they came to us for a discussion on a more positive note, given the previous five years, where there had been no discussion about strategic direction. I think it probably isn't one thing, and I hope that the board's view on why a change was necessary, why a change in direction was necessary, wasn't down to any one factor. I think it was a combination of the work of this committee, the industrial action from staff, and the impact assessment, the constant negative stories about Hyal. They were struggling to get any positive media coverage about other things they were doing because this was drowning them out, and costs and that the project was still not going anywhere. Ultimately, it is very hard to implement a project like this without the buying of staff. I am going to invite our two parliamentary colleagues who have joined us this morning and have been with us at various stages during our consideration of the petition over an extended period. If they would like to ask anything in particular of you, Liam McArthur, have you agreed between you who is going first, Rhoda Grant? Thank you, convener. It was really just a point of clarification. Prospects have worked really well on that, and I am really pleased that we are where we are on making progress. We talked about replicating Sumbra, and I know that Peter Henderson in the petition had some concerns about what might happen in Sumbra. Either radar would be centralised to Inverness. Does that have staffing implications, and do you see issues with that? There are staff, as Peter alluded to, who have hired staff for Sumbra in Inverness to undertake that, who are working on delivering that radar service. It has been delivered what is called a so-called greenfield radar, as if you never had it before, because they are not transferring any of the staff or procedures from that, so it is being done almost from scratch. That is not an easy thing to do. The regulator is quite rightly taking a significant interest. They may well need more staff than they currently have, and Turing City is going to take the time that it is going to take. I still think that it is a far more achievable prospect than the previous remote tower proposition. This is at least replicating something that Hyal has already done. From the point of view of the controllers in Sumbra, they do not have to learn new procedures. They are handing over to another provider, this time in Vanessa rather than Aberdeen, but for them there will not be a significant change. That is far easier to manage than what would have happened had they been centralising the tower and the radar. The radar at Sumbra is currently operated from Aberdeen by Nats, is that right? There is nobody based in Sumbra that has not got a job's implication for Shetland at all. No, none at all. The staff who are in Sumbra will remain. The roles will remain as they are, and as I understand it, the roles in Aberdeen can be redeployed to other work within Nats. They have other work that they would like to move them on to when the Hyal contract has ended. I think that I have made a couple of observations before turning to the issue that the road that I was just pressing with Mr Avery. I still cannot really get my head round the fact that we were told for years by Hyal management that this was the only show in town, that this was the only credible option. They backed off this much later in the day than I and many others would have hoped. Mr Avery is probably fairly fair in his assessment that this is a result of a number of factors, but the cost and deliverability was always under serious question. I think that that may well have driven them back to the negotiating table, but there has been no reckoning with those that marched us up to that hill and have marched us back down again. I think that the point that was made earlier about Audit Scotland casting their eyes over this seems to me entirely sensible and reasonable. The cost is one component of this, some of it is around the way that decisions were made, but actually the cost to the public purse is a very real concern. I have had discussions with Audit Scotland in the past, who suggested that this is more a matter for Transport Scotland to deal with, but in a sense they have skin in the game with the responsibility that they have for Hyal. I would certainly be keen to understand the extent to which Audit Scotland could provide a degree of satisfaction that due process was followed and that public monies were not needlessly wasted, but it would appear to be the case at heart. I think that in relation to the centralised radar that Mr Henderson was talking about and Rhoda was just pursuing there, there do appear to be different but similar concerns now being raised. We heard from Mr Henderson earlier about those and this seems to me to fall into the same category of a review or a decision that is predetermined and that Hyal is now asking, it does appear to be consulting more but is asking how do we deliver what we have already determined that we are going to deliver. I wonder whether or not there isn't some work to be done to get Hyal to almost go back to first principles. Yes, they may have delivered this, but it is not completely alien to them. However, if the concerns that Mr Henderson was raising previously are legitimate and seem to me to be borne out by evidence, I would hope that this committee and prospect in its discussions with Hyal might be able to persuade Hyal to go back to first principles and determine whether or not a centralised model for radar surveillance is any more practical and in the interests of the island communities that rely on those lifeline services. I wonder whether Mr Avery agrees with that and whether that is an approach that prospect may be able to carry forward in terms of their own negotiations. Members' preferred model was a local deployment but it has agreed to this remote system from Inverness. I am not at control and my understanding is in terms of technical feasibility. Delivering radar from Inverness versus delivering radar from a room down the stairs in Sunbreth Hauwer are not wildly different. The questions that you would have to ask around procedure, around the validation of staff, around training are largely the same and that the challenges Hyal would face doing green fuel radar inflation if they were doing it in Sunbreth or indeed any other airport onsite versus remotely are the same challenges that they would face in either circumstance. As a union we don't particularly have a view on whether or not those jobs are better in Inverness or in Sunbreth or indeed in Aberdeen where they currently are based. They're all areas where it's prospect membership and I wouldn't want to speculate about which was better than another. So I don't particularly have a view on that. I think it is highlighting that this greenfield radar application is genuinely a difficult thing to do. I'll only have one radar base, it's in Inverness Airport currently. Inverness is short staffed, they can't share the experience of those controllers into the project. It is not an easy thing to do to deliver this service but it is a doable challenge and a far more doable challenge than the one that they'd previously embarked on. So I wouldn't particularly take a view on that. If I can just expand on the audit Scotland point, my original previous industry relations works have done involved the creation of Marine Scotland and I remember audit Scotland did audit the creation of Marine Scotland when it was finished and did provide insights on lessons that can be learned from machinery of government changes. I do think that they're probably the appropriate body to look at it. As Liam has said, Transport Scotland ultimately are involved in decision making in Hyal. They sit on the board, they will sign off or not the changes to this project, so I'm not sure they're necessarily in a position to audit themselves. Okay, thank you. Can I ask just a final question of you, I suppose? Do prospect retain confidence in Hyal and its existing board? We have never put the question to our members of whether they have or do not have confidence in Hyal on its board and I wouldn't want to speculate how they would vote when we put that question to them. So that's one gift horse you are prepared to look in the mouth. Okay, thank you very much. That's been extremely useful and very helpful, thank you. Just before, I think colleagues, we will probably consider this evidence afresh after we've met with Hyal. Liam McArthur made some general comments in addition to the point that we put to Mr Avery. Rhoda Grant, is there any general comment you would like just to add since you made a rather specific question? I just wonder if there was any general comment you would like us to bear in mind before I draw this particular session to an end. Well, I think when you're speaking to Hyal, it's about community involvement. Having spoken with prospect members and the like, they seem happier with their involvement at the moment but, as we heard from Peter Henderson, he's quite concerned about the community involvement and he's there representing the community albeit as a previous employee. We need to get everybody on site. I think that this is important enough that we need to make sure whatever comes forward from the discussions that are now having us buy in from everybody and that everybody has confidence in the system put in place. Liam McArthur, do you have a final point? Just a final point. Following up from what David said about not necessarily having a particular concern about where the radar surveillance jobs are based, I can understand that, that the overall total of the fact that those jobs are secure, well-paid and training in place are the primary concerns for Hyal and those as representatives of the different communities served by Hyal. We do have an interest in where those jobs are based and if there aren't overwhelming arguments for why they need to be based centrally, as is proposed, rather than dispersed around the network, I think that Hyal needs to explain why that is and that there almost should be an expectation that, as far as possible, Hyal and other public bodies are dispersing jobs around the region. I think that Peter Henderson also set out some real concerns about the practicability of what is being proposed. As that flag has run up the mast, I will draw this particular evidence session to a conclusion. Thank you all very much and we just suspend briefly. Our next consideration is of petition number 1812, protecting Scotland's remaining ancient native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors. Lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, we have taken considerable evidence on this petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation, giving Scotland's remaining fragments of ancient native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection. We last considered it on 23 March when we took evidence from the minister for environmental land reform, Mary McCallum, and Doug Howison from Scottish Forestry. That followed on from the evidence that members will recall. We heard from the petitioners themselves on March 9, and a roundtable of NatureScot, Woodland Trust Scotland, Scottish Forestry Confor and the RSPB. The minister indicated that work would be underway in this summer to develop the register of ancient woodlands, and the minister remains open-minded on how existing protections and enforcement measures could be improved. During the most recent meeting, we heard about the importance of ancient woodland for biodiversity and carbon capture. We also explored how forestry standards are currently enforced and what needs to happen to ensure the continued protection of ancient and native woodlands. We agreed to reflect on the evidence that we had heard and to consider our next steps this morning. I wonder, colleagues, what we might do next. I would like to undertake to visit one of the ancient woodlands and native woodlands just to see what the problems are, but because shortly the experiences are set in MSP and are complained by constituents on trees that were removed, protected by a TPO order, and the response from Fife Council—I will put it on record that it was not in the public's interest to prosecute. I would like to write to all the local authorities in Scotland to see how my prosecutions have had under TPO protection orders for native woodland or for trees in the area, just to see what response we could get. Thank you, colleagues. In the first instance, we have—sorry, did anybody else send any suggestions to make? No, we have previously indicated that we might like to undertake a site visit, and I just want to formally conclude that we would like to do that. David Torrance's second point is well made. The evidence that we received from the minister was that additional legal protections are not necessary because there are protections in place, but, as is often the case, we now, I think, sensibly might want to inquire as to whether those are being used to protect. Writing to local authorities, we are content to proceed on that basis. Thank you very much. I would like to write to Scottish Forestry, as well, because I think that they have various enforcement responsibilities in respect of in the project felling, which I think was one of the issues raised. Very happy to do that, too. Thank you very much. Paul Sweeney? I remember that the petitioners presented a particular case study. It might be of interest to visit that location to see the particular facts on the ground for looking at a visit to a location. I think that we are going to get some recommendations from the organisations that we are going to, in order that we can actually, I don't think that we would want to find the word that we are in deepest darkest hinterlands on a Wednesday morning, abandoning the forest with our compass. I am quite sure where we would end up. Yes, very much so. Petition number 1837 provides clear direction and investment for autism support. This petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability—that is the key—or a mental disorder can access support, and how we can allocate investment for autism support terms in every authority of health and care in Scotland. We were particularly interested when we wrote to the Minister for Mental Well-being and Social Care on 17 November to find out whether the proposed learning disability autism and neurodiversity bill would address the petition's concerns. In the interim, which support measures will be put in place for individuals who have autism but who do not have a learning disability or mental illness, and how the minister intended to collect and disseminate examples of good practice, the minister provided examples of current work and recent pilots, all of which are set out in full on the member's papers, and the minister indicated that, should a new commissioner be created via the proposed legislation, then detailed consideration would be required as to what their powers and duties should be. In the meantime, the Scottish Government plans to collate and analyse good practice among health and social care partnerships. The petitioner responded by saying that the minister's submission did not explain specifically again where artistic people who do not have a learning disability or mental health issue can access support. He notes that the pilot projects mentioned are time-limited and area-specific. Post-diagnostic support is required on a lifelong basis, not just at the point of diagnosis. That petition is due to be discussed at the next chief social work officer committee taking place this month. I wonder whether colleagues have any proposals. I would like to suggest that those very points are ones that we might go back to the minister again. When the minister is suggesting that any commissioner or commissioner their powers and duties would be reviewed, it might be that the minister is suggesting that, within that framework, the responsibility for the petitioner's particular objective might be allocated, but that is not actually said. I would be quite happy to go back to the minister and say, look very specifically again in relation to the petitioner's concern for those who do not have a learning disability or a mental health issue, what is proposed or where did it go. Are we content on that basis? Next is petition number 1845, which is to advocate the healthcare needs of rural Scotland, lodged by Gordon Bear on behalf of Galloway community hospital action group. I think that Rhoda Grant is joining us again for this petition. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an agency to ensure that health boards offer fair and reasonable management of rural and remote healthcare issues. We last discussed this on 8 September when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the remote and rural general practice short life working group, as well as to the rural health boards. We have received various submissions from stakeholders and colleagues will have seen a late submission from Finlay Carson MSP, which I have all been shared. The chief chair of the remote and rural general practice working group highlights its recent report and the recommendation to establish a national centre of excellence for remote and rural healthcare, health and social care. Work is currently underway on implementing this recommendation, including exploring the potential role of rural health commissioner, a position that has been successfully established in Australia. The responses from NHS Scotland and Orkney and NHS Grampian provide information of their respective approaches to public engagement. We have also received a further submission from our petitioner, which is included in full member's papers and a submission from Claire Fleming in support of the petition. Rhoda Grant, is there anything that you would like to say just before we come to a view as to what we might do next? I still have a huge number of concerns about rural healthcare. I think that what is quite concerning is that the centre of excellence is still being defined and the nature of it is being looked at. We are a long way from having that rural centre of excellence. Meanwhile, in my own area, UHI has had midwife training removed from them. We know that there is a huge lack of staff. If I again refer to the Highlands and Islands, maternity care is a big, big issue. The maternity unit in Caithness was downgraded to a midwife-led unit. The same thing has happened in Dr Gray's and Elgin, which are quite different places. Caithness obviously goes to Rhaig Môr in Inverness, and there are discussions and, indeed, agreement that, at some point in the future, Murray births will go to Inverness, certainly for a period of time. There are not enough staff in Rhaig Môr hospital in Inverness to deal with the births that got far less taking on. What we need is people in the communities. The submission from the community in Caithness talks about the distances people have to travel. At the moment, I am taking part in a group in Caithness that is looking at the cost of living and the impact that is having, especially for your costs. It was put to me that people are getting £15 a mile with the first £10 being top-slized of that for travelling to Rhaig Môr. I wrote to NHS Highland and they have increased that by a couple of pence a mile in recognition of fuel costs, which are worse in rural areas. That presupposes that you have a car and that you can afford to put fuel in it. It takes no account of rural deprivation. The point was made in one of your submissions that people seem to think that this is a lifestyle choice. You move to a rural area, to a leafy suburb, and it is lovely. If you are going to do that, you have to accept that you are not going to get an accident and an emergency around every corner. Everyone knows that, but we are talking about people who have been born and brought up in deprived communities in those areas, being expected to travel hundreds of miles to achieve healthcare. On top of that, with Covid, there are restrictions to accessing a hospital even during childbirth. In Inverness, in the height of the summer, even budget hotels are about £400 a room. If you are on a limited income, you cannot be there. There is no way that you can be there with a loved one in hospital. It has huge implications for families and, indeed, it has huge implications for people accessing healthcare for themselves, because there is a cost attached to it, and we need to do better. I urge you to keep the petition open and to push that, instead of getting crumbs off the table, rural areas are looked at as a case in point and how we supply them with the health services that they need. It does not depend on the wealth of the people who are trying to access those health services. I would like to keep the petition open. I know that my colleague Gamer Harper has been working with a petitioner, Gordon Baird, but before we invite a petitioner to give evidence before us, I wonder if we could check with the Scottish Parliament, because two petitions are similar here, if there is anything like that in their work programme. Implicit in that is that we are now at a time in other circumstances where we would hear from the petitioner. Are we happy to, in principle, say that we would now like to hear from the petitioner, but just check to establish whether there is any work programme issue with our partner committee? Are you agreed? Alexander Stewart, were you going to say something more? I just agree with that, convener, because I think that it is very important now that, as Rhoda Grant has indicated, because it is so sparse and it is postcode lottery nearly across the location, it would be useful now to get the petitioner in to give evidence on the process as to where we are taking it and how it will progress. I would concur with that, convener. Okay, thank you very much. Petition number 1862, to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities. This petition has been lodged by Rona Mackay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremmer on behalf of the UST economic task force. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities in keeping with the Islands Scotland Act 2018. We last considered this in February 2, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands. I am pleased to say that, since that meeting, when we have received a response from the Minister for Transport, which outlines the process for agreeing who should sit on the selection panel for each public body recruitment exercise, the minister has indicated that the current process involves a selection panel making recommendations to the minister on all aspects of the recruitment exercise, including what the key criteria for each vacant position should be. The minister has therefore indicated that she does not believe that the legislative change is required. Having outlined how that will now proceed, colleagues, does anyone have any suggestions to make? Would we like to hear potentially now from the minister and from the petitioners just to see whether or not we believe that this is going to resolve issues, or are we satisfied with the minister's response? I would suggest that we have the minister, convener. I think that that's important. I mean, the response does cover some aspects, but I do think that there is more that can be teased out. Are we agreed then, colleagues? We are. Thank you very much. Petition number 1867 established a new national qualification for British Sign Language, and I also highlight that this is currently available to watch on the Parliament's channel with the Scottish Parliament's BSL channel for this particular consideration of this petition this morning. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the SQA, to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language BSL at SCQF level 2. Again, we will ask to consider this on 2 February when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the SQA, Deaf Action, Inquire, the National Deaf Children's Society Scotland and the Scottish Children's Services Coalition. We have now received detailed responses from the SQA and the Scottish Government clarifying their processes. The Scottish Qualifications Authority response noted that assessment of demand is based on the number of learners that have been entered by schools for existing range of qualifications. The SQA and Scottish Government hold joint responsibility for the development of new and or revised national qualifications. The response to the Scottish Government notes that schools have broad discretion in determining which additional languages to offer, and while there is currently no national qualification for BSL, there is nothing in policy to prevent schools from teaching it from as early as primary 1. Members may wish to note that we have also received submissions from Children Scotland and Deaf Action. I note in the response that we received from the SQA that it is often the case that support for a qualification amongst those who are lobbying for it is not always reflective or then matched by the demand secured. That is a reasonable point to make. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed again this morning? David Torrance, thank you. I thank you, convener, to write to Derek Todd at the Scottish Sensory Hub, who is the lead BSL consultant with the Alliance. If the committee would like to do that. I think that we might then read and write to Mr Todd. I mean that the Alliance seems to potentially have something to offer to that consideration. Are we agreed? We are, thank you. Petition number 1890, to find solutions to recruitment and training challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland. Rhoda Grant was going to join us, but I think has now just made the points that she might have wished to in relation to the previous petition that we were considering on rural healthcare. This has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the NHS health action team and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to find ways to provide localised training and recruit and retain healthcare staff in difficult to recruit positions in Scotland. We have also received a written submission from Edward Mountain, which has been circulated to members in advance of the meeting. At our last consideration of this position, we agreed to seek NHS Highlands views. They have responded and outlined a number of key challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland and the steps that are being taken to address them include local accommodation shortages and lack of affordable housing, challenges in attracting people to social care roles and an ageing workforce. Familiar challenges indeed. Members will recall that the last time we considered this position, we agreed to consider it alongside petition 1845 and we had talked about taking oral evidence at a future meeting. Are members content, as we agreed to with the petition with which it is partnered, to invite the petitioners to take it to provide evidence at a future meeting? Petition number 1909, to remove the gender-based crime domestic abuse narrative and to make it gender neutral and equal. This petition was lodged by William Wright and calls in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make domestic abuse policies guidance agendas and practices gender neutral. To introduce equal domestic abuse provision and funding for everyone in Scotland regardless of any protected characteristic. To ensure all domestic abuse joint protocol guidance policies and practice for Police Scotland of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are gender neutral. At the last consideration of this petition, we agreed to write to stakeholders to seek their reviews and we have now received submissions from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, from Police Scotland, from ASIST, the Minister for Equalities and Older People, the petitioner and Amos AMIS and our male domestic abuse charity operating a helpline service across Scotland. Now, these submissions have been shared and full ahead of the meeting. The key points raised include the current definition of domestic abuse includes abuse of male victims by female perpetrators. Police Scotland states that there is no variance in the level of service a victim will receive regardless of their sex or gender. The Minister for Equalities and Older People states that the Scottish Government will engage and consult on a national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men in September of this year. ASIST states that a gendered approach is important in recognising that men and women may require different services and approaches. AMIS recommends that, instead of making domestic abuse approaches gender neutral, they should be gender inclusive and measures should be proportionate instead of equal. They raise concerns that, by sharing overall funding for services that support men and women, there is a misleading impression that male services are then adequately funded. They also advocate that for revised gender-informed training for those in the justice system. The petitioner's most recent submission provides further information about his own experiences as a male victim of domestic abuse. He also suggests several other stakeholders the committee may wish to hear from. Quite a lot for us to consider and I wonder if colleagues have any suggestions they would like to make having done so. David Torrance. Thank you for that. To write to the Scottish Government to ask how a petitioner can engage with the development of a national strategy and end intimate and sexual violence against men and boys, I think that we should write to Police Scotland as well to see their approach to gender-informed domestic abuse training and to write to the stakeholders that are outlining the petitioner's recent submission. If that's okay with the committee. Are the committee content? I think that, particularly to the petitioner, given that this national strategy is going to be established with a view to taking considerations from September this year, so I think that would be very useful for them to contribute to that. Are we all content? We are. Petition number 1911, review of human tissues Scotland Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. This is a petition lodged by Anne McNair and the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the human tissue Scotland Act 2006. And the relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can only be carried out with the permission of the next of kin. Do not routinely remove brains and offer tissues and samples to next of kin as a matter of course. We are hoping that Monica Lennon might join us, but she has been delayed, but she may well join us as we continue our consideration. I'd like to start by reminding members about the very difficult circumstances in which the petitioner brings us the petition. The petitioner's child died suddenly and underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive in nature than the petitioner had originally thought it would be. The committee last considered this petition on 1 December 2021 and heard that, in England and Wales, next of kin are given a choice about how they would like the small tissue samples to be handled. The committee therefore agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Royal College of Pathologists. We have received detailed responses to that correspondence. The Scottish Government responded in consultation with the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. They explained that, if tissue samples are returned to next of kin, it may impair their ability to investigate the circumstance surrounding a death or to establish a definitive cause of death. The Royal College of Pathologists suggests that returning tissue samples would provide only a marginal gain and would then need to be traded off against further complexities in authorisation and consent, and those complexities are listed in their submission. The petitioner's own recent submission reiterates the key points of her petition, expressing that being told that samples of her child belong to no particular person is the cruelest thing that she'd ever heard. On the issue of invasive post mortems, the petitioner suggests that an alternative would be to use a scanner, and this provides results that are more than 99 per cent accurate. The committee has also received several submissions from individuals stating their strong support for the petition and its aims. Notably, submissions were in favour of authorisation for retention of tissue samples and using scanners for non-invasive post mortem examinations where possible. It does seem to me that consideration of the petition and the submissions fall into two distinct areas. One is the issue of the authorisation of post mortems, and the extent to which a discretion can be granted to the next of kin in that process. The second is in relation to the final determination as to where or how the tissue samples that may have been retained, what then befalls them. Monica Lennon has now been able to join us. Welcome, Monica. Delighted to have you with us. I'll ask you if there's anything you'd like to say just as we consider these issues fresh this morning. Thank you, convener. It's good to be with the committee today. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the petition. I won't repeat some of the points that have been really well made already by the convener, but I'm here today on behalf of my constituent, the petitioner, to hopefully assist and answer any questions that you might have. My constituent and her family really appreciate your consideration so far. It has been really thoughtful and pleased that your deliberations in December led to more people making submissions and that was not a petition that was put out for public signature. It has been done in quite a quiet way, but as we can see from the responses, people have come some quite strong views based on their experiences. The issues raised by the petition are very sensitive. I want to commend the courage of the petitioner. The loss of her son, her adult son, Richard, has been devastating and traumatic for the family, but what happened after her son's death was also really traumatic. In fact, I've just been handed a bundle of papers this morning on my way in, where Anne had been awaiting further information from the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service. I won't go over them here, but it's taken a lot of time for the family to piece together what has happened. For example, Anne had asked questions about body scanners, which would allow for a less invasive post mortem, and the Crown Office have come back and identified some training issues there that staff here in Scotland don't have the skillset. I think that looking at all the submissions and the ongoing work that Anne is doing, along with people like Lydia Reid, is known to the committee as well. I think that there are just more questions that need to be answered. It would be good to hear more from the Royal College of Pathology. I note the submission that they have made, and they don't give full support for the petitioner, but I think that it is concerning that they say that in the context of what they call significant pressures on pathology post mortem and forensic services across Scotland. They talk about grossly inadequate facilities and staffing levels being the reality of current provision. They highlight and assure that I was highlighting in the last parliamentary term about the recent failure of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service procurement exercise to identify compliant bidders for forensic services for their highlighting the challenges that are already facing the system. We have to question whether the system is fit for purpose. You mentioned a couple of the submissions, which agree with the petitioner that tissue samples should not be taken and retained without the consent of the next of kin. Their support, including from Dorothy Barr, on the role of body scanners, which are used much more routinely in England, is believed to be less invasive yet 99 per cent accurate. I have on Logan and her submission said that it is offensive that people are being told that tissue samples belong to the Procurator Fiscal or pathologist for research without consent. I think that most people in the public would find this really troubling. Melissa Sullivan, a nurse practitioner, supports tissue sample rules aligning with the United Kingdom standards and samples being offered back to the next of kin. I think that the petitioner has opened up an important conversation. In the end, I think that it comes down to dignity. No one would question the important role and responsibility of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service when it comes to the investigation of sudden, suspicious, accidental and unexplained deaths in Scotland. Many people feel that the system is not always compassionate, that it is really hard to get information, that communication is not as good as it should be. We have heard from the Royal College of Pathologists that the system seems unable to cope. I think that more questions need to be asked, but I will end by looking at the submission from Gerard Stark. His question is, where is the dignity for the deceased? We know that this Parliament is about to have a big discussion about dignity and dying. We also have to extend that to look at dignity for the deceased and for bereaved families. The petitioner says that her son was butchered. That is her view. She is asking why body scanners are not an option in Scotland and she does not want another mother or family to go through this unbearable heartache and pain. I did say the last word, but it is important to also reference the submission from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, who has given a thoughtful submission. I note their disappointment. I think that it is also important that we listen to the views that are expressed by Scogiac. I appreciate that these are difficult issues to talk about. I feel like I have just skimmed over the top of it today, because a lot of it is upsetting. It is there to be read. The petitioner may feel able to be more public with her story in due course, but the work that you have done so far has helped to show that there are more questions that need to be answered. If we can improve the law and policy practices, we absolutely should. I think that it will be useful if the committee could receive, if we have not already done so, some of the submission that you may be referring to there. I think that you are right. The suggestion that the procedures and processes being followed might be governed by an under-resourcing of the pathologist's work, rather than by any freshly determined view of what best practice and policy might be is concerning. I think that that is one that, as a committee, we might want to pursue. The fact that body scanners are now being routinely used elsewhere, and if, in the submission that we might be yet to see vindicates the view that it may well be that the reason being argued why we cannot have this in Scotland is because people are not adequately trained to use them. That does seem inadequate, because, obviously, the body scanner would be a far less invasive way in which to undertake some of those post mortems. I think that those might be questions that we could come back to if we can consider this, because I think that we might want to write to the Crown Office and others just to establish whether or not all of that is correct. In relation to the other evidence and submissions that we have received, do colleagues have any suggestions that they might like to make? Alexander Stewart. I thank Monica for her evidence as well this morning. I think that it has shone a light on this whole process, and you have identified some of the failings and the lack of support that individuals believe, so I think that it would be appropriate for us to write to the Cardinal Society of England in Wales seeking details of its approach to tissue sample retention and how it mitigates the challenges that are set out by the Royal College of Pathologists, because that submission will give us an idea of exactly where we are with some of this, because, as Monica has identified and you convener, there seems to be a lack of support here or there seems to be a lack of training or there seems to be a lack of identification, and by doing that, at least we would then get an idea of what's happening south of the border that seems to be working in a much better way for individuals with this issue. Yes, I mean some of the complexities detailed by the Royal College of Pathologists do seem to be issues that will have to have been faced and addressed elsewhere. Mr Sweeney, did I see you trying to come in there? Paul Sweeney? I fully agree with the idea that the petitioner and several respondents to the petition have been trying to establish parity with other practices in the UK, and I think that it is important to thoroughly investigate where those alignments should be. The Royal College's submission, I felt, was a bit excessive in making the point about potential criminal reasons or legal reasons for retaining samples from bodies, because the implication that I thought was potentially quite offensive where it was saying that the next of kin might want to defeat the ends of justice by denying a postmortem, that would be in a very limited and quite significant set of circumstances. I don't think that it is relevant to this petition, so I think that we need to understand exactly what they mean by this, and there's probably a further investigation needed about what circumstances samples would be retained for a criminal investigation. Even in due course, once it's established that there's no foul play in relation to the death, those samples can then be released for burial or whatever the family wishes to do with it. Thank you. I wonder if the committee would be content for me to invite the clerks to come back to me as well on where we might obtain some further information about body scanners, because I feel that that seems quite relevant to our consideration here. Although they've been alluded to, I think that we might benefit from some proper briefing on the availability, the costings and the usage, and then that would allow us to pursue with the Crown Office and others why these issues are not being, why we're not deploying them in the way that we might do in Scotland. Are there any other suggestions? I think that we keep the petition open and pursue all the various matters that we have. Monica Lennard, do you want to add just something? Yes, can we just to also say the issue that's been raised by the petitioner and some of the respondents about the death certificate also? The term unassertained is not exactly a popular term and a lot of families, and I have personal experience of this to feel that it's quite an empty meaningless term. I think that some of the respondents have made that point very well. Again, I think that Gerard Stark talked about that not being a meaningful term, that uncertain would perhaps be a more appropriate word. Again, I think that there's different practice in other parts of the United Kingdom, so if the committee was able to get views on that, perhaps from the Scottish Government and the Crown Office, that also might be useful. Thank you. I mean, thank you for drawing that point to our attention. I, as a constituency MSP, have had examples of that too, and it is very, very disturbing. Possibly that word does lead people into a degree of conjecture. In my instance, it was more that they felt something was being covered up as much as anything else in terms of a death in hospital, for example, and not being able to determine what had led to that. I think that that would be useful for us to try and pursue as well. Thank you. Are we content? Thank you very much, Monica. Thank you for joining us again, and we'll return to this when we have further information. That is the end of item 1. We now move to item 2, which is consideration of new petitions of which we have two. The first is position number 1929, to run an advertising campaign to raise public awareness on the forthcoming pavement parking ban, lodged by Bob Downey. It notes that, for drivers to change their behaviour and comply with the forthcoming pavement parking ban, they must buy into his words and accept that the needs of pavement users should be given priority over the desire to park as close as possible to their destination or at all. Bob suggests that, with the ban not due to come into effect until 2023, the Scottish Government should use the intervening period to ensure that an advertising campaign alerting motorists to the ban and highlighting the negative effects of pavement parking. The Scottish Government has restated in its submission its commitment to running such an advertising campaign, highlighting the effects of inconsiderate parking, with a campaign plan for the six months preceding the date in which local authorities can begin issuing penalty charge notices for the new events in 2023. So, quite unusually, I think that we have a petition where the objectives have actually been realised before we've had a chance to consider it. David Torrance. Thank you, convener, for considering that the Scottish Government is committed to the advertising before the ban comes into place next year. I think that we can close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Are we content to do that, colleagues? Paul Sweeney. I agree. I can hear it with closing the petition. I would just maybe, in closing the petition, advise the petitioner that the facility of contacting our local member or members of the Scottish Parliament is available to table written questions. For example, closer to the time to make, to get more detail about the nature of the advertising campaign and if there's all of the satisfaction with how it's running, that can be addressed through their local members of the Scottish Parliament. That's a very fair point, and I think that we can do that as well. Petition number 1931, which has improved the R100 roll-out by prioritising properties who currently have speeds of less than 5 mbps lodged by Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion for rural properties and their households by giving priority in the R100 programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 mbps. All legislative and regulator responsibility for telecommunications rests with the UK Government and OFCOM. The Scottish Government has, however, introduced a programme of work to improve digital connectivity in Scotland, which is what the petitioner is seeking to influence. The petitioner is aiming to give priority to properties with slower internet speeds, particularly in rural areas, and he explains that rural households should have fair access to prevent digital exclusion. The Scottish Government's initial response sets out the measures that it has taken to date and in relation to rolling out internet connectivity in rural areas. The response also highlights the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme, which was created to ensure that everyone can access a superfast broadband service. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? That is a very important petition, especially for those who are in the rurality. It would be advantageous of us to write to the Scottish Government whether to enact an assessment that has been carried out in advance of the R100 and to the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme, which you have identified being introduced to ensure that the most at risk of digital exclusion were protected by that. In drafting such an impact assessment, how it would rural properties have the slowest internet speeds. That is the crux of it all, convener, about the problems that happen in rural areas for individuals who do not have it and whether it can be taken on other measures to prioritise the boosting connectivity of rural households with the lowest internet speeds. Those are all vitally important. It is incumbent of us to ask the Scottish Government where we are with all of that because, as I say, it is an area that is causing huge concern across many rural areas. I should declare a former interest in the IWars Minister with responsibility for what is developed in respect of R100 or at least parts of it. I will suggest, as well as the recommendations that Alexander Stewart suggested, which I thoroughly concur. It might be helpful to approach the contractors at BT who have been awarded the contracts to seek more practical information from him as to how they go about the quite difficult task of how they sequence and prioritise the roll-out of the work, which is very considerable in each of the areas of the three separate contracts. It is not a straightforward matter at all. It is also regulated by contracts. In writing to the Scottish Government and if colleagues agree also to the successful contractors who understand BT, it might also be helpful specifically to ask whether the relevant contractual provisions can be shared with us. I do not see any reason why they should not be. Now that the tender process has been completed, they should be in the public domain, so it is really just to flesh out and expand upon Mr Stewart's suggestions. I am very happy to add that to our list of considerations. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis? We are. Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting this morning. We will be meeting unusually and by exception next Thursday, 12 May, when we will be meeting virtually, colleagues, to take evidence from Shoulders Hospital in Canada. I am delighted that we have managed to make contact with them and established this meeting ahead of our subsequent meeting with the minister. We will be taking evidence from them on the topic of mesh and natural tissue repairs in which they have developed a particular expertise. On that note, just before we do move into private session, colleagues may have noticed that we have been joined by a new clerk this morning. I welcome Miriam Dornan, who is with us for the first time this morning. On that note, we move into private session.