 Mae'r cyflin iawn. I'm ready? Good morning. Welcome to the 10th meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. We have a particularly busy meeting this morning as we moved to item one, which is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those petitions is Petition 1911, the review of Human Tissues Scotland Actwaith i ddwybodol Llywodraeth i Gwyrd Gwyrdraeth, a mae'n anblod lleol diwyngid i triunio i'r Lodraeth ond amser gyda Llywodraeth i �mau i gyfogriffol i'r Gwyrdraeth i Gwyrdraeth i gyfnodol lwyfridd yng nghymru fel y Cysyllt Llywodraeth i Gwyrdraeth i Gwyrdraeth i gyfhyddio i'r Llywodraeth i gyfyrdd ddiwedd fel Llywodraeth i gyd yn ddysgleteidlion beth sy'n ddyddiau pwysigol i 300 o chymdeithasol a meddwl i'r tiystiadau i'r trofodiad Gwensyddiaeth Cymru, mawr. Dwi chi'n gweithio'n ddigon nhw'n gwneud i gŷn poliol hefyd, ond yn rhan o'r ddymiadau y quwilio wedi'i dal, ond yn y gweithio, oherwydd hwn yn rhoi i'r bach, ac rwy'n gweithio'r ddymau'n dŷm nesaf lleiwyr sy'n mynd yn gweithio'r ddym, ac yn cael ei gwirio hen yn gwahanol i gëithio, Mae'r cyfleoedd gweithio yn fawr i ddechrau i Ysgolfa i England, ac mae'n gweithio'n fawr o'r fawr o'r ydych chi'n eu cyflogau ar posmortum a'r tisgynch, ar gyflogau a'r ddechrau. Rwy'n ddweud ei wneud o gweithio'r cyflogau ar posmortum, ac mae'n ddweud mae'n cael ei ddechrau o'r profiwyr yn ysgolfa gyda'r cymdeithiol, fel mae'r cyflogau ar gyflogau mae'n gwybod i'r rhai o'r rhowb, ac mae'n cymdeithasio i'r hunain addysg mwy o'r pwysig o'r postmortyn. Mae'n dweud o'r ffwrdd eich cyffredin ni'n ddechrau unrhyw o ffordd. Mae'n dweud i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r dyfodol yn gynghoriol, yn ei wneud ymddangos i ddefnyddio'r ddweud o'r ddechrau, mae'n ddechrau yn gweithio i Llyfrgell, iawn i ddim yn bwysigon ni'n ddiwedd ar hyn sydd ei hunain i ddweud gyda'u aernodol gywir Indon tu. O'r bwysigon ni'n rynnu'n gweithio'r maen nhw'n gweithio'r ddweud, ac mae'n dwy'n gwybod am chi'n dwi'n cyntaf ar y gallu'r diwylliannau. Felly, oherwydd, mae'n y gallu ddweud yna'r diwyllio'r diwethaf wedi'n dyfod yn bwysig, er mwyn o'i lefnerd, i dda i rhan interessantee unpackio ym 25 oed. A mater ei wneud, oddi dwyliadau y cydn� barristerau yn lleiwb amliech yn ei sgolio i'r sgolio. Rwy'n credu gwneud ar gael yn gyw'r cymhwynt, ac mae'r prysnigol na fydd wedi fyddai'r prysnigol iawn i gyd yn gweithio ar y prysnigol, ac mae'r prysnigol yn ei fyddai i gyd yn gweithio ar yr hwnnw, yw yw'r prysnigol i amlwg, yn fwy o gwaith i gyd â gwaith y byddai'r hyn mae'n gweithio. Rydw i'n fydig i'r ddweud yr adrodd Doritha Bain, CAC, i'r proseddings ystod, ac i'r head o'r Ffotolau Sfotolau'r Unedig, Andy Shanks. Rydw i'n fydig i'r ddweud, ac rydw i'n fydig i'r ddweud, rydw i'r ddweud y fydig i'r ddweud. Rydw i'n fydig i'r ddweud, rydw i'r ddweud, rydw i'n fydig i'r ddweud, I'm responsible for both the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. By virtue of the Scotland Act 1988, any decision on those capacities shall be taken independently of any other person. These include decisions taken on my behalf by Procate of Fiscals. Critical to the constitutional role that I fulfil is the ability on my part and those who act on my behalf to take any decision independent of any other person. One of the main reasons why sudden and unexpected deaths are investigated by the Procate of Fiscals is because that investigation may, depending on the circumstances, disclose a proper basis for criminal proceedings. However, the investigation is also important in ensuring that the medical cause of any death is accurately identified and recorded, that the bereaved family can be informed what led to the unexpected death of their loved one and to identify any lessons learned to avoid similar deaths in the future. The role, yes, is one of investigating deaths, but it is also one that involves taking steps to save other lives. I take the responsibility that I have in terms of the constitutional function that I have very seriously and I hope to fulfil that in a humane and compassionate way. Thank you very much, Lord Advocate. In the submissions that we have received previously in writing, I think that all those points are very much appreciated and understood. I suppose that, in part, what surprised the committee is that, in our investigation of practices elsewhere, there has been an evolution in the way that that function that you have just identified is fulfilled, which has proved to be, to the satisfaction of them, equally effective. That is the different areas that we would like to explore this morning. Just by way of an opening question, where there are no suspicious circumstances? Everybody understands that, where there is any suggestion of a suspicious circumstance, there is a completely different criminal procedure under way. Where there is no anticipated suspicious circumstance, is there scope for greater involvement in your view for the views of the next of kin when instructing a postmortem? While we appreciate that the instruction of a postmortem is a distressing matter for the next of kin and we will, of course, take account of their views, particularly if they are religious or cultural sensitivities, the views of the next of kin really cannot be determinative of the decision making process around this matter, because, unfortunately, sometimes close relatives are responsible for the fatality. We know that. What happens in practice is that postmortems are only instructed where it is considered essential. A postmortem is maybe required to determine the cause of death, to ensure that the circumstances surrounding the death are fully investigated and to exclude criminality, and the final decision is for the independent prosecutor as part of their role in investigating the person's death. As I have said before, the independence is expressed in the Scotland Act 1998, but it is the case that postmortems are only instructed where they are essential. I suppose that there are two questions that follow in my mind from that. How is it determined that it is essential, and by what means are the views of the relatives of the deceased taken into account? What is the process by which that assessment of their preferred wishes is established? If a postmortem is considered essential, it is in order to establish the cause of death. In certain circumstances, it is impossible to give you a complete permutations of the circumstances in which postmortems are instructed, but it is essential to establish the cause of death in order to inform whether there needs to be a criminal investigation or to assist in that criminal investigation, or, alternatively, to understand whether or not there are systematic deficiencies in healthcare in the way in which workplace operations are undertaken. It is also relevant to ascertain the cause of death in order to inform the bereaved relatives as to why an individual has died. There are a whole series of reasons, but perhaps in terms of how that is affected operationally by the Procurator Fiscal, the head of the Scottish Vitalities Investigation Unit, Mr Shanks, can explain a little further as to how that actually happens in practice, but it is the case that it is only where it is essential. At all times, the Procurator Fiscal, along with the expert advice that is received from the pathologists, takes on board the views of the next kin and speaks to them. They discuss the issues with them, they discuss the processes with them and they take on board their views. Perhaps on an operational level, you could hear directly from Mr Shanks. Yes, good morning. During the course of that process, there is contact made with bereaved relatives throughout the course of a death investigation, and where a post-mortem examination is being contemplated, their views are sought and definitely are taken into account, particularly as a lot of advocates say, where there are cultural or religious sensibilities. The primary purpose of the introduction of a postmortem is for the identification of a call. Is there a record of that engagement kept? Yes, there is. So, in each case, it would be possible to demonstrate the engagement that took place with the relative in relation to their quest they had made regarding the desirability of a postmortem. Yes indeed, in fact, there may well have been prior contact with the police if it was a police-reported death, where their views may have been made clear at that stage. And is that record open to inspection? I'm not sure about whom, convener. It's records that would be held for operational purposes by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. So, where a relative were to assert that they didn't feel there had been any engagement, there would be a record available which would be publicly able to demonstrate that, in fact, their assertion was not correct? I'm not sure if it would be publicly available, but certainly in response to any inquiry that was made by a member of the public, we would certainly aim to respond to that. The Lord Advocate there identified two situations, and I think the committee fully understands that where there is any suggestion of a suspicious death or an unknown death, that the different rules must obtain. But the Lord Advocate also suggested that there could be underlying systemic health deficiencies which post-mortem can identify. The professionals that we spoke to in England, and of course children are excluded from this because I understand that scanning isn't something that works with young children because their bodies haven't developed a point where it's appropriate. But that 94 per cent of all causes of death are established by use of scanning and a non-invasive procedure, and I know one of my colleagues will be pursuing this later. So, when you identify essential, essential seems to me to be a very general term. Well, it's not a decision that's taken lightly, convener. When a decision is made that a post-mortem examination must be carried out, then that instruction would be provided to the pathologist. Thereafter, generally speaking, it's a matter for his or her clinical judgment in terms of the nature and the extent of the examination that is necessary. I think that the committee is also aware, having had previous evidence, that there are certain circumstances where a non-invasive external post-mortem examination is possible, and that's very much driven by the individual circumstances. Perhaps there's a very detailed medical history that points towards a likely cause of death and, in consultation with the pathologist, the decision can be made that an external examination may be appropriate. But even in those instances, and I think that we had almost 800 of those external viewing grant postmortems carried out last year, but even in those circumstances, the pathologist is still at liberty applying his or her own professional judgment to decide that an external examination is not sufficient in order to fully identify the cause of death and that, therefore, a more invasive procedure would be required. Can I ask, are brains always removed during a post-mortem? I'm happy to answer that. I don't think that they're done as a matter of course or a routine. I think that, again, it's a matter for the clinical judgment of the instructive pathologist as to the nature and the extent of the examination that's required, and, again, that is dependent upon a whole manner of circumstances, convener, around the presentation of the individual and the medical records that are there. In terms of postmortems that are conducted, what would be the percentage of occasions in which brains were removed? That's not something that I'm in a position to answer, convener. I would say that those are matters that are primarily for the clinical and professional judgment of the instructive pathologist. It's not something that they would be specifically directed on by the procured fiscal. I understand that, but my understanding also is that it seems to be that it is more of a matter of routine in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that it is not the routine practice simply to remove brains in the same way that we seem to do here. I just wonder whether, in fact, we've fallen really rather behind medical practice elsewhere in the way in which we are proceeding. Perhaps I could come in there, convener, and just respond to what you're saying. Although the decision whether or not to instruct a postmortem examination is for the procured fiscal, the nature and extent of the examination required to determine the cause of death is for the pathologist. In all of this area of work, we are guided by the medical experts who perform the postmortem. The understanding that we have through our engagement is that pathologists will only retain whole organs on rare occasions when it's absolutely necessary to establish the cause of death. In such cases, there are well-established procedures for ensuring that families are immediately advised when organ retention is a possibility and the options for return of that organ are discussed with them. For Ruth Crown, we will use any tools available to us in our investigation to establish a cause of death and provide the next of kin with the answers where they seek answers where possible. Any decision on the appropriate course of action should be taken in consultation and discussion with the relevant pathologist and in accordance with the Royal College of Pathologist's guidelines. If there are differences in process and practices and an understanding of what's required in terms of an expert being able to advise the procured fiscal as to the cause of death between Scotland and England, it really is a matter that should be explored with the pathologists and it's not something that we can advance really any further with you today. Unfortunately, it is a matter for the pathologists as to what they do in order to inform us to cause of death. To whom are they accountable? Well, the pathologists are professional people who are medically qualified and who answer to their own professional body. We are the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal who investigate deaths and seek to identify the cause of death in order to inform whether or not we require a criminal investigation or we need to make further investigations in order to proceed with the facial accident inquiry. Critical to all of that decision making is what caused the death and where we require that answer. We require to instruct an expert pathologist who has responsibilities in terms of their own professional body. If there are medical advances that could be better informed pathologists operating in Scotland, then those medical advances are ones for the pathologists to advise on. Right. I'm struggling, I have to say, I am struggling here because I feel I'm wrestling with a ball of cotton wool here. The pathologists themselves would have to be the ones who decided whether there were modern operational practices, which would mean that there were alternative ways of fulfilling their function. I understand that the pathologists that are instructed to carry out these examinations Scotland are individuals from a professional body of the highest that we hold in the highest regard. We, as a Crown, are informed by these experts and we are informed as to what is required in order to establish a cause of death. If there are different practices across the profession in terms of what pathologists do, then I would assume that the professional body itself would be training, advising and giving direction to the professionals within that body. If it is the case that there is less invasive processes that can be applied at the stage of postmortem, then those are the ones that should be chosen by the pathologists. I can see the convener that those are issues that are of enormous concern to you and the committee, but you have to distinguish between the responsibility that I have as the Lord Advocate and the responsibility that lies within the professional body of pathologists to carry out these examinations. I have understood that distinction and I am grateful to you. You touched on the issue of retention and the pathologists explained that small tissue samples are taken for microscopy and diagnostic purposes and are retained as part of the medical record. They say that they could theoretically be returned to relatives, but the gain would be marginal and would need traded off against further complexities in the authorisation and consent process, which are already difficult. We took evidence from Dr Aldony and the chief coroner in England and they said that what happens with any sample that contains even a single cell is that the family are asked what they want to be done with the sample when it is finished with. The family are given a number of choices. The coroner's office will ask whether the sample could be retained by the hospital for medical research and teaching or it can be returned to the family and their undertaker. Indeed, they outlined a process to us whereby there can be a second funeral proceeding for the irreditional tissue and all this happens regularly and as a matter of course in England. Alternatively, they can elect for the sample to be disposed of by the hospital in a lawful and sensitive manner. Those are the choices. That seems to be an operational practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom, executed with no complication, no professional obstacles having been put in place, which appear to be routinely put in place by the processes that apply in Scotland. Is that any longer appropriate or could Scotland not now be seeking to operate in a much more transparent and, frankly, humane manner consistent with the practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom? I hear what you are saying and understand that there is a different practice in England and Wales and that you have taken evidence on that matter. As a Lord Advocate who is responsible for the investigation of criminal matters and sudden and unexpected deaths, I have a different role to play from the petition committee in the process of examining. It is not for me to advise on what the law should be. I implement the law. I have to do what the law provides for in Scotland. Currently, the Human Tissue Scotland Act 2006 applies to the issues that you have raised this morning. If there is to be a change in practice and if there is to be a more humane practice as you have described, that is really not a matter for me this morning to comment on, convener. I cannot really advance that matter any further. All I can do is explain what the law is currently in Scotland and what the Procate of Fiscal and the Crown Office do in relation to the implementation of our investigations and what happens when the 2006 act comes into play. What I can say is that, at the conclusion of our investigation by virtue of the Human Tissue Scotland Act 2006, any blocks and slides prepared for the purposes of histopathology, that is examination of the tissue under a microscope to detect any signs of disease, damage or other abnormalities, are considered to be part of the medical records of the deceased person. That is what the statutory provision provides. If there is to be a change in the law, it is for parliamentarians to change the law. It is not for the Lord Advocate of the Day. The decision on returning samples is for the health board. A requirement to offer tissues and samples to the nearest relatives, as a matter of course, before the end of a criminal investigation, might impact on the investigation of death. It might impair the Procate of Fiscal's ability to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the death or establish a definitive cause of death. I am not here to advance any inhumane practice. I am here to say how I operate within the existing law. I can only do that. To which minister in the Government does the responsibility fall? The responsibility for what? The issues that I have just discussed. If the law requires changing, it is for the democratically elected representatives of people to bring forward the arguments for a change in the law. As we know, whether the law is changed, we have a process of open consultation. We have a process of parliamentary committees considering proposals for change. I have been here 16 years. I get that bit. To which minister in the Government would this responsibility fall? I am not entirely sure. I do not know why you are speaking to me in the way that you are. I am here to try to assist. You know that I understand that. That is why I am asking if you can assist me by telling me which minister in the Government we should direct this, because you believe that that is where that responsibility would lie, if not with the Crown Office. I have answered the question to the best of my ability, convener. I am not here to be difficult and I am here to explain the job that I do as an independent head of the prosecution system responsible for the investigation of deaths in Scotland. I operate within the law. If there is to be a change in law, it is for parliamentarians like yourself to advance reasons for change. I fully understand the issues that the committee is dealing with. There are very sensitive issues. They deal with issues around human dignity and the needs for bereaved relatives to be supported through what is the most traumatic period of their life when they lose a loved one in unexpected circumstances. David Torrance Thank you, convener. Good morning, Lord Advocate, Mr Shanks. We have heard evidence to the committee that there is real pressures on the service due to a lack of pathology to carry out post mortins down in England. Can the Lord Advocate or Mr Shanks confirm that the same pressures are on the pathology workforce to carry out post mortins in Scotland? I think that this is an operational matter that Mr Shanks can fully explain to you. Yes, thank you, Lord Advocate, in response to that question, Mr Torrance. Certainly in our operational experience there is a variation in the level of service that we receive from various pathology providers across the country. There always is a degree of variation anyway in terms of the seasons of the year, as you might expect. When I'm talking about level of service here, I'm really talking about the period of time between the instruction of a post mortem examination and the completion of that examination. Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are essentially service recipients here. We're not the service providers. We're not in charge of the pathologists. We rely on the service providers across the country, and we're talking here about NHS, local authorities and universities who provide that service. We have a number of contracts and service level agreements in place with those organisations. They are responsible for that level of service across the country. At the same time, I think that we do recognise the need for an improved service more generally, and therefore we are in the process of reviewing those contracts and agreements in place to see if there's a way to make them more efficient and resilient across the board by reviewing the nature and the number of contracts that are in place. I don't think that it's for me to necessarily characterise the service in the way that you've suggested, Mr Torrance, but it's a variable service at the moment and there are a number of different service providers. Thank you for that, Mr Shanks. You said that you're looking to review the system. Is the model of service that we have just now sustainable? Again, I'm not sure that's a question that I can directly answer. All I can say is that we recognise the number of different service providers in the way that the contracts are at the moment. There is room for improvement and that is under review, with a view to making it more, as I say, more resilient and more effective across the board, but those are matters essentially for the service providers at the moment. I just say this that the Crown Office and Procurate Fiscal Service is the client and the recipient of the service to allow the Lord Advocate and the Procurate Fiscal Service to discharge their death investigation duties. To that end, we have a series of contracts and service-level agreements with universities, local authorities and the NHS for pathology, mortuary and toxicology services across Scotland. We don't have any role in the recruitment or training of pathologists. It's a matter for the professional body and all of what you're looking at today in terms of the way in which pathology is undertaken sits with the pathology providers. There is a distinction between what the Crown does in this matter and what the experts who carry out these postmortems do. We are the client of the service. As the client and you are procuring a service, can you not determine how that service looks and change, as we have just found, the way the workings of the ways that we are doing in England in certain areas? You are procuring a service, so surely it is up to you how that service looks and is determined how it works. That cuts across some of the issues that the Lord Advocate provided a response early on in terms of the exercise of professional judgment by the individual pathologists and the overarching role of the Royal College of Pathology. As Lord Advocate said, we can be supportive of tools and innovations that assist pathologists in the exercise of their professional duties, but that's different from being overly prescriptive about the techniques that they would deploy in particular circumstances. You said that you were looking at the service. How far down the line are you and how deep are you looking at the service to review and change it? That's not something that I'm personally involved in, but if the committee requires more information on that, it's certainly something that could be provided in writing if there are particular points around that that you would require clarification on. There are around 56,000 deaths in Scotland each year, and 12 per cent of them require a postmortem. In previous submissions to the committee, the Royal College of Pathologists stated, there are significant pressures on pathology postmortem and forensic services across Scotland with grossly inadequate facilities and staffing levels being the reality of the current provision. I should recognise our colleague Monica Lennon, who has joined us this morning. She has raised in Parliament the issues of delays and backlogs in the postmortem service. The Lord Advocate then 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 death. In at least 80 per cent of those cases. Can you confirm whether those pressures on the postmortem service exist in Scotland and what proportion of postmortems are currently reported within 12 weeks? That's not information that I've got before me at the moment, convener, but again that's something that I can provide in writing if it would be of assistance to the committee. Would you expect it to achieve the objective of 12 weeks in 80 per cent of cases, the evidence, or do you think that objective might be under challenge at the present time? That's something that I'd like to follow up in writing if that would be of convenience. That was more specific, more general. Are there pressures on the postmortem service currently in Scotland? There are variations in service, as I said before, convener. In particular parts of the country, and as I said in particular times of the year, it will impact on that period of time between the introduction of the examination and the completion of the examination. I'm not sure that it's for me to characterise that as particular pressures, but the service is certainly available in that regard. If you are able to supply us with further information just to follow up on the point that you discussed with Mr Torrance, it would be helpful if we could have some indication or information on the scope and the timescale of the review that was identified. Earlier when I was talking to the Lord Advocate, he was referring to changes in the law being the responsibility of parliamentarians and not the Crown Office that is there to apply the law, but the use of imaging doesn't require any change in the law at all. There is no provision and the law needs to be changed to achieve that. Alexander Stewart is going to pursue this area. Thank you, convener, and thank you Lord Advocate. We have already discussed and some of your questions and some of the answers have been quite vague already this morning. I acknowledge that you are giving your views as to what role and responsibility you have, but we are trying to investigate this petition and try and ease out as much information as we can to assist the petitioner. As the convener already says, when it comes to the potential role of imaging, there doesn't require to be a change in the law for that to take place. We have already had information from previous witnesses when they talked about the timesaving when it came to imaging and the achievement of, as we have already heard, 94 per cent of scans that were established because of death and 92 per cent of those postmortems were non-invasive. It is quite obvious that the use of this equipment and the use of these scans are of real benefit to individuals and it is of saving time and can give some reassurance to the profession and also to potentially the next of kin if that would be the case if things were progressing quicker for them. You have already discussed this morning the targets that you set and want to try and achieve within your service. Mr Shanks might be the best one to answer it. Acknowledging the benefits of imaging could have for both the service and for the next of kin, do you acknowledge that as a potential that you should be considering to bring forward to ensure that we have a better service for the clients and the service users and for yourselves as an individual who looks to procure that service on behalf of individuals in this case? I understand the evidence that you have heard about imaging and I understand the benefits that have been described from that process. All I can do is say this. As the Crown Office and Procate Fiscal Service investigating the cause of death, we instruct experts to undertake the examination and we are informed by the expert as to whether or not an invasive postmortem is required. If there is a process of imaging that means there is no need for an invasive postmortem, then I would expect that the pathologist of the day would advise that that is available rather than having an invasive postmortem. However, the quality of the imaging, the efficacy of the imaging and the benefits of the imaging are really for the professional body to consider and to determine whether or not they should be utilised in the process that they are undertaking. Therefore, if the Royal College of Pathologists have identified a means by which you can have less invasive postmortems and you can undertake that by imaging, one would reasonably expect, as Lord Advocate, who is instructing the investigation of a death and to understand the cause of death, that the pathologist advising the Crown on that issue would explain that this process is available and should be used. Whether or not there is a provision of imaging in Scotland to the same extent as that in England, I am not aware because it is a matter for the professional body of pathologists to advise on. I have not heard all of the evidence that you have heard on as to how the pathologists undergo their examinations in England and Wales, but one would expect that there should be a consistent approach in relation to the decision as to whether or not to conduct an invasive or non-invasive examination. I acknowledge that, but it would appear that there seem to be barriers at the moment in Scotland. That seems to be one of the areas where we do have some concern, that, as a matter of course, in other parts of the United Kingdom, facilities are available and imaging takes place. That is not happening here. The question is why. You have explained that the professional organisation has a role to play in all of that, but it is quite difficult for individuals and the petitioner to see why there seems to be that differentiate between what takes place here. It would have to be my understanding that there would be a barrier happening in Scotland that is not permitting that to then take place. Do you acknowledge that there may well be a case that there is a barrier within the service that is not providing something to the same standard in Scotland that it is in other parts of the United Kingdom? Could you explain to me what you mean by the barrier that has been the identified barrier in Scotland? It could be many things. It could be a lack of training. It could be a lack of equipment. I do not know. I am making an assumption here that there is a barrier, because from what you said this morning, I am not convinced that Scotland should not be doing this and that you have given information and evidence to suggest that it would be up to the professionals. The professionals, in my opinion, are not doing it because there is a problem. If there is a problem, it may be that a barrier is in place or that there is a log jam or something that is causing the situation to occur. That would be my interpretation of it, but it would be good to get your view if you think that that is a similar issue. It is difficult for me to answer the question that you pose when you have not identified a single barrier. I think that your questions and your anxiety over the issue and your concern, which is very obvious, should be directed to the professional body who delivers the service to the Crown, the professional body of the Royal College of Pathologists who operate in Scotland, who carry out those postmortem examinations at our request. It is simply the case that the Crown would only have instructed a postmortem and the postmortem that would be instructed would then be informed by what the pathologists are telling us needs to be done in order to identify the cause of death. If there is a less invasive process and one that is available in England and Wales, I would expect that the pathologists in Scotland should know about that and should have access to the same facilities and the same provision. If they do not have the ability to do their job in the way that they should be, they should be raising that with their professional body. They should be letting those in their professional body know, and they should be taking steps to ensure that the equipment that is required in order for them to carry out their job is available. There is only so much that the Lord Advocate can do. I cannot instruct the Royal College of Pathologists to take the steps that you have identified might be needed in order to resolve the issue that you are so concerned about. You acknowledge that that is a role that we have here to ensure that, if Parliament wants to change things and wants to make things happen, it is up to individuals such as Monica Lennon and MSP, who have put forward and supported this petition to try to bring it, and we are doing that exactly now, by having that discussion, by having this debate about the topic. We are putting the topic further up the agenda to try and ascertain what the problem might be and what the solutions should be. I see that as my role within this committee to try and tease out some of that evidence and to try and tease out some of the issues that are there, so that we can provide the best service that we can within our capability for individuals within Scotland. However, as I say, I am perplexed when there are not being the similar qualities being given to people who are south of the border. That, to me, is not right in some respects. The individuals who are in Scotland are not being provided with the same standard of information and the same standard of operation that is taking place elsewhere. As I say, that is perplexing me as a member of this committee, and I am trying to tease out the issues that will maybe try and iron out that and support people to get a better service. I understand what you said, and it is the case that the law is changed by people bringing forward problems, bringing forward injustices, identifying inhumane improper practices and bringing it to the attention of the parliamentarians, and it is for the parliamentarians to change the law. I cannot do that. If there is to be a change in service and better service, I would support that, but I cannot do that. I have a particular role to perform here in terms of my constitutional responsibility, and I can only do that. Indeed, if I were to come forward and suggest changes in policy, practice and the law, it would be quite inconsistent with the job that I have, which is to uphold the law as it is. If there is to be a change, it is for people like yourself committed to issues like those to make the change, and I do not dispute any of what you said here today. I do 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. I turn to that point. My point is that if there is to be a different process applied by the expert pathologist, that is for the expert to apply. If pathologists in Scotland do not have access to imaging of the type, that is not for me to change and it is not requiring a change in the law. It is a change in professional practice and the availability of the essential tools for that. It is not my responsibility. I understand that the thing is that it is not pathologists. It would be radiologists. It may very well be that the reason that pathologists are not interested in pursuing this is because it is not a service that they would be able to provide. That, I do think, ought to be a matter of public concern and further. Both Mr Chowdry and Mr Ewing want to go in. Is it to develop this point or to touch on a different point? Mr Chowdry, then Mr Ewing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. Sorry, I'm just confused. Of course, I don't want to repeat what my colleagues have already asked. My question to yourself would be, I get what the point you are saying that is up to us to make the policies and you won't be able to answer quite a lot of questions, but my question to yourself would be how do samples examine just now and what we are hearing and what I've read that we are not the same as what's happening in England and Wales? If not, why and who should be telling us that we are not the same and we are not doing the same job as they are doing in England and Wales? What's the procedure now and what procedures are we following? Yes, I mean, like Lord Advocate said, I mean, I can't speak to the particular practices and procedures that are taking place elsewhere in the UK, but certainly in Scotland, the conduct of the post-mortem examinations is a matter for the professional clinical judgment of the pathologist on the instruction that a post-mortem has to take place from the procreate of fiscal. So, I think I'd be repeating my earlier points if I was to go any further there. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Lord Advocate. I absolutely understand the central point that you're making, the concerns that other colleagues have expressed this morning are not matters for which you, as Lord Advocate, have legal responsibility. So, I understand that. I mean, we are here because the petitioners not only lost a child, but that horrific experience for any parent was compounded, as Monica Lennon eloquently said, on previous occasions by what happened afterwards. Therefore, my question to you is this, and it's really about the role of Lord Advocate in Scotland. After all, you are leading the system of criminal prosecutions and the investigations of death. Is there not an argument, a state of argument, that, while there are certain specific legal responsibilities that you've clearly set out and are clearly delineated, and we understand that there is perhaps a higher obligation, that if not the Lord Advocate, then who? I mean, who can deal with this? The professional bodies, it seemed to me, are patently not really going to be able to do this. Would it not be the case that some people, Lord Advocate, may see your role not so much as being that of an umpire or referee, but that of a team manager, where if something really goes wrong, then some kind of action would be expected of the Lord Advocate in order to initiate action, if not by yourself, because you lack the legal power and competence to do so, nonetheless, by urging others to do so, whether that be the Scottish Government, the Royal Colleges or otherwise, and where you, for example, follow this petition, and our job is to speak for the petitioner. That's why we are here, if nothing to do with politics at all or whatever, as the convener said. Is there not a stateable argument that some people, Lord Advocate, see your role in a much wider sense than you appear to have set out to us today? If there is merit in that, is there something that is worth reflecting upon, as to whether there's any way in which your esteemed office, your distinguished office, such an important office for the dispatch of justice in Scotland, could take action to deal with the horrendous grievance suffered by the petitioner in this case? Well, I wonder what you suggest should be done by the Lord Advocate. I wonder what you suggest should be done, because you know very well the role of the Lord Advocate in Scotland. What are you suggesting? Well, I think it's perhaps for the committee to consider this later, but my first reaction is that we could recommend that you make specific series of recommendations, as Lord Advocate, as to how the injustice suffered by these firms can be remedied. It's not a straightforward matter, I admit, but then very few things are in Government I've discovered, but nonetheless it is an important one, and just because something is difficult doesn't mean that Governments can fail to discharge their functions. So if this committee recommend a series of actions that would alleviate an injustice suffered and that comes within the responsibility of the Lord Advocate of the day, of course I'll act, and I wouldn't say anything other than that, so I'd be very interested in the recommendations made by this committee. I'm only interested in providing a humane and progressive criminal justice system that meets the needs of everybody, and yes it is often the case that I deal with difficult issues, but I think further to be some sort of underlying suggestion that I would ignore the decision of this committee or the recommendations of the committee that I wouldn't act to make better things that have gone badly is quite unfair. I am here today to give evidence to answer questions, and of course if there are recommendations made that I can do something about I will do it. Thank you very much Lord Advocate, that final remark is very helpful, and if we've seen a bit testy it's partly not just to benefit from that assurance, it's also for this committee the confusion that we have as to where best we need to pursue these points, and I think probably colleagues will consider who else we may need to see in order to try and bring that position around. We look forward to receiving the additional written information that has been received, but thank you both very much. I'll invite Monica Lennon now just to say a few words as one who's been actively engaged with us on this petition. Monica Lennon. Very grateful, convener, and to the committee and indeed to the Lord Advocate and Mr Shanks. Again, thank you for taking this petition very seriously and getting to this point today. We have heard a lot of evidence over many months now, and as you said, convener, to start real issues of substance. The session that we had most recently with the coroner and the pathology team and radiology team was really important, and I think it helped to set out in our minds that there is different practice that is emerging, that has been in place now for a few years, that does continue to provide an effective and accurate service and system, but with families and people at the heart of that. So very heartened to hear from the Lord Advocate her commitment to humane and progressive practice, and I think we all want to hear what recommendations come from this committee, because you're right, convener, operationally in terms of policy and practice. There are changes that could be made. I think there is a bit of corralling people to get that dialogue and that direction. Lord Advocate is correct that the role of the royal colleges is very important, but the royal colleges of pathologists are one stakeholder and one partner in this, and they might want to protect certain things the way things are done right now, but we heard it really the reason for the change in Lancashire, which is about 150 miles from where the Stark family lives in Lancashire in my region, is because of that shortage of pathologists and those electing to become pathologists but not wanting to do postmortems because there's other important work that they do. We've heard about the opportunities to speed things up, to alleviate workforce pressures and what's happened in England because we do need to get the correct equipment for this, but that's proven to be cost-neutral, which is very important for those of us who yes, are parliamentarians thinking about the law but also thinking about public finance. I really do appreciate the fact that the committee has been able to hear directly from the Lord Advocate today, but this is an issue that really needs to go to the top of the agenda, and I'm sure that ministers in health and justice will be very interested if we haven't heard from them. I know that Mrs Stark has been busy engaging with MSPs and has a number of meetings since we last met, so I'm quite encouraged that colleagues from across the Parliament, irrespective of what party politics can understand the very human issues at the heart of this. No one's looking for shortcuts or to undermine the very important role that the Lord Advocate has set out in terms of the duties that she and her team have to undertake, but I would again just thank the committee for your time. I think that it is important that we bear in mind what can change now and with very little resource and where we might need to have that change in the law, particularly around some of those issues about tissue samples and retention. As you know, the petitioners take out a number of proposals and you're looking at that very carefully, but what's encouraging to me is not just practice emerging in other parts of the United Kingdom, it's also what's happening internationally, and I think that the committee is aware of practice that's emerged in Japan, also in Australia, where there's now a faculty of post-mortem imaging, so it seems to me that to have that humane and progressive system that we all want to have, then we maybe need to be a bit more proactive in making sure that we keep pace and I'm sure that there's things that we're doing in Scotland that are cutting-edge and innovative and people can learn from us, but we need to look outwards and I thank the committee for your efforts to do that. Thank you very much Monica Lennon. I thank the forbearance of the petitioner who we remember is with us in the gallery this morning. It was the loss of her son which led to this petition being discussed before Parliament and we thank her again for that. Lord Advocate and Mr Shanks, thank you both very much. That's actually been very helpful to us and we look forward to receiving the further information. I'm very grateful for your time this morning. Thank you very much. I'll now have a short suspension before our next inquiry. Welcome back to our 10th meeting of the Citizens Engagement and Public Participation Committee this morning. Our next petition under item 1 continuing petitions is petition number 1992 to dual the A9 and improve road safety. I'm delighted to say that we are joined by the petitioner herself, Laura Hansler, who joins us this morning. Welcome to the committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling work by 2025 and creating a memorial to those who've lost their lives in a road traffic incident on the A9. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are joined by the petitioner Laura Hansler and also by Graham Barn from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland. I'm very warm welcome to you as well, Mr Barn. We are also joined this morning by a number of MSP colleagues who are here already or will be joining us. First we have Edward Mountain, who joins us as a reporter for the net zero energy and transport committee in this petition. Mr Mountain will be assisting us in our consideration of the petition, including during today's evidence sessions. Welcome to you, Edward. Nice to have you with us. We also have with us a myrdo Fraser. We have Kate Forbes, who I understand may be following proceedings online at present but will be joining in the proceedings later on. We also have Mark Ruskell MSP joining us as well. We have apologies from Jamie Halcro Johnston, who had hoped to join us. All of them will have an opportunity to contribute at the end of the second evidence panel. In addition to that, we've received written submission from Rhoda Grant, who is unable to join us this morning due to other committee business. A positive galaxy of parliamentary investigative talent will be brought to bear as we pursue the inquiry. After, of course, we've heard from our two witnesses, we'll be suspending for a brief time and then hearing from Transport Scotland. I understand in the first instance that the petitioner would like to make a short statement and I'm very happy to invite you so to do. Thank you very much, convener. First of all, I want to thank you for allowing me to bring this petition to you. I first became involved with this campaign as a direct result of listening to families, first-hand accounts of losing their loved ones as a consequence to RTCs on the A9. The history to dual the A9 dates back to the 1970s when the initial old road was re-routed from our small highland villages bypassing them, such was the dramatic rise in traffic and a need for improved road safety, a direct comparison that we can note today. However, why dualing by virtue removes the proclivity for a head-on collision to almost 100 per cent where there is a fixed central reservation in place? Head-on collisions are normally the most horrific accidents involving multiple vehicles and producing the most fatalities. In 2022, 12 out of 13 fatalities were a direct result of multiple vehicles at RTCs on single-carriage resections. Only one fatality was on a dualed section and involved no other vehicle. In just three months, nine innocent people lost their lives on the A9 within a distance of 28 miles, all on single-carriage resections. Five of those within metres of each other, it's locked within a matter of weeks and these included two grandparents and their two-year-old grandson. However, it is in most recent times specifically the SNP's 2007 manifesto that dualing becomes more pressing. The Scottish Government then outlined ambition plans to dual the A9 in 2009 with a £3 billion project. In 2011, this became a pledge of the utmost priority to complete the dualing and the totality per to Inverness by 2025. Such was the exponential rates of deaths by RTC on the A9 then. Today, we have no clear indications as to when the nine out of the 11 initial sections might even be dualed. Only 11 miles out of a promised 80 are dualed to date. With no clear guidance from the recent briefings and chambers from the then transport minister, Jenny Gilruth, who insisted that she would make a revised timetable after consultations with Transport Scotland, this was to be available by October 2023. To date, we have been given no clear indications after numerous changes within the Government as to when or indeed whom we will make a concerted effort to refocus on the dualing of the A9. Many of us fully expect this to include a retraction of plans partially or in full of any more dualing of the remaining sections. As has been discussed in the media by myself and civil engineers each section, it takes at least one year for procurement and two years of constructions. Now bearing in mind that we have nine sections yet to dualed, it is pretty simple maths. 27 years on to 2023 brings us to 2050, which is an utterly shambolic state of affairs. But these figures are conservative. So far no two sections have been dual consecutively nor sequentially. There have been so far very significant delays between sections. This is an unattainable situation, with no real explanation or forthcoming apology either from the Transport Minister or the Scottish Government. However, there have been various pockets of moneys, but I do see that these are just an elastoplast on an already hemorrhaging wound. Where has the £3 billion budget gone? Where has our money gone? Collette Stevenson's SNP MSP clearly stated within chambers in a response to a motion read by Graeme Stimson on February 22 that a significant portion of that money had actually been sifoned off to the beleaguered Edinburgh trams project. Furthermore, in figures obtained by ourselves under the freedom of information, an accident in 2017 would cost £2,158,284 per fatality. If we calculate the current fatalities from 2011 till the end of 2022 at 59, it brings us to a horrific figure of 127,338,756 pounds. Please remember, this is an underestimate of figures. We should never put a cost on anyone's life. However, this appears exactly what the Scottish Government is doing, because innocent people are playing with their lives day in and day out on A9. A9 is a long, laborious drive that brings throughout the year very changeable and exceptional variable weather conditions. The ambiguity of dual to single carriageway, poor signage, unlit junctions, lack of adequate white lines, cat's eyes that no longer reflect, snow poles or no snow poles. Every few hundred yards you swap between a newly resurfaced section of road that therefore is completely up to date with safety legislation, straight back on to a section so poorly maintained that compounds the ambivalence of the A9, given the A9, the infamous title of Scotland's killer road. The A9 is a men arterial road throughout Scotland, often referred to as Scotland's spine, and yet it appears to be getting treated like a country backroad, when nearly 33,500 vehicles use it each and every day. From local commuting, HGVs bring in essential supplies, and our emergency services keep in our rural community safe. It is a direct link to our islands, Skye, Lewis and Harris, Orkney and beyond. Inverness now is one of the fastest-growing cities in Europe, and we have a great deal of investment going into the Freeport and Invergordon. It is, of course, an essential tourist route and bringing much-needed revenue to the islands and islands. Monies were plowed into the NC500, but how utterly ironic is it that we have no safe road with which to get them there? I have requested for an investigation into the procurement procedure. Why are major roads projects within Scotland so highly unattractive to the constructing industry? Many answers lay directly with the Scottish Government who, unlike our English counterparts, find it acceptable for the risk of burden to 100 per cent of the construction industry? Each tender bid costs a company in excess of £500,000 to lodge, making major roads projects within Scotland highly risky and unalucrative proposition. Recently and in the news and numerous times has been the failure to secure the contract in the tomato mower section, with only one contractor submitting a bid. That bid was subsequently rejected in the grounds that it failed to deliver value for money. This section is currently up for re-tendering, with absolutely no guarantees that will attract further interest. It is only within the last two weeks that the A9 has claimed yet another instant life, this time of an 18-year-old man on this very section of the A9 at the tomato mower at Dalmagari Quarry. One cannot help but think that, had Transport Minister and Transport Scotland gone with their jobs and maybe, yet again, we would not be in this situation. A family would not be buried in their son and a community would not be without its loved ones. We have asked under a freedom of information without success to obtain the statistics for a life-changing injury and disabilities as a direct result of RTC on the A9. Short-term, there is the loss of earnings, longer-term, the loss of your career and the subsequent pressure to secure suitable benefit support. The loss of the home through lack of earnings or a house that subsequently becomes unsuitable and unsafe with those for life-changing injuries. Within our emergency services, there is a sharp rise of noted PTSD as a direct result of attending accidents on the A9 being seen throughout our mental health services, and for the loved ones left behind unable to process this unfathomable burden of grief there has been suicide. We simply cannot allow this wholly unacceptable state of affairs to continue. Yes, it is a betrayal of the Highlands, but mostly it is a complete and utter disregard and disrespect to those who have lost their lives and the loved ones left behind. A total of 335 people have now lost their lives in 252 collisions on the Perth to Inverness section of the A9 since 1979, when the old road was bypassed. Those people are not statistics that I will allow to be hidden in a drawer to make these situations more palatable, and that is why I am calling for a national memorial. Not only should every name be etched in the memory of every minister ever involved with dealing with the A9, it is, by a small measure, a means of an apology to our families and our communities. Unfortunately, it is a very sad indictment. I sit here with a very heavy heart today, at the beginning of our summer holidays, knowing that many more lives are going to be lost in the A9 over the coming months, innocent lives going about their daily business. I will ask an introductory question, and then I will invite colleagues to come in. I know that we may come back to touch on the memorial, which you referred to at the end there, but how has this impacted personally on you, the delay that has taken place? What is your view of the kind of interaction that Transport Scotland has had with communities and the way that has evolved during the process? Obviously, where I particularly live, I was one of the first sections to be jailed. I do not actually even use the jail section. I can go back to the initial road shows that were done back in 2009, and they were very promising, very interactive, etc. Since then, I think that there has been a lack of direct communication with communities. A lot of people do not know what is happening. Certainly when there are accidents in the A9 now, you know between the Easter school summer holidays and the October school holidays. You try to avoid it as much as you can, but certainly in our small villages you can no longer avoid the A9. It is part of your daily commute, and people do not want to use it unless they really have to in peak seasons. Mr Barnett, good morning and welcome to you. I have just an introductory question to you. 1993 was, we had George Bush Senior, we had Boris Yeltsin, we had John Major. Jurassic Park was the top movie that year. Your submission yesterday rather suggests that dinosaurs still rule the earth and transport Scotland when it comes to the way in which contracts are awarded. That seems to be a central point of the case that you are making, that the process that is in place is one that is not going to encourage interest. Thank you very much, convener, for that. There are two strands to what my submission was around. It was around how do we dual the A9 and what kind of timescales that could possibly be and what the options are. Secondly, there are a couple of hurdles that we have to overcome, and one being the bespoke standard contract that transport Scotland uses, which is highly unattractive to the contracting industry. The reason for that is that— I took it clear to the reference in 1993. That is when the rest of the country moved away from using that form of contract. That is the date when a new contract came in, the NEC, the new engineering contract. That is when it was introduced, and over that period of time it has become the industry standard from there on in. The standard transport Scotland contract is unattractive to contractors because all the financial risk lies with the contractor. All those risks are things such as, but not only those, ground conditions, weather, utilities and third party consultations, which can all take up time. When you are on a fixed-priced contract where there are time penalties at the end of it, then that risk is all lying with the contractor. It is our contention that, if you can use these other contracts, they are much fairer, and there is a more equitable share of risk between client and contractor. What you then find is that you have a better working relationship between client and contractor on those projects. You must bear in mind that, almost every major road project in recent years, the principal contractors have all lost money—significant sums of money. So, they are not too keen to continue with that process. The way to allow contractors to come back into the game again is to change the contract to one that is more fairer and more attractive to the contracting industry. Colleagues, do you have an indication of whom I am Mr Ewing? Yes. Thank you very much to the petitioner convener for setting out so comprehensively the sad series of unacceptable facts on this issue. I am not going to repeat what petitioner said, but I think that she has done a service for the people of the Highlands. I wanted to focus on how we move forward and get dualling done as swiftly as possible. I wanted to ask Mr Barn two areas and two aspects. First, the re-tendering of Tomat and Moy, and secondly, what he as the representative of, I think, 80 per cent of the civil engineering sector in Scotland, which is the vast majority of businesses that are involved in doing the work, what you think should be the solution, what needs to change. So, if you just take Tomat and Moy first, there was only one bidder, and that bid was rejected because it was not said to offer value for money. That appears to mean that the offer was too high. Is that your understanding? Given that that contract is being re-tendered and Transport Scotland on a very late submission to us submitted this morning, I think, or maybe late yesterday, they have said that they have had engagement with yourself, Mr Barn, and others in the industry about changing the risk profile in Tomat and Moy. Have they done that? Is there a risk that when the contract to Tomat and Moy is re-tendered, which is supposed to be done by the end of this year, that we might end up with an even higher price than the one that was rejected because it was deemed to be too high? Thanks, Mr Ewing, for that question. The situation with Tomat and Moy is that you are absolutely correct. There was only one bidder for that, and that bid was rejected on price, I believe. I am not sure what the final price, the bid price was, because that's commercial, so I don't know what that was. There was only one bidder, so there was no competition for that particular section. Transport Scotland has had consultation with us, and we have been working with them on how we can make those sections and an overall project for Scotland more attractive. The issue that we still have is that they are just trying to move their existing contract and tweak the existing contract by changing the risk profile of the existing contract that they have rather than moving to the industry standard contract. That's where we are with it, and it remains to be seen just how many contractors will come in and bid for the Tomat and Moy section when it comes back out to tender again. We haven't seen the tender document yet, so I don't know what the contract might look like at this stage. There may be a competition that may be attractive to bring one or two more into it, I can't say for it, absolutely certain. What I'm fairly certain about though is that the price will probably have gone up. We have gone six months and construction inflation is running between 10% and 15%. It is likely that it will be more expensive than probably what was bid the first time round. So it could be even higher than the price, which was deemed to be too high? It could be, yes. The profit margin in these contracts is 2% as that standard? A standard profit margin for civil engineering contractors across all work that we do, so it doesn't take much to go wrong with a job for it to go seriously wrong, and especially on a job where all the risk lies with the contractor, and that's what makes them unattractive. I think the figure that was provided in the tender for Tomat and Moy is the estimated value of the contract was from memory £115 million. Can you explain from your industry knowledge whether that represents a very detailed estimate after ground investigations have been done? How robust is that figure as an accurate indication or estimate of the likely cost of the project? I'm not sure just how up-to-date that pricing was, and that perhaps is a question for the college and transport Scotland behind here to answer that question. It doesn't seem to me from what I've heard within the industry that it was a very accurate cost thing that had been done. Whether that's been... it's not accurate because it's a good few years out of date, I don't know, but that's the feedback that I've had from within the industry it wasn't very accurate pricing in the first place. Is that the point I'm making is that it's perhaps wrong to postulate that £150 million actually was really a proper estimate at all. It was more or less a sort of stab in the dark. So we don't actually know if that figure was a valid basis as considering as a yardstick of value. Is that a fair comment? There is recent history where transport Scotland have actually awarded with just one bidder anyway, so they awarded the Hoddigan roundabout job with just one bidder. There's a precedent there. Can I just ask about the way in which the transport Scotland conducts the tender process? My understanding is that once the process gets going, they cease contact with the tendering companies. Therefore, if, for example, as I discovered in the course of the timescale of that tender, I discovered that some supply companies in the quarrying sector had not been approached for estimates, then that would... I found information which indicated to me that it was unlikely that a particular company was going to submit a bid because it hadn't bothered to get estimates from the company from whom it normally gets estimates. Transport Scotland, as I understand it, and tell me if this is correct, don't actually engage with the various contractors that are on the approved list of bid. Therefore, perhaps they weren't really aware until far later than they might have done had they pursued a more collaborative approach that they might end up with only one bidder. Clients have to be mindful of procurement law and seem to be fair to all tenderers in that, but most clients have some sort of local knowledge and to find out what's actually going on around their particular project. It is surprising that they weren't aware that there was only truly one bidder in for this particular project. If I might move on to the second area, which was Mr Barn's view about how this can best be sorted. I will invite Mr Fraser to address the committee later, but he has got a supplementary like to ask on the Tamat and Tamoy particular issue. Thank you, convener. I'm particularly obliged for you letting me in not being a member of this committee at this stage, but there's one particular point I'd like to put to Mr Barn on this point. The petitioner made, I thought, a very powerful comment earlier about the Tamat and Tamoy section and the tragic death of that young man from Murray who lost his life at Dalmagari I think just two weeks ago. We can only speculate what might have happened had progress been made on dualling that section instead of it being a single carriageway. I just noticed that there'd been a Government-initiated question lodged on Monday afternoon in the name of Jim Fairlie asking the Scottish Government when the new procurement for dualling of the A9 between Tamat and Tamoy will commence. Now, I should know, convener, a Government-initiated question is when the Government wants to make an announcement to Parliament and they ask a back venture to lodge a question that enables that to be done. Curiously, this question was not answered on Monday and has now been withdrawn. We suggest that there may be an announcement imminent, but for some reason was not ready to be made, so there's a very curious issue perhaps we can explore further with Transport Scotland when they appear at the committee, but I just wanted to ask Mr Barn as he's here if he's aware of any moves by Government then to advance the bidding process on this particular section given something appears to be happening in the back route. No, all I'm aware of is that we're working to the timetable that was announced by the minister, which was there would be an award in autumn of this year, the back end of this year. That does mean that the procurement process by which we go through is normally a year, it's going to have to be shortened, but Transport Scotland advised me that that was doable still within the timeframe, so that's the only information I have, sorry. I just want to follow up to that. If the intention was to award the contract by the end of this year, what is the reasonable last date at which a contract can be put out to bid? Well, it depends on what information they're asking back from the contractor, but six months is going to be pushing it. We'll be tight for it just now. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I did know 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, so perhaps we can all live in hope and I'll return to Mr Ewing. Thank you, convener. In the statement that you've provided to this committee, which is extremely helpful and succinct, you've set out the ways in which you, as the voice of industry, believe that procurement can be changed in order to achieve the objective of which the petitioner has set out, namely the swiftest possible completion of the A9 project of which the First Minister yesterday, I believe, said the commitment is cast iron, I think that was the phrase he used. So that's welcome, but how do we get that done? Because the petitioner has already said that current rate of progress, we wouldn't see the job done until 2050, which I'll be pushing up the daisies, I think by then. But seriously, the issue I think before us is how can we make the necessary changes in order to get the job done as swiftly as possible? I think there are two or three options and I wonder if it might be helpful, convener, if Mr Barn can set those out in his own words for us today. I've given some examples of ways through procurement that it can be done, and these are only some examples. There are other multiple ways in which you can do it, but if we start in no particular order, I favour none of these particular areas because they'll have pros and cons to them, but if you're looking to get it done the quickest way, then it would be done in two or three sections, all done at one time. That would be the quickest way of getting it done. It would be absolutely terrible to drive between Perth and Inverness. Inverness might be cut off for a while while they're doing it, but that would be the quickest way of doing it. How you fund that, that would be the other challenge around this, because that could be £34 billion worth of work to be done to dual the remaining sections. The other option would be a PFI approach to that and that is for the Governance to decide how they wish to fund it. All of those measures depend on the funding that's available to do it. If you want to do all in one go, you have to use a whole pile of your capital budget to be able to do it or you do it through the public sector with a PFI. There are some concerns. I think that the PFI approach from a contractors perspective, a UK contractors perspective. If you use the same contract, they're unlikely to be interested in that at all and you may then have to go to a European contractor who would come in. You then have the problem with a European contractor not having a supply chain, so they would have to use the existing Scottish supply chain for that. There are a number of issues around PFI why the UK contractors are not interested in it. It's because they get a double whammy if they're using the old contract where they get penalised by the client for being late, because of risk causing a project to be late, but they also get penalised by the finance company for being late as well, because they're not getting interest from the client because the client is not ready to pay because the road is not ready. On the Aberdeen Western peripheral, the amount of charges that the contractor was paying was £100,000 per day for it, so you can understand why contractors are not particularly interested in proceeding with those types of risks based on the contract that was used at that time. Moving forward to other options, you could have a framework idea where you have a framework that could be a 10-year framework where you put all the contractors, the bid to get into the framework, and then you allocate work to those contractors to do the sections as and when you have the money to do them. Of course, money for a contractor going to a framework could be £400,000 to £500,000 to get on that type of framework to bid for it, so they will spend that money if they're actually thinking that there's a real possibility of work coming through that framework for us. Again, there has to be cast iron guarantees that there is the funding available to actually complete the dualling for it, or else contractors will go, there's work elsewhere. Why would we spend that money without a guarantee of some sort of work coming through the framework? The other option is, again, which will take the longest time to do this, but you could probably fund it the easiest way this way as you break down these sections into even smaller areas, smaller sections, and you just do it as and when you can afford to pay for it. It will take longer. It will support the indigenous Scottish contracting industry. You would retain a road-building capability within Scotland, but it would take a very long period of time for the road to be dualled in that way. Those are just some of the possibilities that you could do. A framework contractor involved five or six or several companies, perhaps most in Scotland, sharing work involved in completing the A9. It would be possible to put, for example, the section of the A96 from Smithton to Aldern, which is also a Government commitment that is not affected by the Bute House agreement into that. That might have the benefit, Mr Barn, of limiting the disruption or spreading it out across the road network rather than risking the closure of the A9 to Inverness, which is not an attractive prospect to many of my constituents, I suspect. That would be possible. You could be put into the framework contract. That is all possible. How you bundle that all together is really down to the client, essentially. From the point of view of the companies in the framework contract, they would have guaranteed work for that period of 10 years. They would then be able more easily to recruit and retain staff, have a long-term relationship with suppliers, perhaps getting more keen prices for quarrying and other material, and they would have a guaranteed order book. It would instill confidence and retain employment in Scotland at a time when I understand that in the UK there are many other opportunities for civil engineers to do work down south, for example. Yes, absolutely correct. All the benefits would accrue. I appreciate your time, convener. I've just got one further question like to ask. There are a cube behind you, Mr Ewing, but please. Well, I'm sure that they'll wait with due patience, but there was just... I'm sure they will. Yeah, well, they haven't really got much choice, have they? But see, so there's just one further question I wanted to ask, which is this, that there are, as the petitioner rightly said, nine sections out of the 11 which haven't been done. Only one of those hasn't had a design sorted out, that's the done, killed section essentially. Three have had ministerial approval, but four have gone to what's called made orders. Now, that means they've gone through the legal process. Two of those four, the legal process was completed well over a year ago, I think coming up for two years ago. I mean, am I right in saying that actually there was absolutely nothing, apart from an unwillingness to devote sufficient funding, there was nothing to have prevented the Scottish Government from progressing those four sections immediately after completion of the made orders had there been a necessary will to implement the promise to dual the A9. Is that an oversimplification or is that a fair comment given your knowledge of the practicalities about how these things work? The made order means you've sorted out compulsory purchase, you've sorted out ancillary roads orders, you've gone through the process of consultation, you've got your design route, everything has been sorted out and it's ready to go, it's ready to roll, shuffle ready is the phrase. Is that basically a correct explanation or is it oversimplified? That would be a fair view, in my opinion. Mr Torrance, then Mr Mountain, then Mr Stewart, David Torrance. Thank you, convener. Just to be on record, somebody who knows A9 well has been in my fair for the last 25 years. This figure shall probably testify, he's seen me there. Your first option here, which was the quickest way to do it, to break it down into three sections, how much would that disrupt the tourist industry and cut it off for a long, long time in the area? It would be a disruptive way to do the road, absolutely would be. You've got three sections there, so trying to manage three traffic management systems across a huge length of the A9 would be very difficult for everyone, to be honest with you, yes. You've got on record these communities around here, like Avymor, places like that, and a lot of your holiday towns would be absolutely devastating, wouldn't it? It would be for a period of time, and it could be four or five years, perhaps longer in terms of construction. We've got the other thing around. I know what to do with contracts and how difficult is it to get the workforce there and get accommodation. I know this just from people who stay in the area at Iman. Winter rates are cheap in the summer, they rely on the tourists, and those workers were moved off the A9 in a way, and they had found it very difficult to get accommodation. They were having to travel, so it was not an attractive prospect for anybody who's employed in that industry, having to travel huge distances to get to these sections. Civil engineering work involves a great deal of overnight travel and all the rest of it, so those who work in that industry are familiar with having to work away from home. You're absolutely correct that one of the real challenges in the north of Scotland is accommodation for the workforce, and it's not just the A9 that we're talking about here, there's a huge amount of work in renewables in the civil engineering section over the next decade, and getting the workforce is going to be key to that. One of the issues of using indigenous Scottish contractors is that they have that workforce. They are local, in some cases they stay local, so that would be the attraction for using contractors that are indigenous to Scotland or the UK. Having European contractors coming in, that would be a significant problem for them, is that they don't have a workforce and they would have to find one from somewhere. Mr Mountain. Thank you, convener. Before I say anything else, I should remind members of my declaration of interest on the register in the sense that I have a tourist business relating to a fishery where people have to travel up the A9, and I travel up the A9 at least twice a week, probably more likely four or five times a week, so I do have an interest in it. I just say that, and I want to question you, Graham, if I may, about the procedure. I mean, we saw the Aberdeen Peripheral Road go out to a joint venture agreement, and the King Craig to Dalradi section go out to a joint venture agreement. Interesting, King Craig to Dalradi was always said it was opened on time with loads of nonsense. It was opened on the right day and then closed the day after to be resorted out, because it hadn't been done. Do you think that joint ventures where the Government pays the joint venture all the money and then allows them to decide which sub-e gets paid or doesn't get paid is the right way to do it? Joint ventures are a fairly standard approach where contractors will share risk and financial risk on larger projects, not wishing to do them all themselves. How you can ensure that the, and I do believe that Transport Scotland do this anyway, is that they put clauses and contracts to make sure that the principal contractors do pay their subcontractor chain in a timely manner. I represent companies across all parts of the supply chain, some who are perhaps first tier, second tier and even third tier contractors. I think that the key to a client using that and making it work properly is actually monitoring it and having proper KPIs around payment down supply chain, just to make sure that it's done. You also have other mechanisms by which you can have making sure that money goes down and that it's not at risk with the contractors. Sir, but if the cost overruns happen and they are part of life and are on a fixed-term contract with an agreed sum, somebody is going to have to bear the loss somewhere, so it will be up to the joint venture to decide which subcontractor gets saddled with that loss. Is that not the inevitable outcome? No, because if you take the Aberdeen Western peripheral, you have three contractors there, all who shared the loss in that, so they took huge losses on that. If I'm a subcontractor to one of these joint ventures and I'm tendering and I'm taking all the risk and there's a chance on history's historical events that there's going to be a loss on it, would I not want to make sure my price is so high that it makes sure that I don't actually get a loss? I think how people pull together pricing on a job, they will go out to, if there's just one contractor, one principal contractor on the tomato mine, they will go out to a subcontractor with packages, but they will go out and they will try and find the most competitive package, so they will go out to tender essentially. So you then have your tier twos who are tendering to the tier ones, so risk is shared along the way and yes there's risk involved if a project goes wrong. From my experience as a surveyor, if you put the risk on somebody, they inflate the price to make sure that the risk to their company is such that they will be able to survive at the end of it, so surely it's not the best way of getting the best price, if the risk is shared not only between the person who is carrying out the work but also the person commissioning the work because the person commissioning work must know that industry must need to survive, surely that's a more equitable system which will encourage people then to take part in the tendering process. Absolutely. That's not what we have, is it? No. Thank you, convener. It's just to yourself, Mr Torrance, with direct regard to tourism and the hold-up, if we start dualling roads sequentially. When the E9 gets closed for the accident investigators to go out, it's quite often shut for 24 hours. Recently, when it was shut, the divert traffic and it was a 70-mile diversion, this is across the Daba Moor, which is completely, it's mostly single track road, completely inappropriate for the HGVs, which we're having to use. It also puts the HGV drivers against their tackle. It was taking them miles out of their way. Also, if there's an accident on that road, we're completely stuck because it is such a remote and barren road as well. By the time the E9 is shut to divert round, it's surely, as far as tourism is concerned, better to get that somebody there safely and slowly than have roads shut for 24 hours or diversions that take another three to four hours and completely inappropriate roads for tourists. Mr Torrance, is that the one too? Now, as somebody who's been caught several times, especially going to the Harley-Davidson Rally with Diversion Zero and, let's just say, waiting for six hours, I don't think some of the communities people would not travel if they had to wait at length of time for directions, especially to places like Avie Moor and the ski industry and things like that, where there's other alternatives, ski resorts in the area of the E9. So I think a long delay. It's been closed because of an accident and the delay then. I said earlier that I promise we would come to one aspect of the petition, which is the National Memorial, and Alexander Stewart, I think, wants to raise questions on that. Thank you very much indeed, convener. Yes, in part of the petition you brought forward, the memorial is one of your wish, one of your wants, but it would appear that Transport Scotland have dismissed that because they believe that there could be road safety fears with reference to that memorial. As I say, I commend you for bringing forward that proposal within your petition, but what is your view and how do you respond to Transport Scotland who have, as I say, in the reading that I've looked at and the papers they've provided are quite dismissive of that proposal? First of all, it's not my wish. You know, this has come from the communities and the people that we've interacted and communicated with. I think I need to make it quite clear. We don't mean a small roadside memorial that sided the road. We mean a specific memorial, and it would need to be specific either to Highland Persia or to Invernesia, or somewhere in the midground, and it would very much be off the road. It would be a very specific memorial garden. We're not talking half a dozen names here, after all. We're talking over 330 odd names, so it is a substantial way. I also see that as a way and a means to an apology and an acceptance of what has happened to these families. I do think that it would be an apology to the communities as to what has gone on. And as I say, I commend you for that, because I do think that something of that size and something of that stature is required if you wish to ensure that these individuals are remembered in the correct manner. And I would certainly commend you for that. But as you've indicated, you've got some ideas as to where that might take place, or what kind of discussion have you had with the communities or with areas that may well wish to have that memorial within their location? It's something that we need to fully explore. Before that kind of thing had happened, different communities are going to have to speak to families and stuff like that, so it's very much a kind of foundling interest that was brought to us that we really should acknowledge that this has went on within the Highlands. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just before we draw this part of our evidence taking to a conclusion, I wonder if there's anything finally either of our witnesses feel we might want to contribute on which we've not just touched yet. Can I ask one question, which just intrigues me? I have colleagues here who are immersed in the realities of the A9 on which I am a summertime traveller. Who first said in the context of this project, who first said 2025, who advised them to say 2025, and was 2025 ever realistic? I can't answer the question as to who advised the person to say it. It was obviously a minister, I would imagine, at that time who would have said that. I think it was realistic at that time, but it needed commitment to do it straight from the beginning and real commitment over time to do it, and I think that's what we've not had here. Thank you. I know that Mr Ewing would just like to come in briefly. I just want to ask one final question of the Laura Hansler, which is that I know that Petitioner has not only come here today but has been extensively involved in taking this forward in other ways in the media and directly lobbying. I believe that she may have reached out across the political spectrum in order to try to garner support, and I think that's always a good thing where there's a cross-party support, as I hope there is there. I just wanted to ask if the petitioner has done this and what response she has received from the various parties that she's approached. I spoke to every party within Parliament and I must assume that I've had a lot of support. I can only say that there's one party that has not supported me, that I really stonewalled it, to be honest, and I was exceptionally disappointed with her comments. I've been disappointed with her comments in chamber regarding Jelone A9, and they're really quite concerned in some of the comments that I've heard, the Greens. On which note, I will thank both of them. This is very much for their evidence this morning. Thank you both for your contribution and just have a short suspension while we change witnesses. I'll come back again to our second session in relation to petition number 1992. We're joined now by representatives from Transport Scotland. I'm delighted to see that we have Laurence Shackman, Robert Galbraith and Morag Mackay. They, of course, I think have been avidly following our proceedings this morning. I've noticed them faithfully sitting through all our deliberations on other petitions, as well as the one before us just now. I think it would be helpful if we moved to questions. Of course, if there's anything you'd like to make by way, is there any opening statement you want to make or are you content to move to questions? No, just to say that we all have the utmost sympathy for those involved in accidents on the A9. I know it's been used several times before, but one life lost is certainly one too many. There's nothing good to be said about having accidents on the A9, so we truly recognise that. Thank you for that. That may play to the discussion that we want to have about the National Memorial and perhaps some misunderstanding on all parties about where such a thing might be cited or the desirability of it. We can come to that. Colleagues, I know, are very interested in this. I'll start where I finished in the last petition, because I'm just, if I can be the daft laddie in all of this in relation to the petition. Did Transport Scotland ever advise the Scottish Government Minister that the A9 could be completed by 2025? If not, did they warn the Scottish Minister who gave this assurance to the public some years ago, particularly to all those who regularly use the road, that this was not a target that could be fulfilled by Transport Scotland? In answer to your question, that happened a long time ago and I don't know what advice the Minister of the Day was given. What I can say is that it was an aspiration to jewel it by 2025, quite a big achievement to achieve it by 2025. I know Graham Barn thought that it was achievable and I think with a fair wind, perhaps it could have been, but there have been many events along the way which have prevented that happening. Obviously, it was referred to by Ms Gilruth when she was Transport Minister in her statement on 8 February this year. Were ministers adhering to this date of 2025 sort of a wish and a prayer? Or did they continue to believe that this was achievable? Well, it got to a stage leading up to that statement in 2022 where it became abundantly clear that 2025 was not achievable even allowing for, and as members of the committee have heard today, even allowing for building every section of the A9 concurrently, it would have been impossible to achieve 2025. Obviously given that each section would take maybe three years depending on which size of section you were looking at. During 2022 it was very much apparent and towards the end hands up and obviously with the tomato and tamoy issue, it was clear that ministers needed to make a statement to say that 2025 was not achievable. Okay, but maybe I could also add that over the period 2020 to 2023 obviously there have been a lot of things going on in the world which did not exactly help progress on the A9 dualling, obviously the Covid pandemic which actually stopped construction for a while. We do understand that. We are very familiar from ministerial replies to every other deficiency in public life that there was a pandemic because the number of things that that pandemic has been responsible for not least the tragic consequences of it in the first instance, but I know that Mr Ewing is going to come in first off and then Mr Chowdry. Mr Ewing. Yes, thank you. Good morning to the witnesses. You have read the statement provided by Mr Barn and heard his evidence this morning. It is very clear, I think, what he is saying. He does praise the professionalism of yourself, Mr Shackman and your colleagues, and I would endorse that, but the praise does somewhat end there and he does go on to say in his statement that Transport Scotland from a civil engineering contractors point of view are the worst client in Britain. That is no personal comment. It is based on his assessment which you have heard that, as far as road building in Scotland is concerned, your contract, your form of contract, your passage of all the risks to the contractor who have got minimal margins of profit at 2 per cent, has resulted in the completely unacceptable outcome of there being only one bidder in two contracts hot again roundabout and tomato and tamoy, when the whole purpose of a tender process is to attract competitive bids. So it has failed. I am not trying to catch you out here, but would you accept that the current procedure is just not fit for purpose and therefore what we now need to do is move on from that without overly recriminating about the past. We can do anything about that, but to move on to work out together and perhaps this committee can help in how we solve this problem of getting a form of contract, a form of procurement, which provided the Scottish Government's willingness to put up the money and that's not your responsibility, that's theirs, can actually deliver the swift completion of this project of dualling the A9 for all the reasons that the petitioner so eloquently and passionately set out in her opening statement. I don't disagree with Graham Barn about our current form of contract. It's been in place for many many years, well over 20 years and when I first started working in what was known as construction branch, when around the time of devolution it was still being used heavily, we were getting a lot of good tenders and although it's not written in our contract, we do, we've always tried to collaborate as best we can with contractors to help solve problems along the way and to minimise risks. But as time's gone by and Mr Barn pointed this out, attitudes have changed and we need to be, have collaboration at the heart of our contract so I would accept what he said, we do need to move forward and actually when I came into my role as project director 18 months ago I think one of the first meetings I had with Graham was I did say at the time that I cannot see a future for our form of contract at the moment. What the alternative form of contract is is very much up for discussion at the moment within Transport Scotland and our advisors and obviously we're informing ministers of how we should go forward appropriately so that we can balance value for money for the for the public purse against making sure that the contractors make a reasonable profit because we don't want to see contractors making losses, that's not in anyone's interest and as Graham has said 80% of his members are work for Transport Scotland so if they're not making a profit they're not going to tender for us so we need to come together to make sure that we do get a consensus and we get a reasonable risk profile for contractors making a reasonable profit at the same time getting good value for the public purse and that isn't an easy thing to do and when when we talk about the the NEC type of contract for example there's different varieties of NEC contracts there's not just one and risk profiles can vary within the NEC contract so you could have a base I'm trying to say this in very simple terms you can have a fairly basic NEC contract but there are certain clauses that you can adjust back to increase the risk profile with Transport Scotland's particular contract at the moment we could vary our risk profile very much towards an NEC contract and what it means for us I think is a balance between how we manage our contracts going forward through the construction period and we tend to have a lot of the commercial discussions at the end of the contract whereas with the NEC contract those commercial discussions and issues that happen during the course of construction are dealt with there and then so there's a different sort of style of managing those contracts which is also something we need to look at I understand these are all complex matters and I know that you have been in regular dialogue with Seeker and you meet them several times a year what I don't understand and I don't say this to be recriminatory is you've admitted me or Koopa the system is broken it's not fair for purpose it's patently so so that's been obvious for quite a long time so my question is particularly over the past couple of years of this session of Parliament surely this advice about precisely how the contract should be changed so that risk sharing is used and perhaps some form of the contracts are set out for Mr Barn surely that advice should have been given back in 2021 at the latest why hasn't we made more progress more quickly Mr Barn referred to glacial progress is he right on that as well well I think the the tomatoes of my procurement has really crystallised this issue so except you know we've been looking at potential to change our contracts for a while but over the 20 years plus that we've been using the contract it has given the public a good sure or it's given ministers a good surety of outturn cost compared with the tender cost and I think for a long period it was about a 3% variation between tender costs and outturn costs so in terms of protecting the public purse it was very effective but I do agree that the risk profile you know is very much being looked at as we speak to further questions was it the case that Transport Scotland did in fact do some work which hasn't been made public which was considering some use of private finance but by the time that work came to fruition we'd seen the financial crisis kind of emerge and the interest rates rise so that that option no longer became applicable is that the case and if that is so you know can you share with us the the document showing a what consideration has been given to all these matters I appreciate that that decision may not be for you it may be for the Scottish Government because there is under FOI and you've been FOI'd in these kind of things frequently an exemption to cover ministers desirability of having candor of internal discussions and that that has been invoked in an FOI I've seen recently about day 96 for example but have you actually been giving advice to ministers on this will you share it with us have you been considering the options that were set out by Mr Barnes did you leave it too late because by the time you'd come up with the proposal the finance the interest rates have risen making the finance a package unaffordable I mean are you able to share what work you've been doing over the past two and a half years on all of this with us today I'll maybe take that question for you and we've been doing work for quite considerable time looking at comparing options and fundamentally we're comparing procuring a series of design and build contracts using capital funding versus procuring a smaller number of private finance contracts using resource funding as alternative options we had significantly advanced in that work last year and we're getting towards a point to be preparing to put advice to ministers when some of the fundamental assumptions that underpin in particular the private finance solution which relies on costs of borrowing assumptions began to change in a very volatile fashion with the aftermath of the UK Government mini-budget in September I think it was and it took several months for that to begin to settle down it's not really a case of leaving it too late we've had to go back and redo that work we've had to look again at what the base assumptions that we can make to make that comparison and that will form advice that will be brought forward to ministers when that work is complete so we've had to effectively go back and redo a whole series of work could I could I put to you the point that mr barn made that there are four of the sections that have made orders and two of them the made orders were made well over a year ago and the other two more recently but still some time ago now what he said was that as soon as that reaches that point then these contracts are ready to to go they're ready to press the button they're ready to go into procurement provided the Scottish Government provided the money did you ask the Scottish Government to provide the money for each of these contracts as soon as they reached each of these sections as soon as they reach made orders and if so what was the response well i'll maybe pick up to start with and my colleague might want to come back in so in the comparison i've described between a series of design and build options versus a smaller number of pfi contracts one of the features of pfi contracts to make that attractive to competitive parties you have to offer a pipeline of bidding opportunities if you start to subtract elements of what would make up that pipeline of bidding opportunities you no longer have a pfi option available to you so in trying to get to a position where you were a comparison between approaches taking elements of one approach out would we make that approach fundamentally impossible to deliver in the future so that's a reason why it would be difficult to do what you're suggesting are you saying that you haven't been held back by the lack of funding from the Scottish Government because there is there is a feeling and you know i've been quite critical of my own government and because i don't think the delays can be justified or defended in any way and i've said that i think it's disgraceful and i'm sad to see that but that's that's what i've said but i think we want to know to what extent the Scottish Government have have had the money ready but you haven't got the process ready or to what extent you've asked for money but you haven't got yes as an answer we need to know this and this inquiry and moreover frankly the public has got a right to know i think to a large extent it's been hate to use this phrase but it's been chicken and egg because one of the key things is knowing which procurement route is best to be able to package up the sections to then be able to ask for the the correct amount of money and what sort of money that is whether it's capital or revenue because obviously the ppp will require sums of money into the future whereas the capital based projects will need money up front so there's a different completely different profile with the financing so to try and get out of that is quite a difficult conundrum i've just finished by saying i appreciate all this is complex and i don't detract from from what mr shackman says in any way but i do think that we need to get to the bottom of this and i would personally like transport scotland to produce the documentation showing the exchange of views submissions emails other documents between transport scotland and the scottish government so that can be now we can get to the bottom of this matter for the sake of the petitioner and for the sake of all of those who've lost their lives on this road over far too long but if i could just say we have been as you mentioned foi'd on all of these aspects adding for an item in recent time so a lot of if not all of the information i should say is is out there but um we are um corallignau i've just been refused some information on on at least information has been refused under foi because of internal candor and that's the information i'm talking about specifically about value for money about the sufficiency of scottish government funding and the interchange between you and the scottish government on this so as long as that is not published then there will be unanswered questions frustration anger and irritation and that just won't go away so the sooner the scottish government do what they did in the holy rude inquiry in 2001 i think it was in 2003 and the more recent salmon inquiry and publish available advice notes convener the better for our work i'm more important for the public interest okay thank you can i welcome kate forbes to our proceedings this morning i will invite you to comment after we've heard the evidence but i have unusually this morning agreed that if there is a point during the proceedings where you would like to put a question to the witnesses if you couldn't let me know then i'll be happy to facilitate that as well uh mr chowdry and then mr mountain thank you very much uh i think it's very clear that uh 2025 is not possible anymore do we have a date in mind that when it could be and for the time being is there any emergency procedures are taking so no more accidents happens or i mean what's what's the temporary measures is there any at all can i just stop by saying that the ministers have mentioned several times that they are going to make a statement in autumn about how the a9 is going to be taken forward timescale and what and when so that that is that is still planned to be taken forward in the autumn with regard to short-term measures in terms of road safety i think of more right you can yeah the minister at the highest government that there would be five million pounds put towards measures last financial year and the two next financial years and what we have done is we've worked with stakeholders we've worked with police scotland and the road safety professionals within the operating company that covers a9 to understand the causations of the the accidents that we've seen on a9 and we've targeted measures to to look towards that so there's a there is a five million package of of works that's being undertaken and we've started that uh ostensibly from the burnham uh from lancote to the the guys burnham to the guys section that's the first single carriageway section as you travel north and we we picked that section specifically because it is the first section it's the first single section that you come off and it was also because we were doing the measures over winter they were less likely to be affected by the winter weather and the measures include signing road markings and we're looking to improve the transitions between the dual and single to make them more conspicuous we've increased the the the lining we're using specific product which has better reflectivity and better acoustic to target issues with regards to drifting of vehicles on single carriageways they basically hear a rumble when they they go over the white lines we've also put in mobile variable message signs to deliver messages road safety messages as well and we've started down that section but we will continue with the other single sections going forward sorry is uh are this published or has it been given to the people in the area or and as you've said that uh 2025 do you still think it's achievable no the 2025 isn't achievable and and the former minister um said that in her statement in in febru and that's where we why we're going to come come back all ministers will come back in the autumn with a revised timeline thank you just but i'll come to mr frazer before mr mountain if i may because mr chowdery's question touched on i think a point that mr frazer raised with our previous witnesses that he'd like to pursue again just now so mr frazer thank you thank you very much convener thank you for bringing me in um i'd just like to see if you can share any light on this rather curious issue that i raised just a moment ago with the previous the previous witnesses so um i'm just finding the exact reference here yes there was a government initiated question lodged on monday afternoon in the name of jim fairly msp which said to ask the scottish government when the new procurement for the dueling of the a9 between tematin and moi will commence now as i'm sure you you're aware the purpose of a government initiated question is to allow a statement to parliament to be made and therefore such questions are only lodged when the statement is ready curiously in this case and i've never come across this before convener this question was not answered and in fact this morning has been withdrawn which seems rather extraordinary um and it's wondering if you could shed any light on this i believe the reason for its withdrawal is because as you're aware there's a new transport minister and the view was taken that she should be given time to have a think about this issue and make her own decision on how it should be taken forward so i think that's the reason that's helpful in terms of understanding the context although we knew of course on monday when the question was lodged that we didn't have a transport minister at that point but anyway that's a matter for the the scottish government perhaps the committee can pursue that separately does so does that mean then there was a there was something that was going to be announced which has now been deferred in order that the new transport minister be given the opportunity to reflect on its content that's for ministers to answer the other question i've put to mr barn so the the minute sorry the previous transport minute we've now gone through two new transport ministers but then jenny go ruth when she was transport minister told parliament i think back beginning of the year i think the on the matter into my section she would hope to make an announcement by the end of this year in terms of the word of a contract now what mr barn told us was that given the likely timescale six months to award a contract would be very tight so are you in a position to tell us any more about the procurement process for that section no we're still working through that and yes i would agree it is extremely tight to award by the end of the year that is certainly a target we are aiming for but i will have to wait and see on when the new minister has decided on the procurement route and when that should be launched right so so going back to the conversation we just had with mr ywain about the type of contract you're still proceeding on the basis of the existing contract or are you looking to adjust that for the matter into my section using the existing contract is highly unlikely highly unlikely but it does sound like there's a lot of work to be done still before you even put this out to tender not no there isn't actually too much to do because remember we had the the original to that into my contract and the vast majority of that is how where we want the road to go how wide it is where we want kerbs and where we don't want kerbs that sort of thing so all of that is is in the bank so to speak it's actually the front-end contract is it an NEC contract is it transport scotland's terms and conditions heavily modified that actually isn't going to take too much longer to do and the process would be you publish presumably you publish a tender document do you and then there's a period you have to wait for responses we publish a tender notice yeah and then that would be an advert assigned to the market um that we're we're going to procure the that's the start of the procurement basically okay and can you give us any indication when you expect that to be done i can't at the moment no because that's subject to the new minister and other ministers being involved but but the clock is clearly ticking in terms of trying to get it as awarded by the year end as promised to parliament it is yes okay thank you thank you mr freezer mr mountain just two questions of home or two areas of question first of all when do you start the compulsory purchase order stage for the land that you want to acquire to build the road um so the statutory processes um once um a project has got through the preferred root stage and we advertise that we invite the public and stakeholders anyone with an interest in the scheme to um see the um the material that's been produced the environmental assessment report the draft road and compulsory purchase orders are all put out into the public domain if we get um objections to that process people don't like a particular part it could be a an affected landowner or um statutory body for example then we may need to go through a public inquiry process a reporter will be appointed and they will make a decision on some of the sections we've had to go through a public inquiry process on some of the sections we've been fortunate in many ways that we haven't had to have a public inquiry and ministers are then um decided that they will um make the orders um and some of the sections have got the orders made which means that we have a three-year period to actually vest the land um before we would have to go back to the start and promote the the scheme again um and in some cases we haven't uh we're yet to make the orders so that is also part of um what we plan to announce in the autumn um as to how that is going to be managed going forward i would say that in terms of the procurement process any of the orders making the the actual orders and vesting the land isn't a constraint on the timescale for actually constructing the projects albeit that we haven't got the dunk held section through that process yet but if somebody objects to a compulsory purchase order there is quite a complex process to go through which which will take could take years rather than months as long as it can only be on the process once the orders the orders are made um then they cannot um really object to the making of the compulsory purchase orders and the purchase of the land unless there's some sort of problem with the legality of of how we've made it so we you know it's been through due process by that stage just made there there's nothing to stop the road being built no just buying the land it's the thing after that and then and then the compensation at the end of it yes once that's agreed yeah okay community if i can go back to the question i asked in the in the first section about sharing risk and and you've alluded uh Lawrence to that during this today do you think that uh by coming up with a new contract uh you will convince subcontractors uh across the highlands possibly who will be tendering for this that they really will not be left hanging out to dry uh because they have in the past and a lot of them have spoken to me about it and are unhappy about it do you think you can rebuild those bridges well um i would be um surprised if they weren't a major part of during the a nine because of its location um even if we were to go for the the ppp the public private finance type option um where we would be likely as mr barn mentioned attract a lot more foreign um construction companies they still need local labour they still need local materials um they need people in the in the locale to actually be able to construct the road and we're talking about a huge amount of road building here you know it's it's something that's comparable to the upgrading of the a 74 back in the the 80s and 90s it's you know that sort of scale where you had 10 11 contracts um so you know we found a way back in in that time to build those contracts so i don't see why there's any reason why local labour and suppliers can't be heavily involved i mean this was a question as you you will know yourself um that was asked many times when we were building the queens free crossing you know we had a lot of contractors in in involved in that project from abroad but they used a huge amount of local labour and local supplies and that was a regular topic that was discussed at committee meetings for the queens free crossing and i believe the same thing for Aberdeen western peripheral route which robber's heavily evolved in and i remember discussing them clearly on the Aberdeen peripheral route when i was on the rec committee and also the king craig to del rady uh and the fact that a lot of people got their fingers burnt in the process and are nervous about the process in the future so my final question is do you think you've got some bridges to build metaphorically speaking before bridges can be built on the a nine we we would always encourage um well ourselves we will always engage with industry and supply chain as much as they'll let us to be honest we're more than happy to do that we we have initiatives where we always um ask our tier one contractors to advertise any opportunities on the the procurement scotland portal um which is something that was pioneered on the queens free crossing and now is a standard way of doing things we also have um touched on earlier um we we have project bank accounts on our projects so we ensure that um tier two and beyond suppliers and subcontractors get paid um on time so they don't have to wait for payment and that's a system that's working really well and we we have that on all our projects so there are a number of things we're doing to try and make sure that we embrace um the local suppliers as far as we possibly can and when we continue to do so do you want to add something thank you convener thank you um and to return uh to the point that we raised with the petitioners ambition for a national memorial alexander stewart thank you thank you convener yes it would be useful to get a flavor now of your viewers and opinions with reference to this proposed memorial because it would appear from your your comments previously as i indicated when i asked the petitioner that you were dismissing this type of memorial on the grounds of those safety concerns and now that you've heard from the petitioner what maybe the intention is i mean do you have a similar view or has your view been changed yes thank you we we did respond based on it being by the roadside and and gave the reasons for that given we follow guidance from the scots with regards to roadside memorials but i appreciate the the petitioner has suggested that it's it's somewhere else it's it's more localised maybe in a community on a nine it's something we haven't considered obviously because we we thought that the the ask was about the roadside so we that can be considered further but what i would say that tragic as the lives we have lost in a nine we have to recognise across scotland the the road deaths and we have to be mindful of doing something specifically for the a nine as opposed to people that have lost loved ones on the other woods across scotland i acknowledge that but i think that the case that was made in the strong case within the communities the length and breadth of the the a nine being the you know the spine of the of the country as it's been called i think that the ability to do something of this nature would go a long way to manage some of that community involvement and look forward to hearing how that may progress depending on how things move forward might we ask transport scotland to reflect on that fact just given the evidence the petitioner this morning and perhaps having reflected on it just to give us a flavour of of what they think it might be possible or not for us to consider further another date i'm very grateful for that is there anything is there any other questions from colleagues one from mr ewing just just one i mean is there a risk that the retender of tomato and tamoy will lead to an even higher price as we heard mr barn elucidate and secondly could you answer that his point and his recommendation that you know whereas one must in a tender process be treat all all parties equally that's a plain clear legal requirement of procurement that doesn't actually prevent you from reaching out to all the contractors to inquire us to their progress provided they're asked the same questions in order to be able to ascertain if it's likely that you end up in the same situation again where you end up with one bidder only but this time at an even higher price than the price that was previously rejected because it itself was deemed too high well firstly it would say through our transport scotland process we use the process to speak to the contractors during the development of their proposals because they're responsible for the design and for the construction it's not just the construction so they're fully responsible for coming up with a competent fully fully embracing all the requirements of the contract in that in their design so we do have consultation meetings through the procurement process with each individual contractor and their confidential meetings and yes we ask for an update on how they're doing with their design how they're likely to be building the contract their methods and are very important to understand we we actually in the in the tomat in tamoi project partway through the process did i ask them if they thought our tender estimate which is the middle figure is 115 million you're correct nothing that was at April 2021 prices um and actually that the two tenders putting that the first one who withdrew up to one side um both thought that that was a reasonable estimate partway through the process so i don't quite know what happened with the one bid why they put in their bid to the value that they did not wishing to reveal the commercial in confidence aspects of that um but we do engage fully with contractors and we do try although the contractors don't particularly like our terms and conditions we do try to de-risk as much as possible for example through the tender period we offer them the chance to do or we will undertake an additional ground investigation and i think on tomat in tamoi that was about a million pounds so it's a pretty substantial extra ground investigation to help de-risk the project um and get the contractor in a place where they can put in a competent price and that's one of the methods that we use all the way through our our alternative tendering initiative um projects okay okay thank you thank you all very much that's been very much precious there any final point you would like to touch on that we've not addressed just to well really just to say that we are fully committed to to dueling the a9 we're looking to see um what the the autumn statement or i'm sure everyone is looking to see what the autumn statement will hold and the first minister only two days ago as you as you all know made a strong commitment a very strong commitment to dueling the a9 and many other things so but uh but thank you very much um my two parliamentary colleagues who've joined us this morning uh all comes before our so Kate Forbes would you like to just address comments to the committee that we can take into account as we consider the petition thank you very much uh thank you convener for for having me here and uh sincere thanks to laura hansler and the a9 dual action group for bringing this petition before the committee and indeed raising the profile of this issue and i think it is the product of frustration yes but also grief at the number of fatalities on the road and also the accidents and the near misses which don't get recorded i want to make some very very brief comments about this not just being a highlands problem this is very much an issue of national concern and i believe it's a concern for three reasons the first is that there is no transition to net zero without dueling the a9 now that is contrary to arguments that have been made about this being inconsistent with our move to net zero but actually the highlands and rural scotland disproportionately relies on for example car use and we must have an electrified dueled a9 for safe use secondly it is reliant on it for economic reasons which is already being covered and thirdly reliant on it when it comes to safety and that third reason is perhaps the most important above everything else there is a cast iron guarantee to dual the a9 what we are exercised about is seeing the timetable and ensuring that that timetable is backed up with appropriate procurement processes which have come in for some criticism and also with the budget now i know the constraints in our budget with a five billion pound capital budget every year and an a9 dueling programme that costs three billion pounds quite clearly this needs to be prioritised and that will mean difficult decisions elsewhere but i think such is the importance of this project we need to see that prioritisation and that funding in there so that's all i have to say because i think it's been adequately covered but i really cannot stress the importance of this programme to both my constituents but also to those whose lives have been affected as they wait for the updated timetable including those subject to compulsory purchase orders who have been waiting in some cases for almost a decade for this to go through and whose house sales for example have been affected and it also impacts the rest of scotland three really important groups that want answers thank you convener thank you very much mrs forbes and thank you too for referencing again the petitioner on whose behalf we are pursuing our inquiry this morning and finally mr phraser thank you convener you've been very very kind letting me ask some questions i'll be very brief in in just making some final comments and i should say my colleague jamie halker johnson who represents highlands and islands i'd hope to be here but he's in another committee this morning so he's clearly interested in this matter too and just as kate form said this affects the highlands but elsewhere it affects my constituents in perth and can ross as part of the mid scotland in five region who have very similar concerns about the not just the the accident rate on the a nine but the economic impact of that road not being dualled i think it's been very helpful this morning actually hearing from from the petitioners and indeed from transport scotland and we await with interest hearing what will happen on the tomato and tamoy section and it does sound like some announcements are imminent there um we would hope but that of course is only one section out of the whole remaining sections of the a nine it does sound like the priority work is done and all but one section the one that done count so the only um issue holding up progress is is finance if the contract issues can be dealt with and that really is a matter of political will and priorities so you know referencing back to the petitioners comments at the very start about the number of people who've died sadly you know we're entering peak tourist season you know you dread turning the news on in the morning because you hear about people who've lost their lives on the a nine some of these are visitors to scotland who've come on a family holiday um and lose their lives on the a nine and that will continue sadly until we see this road project finally completed so i would encourage the committee if it needs any encouragement to be like terriers in pursuing this particular matter to a conclusion and to continue to press scottish government for some definite timescale that the petitioner is looking for thank you mr frazer i'm and although as i said earlier the a nine is a routine on occasionally in an earlier time in my political life the a 77 from eastward to air was notorious in terms of the loss of life that took place on that and that issue was resolved with the dualling of the of that section and i think at one point more people lost lives on that road than any other annually in scotland so it is obviously something which is the ultimate and only reliable way in which we can we can hope to provide a safe journey and as i think kate forms has said achieve other objectives which are in the national interest as well thank you all very much can i just ask my colleagues in the committee if they are content to consider the evidence we heard both from the lord advocate and in this session at a subsequent time they are the nice to spend briefly thanking again our colleagues who joined us this morning and from transport scotland very much appreciated and welcome back i'll try again and welcome back we now move to the further petitions that we are considering this morning the first of them is petition number 1862 to introduce community representation on the boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities this has been lodged by rona macai angus cambell and neomy bremer on behalf of the used economic task force and 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 island scotland act of 2018 and i'm delighted i think we've had dr allen join us before in consideration of this petition and a warm welcome back to alas through allen this morning we previously considered this petition on the 22nd of febru at which point we agreed to write to the minister of transport recommending the Scottish government to explore all the available options to formalise the role of community representation and boards of public organisations including caladonia and maritime assets limited seamal david mcbrain limited dml and highlands and islands airports limited hyal we've received a response from the now former transport minister kevin stewart who agrees that more islanders need to be involved in decision making on lifeline services and similar to the response from the previous minister genegal ruth mr stewart provides information on the efforts to encourage applications from island representatives in recent seamal and dml recruitment processes the minister also highlighted hyal's location neutral policy for head office roles which enables staff undertaking head office functions to be based at any of hyal's sites we have also received a further submission from the petitioners which emphasises the unintended consequences which can result from not having islander knowledge on the boards of public bodies and includes a request to give oral evidence to this committee which therefore is one of the options open to members this morning albeit i i should say and inviting dr allen to address us that it's also at a stage now where colleagues might think that we've taken the issues in the petition as far forward as we can but may i invite you to address us and just speak to the petition thank you very much convener and if i could thank the committee for its its work on on this petition so far and since committee last considered the petition i think it's fair to say that the evidence-based case for having more islander knowledge on public boards has only increased and the problem the problems with ferry services are well rehearsed not least regarding south uist in my constituency which currently has no ferry service at all running directly to the mainland i think a continual theme in all of that and in the petition is one that i've raised in a member's debate and raised in this context as well which is the strikingly obvious need to have islanders on the boards like of organisations like calmac, steam ale and so on and to quote john daniel peter anna from south uist the goal has to be to make it as easy to live and work on an island as it is anywhere else and without the influence of islanders on these public bodies controlling island services the current depopulation trends will accelerate now there is presently it must be said a conspicuous lack of people on these boards who have the experience of living on an island for instance that is served by calmac and who therefore have the personal experience of being lobbied in their daily lives outside work about ferries i think i said in my last contribution to you that perhaps if they were stopped every time they went out to buy a pint of milk and asked about ferries in the way that i am perhaps they would take a different perspective back to their board meetings but i think it's also important that people live in communities where they have the experience the consequences of when things go wrong everyone understands that boards do not and should not take day-to-day operational decisions in organisations like calmac but as the petitioners put it they should set the policy define the way of working and set the culture of the organization so it's important to note that the call for more island board members should not be seen in isolation there is in my view a wider need to have more senior staff from organizations like calmac and transport scotland based in the highlands and islands and to disperse jobs wherever feasible finally convener i just want to point out that many islanders as well as having lived experience of ferry services for instance also have a wealth of other experience too and these are seafaring communities these skills should be featuring prominently in whatever recruitment exercises these organizations run and with all that in mind i'm happy to answer any points the committee has but i would certainly like again to speak in support of the aims of the petition thank you dr allen can i ask i mean in the responses that we've received there is a general acceptance of the desire to see more community representation on the boards and involvement the minister talked about providing information on the efforts that have been made to solicit applications for such representation i mean what is your impression against the background of those assurances and that suggestion as to the public perception or lack of of any momentum to bring about a realization of that ambition i would acknowledge that the government has made moves in that direction but i would have to also acknowledge the reality that i think from memory and someone will correct me just to take the seamal board i think has one person on it living on an island served by those ferries and i do not think that as yet calmac has anyone on the board who lives in any island which is served by calmac so i think there have been efforts to look at things like the criteria by which people are appointed obviously the government is at the mercy of whether people come forward but the reality is still that these are voices that are not really there on on these boards i don't think we've really got to the end of of this issue we have way i mean i think there is well sorry colleagues i'm summing up on behalf of all of you but i mean does any of the colleagues have any points that would like to make mr mr ewing yes i'm just just looking through previous evidence and the points that dr allen made about the the desirability of having island residents on public bodies i also looked at the specific recommendations that the three petitioners have made and they used high al as an example of having a place in the selection panel for the chair for the selection of the chair of high al i mean that that could be done for every chair of every board seamal um uh caradonymic brain and so on um assigning three seats in the high al boards who people live in communities one of these would be retained for a co-opted member and then at least one council allocated a place on the board from either western alzartney or shetland islands council so the point of making conveners that the petitioners made these very concrete specific suggestions these haven't been responded to specifically instead in my reading of it and i hope i'm not being unfair to the former minister is that he replied with a lot of goodwill but he didn't specifically respond to the specific suggestions that the petitioners have made now in as much as we are the voice of the petitioner you know respect of the party issues involved here it does seem to me that we just haven't really got an answer from the former minister and we need to get an answer from the current minister as to whether or not these specific suggestions are ones that can be pursued now i mean there's arguments foreign against each of them but not to have had a reply of any sort means i think just what you've said your your premature summation was absolutely correct thank you well the petitioners have very specifically requested that they be given an opportunity to speak to the committee i think that would have to be a prelude to us trying to bottom out with the new minister exactly how matters could be actually realised rather than i think as you put it a lot of goodwill but not necessarily the actual outcome being achieved or even the desirability or otherwise of the outcome being suggested actually being assessed and answered um so i think i think i might be minded to keep the petition open and and to to exceed to that request from the petitioners as a precursor to then speaking to the speaking further with the with the new minister who who i understand was presented as having vast experience of parliamentary life and an ability to resolve even the most intractable of of problems so we we're very happy to put that put that ambition to the test are we agreed then to keep the petition open and to exceed to the petitioners request on that basis so that's what we'll do we'll keep the petition open and we will if the petitioners are watching us today invite them to address the committee whether online or whether they want to come here or not that to can be decided in due course and that will be after the summer recess obviously thank you very much dran we move to petition number 1865 suspend all surgical mesh and fixation devices a long-standing petition lodged by rizanna clarkin and lauren mcdougall you'll remember we've heard previously and calls on the scottish government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while a review of all surgical procedures which use polyester polypropylene or titanium has carried out and while guidelines for surgical use of mesh are established and we are joined this morning once again by our parliamentary colleagues jackie bailey and katie clark both of whom have followed this petition with interest as we have debated it the last time we in fact discussed this petition was some time ago now the 28th of september last where we agreed to write the scottish government and also to seek a parliamentary debate on the issues that were raised in the petition and members will remember that they probably all participated in that debate on the 17th of january ahead of the debate taking place we also received a response from the then minister for public health women's health and sport which highlighted that mhre proposals to increase the classification of surgical mesh implants the minister's response also states that the scottish government is taking forward improvements to the recording of procedures and implanted devices and that the scottish association of medical directors has been asked to report on the availability of non mesh surgery in individual health boards and we've also received again a submission from the petitioners which offers their reflections on the evidence the committee has gathered to date and the debate that took place in january as well as highlighting the difficulties patients are continuing to face in making an informed choice about their treatment and where to support what seeks support when experiencing complications resulting from surgical mesh and i've certainly received representations in this regard too no urologist actually being part of the national centre for chronic pain and mesh services that we have in greater Glasgow and Clyde health board and individuals who are still experiencing difficulty in taking advantage of the opportunity to have mesh removed by a surgeon of their choice at a location of their choice so it may be characterising slightly as in the last petition there has been a lot of goodwill there has also been concrete action in relation to this along the way but there are still clearly deficiencies in the actual outcome of all of this and i wonder whether both Jackie Baillie and Katie Clark would like to say a few words to the committee and i would normally go alphabetically but i saw Jackie Baillie deferring to Katie Clark so Katie Clark if you'd like to speak first i'm very grateful convener for the opportunity to appear again i probably should say that i met with both petitioners yesterday rizana is personally affected in that she's one of the individuals who suffered debilitating chronic pain and life altering injury after undergoing a mesh procedure and it was lauren's mother who was affected who is now passed away as i say i met with him yesterday but i know that the committee has received testimonies from many other individuals who have been affected as the committee knows the mesh used in hernia operations is different than with transvaginal mesh but many of the issues are very similar and this affects both men and women but we have a lack of data in terms of the extent of the problem and that's why the petitioners are asking for an independent review to gather that data and for the use of surgical mesh and fixation devices to be suspended until such a review is concluded i myself have put down freedom of information requests to every health board in scotland i wanted to know the number of patients who were treated for hernia using surgical mesh and had been readmitted to hospital following complications arising from mesh most health boards did not provide information but some health boards did respond nhs airshut and aran revealed the eight percent of all patients who were implanted with mesh to treat a hernia in its hospitals were subsequently readmitted due to complications arising from the mesh and NHS Lanarkshire said the figure was 10 percent so i think this data suggests that the petitioners are right to highlight the need for a review to explore the issue further yet the Scottish Government continues to refuse to engage with them and indeed the minister has refused to meet with them and indeed the former minister refused to meet with the petitioners directly so given this lack of engagement with the petitioners from Scottish ministers i would urge this committee to consider asking the cabinet secretary for nhs recovery health and social care to appear before the committee and give evidence so we can give further consideration to these issues thank you very much and thank you very much convener and can i acknowledge your own particular contribution to tackling the mesh scandal in scotland so i know we will get a good hearing from all of the committee today let me start by echoing my colleague katie clark's calls for the committee to ask the cabinet secretary for nhs recovery health and social care to appear and give evidence on this issue but also to give evidence by way of an update on all the promises made by the Scottish government prior to the debate in january but i've yet to understand whether those commitments have been fulfilled there is a need to have a viable and safe alternative to mesh and this was acknowledged by marie torden a previous committee meeting in June 2022 where she agreed that the skills gap between mesh and natural tissue repair needs to be bridged i'm keen to know what progress has been made in actually doing that the petitioners also raised concerns that some patients have very recently had mesh inserted but there was no discussion about the risks no discussion about what alternative treatment if any could be offered and i think and i think we all think patients in scotland have the right to have the choice have the right to make informed decisions about their healthcare and medical professionals should be given the tools to answer patients questions about the risks and about the alternatives it can't be right the patients are relying on each other for information through support groups there needs to be clear guidance that shed with all gp practices across every health board so whilst the Scottish government have previously said and i find this hard to believe but they have said that mesh hernia repair used in canada at the sholdice hospital that we've discussed before wouldn't work for the scotland demographic i mean i really don't understand why that would be the case but could we explore that because i believe that there is still an opportunity to create that national treatment centre to properly offer alternatives and actually to deal with the problems of mesh i don't think we can continue to deprive those who have had mesh hernia who require repairs to be undertaken of options for that treatment and removal so i would be most grateful if this committee would do the petitioners and all of us a favour by pressing the Scottish government in this regard thank you convener thank you very much miss billy and i mean it's not a happy thought but it is exactly 10 years since the committee first considered the issue of mesh in the petition brought forward by elene homes and all of mackleroy and yes it would be ungenerous not to acknowledge that five cabinet secretaries later we have seen progress in relation to the issue i mean that have a number you know things have happened the moratorium continues to apply in terms of transvaginal mesh we have secured the the recompense bill act which provides for women to have the mesh removed by dr veronicus in missouri but that there are issues still remaining and i think that there are questions still that we want to put to the Scottish government i mean i take a number of the suggestions that have been made i too i'm interested or confused about the shoulders thing i mean i kind of understood the Scottish government's concern that the requirement or the commitment from those who might undergo that surgery required a considerable weight loss and that that might ultimately be selective but there were very open offers made by the medical staff dr spencer neto i think who's very in giving evidence to the committee specifically said that they would be willing to offer training and discussion with the Scottish government as to the processes and procedures that were involved and i kind of thought there was a willingness to consider that from the government i've never heard anything further about where that might play in the outcome so i would very much like to understand what further reflections the Scottish government has had on the shoulders model and also the offer that was made to try and offer support to the nhs scotland in relation to that have colleague got other suggestions that they might like to make alexander stewart thank you can mean i think you make some very valid points and i think he declare can jackie too also have given us a a scenario in situation where we find so i would be very happy to continue to have the petition move forward and i think there are a number of options that we could do and i would suggest the following that we are right to the minister for public health moment's health highlighting the petition's latest submission and seeking information on the outcome of the scotland association on medical directors exercise to explore the availability of non mesh surgery in individual health boards i think that's vitally important and the development of nhs scotland scan and safety programmes specifically when it began and how it will be rolled out i think is also and i think it's you know when we look at hernia i think that the bridge hernia society i think we can write to seek their views on the action called for in the petition and information on the work that is going on and developing a hernia specific registry i think is also important so these are the areas i would suggest although i think colleagues we did previously kind of take the view that the actual clinical in a clinical sense objective of the petition which was to rule out mesh in all circumstances was something we'd heard sufficient evidence on not to support in principles that the point you want to make there mr torrance adjustives thank you there's two points i want to make um as somebody who has had mesh in them for a long time for a hernia repair and one of the 90 percent is very successful for and has changed my life um so i would definitely rule out a ban on mesh um implants just now but the other thing is on when we're writing to the scottish association of medical directors i wonder if we could ask him because you mentioned one of the parts of criteria for a shoulders hospital it is really strict criteria before they will even go ahead with surgery if that isn't we could actually put that in and allow would the public out there accept that strict criteria because a lot it would be rejected on the grounds that they go ahead with operation i mean and that is that that is a question but i mean 6000 people in canada annually are being operated on successfully so there is also the consequential saving to the health service in a patient who has recovered rather than a patient who is an ongoing sufferer and requiring constant additional medical support and treatment so i mean i realized there are issues to weigh up here but i don't think they should be casually dismissed just because of that i i also think that petitioner according to katie clark's suggestion there still believes notwithstanding all the assurances we've heard about the discussion of the consequences and alternatives that are open by way of proper representation of the facts to individuals is not happening universally but and i therefore would be interested i think to hear from the scotish government or to get the scotish government's latest update because i think when we've had the minister here before along with the other health officials there were assurances given to us then that there was further work being done on more updated information material and i think we'd quite like to understand the status of that and the impact of that and it may well be that all this does lead to us once again seeking to have the cabinet secretary and i think at some stage it might be the cabinet secretary rather than just the minister that we would like to have because it was the cabinet secretary who first came to this committee and on whose initiative a lot of action initially was progressed but i think that would be a decision just for a subsequent meeting if we can hear more any other suggestions are we content with that i think we are so thank you both very much and we'll keep petition open and work forward on that basis thank you we move now to petition number 1962 to stop motorhomes parking overnight out with formal campsites caravan parks and areas this has been lodged by lin and darren redfern calling in the scotish parliament to urge the scotish government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure they are only parked in designated and regulated locations and we previously discussed this on the 23 of november when you members will recall we were keen to explore the promotion of areas as an alternative solution to the challenges presented by the petitioners the scotish government has stated that a campervan and motorhome working group was set up and has explored the unique challenges created by motorhome and campervan users in scotland with facilities being part of its consideration i do apologize this group will report on its recommendations to the visitor management steering group at some point this year the petitioners recent submission states that new facilities will not be effective in addressing the issues raised in the petition and that strict restrictions must be enforced against unregulated campervan parking wherever that may be taking place they highlight an incident where a campervan renter was displeased because the rental company had promoted the vehicle as fully self-contained implying that campsites would not be necessary the petitioners state that this is mentally well this is the mentality they wish to stem sorry financial challenges are also highlighted by the petitioner as they are ineligible for sport in the way that not-for-profit establishments are well i try to contain the the obvious associated hysteria are the member got comments from members that we might wish to consider i think Jackie Baill who is not formally here to advise us in this petition but would very much like i have been so generous today by bringing in parliamentary colleagues that it would be very childish of me not to offer you the opportunity i am so grateful convener i didn't know i had such an interest in campervans until now but i would suggest the committee might want to consider a debate in parliamentary time given the level of interest that there is thank you very much i suppose we could also take evidence from campervan home owners as well but essentially it's a way forward mr torrance thank you convener same as from this mischievous hilarity can i just say convener considering if you have road tax on a vehicle where there's a campervan i'm not you are allowed to park it up anywhere as long as it's an obstruction a roadway or a driveway or whatever so under rule 15.7 of standing orders i'm happy to close this petition oh i feel i feel that would be a terrible wasted opportunity mr torrance i mean given that a working group's been set up might we not want to know what it's done convener i'm quite happy to close this under 15.7 of standing orders if any of the committee would welcome back me okay do i have any alternative suggestions from the committee that's what they all say i think maybe the safest thing for us to do for us to do there is a proposal to close the petition oh has there any alternative suggestions i mean that mr ewing i'm going to incur the wrath of mr torrance here but i just kind of wonder if we've really done justice to the petitioner who petitioners who have specifically said that they want specific restrictions on overnight parking and it is a nuisance there's no doubt in the highlands but also elsewhere but campervan is a huge vehicle so it can cause some nuisance issues so in order to ascertain if this working group is actually going to consider any specific recommendations maybe we could write to the government to ask if this working group has looked at this issue and what its recommendation is are there any measures that could be taken there could be local bylaw provisions for example that might enable Highland council for example to to tackle these things but i you know to be fair i think this is a one of many businesses operating i think at caravan park and is a particular issue of nuisance for many residents along the nc 500 but perhaps in many other places and if you've got a bloody great campervan park in in somewhere that you kind of need to use or needs to be made available for safety vehicles or or whatever particularly in restricted narrow roads single track roads this is in places like sky this this is a serious issue although perhaps not necessarily the one which was foremost in everybody's minds as the frivolity and jollity preceded unabated so we do have a proposal to close the petition or one to ask the Scottish Government whether the campervan and motor home working group is reported to the visitor management steering group and when the steering group is expected to respond to that report yes i think i think i mean i'm sorry i've took mr thorns to think it's under there but i just think it's worthwhile out of justice to the petitioner because we don't identify your answer to that so we should at least get an answer to that mr stewart i would also like to support mr ewing convener because i do think there are there is an opportunity here and i would like to hear from the the management steering group as to where we are so i would propose to keep the petition open for us to take some more deliberation mr choudry do you wish to close the petition or or would you like to explore your interest in campervans a little further i think we should explore more are you content that we and that we proceed at least to that stage mr thorns yes thank you that concludes item one we move to item two which is the consideration of new petitions the first of the and as always for those who might be tuning in because we are considering a petition for the first time we do invite the parliament's independent research body spice to offer its reflections on the petition and we also invite the Scottish government to give their initial thoughts on the petition it doesn't in any way determine the outcome of the petition but it does mean we proceed on an informed basis and the first of those petitions is petition number 2016 to raise awareness of thrombosis in scotland lodged by Gordon Macpherson and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish government to raise awareness of risk factors signs and symptoms of thrombosis and Jackie Baillie has stayed with us for this petition as well having an interest in it and according to NHS informed deep vein thrombosis DVT is i think many now know it is a blood clot that develops within the deep vein in the body usually in the leg blood clots that develop in a vein are also known as venous thrombosis DVT usually occurs in a deep leg vein a large vein that runs through the muscles of the calf and the thigh it can also occur in the pelvis or abdomen it can cause pain and swelling in the leg and may lead to complications such as pulmonary embolism now the Scottish government's response to the petition explains that it carefully prioritises the issues to which funding and staff resources are allocated with the close input of clinicians since it has already provided updated material to clinicians and revised the guidance available to the general public and NHS informed on thrombosis the Scottish government does not consider that this is the right time for a major public awareness campaign it does however commit to running a package of activity on the Scottish government's health social media account on thrombosis awareness later this year the petitioners submission raises a response to the Scottish government's cited statistics on thrombosis highlighting that the higher number provided in his petition was taken from a ministerial answer to a question lodged by Jackie Bailey MSP and therefore before I ask members if they wish to comment especially in the light of the Scottish government's quite clear direction if there's anything Jackie Bailey would like to say to the committee. Thank you very much convener and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak today Gordon Macpherson is in fact a world ambassador for world thrombosis day he's been campaigning on this issue for 20 years and I feel I've known him for each and every one of those years he is persistent and rightly so because he is asking the Scottish government to raise greater awareness of deaths in Scotland that can be attributed to thrombosis as you've outlined but to show the risk factors and signs and symptoms to look for in order to reduce mortality and morbidity. Now the petitioner lost his own daughter Katie who was an occupational therapist in 2003 when doctors at two hospitals failed to spot a blood clot in her leg and she was sent home with painkillers. Mr Macpherson feels that if medical staff had been more aware of the risk factors plus the signs and symptoms then Katie may not have died from untreated thrombosis. Now the Scottish government have not run an awareness campaign on this since 2011 and Mr Macpherson feels that they're not treating this as seriously as is required and as a result of a lack of awareness by both the public and medical professionals he is concerned that there will be increased cases of thrombosis. He is keen that the government does more than they are already doing and he's not looking for something that's hugely expensive it is practical stuff that he is suggesting so one example I would share with you is he's talked about blood clot alert cards. Now these are available in Ireland they inform patients of the risk signs and need to get medical attention fast in the event of a clot. Now that strikes me as something that the Scottish government could do quite effectively without too much cost. He's raised issues like this with the Scottish government over the last 20 years and they've been particularly unhelpful in trying to progress this but the reason I think he's brought back this new petition which makes this more significant is new research by the British medical journal shows that there's an increased risk of dbt up to three months after a Covid-19 infection. Pulmonary embolism up to six months after and a bleeding event up to two months after so the circumstances around thrombosis have clearly changed since the government's last awareness campaign in 2011 when Covid-19 was not the health risk that it is obviously now so in light of this I would be most grateful if the committee would consider that it would be wise for the government to take another look at public and medical professional awareness of thrombosis so that more lives like Katie's are not lost thank you convener thank you Jackie Baillie and that that actually was I think quite helpful and compelling evidence colleagues do we have any suggestions Fergus Ewing yes I think I'm grateful to Jackie Baillie for sharing light on on this new information that there is now linkages with with Covid in the thrombosis and and other linkages which suggests a need for further consideration of what interventions preventative interventions for example might be appropriate in identifying those particular cases where there's a risk predisposition so I'm grateful for that point I thought that point was well worth putting to the minister that what I had picked up from just reading through the papers and I'm new to this and I don't know the petitioner but obviously you know the loss of his daughters is a crushing blow so he has been through the mill and one death is one too many so when I refer to the numbers just bear that I bear that in mind but there is a clear conflict between the figures that he is he has provided which I think is 11,400 deaths per annum in Scotland and then the figures the Scottish Government have replied with which there's 380 deaths from blood clots a total of 1925 where blood cuts were mentioned 380 direct and 1545 is contributed so he then has replied to that response in turn saying that it's not the first time the Scottish Government has quoted one set of figures when there are other figures which reflect the case I put forward and I would be interested to learn more about that and tease out why the figures he refers to are roughly 10 times greater than the figures the Scottish Government says but whether or not it's 1,000 or 10,000 I mean I think it's such a serious thing the consequences can in serious cases be fatal so you know I do think that whether it's a public information campaign or other specific actions taken on the basis of proper clinical considerations about preventative action it's something that we just need more information on at this point from the Scottish Government whether we want to do that by letter or or by evidence I haven't got a can I ask Jackie Baillie if she doesn't mind the petitioner feels that his figures came from our ministerial response you received have you yourself been able to establish or understand why there might be a discrepancy in the two sets of figures no but he's accurate in saying that the first set of figures that he's quoting were provided to me I think in a parliamentary question and I'm happy to provide that to the committee if they don't have sight of it already right I think then colleagues it would certainly be useful to write the Scottish Government first of all seeking an explanation for the discrepancy in the figures secondly I think if we were able to draw attention to this report which has suggested there could be a link with Covid and therefore also I think just refer you know we're back to the petitioners longstanding association with this issue and the fact that this is all about prevention and that circumstances have changed and that it could be in the light of all of this that that it is unnecessary to do a little bit more than was being previously suggested any other suggestion are colleagues content with that suggestion yeah any other suggestions David Torrmage I wonder if you write to Scottish Government because I know they've got this health awareness message in social media later this year and the facts has been brought up to us about Covid I wonder if we could if I can be put into social media campaign it's going ahead yeah okay so we will keep it open on that basis thank you very much and that brings us then to our final petition this morning which is petition number 2018 to recognise the value of swimming pools and provide financial relief to help keep pools open lodged by Helen Plank on behalf of Scottish Swimming the petition calls in Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help keep our swimming pools and leisure centres open by providing financial investment for pools the petitioner notes the important role swimming can play for the physical and mental wellbeing of people of all ages highlighting that pre Covid swimming was one of Scotland's highest participation sports as noted in the papers a report in November of last year by community leisure UK found that 95 percent of Scotland's leisure facilities are at risk of closure with swimming pools facing an increasing risk of closure due to the cost of energy required to operate these facilities subject of our members debate I believe in the chamber last week members may also be aware that increasing financial pressures have recently led to the closure of three public swimming pools in West Lothian as well as Buxburn swimming pool in Aberdeen in response the position the Scottish Government states that it is repeatedly called on the UK government to use all the powers at its disposal to tackle the cost of living crisis and to provide appropriate energy bill relief to leisure facilities the Scottish Government response goes on to acknowledge the financial package provided by the UK government to sports ring pools in England noting that in deciding how to allocate the resulting consequentials it will consider what support can be provided to the sport and leisure sector in Scotland and this too I think was the subject and content of the debate that I believe I heard last week the Scottish Government also states that it is working with sport Scotland to examine the facilities of state in Scotland now we have also received a submission from petitioner which highlights the estimated social value some 55 million swimming contributes society and notes the role swimming pools play in helping to keep people active particularly women people with disabilities and older people members will also note from our papers that we've received a submission from our colleague Tess White MSP former member of this committee who is unable to join the meeting today but wanted to express her support for the petition and highlight concerns about the closure of Buxburn swimming pool in her region do members have any comments or suggestions for further action alexander stewart thank you community I think this is a very important and as you identified has already been raised a number of times within the parliament and debates of that nature so I think it is important that we keep this going and and I think we should write to the minister of social care mental well-being in sport to seek an update on how the Scottish government intends to allocate the consequentials resulting from the UK government's funding of swimming pools in England because that was discussed quite at length in some of the debates you've had and details of the considerations that the support will provide to ensure that sport ledger sector within Scotland and also to write to sport scotland to seek further information on the support it is providing to scottish swing in delivering the scottish swimming facilities project these as they would would once again give us an indication as to where we are with this whole process and these would be the actions I would propose can be now Mr Chaudhury just just to add I did write to our minister to meet regarding the westlothian swimming pool closers and at that time she didn't have time for us to meet so I would like to keep it open and ask questions that what is scottish government doing to support swimming pools I mean I think quite specifically we could ask the Scottish government to confirm what consequentials have been received they have given a commitment in the chamber in response to the debate that they are giving thought to this and deciding how to allocate the resulting consequentials and what support can be provided to sport leisure sector in scottland I think we should ask them not just for an update on that but when they expect to be able to conclude any deliberations that they have on that and to make clear and public what how if at all those consequentials are going to be allocated so I think given the debate last week we could be quite specific in regard to all of that okay I think we're content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis that brings us to the end of the formal part of this morning's proceedings and therefore we now move into private session