Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2016 of the Health and Sport Committee. I ask everyone in the room to switch off their mobile phones as they can interfere with the sound system and with the proceedings, although some colleagues are using tablet devices instead of hard copies of the papers.
The first item on our agenda is day 1 of stage 2 of the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill. As agreed by the Parliament, this committee will consider amendments to those parts of the bill that primarily relate to the disposal of ashes and the meaning of “cremation”, as well as arrangements for adults and children and for losses during pregnancy. Amendments to the rest of the bill will be considered by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee at its meeting tomorrow.
The amendments being considered today start at number 1000. You will be glad to hear that there are not 1,000 amendments, but there are a lot. That numbering is being used to distinguish the amendments that will be considered by this committee from those that will be considered by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. We will start at section 36 of the bill.
I welcome Maureen Watt, Minister for Public Health, Simon Cuthbert-Kerr, the bill team leader, Lindsay Anderson, senior principal legal officer, and David McLeish, parliamentary counsel, all from the Scottish Government.
Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate their wish to speak in the normal way. The debate on the group will be concluded by me by inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands.
Section 36—Meaning of “cremation”
Amendment 1001, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 1044. I call the minister to move amendment 1001 and to speak to both amendments in the group.
Amendment 1001 provides greater clarity and certainty about what constitutes a cremation. The effect of the amendment is that cremation is the burning of human remains. When any further processes are applied to the bones that remain—for example, if they are turned into ashes by cremulation—that is also part of the cremation. Importantly, the amendment means that, when burnt bones are not reduced to ashes, the process is still regarded as a cremation.
The amendment also specifies that the meaning of “ashes” in the bill means anything that remains after the burning process, with the exclusion of any metal that remains. Amendment 1044 reflects that definition in the bill’s interpretation section.
I move amendment 1001.
I would like to confirm the meaning. In the original version of the bill, “cremation” means:
“the reduction to ashes of human remains ... and the application to the burnt human remains of grinding or other processes.”
I think that there is still a degree of ambiguity in amendment 1001, because it could be taken to mean the burning of human remains including one of those two things, or it could be inferred that it may include burning and another process. If it is the latter, it would be better for the amendment to insert the wording “burning of human remains and may include”.
There is ambiguity in the way that the amendment is worded at the moment. It is not clear whether cremation has to include those additional processes. In the original bill, it had to include the additional processes. It would be better to use the wording “and may include”.
I agree with Malcolm Chisholm. In evidence, the committee heard that some religious groups do not agree with cremulation but do agree with cremation. The minister might be trying to deal with that issue.
Although I support the amendment, I believe that clarity is required at stage 3 that cremation does not have to include the additional processes if they go against the beliefs of the family of the person who is being cremated.
No other member wishes to speak. I therefore call the minister to wind up.
It is precisely because in some cases some religions, particularly Hinduism, do not want the cremulation process to take place that we brought forward the wording in amendment 1001.
The amendment uses the wording:
“where a grinding process is applied”.
It does not mean that such a process is always applied: it says “where” that is likely to occur. That is why we used the word “where” in the amendment.
Amendment 1001 agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Section 37—Cremation authority: duties
Amendment 1002, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1003 to 1008.
Amendments 1003 to 1007 place various duties and powers on cremation authorities and funeral directors in relation to how they handle ashes.
Amendment 1003 specifies that a cremation authority must, before carrying out a cremation, take reasonable steps to ascertain what an applicant would like to be done with the ashes following the cremation.
The amendment provides three options: that the ashes will be collected by the applicant; that the ashes will be collected by a funeral director on behalf of the applicant; or that the ashes will be disposed of by the cremation authority on behalf of the applicant. Those options require the cremation authority to do something with the ashes on behalf of the applicant. The applicant may choose to collect the ashes from the crematorium themselves or arrange for the funeral director to collect them. The applicant may also agree with the cremation authority that the authority will dispose of the ashes at the crematorium.
Amendment 1004 places a cremation authority under a duty to follow the applicant’s stated wishes about what should be done with the ashes.
Amendment 1005 sets out the procedure to be followed by a cremation authority where an applicant or funeral director does not collect ashes as agreed. In such a case, the cremation authority must take reasonable steps to ascertain the wishes of the applicant again. If the applicant responds and gives further instructions, the cremation authority is required to comply with those wishes. If the applicant does not make known his or her wishes, the cremation authority may dispose of the ashes in a manner prescribed by regulations.
Amendment 1006 sets out the procedure to be followed by a funeral director where the funeral director has collected ashes from a crematorium on behalf of an applicant and the applicant has not in turn collected the ashes from the funeral director. In that instance, a funeral director is required to take further steps to ascertain the wishes of the applicant. If the applicant gives further instructions, the funeral director is obliged to comply with those wishes. Where the applicant does not provide any further instructions, the funeral director may return the ashes to the crematorium where the cremation was carried out.
09:45Amendment 1007 sets out the procedure to be followed by a cremation authority where a funeral director returns ashes to the crematorium under the new section inserted by amendment 1006. In such an instance, the cremation authority must take reasonable steps to ascertain the applicant’s wishes with regard to how the ashes should be handled. The applicant can either arrange to collect the ashes or ask the cremation authority to dispose of the ashes for them in a way set out in regulations, and the cremation authority must comply with any such instructions. Where the applicant does not respond or give further instructions, the cremation authority may dispose of the ashes in a manner prescribed in regulations.
This group of amendments provides a clear process for handling ashes. At each stage, the applicant will be made aware of his or her choices and what will happen if the ashes are not collected as arranged. Moreover, at each stage, the applicant is given an opportunity to specify what he or she wants to happen to the ashes. Although cremation authorities and funeral directors are under a duty to attempt to contact the applicant at various points, they have a power rather than a duty to dispose of ashes where the applicant does not provide further instructions. That will provide cremation authorities and funeral directors with discretion about when they choose to dispose of ashes and when they choose to retain them.
Amendment 1008 gives ministers a power to make regulations on the handling of ashes. Among other matters, regulations may make provision for time periods for collecting and retaining ashes and for notices that must be given to applicants about the processes.
Finally, amendment 1002, which is actually a very small amendment, removes section 37(1)(c) to ensure that regulations made under section 37 do not include provisions on the disposal of ashes by cremation authorities. Such provisions are now in the bill and are supplemented by regulations under the new section inserted by amendment 1008.
I move amendment 1002.
I have a question for the minister. At the moment, many funeral directors can be left with ashes for quite a long time. Will regulations put in place a time limit for funeral directors to hand back ashes?
Well—
I will bring in Malcolm Chisholm next. You will have an opportunity to respond when you wind up, minister.
I welcome the amount of detail that is being put in the bill. Originally, that detail was to be set out in regulations. I know that we sometimes have debates over what should be in regulations and what should be in a bill, but I think that in this case it is desirable for the detail to be in the bill.
I also welcome the centrality of the applicant’s wishes, which I think has been repeated in almost all of the amendments in the group. It is a very important principle that will come up later this morning.
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for his comments. We have listened to the committees involved in scrutinising the bill and what they have said in their stage 1 reports.
With regard to Nanette Milne’s question, a time limit will be put in place, but it will be agreed in consultation with all the bodies involved.
Amendment 1002 agreed to.
Section 38—Application for cremation
Amendment 1047, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, is grouped with amendment 1048.
I am sure that everyone who has followed the passage of the bill and indeed the events that preceded it will realise the centrality of the ashes issue.
These two amendments refer in particular to loss during pregnancy—I perhaps should have specified that in them but, nevertheless, that is the issue that the committee was looking at. For parents who had endured and suffered losses during pregnancy, the main issue was that they wanted to recover the ashes and the whole process of collecting ashes to be maximised.
Amendment 1047 relates to what is written on the forms. There were a lot of debates about what should be on the application form and whether there should be a standard form or various forms. I think that everybody who gave evidence was most concerned that the policy memorandum referred to the fact that ashes might not be recovered. I think that there was unanimous agreement that there should be wording to the effect that it is expected that ashes will be recovered. I thought that it would be desirable to put that in the bill, following the same principle that the minister followed in the previous amendments. Therefore, amendment 1047 is to address a concern that was raised with us on several occasions during the oral evidence.
Amendment 1048, in a sense, is related to the issue of how we ensure that the maximum amount of ashes is recovered. I was very struck by one of the written submissions that we received. It was sent in anonymously, but I will read a little bit from it. The person, whether they be a man or a woman, said:
“We believe that standard processes and equipment (including specialist infant cremators) should be used in every crematorium to give a consistent chance of recovering ashes from each cremation in every part of Scotland. We understand that there is still no guarantee of ashes, but the knowledge that an approved approach has been applied would remove doubt and provide reassurance.”
The proposal in amendment 1048 is that something should be in the code of practice that relates to that.
The minister has lodged amendments to abolish the section of the bill that relates to codes of practice and to substitute that section with references to codes of practice in various parts of the bill. My amendment 1048 is couched in the form that it is in order to get around that problem—it is a new section, rather than being an amendment to the current section on codes of practice.
I think that the parents who gave evidence to us would, in general, be supportive of my two amendments, because both seek to ensure that the maximum amount of ashes is recovered.
I move amendment 1047.
Will the minister clarify whether an inspector of crematoriums would carry out an inquiry or investigation if no ashes were recovered to ascertain why that was the case? I do not know whether that would help to answer the issue for Malcolm Chisholm, too. On those rare occasions when ashes are not recovered, my understanding is that the inspector would find out the reason for that.
Amendment 1047 seeks to expand the enabling power in the bill that would allow ministers to make regulations about applications for cremation. The bill already provides sufficient powers to allow ministers to make provisions about the duties of cremation authorities, including how they are managed, operated and maintained, as well as the form of the applications for cremations.
Dennis Robertson is correct that the relevant inspector of crematoria will be involved if no ashes are available. Furthermore, the policy memorandum has been superseded by new policy, including a new code of practice that was issued recently. The expectation is that all ashes will be recovered.
On Malcolm Chisholm’s specific point, baby trays are used and cremations are subject to higher temperatures to ensure that ashes are recovered. Amendment 1048 is unnecessary because the Scottish ministers have already issued a code of practice dealing with the matter, which recommends methods of maximising the recovery of ashes. Further to that, tomorrow I will be inviting the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to agree to my amendment 91, which would require future codes of practice for cremation authorities to be laid before and approved by the Parliament before being issued.
I ask members to reject both of Malcolm Chisholm’s amendments.
I thank the minister for those words. In a sense, I lodged my amendments to highlight the issues in question. The fact that, according to the minister, the substance of amendment 1048 is already in a code of practice reassures me. If the same is true of amendment 1047, that reassures me, too.
There is always a balance to be struck between what is put in a bill and what is put in regulations or, indeed, a code of practice. I am not entirely clear about the legal status of a code of practice and what happens if someone does not obey it. That is the only remaining question that I have as regards why it might be preferable to have such provisions in the bill.
I will leave it at that. I may introduce a further amendment at stage 3, but I probably will not.
Amendment 1047, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 40
Amendments 1003 to 1008 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
After section 45
Amendment 1048 not moved.
Section 46 agreed to.
Section 47—Arrangements on death of child
Amendment 1009, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1010 to 1020, 1030, 1045 and 1046.
Amendments 1009 to 1016 are minor amendments, which seek to remove any reference to “still-birth” or “still-born child” from section 47 of the bill. The removal of those terms is a result of discussions with NHS colleagues and it follows further policy development in respect of the way in which arrangements for stillborn children are made. The amendments will mean that section 47 of the bill will refer only to children. Other amendments will introduce new sections on stillbirth.
10:00Amendments 1017 to 1020 seek to insert into the bill new sections to set out the procedures that are to be followed following a stillbirth or a post-24-week termination.
In the case of a post-24-week termination, amendment 1017 allows that the woman who experiences the termination may choose to make her own arrangements for disposal of the remains or authorise the health body to make them on her behalf. Subsection (5) of the proposed new section allows the health body to make arrangements for the disposal of the remains. This subsection has effect if the woman informs the health authority that she does not want to make the arrangements herself; is unable to make the decision; or does not inform the health authority of a decision. The effect of the subsection is to ensure that the health authority can make arrangements for the burial or cremation of the remains even if the woman has given no indication of her wishes.
Amendment 1018 provides the process for making the arrangements for the burial or cremation of a stillbirth. When a stillbirth occurs, the bill provides that the nearest relative of the stillbirth has the right to instruct on the disposal of the remains. The amendment sets out a list of nearest relatives for that purpose. In the first instance, the nearest relative is defined as a parent of the stillborn baby. If neither parent is able to make a decision about the disposal, then that right moves to the next nearest relative on the list. That process continues until a person on the list is able to make a decision.
The nearest relative can make the burial arrangements or authorise the health body to make the arrangements. The amendment requires the health body to record prescribed information in the way that is described under this section. The amendment sets out the process by which the right to instruct on the disposal will move from one nearest relative to the next. That includes the specification of circumstances in which the nearest relative is to be discounted, such as when he or she is under 16 years of age. The amendment also defines a “health body” for the purposes of the proposed section.
Amendment 1019 sets out the steps that a health body must take when it is authorised to make arrangements for the burial or cremation of a stillborn child, by virtue of the new section inserted by amendment 1018. A health body may make arrangements for the remains to be buried or cremated. In the first instance, the health body must wait seven days between being authorised to make the arrangements and making those arrangements. That period is included to allow for the person who authorises the health body to change their decision. However, the amendment allows the person who authorises the health body to indicate that they do not wish to wait seven days. That means that there will be no delay when a burial has to take place quickly for religious or cultural reasons.
Amendment 1020 provides health bodies with a general power to make arrangements for the burial or cremation of the remains of a stillborn child when it appears that no other arrangements are being made. Other amendments provide a process for making such arrangements, but in cases in which, for whatever reason, no arrangements are made, this amendment allows for a health body to make those arrangements.
Amendments 1030 and 1046 reorganise the definitions of “health authority”, “health board” and “independent health care service”, by removing them from section 50 of the bill and putting definitions for those latter two expressions into section 75—the general interpretation section of the bill. The definition of “health authority” is no longer needed.
Amendment 1045 changes the meaning of “fetus” so that it includes embryo, ensuring that provisions relating to pregnancy loss include those at the embryonic stage.
I move amendment 1009.
Amendment 1009 agreed to.
Amendments 1010 to 1016 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
After section 47
Amendments 1017 to 1020 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 48—Disposal of remains: nearest relative
Amendment 1021, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1022 to 1026.
The overall effect of amendments 1022 to 1024 is to amend section 48 so as to require a person who makes a decision about the disposal of a deceased person’s remains to have regard to the deceased’s religion or beliefs, so far as they are known to the person, when choosing burial or cremation. Section 48 already requires the person to have regard to any wishes about the method of disposal expressed by the deceased, as far as they are known to the person.
Amendments 1021 and 1025 make minor drafting adjustments to sections 48(1) and 49(1)(b) of the bill.
Amendment 1026 removes references to making applications to a sheriff. Those are no longer relevant because of changes to the process brought about by the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 in relation to summary application.
I move amendment 1021.
Amendment 1021 agreed to.
Amendments 1022 to 1024 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
Section 49—Sections 46 and 47: application to sheriff
Amendments 1025 and 1026 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Section 50—Arrangements on loss during pregnancy
Amendment 1027, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 1028, 1029, 1031 to 1036, 1049, 1037, 1050 and 1038 to 1043. I point out that if amendment 1036 is agreed to, amendment 1049 will be pre-empted.
The overall effect of this group of amendments is to strengthen the process that a health authority must follow when a woman experiences a pregnancy loss before or on completion of 24 weeks’ gestation.
Amendment 1027 adjusts the drafting of the bill to make it clear that section 50 applies in the case of pregnancy losses that occur before or on completion of 24 weeks’ gestation.
Amendment 1028 ensures that where a woman who experiences a pregnancy loss authorises another person to make arrangements for the disposal of the remains in a particular way, that person must make the arrangements in the way that was specified by the woman.
Amendment 1029 ensures that as soon as a woman makes a decision about what she would like to be done with the remains of a pregnancy loss, a health authority must record that decision and take reasonable steps to secure the woman’s signature in relation to the decision.
Amendment 1031 relates to situations in which a woman changes a decision that she has made under section 50. The effect of the amendment is to provide legal certainty that the new decision that the woman makes is to be treated as though it were a decision made under section 50.
Amendment 1032 addresses a potential gap where a woman authorises a person to make the arrangements for the disposal of remains and that person then asks a health authority to make the arrangements. The effect of the amendment is to require the person to specify that the health authority must make the arrangements in the way that was specified originally by the woman. That will ensure that the woman’s wishes are carried out.
Amendment 1033 ensures that where a woman chooses to make her own arrangements for the burial or cremation of the remains of a pregnancy loss, the health authority will give her the remains. Similarly, where a person who is authorised by the woman to make the arrangements wishes to make their own arrangements, the amendment ensures that the health authority will give that person the remains.
Amendment 1034 makes a drafting change to provide clarity about the process that a health authority will carry out. It replaces a reference to disposing of remains with a reference to making arrangements for their disposal. That adjustment better reflects the actual process in which the health authority will make arrangements for disposal but not carry out the disposal.
Amendment 1035 allows a person who authorises a health authority to make arrangements for disposal to specify that they do not wish the seven-day waiting period to apply before arrangements are made. That will allow the remains to be buried or cremated as soon as possible and ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in cases where burial is required to take place quickly for religious or cultural reasons. The amendment will not require a person to indicate why they do not wish the seven-day period to apply.
Amendment 1036 allows a health authority to take various steps when no arrangements have been made at the end of the six-week period from the date of a pregnancy loss. New subsection (2) places the health authority under a duty to consider whether it would be in the woman’s best interest to contact her to try to ascertain what she wants to happen to the ashes.
The amendment is structured in that way to reflect the wide variety of circumstances that might have led to that point. For example, a woman might not have been able to reach a decision about what she would like to happen to the remains. In that instance, the health authority may continue to support the woman to make a decision. The amendment does not place a timescale on that outcome.
In other circumstances, however, a woman might have given no notice of what she would like to happen to the remains and might have had no contact with the health authority since the loss occurred. In such an instance, the health authority may conclude that the woman has indicated that she does not want to be involved in the process, and the health authority may therefore choose to make arrangements for the disposal of the remains.
10:15New subsections (2E) and (2F) provide the health authority with the power to make arrangements for the disposal of remains where no decision has otherwise been made. Amendment 1036 places considerable emphasis on the health authority’s judgment of a certain situation, particularly where it has an on-going relationship with the woman and knows that she is still trying to reach a decision about what should be done with the remains. The health authority is under no obligation to make arrangements for the disposal of the remains.
As the health authority will have been involved since the loss occurred, it is appropriate to give it flexibility to act according to a variety of situations that might occur and which require different responses to ensure that the best outcome is achieved in each instance. Such decisions will largely be based on the health authority’s relationship with the woman. The Scottish Government will provide guidance to health authorities to support the operation of the process.
Amendment 1049, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, seeks to allow a health authority to make contact with a woman who has experienced a pregnancy loss about arrangements for disposal where arrangements have not been made within the initial six-week period. It requires a health authority to seek a woman’s views about disposal and to give her more time to make the decision about arrangements for disposal, should she request it. I accept the principle behind this amendment; indeed, that is why I have lodged amendment 1036, which, being built around a woman’s best interests, will ensure that health authorities have to seek a woman’s views where arrangements for disposal have not been made after pregnancy loss and give her time to come to a decision about the matter. As a result, I do not think that amendment 1049 is necessary and I invite the member not to move it.
Amendment 1037 allows a health authority to discuss options with a woman where it is known that a pregnancy loss will occur but it has not yet happened. In such instances, it can be beneficial for the woman to consider what she would like to happen to the remains before the loss occurs. The amendment allows a health authority to discuss matters before a pregnancy loss occurs, but it does not require the authority to do so if it does not believe that that would be in the woman’s best interests.
Amendment 1050, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, requires that electronic registers must be kept by health authorities in relation to pregnancy loss. I fully accept the principle behind the amendment and, as such, I have lodged amendment 128, which will be considered by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee tomorrow and which, although having the same effect as amendment 1050, will go wider by requiring all information kept under the bill to be stored in electronic form. I therefore do not think that amendment 1050 is necessary and I invite the member not to move it.
Amendments 1039 and 1041 remove the power to create offences from the regulation-making power in section 55, while amendment 1043, which inserts a new section after section 55, sets out on the face of the bill offences in relation to registers kept by health authorities on pregnancy loss. Amendment 1040 inserts a new provision requiring health authorities to keep registers on pregnancy losses indefinitely, which is consistent with the approach taken to other registers made under the bill. Amendment 1042 provides a definition of “health authority” for the purposes of section 55, while amendment 1038, which inserts the word “or” between section 55(2)(a) and (b), is a drafting adjustment that provides drafting consistency with other parts of the bill.
I move amendment 1027.
First, I think that the minister has dealt with the matter of my amendment 1050 in her amendment 128, which will be considered tomorrow. I assume that amendment 128 will be passed, so I do not need to move amendment 1050.
However, I am not so sure about amendment 1049. My starting place is a paragraph in the minister’s speech in the stage 1 debate, which I am sure she will not mind me reading out. She said:
“In setting out what will happen after a pregnancy loss, the bill ensures that the woman who has experienced the loss is at the centre of the decision-making process.”
That is the first principle. The second is the provision of more time, on which the minister went on to say:
“I intend to lodge stage 2 amendments to further support an even more person-centred approach to deciding what should be done with the remains of a pregnancy loss. That will ensure that no woman is ever rushed into making a decision and will provide extra flexibility where a woman needs more time to decide what she wants to happen.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2016; c 86.]
I heard what the minister said, but I have struggled to find a specific reference in her amendment 1036 to a woman expressing the need for more time, so I remain to be persuaded about that.
In amendment 1049, I have made it clear that
“If the woman informs the appropriate health authority that she requires a further period to make a decision ... the authority must take such steps as it considers necessary to accommodate that request.”
The minister, quite rightly, lodged amendment 1035 to ensure that everything could be finalised in less than seven days, if that is what the woman wants. I welcome that amendment. The other side of the coin is that, if the woman wants more time, it should be longer than six weeks. That is my first point.
My second point is that I have some concerns about the words,
“the best interests of the woman”.
Obviously, we all want to act in the best interests of the woman, but who is to decide what that is? People always get a bit suspicious when someone is seen to be acting on a person’s behalf without having asked them. That came up in the context of the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill last week, in relation to the duty of candour and ensuring that people are always asked rather than assumptions being made in a paternalistic fashion. I am a bit suspicious of the wording about contacting the woman if it is thought to be in her interests to be contacted. It is more straightforward to say that the woman will be contacted, which will be followed by one of three things: arrangement of disposal of the remains, in accordance with her wishes; if she does not express a wish to influence disposal, its being done without regard to her position, since she does not have one; or the woman asks for more time.
I think that my amendment 1049 deals with the fundamental principles of the centrality of the woman’s view and of explicitly allowing for a longer period, if that is what the woman wants. I remain to be convinced that all that is covered by amendment 1036.
When I came to the meeting, I could not really distinguish between the two amendments. However, having listened to what has been said by the minister and by Malcolm Chisholm, I think that Malcolm Chisholm’s amendment 1049 is more explicit and would ensure that the woman is contacted. I will support amendment 1049.
I was not going to comment on which amendment I prefer—the minister’s amendment 1036 or Malcolm Chisholm’s amendment 1049—although I would support the Government’s amendment. If clarity is needed, there is still stage 3.
I very much welcome amendment 1037, which relates to situations in which the pregnancy is expected to be unsuccessful in the early stages and conversation with the parents about disposal of the remains of their unborn child. I have had experience of that situation in constituency casework and through family and friends, so I see the amendment as being a significant step forward in dealing sensitively with early pregnancy loss.
I acknowledge that it is a tough shift to be NHS front-line staff, but we must always reinforce the fact that sensitivity is needed when a pregnancy is deemed to be failing. Some people will go to accident and emergency units or wherever there are front-line NHS staff, and not always to early-pregnancy clinics or maternity services. When we pass the bill, we need to ensure that there is awareness-raising training for NHS front-line staff on how they should deal with such situations. However, what we have heard from the Scottish Government today is a significant step forward that deals particularly sensitively with such situations.
We need to remember that amendment 1036 makes it clear that section 54 will apply where the provision in section 50(1)
“applies in relation to a woman”
and where
“the relevant period has expired”.
I also point out that amendment 1036 refers to
“the best interests of the woman”,
which will be based on the authority’s relationship with the woman. If the woman is still involved in the process, it will be entirely her view that is taken into account.
However, the woman might have indicated that she does not want to be involved; indeed, she might not have given a view at all and might, for example, find being contacted too painful. In such cases, the fact that the amendment refers to her “best interests” reflects that.
Amendment 1027 agreed to.
Amendments 1028 to 1030 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Section 51—Change in arrangements
Amendment 1031 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Section 52—Individual authorised to make arrangements
Amendment 1032 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
After section 52
Amendment 1033 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 53—Appropriate health authority authorised to make arrangements
Amendments 1034 and 1035 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
Section 54—Duty of appropriate health authority
Amendment 1036 moved—[Maureen Watt].
I remind members that if amendment 1036 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 1049.
The question is, that amendment 1036 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Against
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1036 agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
After section 54
10:30Amendment 1037 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 55—Duty to keep a register
Amendment 1050 not moved.
Amendments 1038 to 1042 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
After section 55
Amendment 1043 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Section 75—Interpretation
Amendments 1044 to 1046 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of amendments by the Health and Sport Committee. Members should note that the bill will not be reprinted at this stage; instead, an electronic version will be produced this afternoon including the amendments that have been agreed to by the committee.
10:33 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance