Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Michael Matheson on the “Mortonhall Investigation Report”. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement to Parliament.
Yesterday, Dame Elish Angiolini’s substantial report on her investigation into the events at Mortonhall was published. There is no doubt in my mind that Dame Elish Angiolini’s investigation was robust, detailed and comprehensive. I am incredibly grateful to her for the work that she and her team have put into the investigation, and for the sympathy that she has shown to those who have been affected by events at Mortonhall. The families who are affected had already endured the pain and grief of losing a child. For that to be revisited on them due to the actions at Mortonhall was particularly cruel.
It will take some time for all of us to digest the report in full, but already it is clear that Dame Elish Angiolini has identified what she believes are serious failings in the operational management of the Mortonhall crematorium and in the oversight of Mortonhall by the City of Edinburgh Council.
Dame Elish Angiolini talks about
“an inward-looking and isolated managerial approach”
and
“an absence of meaningful supervision or leadership”.
She describes
“a comprehensive and long-term failure to provide an acceptable service to some of society’s most vulnerable next of kin.”
Those comments go to the roots of the problems at Mortonhall.
I also note that Dame Elish Angiolini concluded that there is
“overwhelming evidence that foetal bones do survive cremation, at least from 17 weeks gestation”,
which should put to rest once and for all the received wisdom that that is not the case.
Members will be aware that the Infant Cremation Commission is currently completing its work and plans to report in the near future. In that context, I would like to set out next steps in relation to Mortonhall and the rest of the country. On Mortonhall, Dame Elish Angiolini’s report makes many recommendations for the council. The council in Edinburgh did the right thing in commissioning the independent investigation, and it has indicated that it will take forward the recommendations. We stand ready to provide any assistance that we can to ensure that that is done swiftly.
It is important that the council ensures that the voice of parents is heard in that work. The response to the report should be transparent and open and should involve affected parents. It is important that those who have been so badly affected by past events can have a stake in ensuring that it cannot happen again.
There is of course much for the Scottish Government to reflect on in Dame Elish Angiolini’s report. In particular, I note that she concludes that
“The legal framework governing the cremation of foetuses and infants in Scotland is peppered with gaps, ambiguity and uncertainty.”
Work had already commenced on that, and plans were in place to bring forward new primary legislation to update the law in the area. Indeed, there is already a legislative slot for that in the parliamentary programme. However, it is important that we ensure that our work now captures the findings from Dame Elish Angiolini’s report.
As members will be aware, last year, the Government asked Lord Bonomy to lead an independent Infant Cremation Commission to look at these matters. Over the past 12 months, Lord Bonomy and his commission have worked hard to review the policies and procedures in crematoria, the funeral industry and the national health service right across Scotland. Lord Bonomy has met affected parents and has spoken to people who work in the industry, both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. I also know that Lord Bonomy and Dame Elish Angiolini worked together closely while taking forward their respective investigations in order to learn from each other.
The commission will consider many, if not all, of the issues raised by Dame Elish Angiolini and, once Lord Bonomy has reported, we will move swiftly to set out clearly how we will respond. It would be premature for us to respond in detail to Dame Elish Angiolini’s recommendations today, before we know what Lord Bonomy will say, but I am happy to reassure members that, in broad terms, we very much support the recommendations that have been made.
Lord Bonomy has advised us that he hopes to provide his report by the end of May. Before he does that, he has committed to sharing his draft report with affected parents to give them an opportunity to comment on his findings and conclusions. We want our next steps to be owned by those they most affect. We want affected parents to have a voice in the future.
Clearly, updating and improving the law is only part of the solution. We know that many parents across Scotland will continue to be affected by these events. Last year, the Scottish Government provided additional funding to two different charities that are supporting parents who are affected by these issues. As the First Minister announced earlier today, we have set aside an additional £100,000 this year to enable those organisations to continue to provide the support that is needed by those parents. We are already in discussion with the organisations to understand how much funding they need.
I am sure that many parents feel that they still do not have the answers that they need. In the case of Mortonhall, as Dame Elish Angiolini has concluded, the tragedy is that we may never know, and parents will be left with a lifetime of uncertainty. No amount of investigation will provide the answers that the parents want.
I know that some parents in other parts of Scotland feel that their circumstances have not been investigated in the same thorough way as has been done at Mortonhall. As the First Minister said today, we want parents to have the best answer that is possible for their own child. We will consider how best that can be ensured when any potential criminal investigations are concluded and when we have the Infant Cremation Commission’s report. All affected parents must receive the same level of investigation as happened for the 253 families affected at Mortonhall.
I know that some parents have reiterated their call for a public inquiry. I reassure those parents that I hear that call. We have never ruled out a public inquiry. We always said that we would reflect on that once we received the reports from Dame Elish Angiolini and Lord Bonomy. That is what we will do.
I reassure members that we will continue to give these issues absolute priority. When these issues emerged last year, we did not hesitate to launch a robust, independent process to learn lessons and make recommendations for the future. We will not hesitate to bring forward the necessary legislation and take the necessary steps once the commission has reported, and we will do all that we can to support affected parents through these difficult times.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions; I also intend to be flexible, if that is required. After that, we will move to the next item of business.
I thank the minister for today’s statement on this very sad and distressing issue. No one could have escaped seeing yesterday’s harrowing pictures of the families who are still trying to make sense of these tragedies and come to terms with the failures of a system that was supposed to ensure that their loss was met with the dignity and respect that it deserved.
I put on record my thanks for the thoroughness of the report into what happened in Edinburgh, which has done an important job, and I recognise the campaigners who, through their grief, got us to this place at which the investigations have taken place. I know that many colleagues in the chamber will have been dealing with similar cases all over the country, and the minister will know about my involvement at the Scottish level, and with my constituents and families in Glasgow. I have found their stories to be difficult and disturbing, and I fear that their hurt will never be properly resolved, but we have a responsibility to try.
I welcome the undertakings that the Scottish Government and other organisations have made. Scottish Labour stands ready to work with them to help the process in any way that we can. There is a clear consensus that we should do all that we can to find answers for the families all over Scotland who have been tormented by this experience.
Does the minister accept that too many families have lost confidence and trust because they have been misled throughout about what has happened to their child, often on more than one occasion? Does he accept that this is a matter for all Scotland? Does he accept that, should he agree to hold a public inquiry now, he would be able to draw together the past and the future? It would allow us to respond to need right across Scotland. Although it might produce information that is hard for the families to bear, it would give them certainty that the truth is being established, and it would give confidence to those families who were not given the truth. Does the minister accept that establishing a public inquiry would respond to the scepticism of so many families that has been born out of the terrible reality of what has happened to them?
I ask the minister to reflect on that point and to accept that we will do all that we can to support the Scottish Government in proceeding with this matter.
I am grateful for the Labour Party’s response and offer to assist with any legislation that we can make in Parliament to address the issue. I share Johann Lamont’s views about the distress and pain that the findings of the Angiolini report will cause many families. If there was something that I could do to ease that pain for them, I would be more than willing to do it.
The member’s principal point was about a public inquiry. As I said in my statement, we have not ruled that out. We will consider it once we have Lord Bonomy’s report and have considered it alongside Dame Elish Angiolini’s report.
With the publication of Dame Elish Angiolini’s report, I have been struck by the widespread acceptance of the thoroughness and detail that she has gone into. Sadly, as she has said in the report, some parents will never get the answers that they are looking for because of the nature of the practices that were undertaken at Mortonhall. No further or subsequent investigation will be able to provide those families with the answers that they are looking for.
I recognise that there are parents who feel that there is a need for further investigation into their personal circumstances. I am sympathetic to that and will consider it as part of the work that we will do after Lord Bonomy reports. However, it is right that we give Lord Bonomy and his commission their place so that they can complete their detailed investigation. Once that report has been submitted to the Scottish Government, we will consider the most appropriate approach to take to give those parents who feel that there are still unanswered questions the answers that they are looking for where they can be provided.
Like others, Conservatives have met many of the parents, and we offer our support in the face of the distress, dismay and frustration that they have endured, particularly during the past year.
I, too, welcome the minister’s statement and thank him for advance sight of it. I acknowledge the Government’s obvious desire to meet the scale and scope of the recommendations that are already emerging. Of course, we also offer our support for any legislation that the Government feels is necessary.
Ruth Davidson called for a public inquiry a year ago, but the First Minister felt that the investigations that were being led by Dame Elish Angiolini and Lord Bonomy were the best approach to give earlier certainty. We disagreed with that approach but we understood what the First Minister was seeking to achieve. I think that Dame Elish Angiolini’s report is deeper and more disturbing than any of us could have imagined—she herself uses the word “grim.”
I echo Johann Lamont’s comments: given that the experience of parents at Mortonhall was shared by others across Scotland—that is the characteristic that we have yet to understand fully—I urge the minister to reconsider our request, which has been repeated today, for a full public inquiry. That is not something that Conservatives seek often or lightly. I understand that the decision might be reached in the wake of Lord Bonomy’s report this month, but I ask the minister to appreciate that the sheer scale of the issue across Scotland underlines and justifies the need for a full public inquiry, to give the certainty that I think all of Scotland needs.
I welcome the constructive response from the Conservatives to work with us to take forward any necessary legislation.
I recognise the call that was made by the Conservatives previously—and by Ruth Davidson in particular—to have a public inquiry. When we were considering the matter, one of the most important issues was to find the best way to give answers to parents who had questions and uncertainty. In her report, Dame Elish Angiolini has been able to investigate 253 individual cases in great detail—something that I am sure that the member would appreciate would not happen with a public inquiry, because a public inquiry would look at only a sample of cases and use them for general purposes and reference. The approach that the City of Edinburgh Council has taken has allowed a much greater level of detail to be gone into in those individual cases, which I think has been helpful in looking at the issue in context.
The member is right that we will consider the possibility of a public inquiry once we have Lord Bonomy’s report. The member referred to the issue of scale. Lord Bonomy will consider the process in every crematorium in Scotland. He has looked at every policy and practice, including the paperwork, that operates in our crematoria in Scotland. Once we have his report, we will have a clearer understanding of the scale of the matter in Scotland. At that point, we will be in a better position to make an informed decision about whether a public inquiry will add any extra value to the work that has already been carried out by Lord Bonomy and Dame Elish Angiolini.
I ask the minister to join me in paying tribute to the work of Sands Lothians and, in particular, that of Dorothy Maitland, who has done so much to support other families through what has been an unbelievably difficult process. Does he agree that the pain of the 253 families is deepened by the shocking findings of the report and the news that in many cases the families will never know what happened to their babies’ ashes? Given that, and given the finding at page 548 of the report that
“the precise extent to which remains of babies have been mixed in with an adult cremation ... is also unknown but appears likely to be extensive”,
will he provide further details on the potential for a lasting and dignified memorial, if that is something that the parents wish to see, so that they can have a focal point for their grief?
Like Jim Eadie, I acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that Sands Lothians has done, and, in particular, the way in which Dorothy Maitland is taking that work forward, given that she is also an affected parent in this tragedy. There is no doubt that the report from Dame Elish Angiolini will reopen many difficult memories for many families.
With regard to the memorial, I know that there are some recommendations in Dame Elish Angiolini’s report around the existing ground at Mortonhall. I have no doubt that the council will wish to take forward those recommendations, and I would encourage it to do so with affected parents.
Once we have Lord Bonomy’s report, I will be more than happy to discuss with respective organisations the possibility of a national memorial, if that was felt appropriate. My guiding light in relation to any type of memorial will be the affected parents and whether they feel that one would be appropriate in the first place.
The findings of the report are multiple and very complex in nature, and I think that they will reverberate across the United Kingdom, around Europe and possibly even beyond. We know that more than 200 families have been affected by practices at Mortonhall, but we do not know how many have been affected in other areas of Scotland. What action has the Government taken in respect of other Scottish local authorities, and what advice has it offered them about how they can establish what has gone on in their area? What should other bereaved parents who may have suffered in a similar way now do to find out if indeed they have been affected?
When Lord Bonomy’s commission was established, one of its early acts was to write to all crematoria in Scotland setting out the process that should be put in place and adhered to if any concerns were raised by parents regarding the cremation of infants.
Alongside that, the commission is examining the procedures and practices that are in place in every crematorium in Scotland in order to evaluate whether any aspects of their practices are not acceptable. When we have Lord Bonomy’s report, we will be in a position to consider whether we need to take further measures with regard to specific crematoria in any part of the country.
The advice that was given when the commission was set up was that any parents who had concerns should initially, under the current legislation, raise those concerns with the crematorium in question, which should then follow Lord Bonomy’s advice on investigating the matter.
Once we have Lord Bonomy’s report, we will be able to consider specific crematoria in Scotland that have been operating in a manner that is not acceptable. We will then consider what measures need to be taken in order to investigate those matters further, if appropriate.
In several of his answers, the minister has referred to the plight of parents in other parts of Scotland. A constituent of mine had an experience in Edinburgh with a different crematorium, but as it was run independently rather than by the local authority, it fell outwith the scope of the Mortonhall investigation.
Can the minister provide a guarantee that the review of what has been going on, and any changes that are made, will apply to all crematoria, no matter how they are operated? Will there be a review not just of current practices but of historical cases from 10 or 20 years ago that are continuing to bubble up?
Lord Bonomy’s commission is looking at all 27 crematoria in Scotland, of which 14 are local authority run, 12 are privately run and one is run jointly by the local authority and the private sector. All the crematoria have been contacted by the Bonomy commission so that it can examine their policies and practices and the procedures under which they operate.
I assure the member that the commission’s approach applies to all establishments, public or private. If there is a view that there may have been some form of criminal activity in individual cases that come up, the advice is for individuals to report the matter to Police Scotland, which has a team that will investigate any individual circumstances that parents bring to it.
My thoughts today are with all 253 families who are affected by the Mortonhall tragedy.
The minister said that he wants to wait for Lord Bonomy’s findings. Does he agree with me and other members on all sides of the chamber that regardless of what is contained in those findings, which will be of a technical nature concerning practices and legalities and will not deliver all the answers that families across the country need and deserve, only a full public inquiry can ascertain whether other crematoria were involved? It would help to avoid any further delay in giving families the answers that they were promised. We need to know about the mistakes of the past so that we can be sure that they never happen again. I, like members of other parties, will be happy to help the Government in that regard.
I am grateful for Jim Hume’s support for any legislative changes that may need to be introduced. As I mentioned in some of my answers, we have not ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry. However, it is right that we allow due process to take place and the Bonomy commission to complete its work. We can then come to a final decision on the matter.
It is worth emphasising that the approach by Dame Elish Angiolini resulted in the investigation of 253 individual cases. If we had instigated a public inquiry at national level and not had the Angiolini inquiry, which was set up by the City of Edinburgh Council, those 253 cases would not have been subject to the level of investigation that has now occurred.
If the objective is to ensure that concerned parents get their case thoroughly investigated to try to get the answers that they are looking for, we must recognise that a public inquiry might not be the best route for achieving that. If it is the best route, then the Government will consider it once we have received Lord Bonomy’s report. We need to be sure, though, what the objective of any further investigation would be. If its purpose is to try to give parents the answers that they need about their baby’s circumstances, a more detailed investigation of their case might be the best way of achieving that, as was the case with Dame Elish Angiolini’s report.
I hope that the member will be reassured that our commitment is to try to get the answers for parents as best we can and to try to find the best mechanism to achieve that. If that can be served only by a public inquiry, we will consider that, but if it can be achieved in a better and quicker way, we will consider that as well.
Can the minister clarify the role of Lord Bonomy’s work in relation to the NHS? The minister will be aware that the report looks at practices within hospitals, particularly those involving midwives and nurses who deal most immediately with families who have just lost a baby. If it is not the case that the NHS will be part of Lord Bonomy’s review, can the minister look to revise with immediate effect the guidance that midwives use to advise parents immediately after the death of a baby and ensure that practices that happen today, tomorrow and next week do not need to be reviewed three months down the line, when they could be reviewed today?
I can give the member the reassurance that she requires: Lord Bonomy’s commission is looking at the funeral industry, local authority and private crematoriums, and the NHS. He is looking at the full process of dealing with families who have lost a baby. Dame Elish Angiolini’s report highlights a number of failings within the NHS that are unacceptable and will need to be addressed. The Government is ready to ensure, once we have Lord Bonomy’s detailed report, that we can take the necessary action to ensure that staff within the NHS have the right skills, knowledge and support to advise parents in such tragic circumstances of the information needed to make an informed decision.
Given the number of recommendations in the report, can the minister tell us what communication the Scottish Government has had with the City of Edinburgh Council since the report was published, as there are recommendations for both the Government and the council to consider?
Our officials have been in regular contact with the City of Edinburgh Council since the publication of the report. The member may be aware that the council has announced that it intends to establish a working group to consider the recommendations set out in the report. We have made it very clear to the City of Edinburgh Council that we stand ready to offer it what assistance and advice we can provide in order to support and implement the recommendations as swiftly as possible. We will also implement the recommendations that are set out for the Government. Once we have the full report from Lord Bonomy we will consider whether we need to take any further measures that might have an impact on the way in which all local authority and private crematoriums in Scotland operate.
I will pick up on the answers that the minister has given to colleagues about what happens for parents living in other parts of Scotland. What will the timetable be for the introduction of legislation following both the Mortonhall report and the Bonomy commission report? We must also think about what impact the reports will have on parents in other parts of Scotland and what routes there will be for them to get answers to questions that they might have. The minister has acknowledged that the questions are about not just the operation of different crematoria, but very personal family experiences.
It would be helpful to get some sense of how the minister thinks that that will be addressed. Although he has said that he does not think that a public inquiry is appropriate, he has not ruled it out. Nor has he said what alternative mechanisms there might be and who might commission them. The City of Edinburgh Council commissioned the Mortonhall report. What would be the alternative for other parts of Scotland?
I acknowledge the member’s desire to set out a clear path for going forward. I am cautious about setting out too much detail however, because whether we choose a public inquiry or a different approach will be determined on the basis of Lord Bonomy’s report. There are options that go in different directions.
I reassure the member that, once we have received Lord Bonomy’s report, we will come to an informed decision about whether to have a public inquiry. If we decide not to, we will consider what measures could be taken to help those parents in other parts of Scotland who feel that their circumstances have not been thoroughly investigated. If we are to provide something to achieve that for them, we will consider what form that should take in order to reassure parents and give them confidence that the measure will do the right thing for them and that they can trust the nature of the investigation.
I do not want to set out what an alternative option would be because it would appear that I was completely ruling out a public inquiry. I assure members that an inquiry has not been completely ruled out. Once we have Lord Bonomy’s report, we can make an informed decision about the best way forward.
A further seven members have indicated that they wish to ask a question of the minister. I intend to let this session run on for as long as it takes to allow those seven questions to be asked and answered. That will impact on the debate that follows, but we will give you guidance from the chair when we come to the next debate. Given the importance of this issue, that is the right thing to do.
I thank the minister for his statement and pay tribute to the parents in Sands Lothians.
Will the minister expand on how much consideration has been given to the report from Dr Clive Chamberlain, which appears in an annex to the main report?
I am aware that Dr Chamberlain was a specialist who gave expert advice to Dame Elish Angiolini’s team. As I outlined in my statement, Dame Elish and Lord Bonomy have worked closely and the full report has been submitted to Lord Bonomy’s commission, including the annex to which the member refers. I have no doubt that Lord Bonomy’s commission will want to consider that particular piece of evidence that was submitted by the expert who supported Dame Elish Angiolini’s team.
I reiterate Johann Lamont’s comments that there are parents in Glasgow who believe that they have been affected by this tragic scandal. Those that I have spoken to believe that a full public inquiry is needed in order to have a chance of getting at the answers. Critical to that is their loss of trust; they believe that they have been misled before.
I understand that Lord Bonomy will report very soon, but does the minister understand that every day and sleepless night that such an inquiry is delayed adds to the prolonged anguish for those families? Further to Sarah Boyack’s question, I ask the minister whether Lord Bonomy has been asked to make any recommendation about an alternative to a public inquiry, and whether he expects Lord Bonomy to say more about potential routes for getting the answers that these families need?
I recognise that there are parents in Glasgow and other parts of the country who may feel that they have not had the same level of investigation into their case as the parents affected at Mortonhall. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, it is right that we allow the Bonomy commission time to do its work. It will report in the coming weeks and I assure the member that soon after we have received the report, we will come to a position on the best way forward. There is no intention on our part to try to delay matters. Once we have Lord Bonomy’s report, we will try to respond as quickly as possible.
For example, the Bonomy commission has committed to sharing its report with affected parents before it is published, so we will ask whether parents would wish the Bonomy report to be published alongside the Scottish Government’s response to its recommendations. That may take a little bit longer to do, to allow us to consider the recommendations, but it would mean that one report is published and that parents will not have to wait for the Bonomy report and then for our response to it. If parents feel that that would be helpful, I am more than happy to work with the commission to achieve that, in order to try to give parents as quickly as possible the Scottish Government’s perspective on what we will do to move forward.
The minister referred to other parts of Scotland, and there have been concerns in Aberdeen. I note today that the housing and environment convener at Aberdeen City Council has announced that there will be a review of its process. Given that the minister has announced that legislation will be introduced during this parliamentary session, what guarantees can he give that there will be discussions with those councils that are reviewing their practices, to ensure that any reviews and actions that are taken are complementary to the legislative process, not contradictory to it, to ensure a joined-up approach?
The review to which Mark McDonald refers is a process that Lord Bonomy set out and I encourage Aberdeen City Council to follow the Bonomy commission’s guidance on it. The process is set out in such a way as to ensure that affected parents can have confidence in it, and so that it is independent of the council’s process.
When taking forward any legislation we will have to engage with stakeholders and consider the matters in detail. I am sure that all members will recognise that although we want to move swiftly on this matter, we also need to take considered time to ensure that we get it right, so that there is no repeat of this situation.
Mark McDonald can be assured that we will work with all stakeholders so that any legislative changes will ensure that such issues can never occur again. I encourage Aberdeen City Council to follow the process that Lord Bonomy outlined when it carries out any review of its own process.
Bereaved parents in my region suffer the same heartache and raised concerns about Aberdeen crematorium last year. In response, the council carried out an extremely limited sample audit of records; I am grateful that it is looking at that again.
Dame Elish Angiolini recommends that crematoria should not be allowed to continue cremating infants unless they can demonstrate confidence in retrieving remains. Can the minister assure me that every support will be given to Aberdeen City Council and, indeed, councils around the country to ensure that they can act promptly to develop the necessary competence and thereby ensure that the utmost respect and dignity are accorded to the handling of infant remains?
Alison McInnes may be aware that a couple of professional bodies are responsible for standards in the cremation and burial industry. As Dame Elish Angiolini outlined in her report, they have been found wanting to some degree, in relation to some of the practices on which they have issued guidance.
Once we have Lord Bonomy’s report, it will be important to ensure that those different regulatory bodies operate on the same standards and that those standards are being implemented effectively. We have to look at how the action that we take forward in any future legislation can ensure that those standards are being properly adhered to and what sanctions there could be if they are not.
I am grateful that this thorough investigation has occurred at Mortonhall and I recognise the part played by those brave parents, who campaigned through grief that we can barely contemplate. It is difficult to understand why the procedures were ever deemed acceptable and it is hard to think of a situation that requires more sympathetic and compassionate attention and care than the cremation of a much-loved baby.
Will the Government work with local authorities to ensure that those who work in crematoria possess all the necessary attributes—not solely paper qualifications—to carry out all aspects of this incredibly important work with the greatest sensitivity?
I am more than happy to give Alison Johnstone that reassurance. One of the important lessons that needs to be learned is making sure that staff have the right type of empathy and attitude for their role. Clearly, local authorities have an important role in ensuring that they have the right staff to perform this work.
Equally, I want to ensure that private sector crematoria have the right staff and can offer bereaved parents the right type of support and assistance in their time of need. I say to Alison Johnstone yes, but let us ensure that private crematoria do the same thing, in offering a good-quality service.
When I meet affected parents in Glasgow once again on Monday, can I reassure them that the Scottish Government will use any mechanism it takes to maximise the opportunity for them to get the detailed answers that they desperately need?
Moreover, although I welcome the additional resources that the First Minister announced earlier today, I should point out that concerns had been raised with me that resources for bespoke counselling services were under great pressure. Will that matter be kept under constant review? After all, the more publicity this issue gets, the more people will be retraumatised by their losses, whether they have been affected by the baby ashes scandal or otherwise.
I am aware of concerns that have been expressed by some parents in the Glasgow area about the support and counselling services that are available to affected parents. Last year, we were able to provide some start-up funding to Forget-me-not Care and Counselling, which was established by an affected parent, and it is one of the organisations that we are in contact with to find out whether they require any more financial resource so that they can continue to provide support to affected parents in the west of Scotland.
That ends the minister’s statement.
Previous
Multiple Sclerosis Week 2014Next
Organ Donation