Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Official Report 950KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Cremation

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will update legislation and guidance to ensure that ashes are always treated appropriately following cremation. (S4T-00311)

Losing a loved one is a painful experience and to grieve their loss means, during the mix of joy and agony, remembering their life and living with the memory of them. When the loss is of a child, the pain and grief are amplified because of the futility of the passing of a life never fully lived.

I believe that the recent cases of the treatment of ashes of very young children demonstrate that the existing legislation and current industry practice are falling short of what the public deserve. Today, I announce that I am establishing an independent commission to examine the policies and practices that are in place for handling ashes and cremated remains. The commission will be tasked with producing recommendations before the end of this year to inform new legislation and guidance on cremation and burials. Central to the new legislation will be that it must ensure a consistent approach to the treatment of ashes throughout Scotland and that families are treated sensitively and given the support and information that they need.

I sincerely thank the minister for that reply. I am sure that the many people who have contacted me and others will sincerely thank him also, particularly given that the legislation that underpins much of this is more than 100 years old.

Does the minister agree that local authorities such as Glasgow City Council must not shy away from their responsibility to investigate any case that is brought to them and give answers to parents? Will the Scottish Government provide best practice guidance to local authorities on the conduct of their investigations, and will the minister ask the national health service to co-operate with any local investigations?

I agree. It is important that local authorities and other owners of crematoria are accountable for their historical practice. They must respond to any complaints or concerns that are raised by individuals or families, and they should duly investigate those complaints or concerns.

I confirm that the Government will provide advice and information to local authorities around best practice in undertaking such investigations or any audits that may be required as a result of complaints that they have received. I also confirm that the national health service will comply fully with any local investigation that takes place.

I have been making representations on the issue to Glasgow City Council since I was contacted by a constituent, and I welcome the minister’s comments about establishing a commission to consider the legislative situation.

I agree that each local authority needs to examine its practices and be clear that the information has been provided to individuals who have concerns. Does the minister share my view that part of people’s concern relates to the fact that different practices have been followed in different parts of the country and that, for that reason, national co-ordination is needed regarding the investigation of complaints as well as regarding the consideration of any legislative proposals?

I recognise the point that the member raises, particularly in relation to the recent case in Glasgow that was highlighted by my colleague Nicola Sturgeon on behalf of her constituent, who raised an issue of concern that I believe Glasgow City Council should investigate. The City of Edinburgh Council has set out a very good way in which that type of investigation can be undertaken independently to inform the council of any issues that may have arisen through its practice. I encourage Glasgow City Council to reflect on the measures that are being taken by the City of Edinburgh Council in considering the approach that it could take to investigating the particular case that has been highlighted by Nicola Sturgeon.

The member talked about inconsistency in practice, which is an issue that I have concerns about. It is important that there is consistency in approach regarding how ashes from the cremation process are handled for young children. I am anxious to ensure that the commission is able to look at what practice has given rise to the inconsistency that has occurred in different local authority areas as well as, potentially, private crematoria, so that it can make recommendations that will allow us to produce legislation and guidance to ensure that a consistent approach is taken across the country.

I welcome the minister’s response to Sandra White’s question and the establishment of the commission. He will be aware of concerns that have been raised around the policies that are in place at Aberdeen crematorium. The situation has led to the parents of babies who are born asleep and those who have miscarried becoming confused and uncertain whether they might have been entitled to receive ashes following cremation, and such uncertainty has reopened grief for many. Does the minister anticipate the commission making clear recommendations for situations in which the return of ashes is not possible that would provide clarity and, in many cases, closure for parents?

One of the commission’s roles will be to ensure that there is consistency in the information that is provided to families on whether ashes may be available or are not available at that particular point. I understand that there are a number of technical issues that may affect whether ashes are available, but it is important that families are informed of that at the very start of the process, that the process is transparent, and that families can have confidence in it. One role that the commission will have is to explore the different practices and policies that have been taken forward in different crematoria in the country in order to ensure that there is a consistent approach and consistency in the information that is provided to parents at that time.

The minister referred to the City of Edinburgh Council investigation as a good model of how things could work. I remind the minister that that investigation is not properly under way yet, and that it cannot proceed until the police have concluded their investigations.

I have eight constituents whose lives are currently devastated by the revelations at Mortonhall. They want answers, justice and a public inquiry. Why is the minister not willing to have a public inquiry? I welcome his announcement, but those parents will take some comfort from an assurance from the minister that their voices will be heard by the commission and specifically that it will be able to call witnesses and that they will be asked to give answers.

It is important to remember that the police investigation is the reason that the City of Edinburgh Council’s investigation has not been able to take the full range of evidence that it would have liked to take at this stage. It is important that that due process is recognised, because of the potential for using evidence at a later stage, should any criminal prosecutions take place.

I understand that Dame Elish Angiolini and her team have undertaken preliminary work to look at issues that they can establish at an early stage and which do not impinge on the police investigation. Dame Elish Angiolini’s independence in undertaking that investigation into the historical practices at Mortonhall provides a good model that other local authorities, such as Glasgow City Council, could use in considering issues of concern that have been raised.

The purpose of the commission is to look at what practices and policies gave rise to the situation occurring in the first place. Its purpose is to establish that and then look at what measures are necessary to ensure that the situation does not happen again and that a consistent approach is taken across all our crematoria in Scotland, and by those in the NHS who may be involved in the process and those in the funeral care industry. It is important that we have a consistent approach and that we look at involving a number of individuals who can provide the support and advice that are necessary to take that forward.

I welcome that answer, but the minister did not respond to the point about how he will ensure that parents’ voices are heard in the process.

I said that I intend to have commission members who can help to ensure that the process includes as many individuals as possible in considering what practice issues need to be addressed with any future legislation. I will consider who can be on the commission and who could represent parents and their interests when it comes to appointing the commission.

---

“Shaping Scotland’s Court Services”

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report “Shaping Scotland’s Court Services”. (S4T-00304)

I am considering the proposals and recommendations in that report and will make an announcement shortly.

The cabinet secretary has been noticeably quiet since the publication of the Scottish Court Service’s plans.

The SCS’s report describes the closure of a fifth of Scotland’s sheriff courts as “proportionate”. I wonder what the reaction would have been if a public body had proposed closing a fifth of our schools or a fifth of our hospitals. Does the cabinet secretary appreciate the value of local justice and local courts, particularly in areas such as the Borders? Does he agree with 95 per cent of those who responded to the consultation that the proposals would be deeply harmful to the quality of Scotland’s justice system?

I think that local justice is important. The matter has been given deep consideration by the Scottish Court Service under the leadership of the Lord President, who is our most senior judge.

However, we face tough financial times and significant cuts from the Westminster Government. I would have more sympathy for Mr Lamont were it not for the contrast between the position in Scotland and the position south of the border, where 93 magistrates courts and 49 county courts have closed and where the English Borders region has seen the closure of the courts at Alnwick, Penrith and Whitehaven. Mr Lamont should read it from that that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Court Service are doing what they can in the face of an austerity budget that has been imposed on us by a London Government that happily closes courts in the English Borders and which has closed significantly more courts south of the border than the Lord President and the Scottish Court Service are considering doing north of the border.

I am a member of the Scottish Parliament and the minister is a member of the Scottish Government, so I would be grateful if he could restrict his remarks to dealing with the questions that I put to him, instead of trying to answer on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.

In recent months, there have been two related consultations. The Scottish Court Service consultation, which proposed the closure of several sheriff courts, closed in December 2012, and in February 2013 the Scottish Government published a new draft Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will transfer a significant number of civil cases from the Court of Session to the remaining sheriff courts. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that the Government’s proposals will simply add to the pressures on those sheriff courts that survive his closure plans?

The member makes an important point, because two consultations are under way, but let us remember that more than 94 per cent of all civil cases are already heard in the sheriff courts. Only a small minority of them are heard in our higher courts. Those matters have been fully factored into the Scottish Court Service’s consideration of the situation.

Regardless of the position that Mr Lamont may take, cognisance must be taken of the financial pressures that court services north and south of the border face. However, account must also be taken of reducing pressures on the courts. Let us look at the example of Duns sheriff court, where last year the number of summary trials in which evidence was led was 12 and the number of ordinary proofs that proceeded was zero. There comes a time when the Scottish Court Service must not only live within the budget that has been imposed on it as a result of the cuts from Westminster, but take account of the volume of business. Frankly, there comes a time when the reduction in the volume of business is such that consolidation is necessary.

The consultation has shown the considerable concerns that my constituents in Sutherland and Ross-shire have about the possible closure of the Dornoch and Dingwall sheriff courts. What provision can be made for the use of videoconferencing in rural areas such as the Highlands to compensate for the greater travelling distances that the proposed court changes will result in?

The member makes an important point. The Scottish Court Service and the Government are giving the matter appropriate and significant consideration. Under the making justice work programme, work is nearing completion in the north of Scotland that will result in the introduction of a new, secure, live-link videoconferencing network that will include six northern courts and four other locations. That work, which will be completed next month, will give criminal justice organisations the opportunity to use the technology for some cases. For the benefit of the member, I inform him that the six locations in question are Aberdeen, Elgin, Inverness, Kirkwall, Lerwick and Stornoway.

As well as proposing the closure of Cupar sheriff court, the report states that jury trials in Kirkcaldy will stop, which will put significant pressure on victims and witnesses who live in the Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes area. It will also increase the probability of court delays and reduce access to local justice. What discussion has the cabinet secretary had with the Scottish Court Service on that proposal, which, unlike the proposed closures, will not require parliamentary approval? Does he share my concern that the removal of jury trials from Kirkcaldy will have a negative impact on witnesses and victims?

I have regular discussions with the Scottish Court Service, the Lord President and the chief executive. Those matters have been factored in. It is not simply the case that, as Mr Lamont said, some civil matters that are currently dealt with in the higher courts will go to the sheriff courts. Changes are taking place in where sheriff and jury trials should be conducted and, indeed, in where the High Court should hold trials. Those matters have been factored in and taken account of. We should have greater trust and faith in the Lord President and the Scottish Court Service.

I ask the minister to look carefully at the proposals for the court closure in Stonehaven. In particular, he must address the cogent arguments raised about the capacity of Aberdeen to absorb the extra work, especially when taken in conjunction with the High Court proposals. Nearly all the respondents commented that Aberdeen sheriff court suffers from endemic delays. Surely the minister agrees that further pressure added to that will make it very difficult. I ask him to reject the closure of Stonehaven sheriff court.

Alison McInnes raises an important point. Clearly, that is a matter that must be factored in. It would be fair to say that the business conducted in Stonehaven is more than that conducted in Duns but, for the record, in 2012 it had 34 trials at summary level in which evidence was led, and four civil proofs. That is perhaps not a number that would be incapable of being soaked up in Aberdeen, where there is greater specialisation.

I will reflect on those matters but, as I say, we face significant financial challenges. Those must be dealt with by the Scottish Court Service as they are being dealt with by its counterparts south of the border. Equally, we must recognise that, even though some business is being reallocated, less business is going through our courts. The Scottish Court Service must take that into account, given the complexity and specialisation of the legal world in which we find ourselves.

Local justice has been dispensed in the town of Haddington for hundreds of years. The SCS received 150 substantial submissions and thousands of pleas from East Lothian citizens that that should continue, but it chose to ignore them. Will the cabinet secretary undertake to reconsider the submissions, pay attention to the wishes of my constituents and remove Haddington from the hit list of closures?

We appear to be in ascending order. I will give cognisance to Mr Gray’s position on Haddington, as I said I would with regard to John Lamont’s and Alison McInnes’s positions. For the record, in 2012 the number of summary trials on which evidence was led and the trial proceeded was 41. That is not even one trial a week. The number of civil ordinary proofs that proceeded was five, which is more than there are seasons, but only by one.

I will take that into account, but we have a position in which many trials that would be scheduled for Haddington go to Edinburgh, including those related to sheriff and jury, and especially those relating to children. However, having heard Jenny Marra, it appears to me that Labour’s position is that no cuts can be made to the court or legal aid budgets and that the only cuts that we should make are those to the number of police officers. I will make it clear at the Scottish Police Federation conference tomorrow that we will not be cutting police officer numbers.

The Scottish Court Service’s report focuses on savings for the court service. Will the cabinet secretary also take into account in his consideration the impact of court closures as proposed on the local economy of county towns?

Yes. Those are matters that I will discuss with Cabinet colleagues.

The First Minister, who normally stands here, and I grew up in Linlithgow. When I first started practising law—indeed, when I embarked on a legal career—the West Lothian county court was in Linlithgow. I must say that Linlithgow has gone from strength to strength, notwithstanding the quite understandable move to Livingston because that is where the business is—perhaps Mr Gray would take that point into account, given the overwhelming pressure on Haddington sheriff court from business that comes from Tranent, Musselburgh and Prestonpans, where it is easier and quicker in many instances to get to Edinburgh than to the old county town.