Chamber and committees

I will ask Rachel Coutts to answer that from a legal perspective.

Thank you. I am pleased that, in the bill, we are also considering two amendments to the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011, to extend the right to request an interested person review and to amend the provision concerning the authorisation of cremation in Scotland when the death has occurred elsewhere.

The extension of the interested person reviews set out in the 2011 act represents an important step in strengthening public confidence in the death certification process by allowing all relatives equal standing in being able to request an interested person review. Medical reviewers already undertake randomised reviews to improve the quality and accuracy of medical certificates of cause of death, but where such a review has taken place, an interested person review cannot then be carried out. The amendment allows individuals with a legitimate connection, such as family members, healthcare professionals or funeral directors, to request a detailed review where they believe further scrutiny is warranted. It will mean that interested persons can request a review, irrespective of whether a medical certificate of cause of death has been randomly selected for review already.

With the bill enabling further targeted reviews, all bereaved families will have the same right to request a review. The system will be more transparent and responsive, ensuring that specific issues can be examined thoroughly and sensitively. Ultimately, this amendment will enhance accountability and provide an additional safeguard to reassure the public and professionals who are involved in end-of-life care.

On the other amendment set out in the bill, section 18 of the 2011 act currently applies to deaths that occur “outwith Scotland”. That includes deaths that occur in other parts of the UK, thereby creating a legal requirement for medical reviewers to authorise cremation in Scotland where a person has died in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Other UK nations have robust procedures in place for death certification and apply relevant checks, and it is appropriate for those procedures to be respected in cases in which it is intended for the deceased to be cremated in Scotland. The amendment set out in the bill will remove the need for medical reviewers to authorise cremation where a death occurs in another part of the UK, thus recognising the reciprocal checks in other parts of the UK and avoiding unnecessary duplication of work.

The extension of interested person reviews and the amendment to section 18 of the 2011 act reflect our continued commitment to clarity, transparency, and public trust in the death certification process. The changes will not only strengthen safeguards for families and professionals but ensure that our legislation recognises existing robust checks and procedures and is responsive to real-world practice.

I therefore propose that the committee recommend the extension of interested person reviews and the amendment concerning the authorisation of cremations in Scotland where the death has occurred outwith Scotland, and I look forward to answering any questions that the committee might have.

Public awareness is one of the most important things that every one of us, as elected representatives in Scotland, can support the Scottish Government and the public with. It is important that people understand the possible negative outcomes of receiving such treatments from unregulated practitioners, which I will certainly focus on if the bill is passed.

That is a really interesting question, Mr Harvie. I envisage that any messaging that comes from a public health perspective will display the negative aspects and the risk of doing something.

I am just thinking back to our work on the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill with regard to ensuring—this is perhaps what you are getting at—that the onus is on manufacturers to provide such information on their packets. It is a really interesting concept and a way forward that we can certainly explore.

The bill gives HIS the powers to enter unregulated settings if specific complaints have been made or if evidence has been given to it. With regard to resourcing, we expect, as I said to the convener, Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s regulatory services to be financially self-sustaining—that is part of our on-going conversations.

I do recognise your point—an unregulated business would not be paying for the regulatory people. Therefore, I am content to look at that and bottom it out if we get through stage 1 and move towards stage 2.

I am certainly content to do so. Seeing the impact of bad procedures has shaped my own thoughts on the matter.

I expect all health and safety agencies, including Police Scotland, to work together. Food Standards Scotland has had a number of successful forays with regard to unregulated food products on the market, and they have been carried out very much in partnership with Police Scotland.

I think that I am right in saying that the evidence that you received from Healthcare Improvement Scotland described the process, which would involve inspection, making recommendations and then re-inspection. That is an appropriate way to move forward, with the caveat that it would all depend on what had gone wrong and what was being investigated.

The Scottish Government has clear guidelines for funeral directors on those areas, but Katrina McNeill can add a bit more on that.

I am not aware of any process to decline reviews.