Chamber and committees

Thank you very much. I pay tribute to Ann and Gerry Stark. Their commitment to the petition has been absolutely magnificent. Progress has been made despite the dryness of the institutional response, if I can put it that way, to the individuals concerned, on whose experience it rests, but Ann and Gerry are also seeking to improve opportunities for others.

There are three reasons why we could move to closure now. First, the Scottish Government does not intend to amend the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 to require consent from families for procurator fiscal post-mortems. That seems to be its position. Secondly, the Scottish Government does not support legislative change to offer tissue samples to next of kin as a matter of course. Thirdly, the committee has extensively explored the issues raised in the petition, including in multiple oral evidence sessions, a substantial letter to the Scottish Government and a question put directly to the First Minister. There will come a point at which political parties may have to start to engage with the issues, but there is only so far that the committee can take them. I recommend that party health spokespeople become even more direct in cross-examining ministers in the chamber.

However, Monica Lennon has touched on two areas that the committee might be sympathetic to looking at further. It would be interesting to know the outcome of the visit to the coroner’s office in Lancashire, because that is an incremental step in the consideration of the issues that we have not been able to consider. We could also pursue with the Lord Advocate the issue of the timing of the pilot that is supposedly taking place on the use of scanners, because we have been on a journey, during our consideration of the petition, to understand the use of scanners, from not knowing anything about them to hearing terrific evidence about their use elsewhere.

I am happy to keep the petition open, recognising that we are getting to a stage at which a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session, under a different set of considerations, may be the way forward, and we will take those two issues forward if my colleagues agree to do that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we agreed to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I will advance through the agenda to facilitate discussion of PE1911 and PE2136, respectively, for which our MSP colleagues Monica Lennon and Tess White are joining us this morning.

PE1911 was lodged by Ann Stark, who has been an assiduous campaigner on the issue of the petition. I see that she is again with us in the gallery this morning. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and relevant guidance to ensure that all post-mortems can be carried out only with the permission of the next of kin, do not routinely remove brains, and offer tissue samples to the next of kin as a matter of course.

As I said, we have been joined by Monica Lennon, who has spoken to the committee on the petition from time to time and has followed it through its course. Throughout the lifetime of the petition, the committee has considered a number of issues concerning bereavement and pathology services. We have heard about specific improvements that could be made, such as the use of CT scanners for post-mortems and giving loved ones more choice on the return of tissue samples.

We took oral evidence from the Lord Advocate and practitioners in England, and the committee also raised several of Ann Stark’s points in writing with the Scottish Government, the Lord Advocate and the Royal College of Pathology. That work uncovered that there has been a lack of ministerial leadership to oversee and drive forward improvements in pathology services. At the most recent Conveners Group meeting, just before the recess, I had the opportunity to put that point to the First Minister directly. In writing to the Conveners Group, the First Minister noted the cross-cutting nature of the issues that have been raised in our work and highlighted the on-going consideration of alternative delivery models for pathology. I do not know that he actually answered our question, but he acknowledged that the lack of single ministerial accountability was not something that we should be rushing in search of but something that the Government ought to be offering us.

At our most recent consideration of the petition, on 29 May 2024, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, setting out our recommendations and conclusions following our work on the petition. As the minister with portfolio responsibility for hospital-arranged post-mortems, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health responded to our letter, and she included views from the office of the chief medical officer and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The response reiterates the Scottish Government’s view that it is essential that independent investigations into the cause of a death take place. The minister also states that the Scottish Government does not support legislative change to offer tissue samples to next of kin as a matter of course.

The provision of forensic pathology services is currently being assessed by the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and other interested parties. The response also highlights that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is progressing a co-design process to prepare a business case for the future of forensic pathology services.

Ann Stark’s most recent written submissions reiterate her call for the next of kin to be offered a choice about whether a post-mortem takes place in cases where the death is not suspicious. That is what we heard evidence to support. She emphasises the emotional distress that a post-mortem causes families, and she calls for change. Her written submission states that many of the systems that are in place are not fit for purpose and that the response from the minister does not give a clear answer on the issue of leadership.

We are at a difficult impasse, given where we are in the lifetime of the Parliament—we are now into the final 12 months of this session of Parliament. We have done a great deal to advance the aims of the petition, and I am not sure that the committee is entirely clear what more we can do in this session.

Before we consider the best options that are open to us at this stage and what we might recommend for the future, I invite Monica Lennon to contribute.

Was Darcey your daughter?

Thank you all again. That has been very helpful. Is there anything that we have not touched on? If you would like to make any final points, please do so. Dianne, I will start with you. Is there any thought that you would like to leave us with?

Thank you very much, Mr Torrance. Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of our formal consideration of petitions. Our next meeting will take place on 7 May. I thank those who have been following our proceedings.

We now move into private session.

Do colleagues agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not think that there has been a discernible theme this afternoon; there have been a lot of very individual contributions.

I note the contributions by my very good friends and colleagues, Mr Stephen Kerr and Mr Ross. They were so well made that I will not repeat them; perhaps I will look to contribute in my own way.

I will start on the commentary from the First Minister about the Drumlanrig accord. I think that we in Scotland should be incredibly proud of it. Sheikh Razawi, my very good friend Edward Green, the First Minister and I and others were at Edinburgh city chambers last year for the candle-lighting ceremony. Against the odds, in many ways, it was decided to bring the faiths together to face the challenge that the international situation presented to the lives of all of us here at home. With the support of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, who was able to enlist the support of His Majesty the King, we have a very positive initiative being taken here, in Scotland, which is allowing those of so many different faiths and communities to exist in harmony here, even with the extraordinary pressures that are being applied by the events outside this country. We should celebrate the work that has been done, and we should be very proud of that Scottish initiative, which is contributing so well in the face of the international situation. [Applause.]

Over the Easter recess I turned 66 the day before the First Minister turned 61—so there is just five years between us. I know that, in another context, that would be regarded as a lifetime but, in the context of today’s debate, it is not really that long at all. I was reflecting, in advance of this debate, on what I thought were—from a long menu—the key things that had shaped the international situation over my lifetime. I thought of the visit of Nixon to China in 1972, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the events in New York on 9/11. All of those events had profound consequences for the world in which we live today.

Over my lifetime, we have gone from being concerned, as a country, about the might of the Soviet Union and its empire, influence and threat, which meant that many of my generation thought that a war was at least possible in our lifetime, to the fall of the Soviet Union and the extent of state-sponsored terrorism or terrorism sponsored by nobody in particular—which nobody quite knew how to deal with, as it did not have a nation face. That receded slightly, but not so much that we can be in any way complacent. Then, the threat of the nation state emerged again, with the impact of Russia, as it now seeks to initiate military conflict on the continent of Europe, the emerging suggestion of a threat to Taiwan from China, the on-going expansion and ambition of North Korea, and states conflicting with one other in the middle east and Africa. Perhaps, for my grandchildren’s generation, the prospect of a war, if not probable, once again cannot be ruled out.

There is a need, as I think Governments have recognised in this international situation, to respond to that by trying to understand how best we can be prepared. That response comes in two ways, I think. One is to ensure that we invest in the defence of the country. That is the reactive way to ensure that we are prepared, should such a situation emerge. The other is the proactive way, which involves our commitment, tradition and history as a country that is involved in international trade, that wants to engage and that has been prepared to invest in international aid. We have not talked about that today, but I was very critical of my own Government at Westminster when it temporarily reduced the aid budget, and I said that I hoped that it could be restored, so I am disappointed at the response of the Labour Party to the proposed cut in international aid, because it is that aid that helps to ensure that we are investing in countries that might otherwise become part of the very international situation and problem that we are trying to stand against and prevent occurring.

I think that I am now into my last few seconds, so I am not sure—