Chamber and committees

Item 2 is to invite colleagues to agree to take items 5 and 6 in private. Are we content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to our second continued petition, and I gather that the petitioner is again with us in the public gallery. Good morning.

PE1911, lodged by Ann Stark, is on review of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the 2006 act and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with permission of the next of kin;?do not routinely remove brains; and?offer tissues and samples to next of kin as a matter of course.

In our consideration of this petition, we are joined by our colleague Monica Lennon MSP. Good morning to you, too, Monica.

Members will recall our evidence-taking session in June with the Lord Advocate and Andy Shanks, Head of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Since that meeting, we have received further information from the COPFS; its written submission states that the COPFS is working with pathology providers on a service redesign, and its preference is to have a national pathology and mortuary service established under national health service leadership. On the issue of CT scanning, the submission notes that representations have been made by two pathology providers on the viability of using scanning in post-mortem examinations, which?I think is progress on what we have understood to be the position before.

The petitioner, Ann Stark, has provided two written submissions, the first of which notes the upcoming service redesign and states that there is an opportunity to introduce the use of scanners in murder and suspicious cases. Ann also emphasises the importance of taking grieving families’ perspectives into account if a national service is to be established.

In her second submission, Ann Stark reiterates the importance of families having a choice about what happens with their loved ones and highlights the use of scanners in London to check for prostate cancer, which I think was in a very recent news story—in fact, they were talking about using magnetic resonance imaging for that.

In addition to the two submissions that are included in the papers, we have all received numerous e-mail communications directly from the petitioner about issues relating to her petition. I say to the petitioner that, although I fully understand her desire to ensure that we are fully informed, it is most helpful if submissions go to the clerks, because it causes confusion among members if we get them, as we are not sure of the operational process for dealing with them. I assure the petitioner that, if they go to the clerk, we will get them on a concise form, and that would assist us.

Before I open up to wider comment, given that Monica Lennon was with us when we heard our evidence from the Lord Advocate and from Andy Shanks, I wonder whether she would like to say something.

No—that was incredibly helpful.

In the letter that Fergus Ewing has suggested, it might be helpful to refer to the fact that the COPFS has said that it has received representations from two pathology providers. It might be interesting to ask for a bit more detail on that, because that does not tell us anything other than that it has received submissions. It would be useful to pull that together, as Fergus Ewing has suggested.

Do colleagues have any other suggestions over and above that?

We want the most comprehensive letter at this stage—

We have the two approaches. Mr Torrance, are you content? What is your view?

Instead of considering PE1973, I will jump ahead on the agenda, because we now have Rhoda Grant with us, and I am happy to try to facilitate Rhoda’s morning by bringing forward the petitions in which she has an interest.

Both petitions have been lodged by Derek Noble. PE1974 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems that are associated with the Stromeferry bypass. PE1980 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between Achnasheen and Gorstan as a trunk road, connecting that route into the existing trunk road network. We considered the petitions on 18 January, when we agreed to write to a range of stakeholders to seek further information on the issues raised.

As I said a moment ago, we are joined by our colleague Rhoda Grant—good morning, and welcome, Rhoda. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from Lochcarron community council and the Plockton and district community council, which highlight the disruption that residents and others face when rock falls cause a closure of the A890, as well as their support for action to recognise the increased volume of traffic on the route and improve the quality of the road surface.

We also received a response in February from the then Minister for Transport, which suggests that, although there is linkage between the criteria set out in the strategic transport projects review and the A890, it is the Government’s assessment that the A890 does not sufficiently meet the criteria to be incorporated into the motorway and trunk road network. The minister also suggests that transferring the route to the trunk road network would not solve the investment challenges that are associated with addressing road safety and maintenance issues on this stretch of road.

On a related point, the VisitScotland response states that it considers road infrastructure to be an important part of the visitor experience but that it would be for the Scottish Government to consider whether adopting the A832 as a trunk road would improve outcomes for residents and visitors to the area.

The response from Highland Council notes that it has done no further work on the Stromeferry options appraisal since December 2019, given that the project has no capital programme support and no preferred option has been identified. The council’s response also states that, although parts of the A832 may not meet today’s design standards, the issues of the A890 Stromeferry section outweigh those issues significantly.

There is a range of responses, and they are not altogether encouraging from the point of view of the petition, unfortunately. Before I ask the committee to reflect on what we have heard, I invite Rhoda Grant to make any comments that she feels would be appropriate.

As there are no further suggestions, are committee members content with those recommended actions?

Members indicated agreement.

Therefore, the petition will remain open and we will again endeavour to understand the thinking of the various organisations to whom we will now write, in the first instance.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The petitioner would, of course, have the opportunity to lodge a fresh petition for consideration by the committee at that time, depending on the Government’s decision.