Chamber and committees

I think that we agree that we will ask that question as well.

PE1967 is on protecting Loch Lomond’s Atlantic oak wood shoreline by implementing the high-road option for the A82 upgrade between Tarbet and Inverarnan—I am tongue twisted now. The petition, which was lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges—the DMRB—based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.

I am delighted that we are joined by Jackie Baillie for our proceedings on another nature-related petition, as it happens.

Thank you. You have outlined circumstances that are familiar to us in our consideration of petitions on many and diverse issues.

Colleagues, we have a bit of work ahead of us in relation to the petition, and some of Miss Baillie’s suggestions might figure at another stage as we go along the route. It might even be that we come and visit. There is no election campaign in the immediate future for us to come and participate in, but it would probably be quite useful to have a look at some stage.

I ask colleagues how they think that we might take things forward.

PE1971, which was lodged by Kenneth Clayton on behalf of the Motorcycle Action Group, calls for robust action to stop motorcycle theft. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the actions available to prevent and reduce motorcycle theft by empowering the police to pursue and tactically engage thieves and by reviewing sentencing policy to allow the courts to implement tougher punishment for those who are convicted of motorcycle theft, including the use of mandatory custodial sentences for those who carry weapons or groups who threaten individuals with violence.

Kenneth Clayton tells us that there has been an increase in the number of motorcycles that are being stolen in cities, with Edinburgh being particularly affected. He goes on to highlight concerns that the current police policy not to pursue or engage means that thieves behave with impunity, a position that is out of sync with that of other police forces across the UK.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that Police Scotland has taken targeted action to tackle motorcycle theft and associated antisocial behaviour in Edinburgh through operation Soteria, which saw police recover £600,000 of stolen motorbikes.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that there is

“a wide range of effective actions currently available to Police Scotland to prevent and reduce motorcycle theft”.

As the use of those actions would be an operational matter, however, the Scottish Government has indicated that the committee might wish to explore them further with the chief constable or the Scottish Police Authority.

In relation to the petition’s call for mandatory custodial sentences, the Scottish Government has indicated that judges are best placed to decide on the appropriate sentence for each offender. The Scottish Government also notes that the Scottish Parliament has previously rejected calls for mandatory sentencing on the basis that it removes discretion from the court.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on the petition? We could do with some clarification in the first instance.

PE1972, which was lodged by Kevin Sutherland, is on allowing assisted dying for people with long-term mental illness and consenting capacity. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all future legislation on assisted dying includes provision for access to assisted dying for anyone of adult age who is suffering from a long-term mental illness and/or who has compelling philosophical reasons for wanting to terminate their life, provided that they have sought psychological or psychiatric assistance that resulted in no change to their condition and that they continue to have consenting capacity.

Kevin Sutherland tells us that the mental suffering that people endure can be just as torturous and painful as any physical condition and that, in the event that assisted dying is made legal in Scotland, people with incurable mental health issues should be able to make the case for ending their lives. Kevin also tells us that many people travel abroad to end their lives in a controlled environment. He intends to take that option, but he is concerned for those who do not have the resources to undertake such a journey and who, he feels, are being left to suffer in silence.

Members will be aware that Liam McArthur has now earned the right to introduce his proposed assisted dying for terminally ill adults (Scotland) bill. As the SPICe briefing notes, although the bill is currently limited by what was included in the final proposal, other members could lodge amendments at stages 2 and 3 that would seek to alter the scope of the bill. In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government has indicated that it

“would not support any legislation or amendment”

with regard to allowing

“Assisted Dying for people with long-term mental illness and consenting capacity”

and that it would be very opposed to that.

Do members have any comments or suggestions? Under rule 15.7 of standing orders, I am tempted to suggest that, although the issues that are raised in the petition are important, it would not be right for the committee to set up a parallel inquiry or investigation when Liam McArthur’s proposed member’s bill on the issue appears to have the ability to proceed and be considered by the committee in due course. In any event, the Scottish Government, in respect of this particular petition, has said that it will certainly not support any legislation in that regard. However, the issue might be considered in due course, when the bill is progressing through Parliament. I do not know whether other members are minded to agree with that proposal.

I think that we can do that.

We thank the petitioner for the issue that he has raised.

The birds cannot take off without that landscape.

We would therefore hear from coroners and pathologists and subsequently seek to hear from the minister in pursuit of the petition. Do colleagues have any other suggestions, or are we content to proceed on that basis? I see that we are content. We take the petition very seriously. We will keep it open, and it will obviously form a significant part of our workstream as we go forward. I hope that the petitioner feels that we are taking this seriously as we explore the issues raised and take oral evidence.

The next petition is PE1911, which is on a review of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. We are joined by a number of people in the public gallery who are directly affected and involved. We are also joined by Monica Lennon, who has an interest in the petition.

The petition, which was lodged by Ann Stark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the 2006 act and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems are carried out only with permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to next of kin as a matter of course.

At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to seek additional information from a number of bodies, and responses from them are included in our meeting papers.

The Royal College of Pathologists confirms that resource concerns are not the only or main reason for its disagreement with the proposal to automatically offer tissue samples to the next of kin. It reiterates the challenges regarding timescales and practicalities.

The chief coroner outlines the process of tissue retention and return in England and Wales, and includes a link to guidance on computed tomography scanning for the purposes of post mortems.

We have a written submission from Ann Stark, whom we thank for her assiduous contributions to our deliberations. Her submission highlights the use of body scanners as an alternative to post mortems, and additional information from her about their use has been summarised in the meeting papers that we have received and considered. She stresses the importance of people having a choice about how their body is handled and the importance of consent.

The committee has also received a number of written submissions from individuals in support of the petition and of the points that the petitioner has raised in written evidence.

As I said, we have Monica Lennon with us. Welcome once again to our proceedings, Monica. Before I open up the discussion to members of the committee, if there is anything that you would like to say in support of the petition, I invite you to do so.

Thank you, Monica. Thank you also for offering comment on behalf of the petitioners on this very difficult and sensitive petition. Having considered the evidence on the petition, I can say that we take the issues that it raises very seriously and that we want to explore it further. I suggest that we invite coroners and pathologists to give evidence, because I would like to understand the differences in approach between Scotland and England and to bottom those out.