Chamber and committees

That is a fair point—we can do that as well.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

We will meet HIAL on 18 May, so we will be able to put some of the points that you have raised to it directly. However, we have received strong representation from HIAL that the change is not window dressing and that, whatever the motivation—we can chase that up—it is not simply a cover in order to bring back the proposal that has been set aside in five years’ time. That position is quite robust and clear in the submission from HIAL. As petitioners, do you accept that?

PE1911 calls for a review of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. The petition, which was lodged by Ann McNair, 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 the 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.

We hope that Monica Lennon will join us, but she has been delayed. She might well join us during our consideration.

I remind members about the very difficult circumstances in which the petitioner brings us her petition. The petitioner’s child died suddenly and underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive than the petitioner had originally thought that it would be.

The committee last considered the petition on 1 December 2021 and heard that, in England and Wales, next of kin are given a choice about how they would like small tissue samples to be handled. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Royal College of Pathologists. We have now received responses to that correspondence.

The Scottish Government responded in consultation with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. They explained that, if tissue samples are returned to next of kin, it might impair their ability to investigate the circumstances surrounding a death or establish a definitive cause of death.

The Royal College of Pathologists suggests that returning tissue samples would provide only a marginal gain and would need to be

“traded off against further complexities in the authorisation and consent processes”.

Those complexities are listed in its submission.

The petitioner’s recent submission reiterates the key points of her petition, expressing that being told that samples of her child belong to no particular person is the cruellest thing that she has ever heard. On the issue of invasive post mortems, the petitioner suggests that an alternative would be to use a scanner that provides results that are more than 99 per cent accurate.

The committee has received several submissions from individuals stating their strong support for the petition and its aims. Notably, submissions were in favour of authorisation for retention of tissue samples and using scanners for non-invasive post-mortem examinations where possible.

Consideration of the petition and submissions falls into two distinct areas. One is the authorisation of post mortems and the extent to which discretion can be granted to next of kin in that process. The second relates to the final determination as to what befalls tissue samples that might have been retained.

Monica Lennon has now been able to join us. Welcome, Monica. I am delighted to have you with us. Would you like to say anything as we consider the issues afresh?

Thank you, Monica. If we have not already done so, it would be useful for the committee to receive some of the submissions to which you refer.

You are right: the suggestion that the procedures and processes that are followed might be governed by an underresourcing of pathologists’ work rather than by a freshly determined view of what best practice and policy might be is concerning. The committee might want to pursue that.

Body scanners are now being routinely used elsewhere. If a submission that we might be yet to see vindicates the view that we cannot have scanners in Scotland because of an argument that people are not adequately trained to use them, that would seem inadequate. Use of a body scanner would, obviously, be a far less invasive way to undertake a post mortem.

We might come back to those questions if we can consider the matter. We might want to write to the Crown Office and others to establish whether all that is correct.

Do colleagues have any suggestions in relation to the other evidence and submissions that we have received?

Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

We will take evidence for the first item on the agenda, which is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1804, which was lodged by Alasdair MacEachen, John Doig and Peter Henderson on behalf of Benbecula community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd’s air traffic management strategy project and to conduct an independent assessment of the decisions and decision-making process of the ATMS project. We last considered the petition on 2 February, when we agreed to write to the Civil Aviation Authority and to hear evidence from the petitioners and Prospect at this meeting, and from HIAL at our meeting on 18 May.

I am delighted that we are joined by the two representative MSPs—Rhoda Grant and Liam McArthur—who have been following the petition at its various torturous stages of progress through our proceedings. I welcome Peter Henderson, who is joining us virtually and is one of our petitioners who will give evidence.

I will ask members whether they have questions that they would like to explore with Peter. Peter, is there anything that you would like to say before we launch into our questions?

Are we happy to say that, in principle, we would like to hear from the petitioner, but we will first establish whether there is a work programme issue involving our partner committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Avery, we explored with the previous witness what has brought about the change of view in HIAL. He was sceptical that it was our investigation into the matters, our representations or your representations, and he thought that it was all down to a realisation that the costs involved in the project were no longer sustainable. What do you think the cornerstone of HIAL’s change of approach is?

That is one gift horse that you are prepared to look in the mouth. Thank you very much. That has been extremely useful and helpful.

Colleagues, I think that we will probably consider the evidence afresh after we have met HIAL. Liam McArthur made general comments in addition to the points that we put to Mr Avery. Rhoda Grant asked a specific question. Do you have general comments to add for us to bear in mind before I draw the discussion to an end?

Do you have a final point, Liam?