Chamber and committees

Welcome back. We move to our second witness on PE1804, on HIAL’s plans. I am delighted to welcome David Avery, from Prospect, whose name has been referred to and brought up numerous times in our deliberations. You are very welcome to the meeting.

We have read Prospect’s most recent response to events in our papers ahead of this morning’s session, so we will move straight to questions.

Thank you. I see that nobody else has suggestions. On that first point, we previously indicated that we might like to undertake a site visit, so I formally suggest that we would like to do that.

David Torrance’s second point is well made. The evidence that we received from the minister was that additional legal protections are not necessary because protections are in place, but as is often the case, we might want to inquire whether those protections are being used.

Are members content to proceed by writing to local authorities?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next continued petition is PE1837, on providing clear direction and investment for autism support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder—that is the key idea—can access support and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

When the committee wrote to the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care on 17 November, we were particularly interested to find out whether the proposed learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill would address the petitioner’s concerns, and to know, in the interim, what support measures will be put in place for individuals who have autism but do not have a learning disability or mental illness. We also wanted to know how the minister intended to collect and disseminate examples of good practice.

The minister provided examples of current work and recent pilots, all of which are set out in full in members’ papers. The minister indicated that, should a new commission or commissioner be created via the proposed legislation, detailed consideration would be required on what their powers and duties should be. In the meantime, the Scottish Government plans to collate and analyse good practice from health and social care partnerships.

The petitioner has responded, stating that the minister’s submission, once again, did not explain specifically where autistic people who do not have a learning disability or mental health issue can access support. He notes that the pilot projects that were mentioned are time limited and area specific; that post-diagnostic support is required on a lifelong basis and not only at the point of diagnosis; and that the petition is due to be discussed at the next meeting of the chief social work officer committee, later this month.

Do members have any proposals? I suggest that we go back to the minister with the points that have been made. The minister told us that the powers and duties of a commission or commissioner would be reviewed. That might suggest that responsibility for the petitioner’s particular objective might be allocated within that framework, but it has not actually been said. I would be happy to go back to the minister and ask again, very specifically, about the petitioner’s concern about what is proposed for people who do not have a learning disability or mental health issue.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1845 was lodged by Gordon Baird on behalf of Galloway community hospital action group. Rhoda Grant again joins us to discuss the petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an agency to ensure that health boards offer fair and reasonable management of rural and remote healthcare issues.

When we last discussed the petition on 8 September, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the remote and rural general practice short-life working group, as well as to rural health boards. We have received various submissions from stakeholders and a late submission from Finlay Carson MSP, all of which have been shared with members.

The chair of the remote and rural general practice short-life working group highlights its recent report and its recommendation that a national centre of excellence for remote and rural health and social care be established. Work on implementing the recommendation is under way, including work to explore the potential role of a rural health commissioner, which is a position that has been successfully established in Australia.

The responses from NHS Shetland and NHS Orkney and from NHS Grampian provide information on their respective approaches to public engagement. We have also received a further submission from the petitioner, which is included in full in members’ papers, and a submission from Claire Fleming in support of the petition.

Before the committee comes to a view on what to do next, I ask Rhoda Grant whether she wants to say anything.

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?