Chamber and committees

I remember standing there on a site investigation with the previous committee. You are absolutely right that the military road sits in the shadow of the principal route. It is hardly a wonderful alternative, but at least it was an alternative, although not when there was a significant landslide. The route in the valley opposite was regarded as being far too steep to be developed for heavy goods vehicles or other larger vehicles. It has been a significant on-going problem.

Our second agenda item is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1723, on essential tremor treatment, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

I am delighted to welcome Rhoda Grant MSP back to the committee to speak to the petition. Before I come to Rhoda, I will provide a little more background. When it last considered the petition in September of last year, the committee agreed to write to the University of Dundee to seek an update on the magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound—MRgFUS—scanner system.

A response from the University of Dundee has now been received, which confirms that its focused ultrasound system has been used to treat five patients with essential tremor. Funding approval has been obtained from individual national health service boards for patients to be treated in Dundee over the coming months.

The committee also wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport requesting an update on plans to submit a proposal to the national specialist services committee to allow the treatment to become a standard form of care. Applications to the committee have now been halted due to the pandemic. At present, the majority of those wishing to access the treatment are forced to travel long distances to access care in England.

Although I sometimes tease that she is with us more than some of our committee members, it is a pleasure to have Rhoda with us again this morning. Would you like to update the committee on anything in relation to the petition?

No other members of the committee have indicated that they wish to comment.

To summarise, we are keeping the petition open. It looks as though Natalie Don will propose a member’s bill. We might require some clarification on our ability to progress the petition if a bill is introduced and proceeds but, in any event, it looks as though the scope of such a bill will not comprehensively cover the scope of the petition. Therefore, we will keep in mind members’ desire to hear evidence from the petitioner at a future meeting, clarify with Ms Don when she might be likely to lodge the proposal for the members’ bill and invite her to participate in our consideration of the petition on that date.

Does that course of action meet with the committee’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1877 was lodged by Alex Wallace. We considered the petition in September of last year. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics in Scotland. Members should note that the Public Petitions Committee considered a similar petition from the same petitioner in session 5.

The committee wrote to stakeholders to seek their views. In its submission, the British Medical Association raised concerns about how the use of body cameras might affect confidentiality and patient trust and suggested that, if a patient thought that their remarks were being filmed, that could prevent them from seeking help or being honest about their situation.

The clerk’s note that accompanies the petition sets out data that the Scottish Ambulance Service has provided on reports of physical or verbal abuse against its staff. In its submission, the service notes that it has recently considered and approved a limited trial of the use of body cameras and sets out a number of perceived benefits, including a potential reduction in staff absence due to assault, the provision of better quality footage that would support prosecutions and wider improvements to staff wellbeing.

I invite comments, starting with Paul Sweeney.

Before I close the meeting, I will come back to Mr Sweeney on an issue relating to PE1912, on funding for council venues. When you said that you wanted one of the stakeholders to be contacted on the points that you made, the clerks were not entirely clear which stakeholder you meant. Can you confirm who you want us to contact with the concerns that you highlighted?

PE1894, which was lodged by Kenneth Robertson, is on permitting a medical certificate of cause of death—or MCCD—to be independently reviewed. The petition was last considered in November 2021, when we agreed to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Healthcare Improvement Scotland for their views.

The petition calls on the Scottish Government to change the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 to permit an MCCD to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service, where the case has already been reviewed by the procurator fiscal but not by a medical professional expert. The Scottish Government’s submission highlights that

“DCRS ... checks the accuracy of approximately 12% of all Medical Certificates of Cause of Death in Scotland”

and also

“carries out Interested Person Reviews in cases where questions or concerns about”

certificates

“remain after an individual has spoken to the certifying doctor”.

The Government suggests:

“Given that COPFS is independent and has the responsibility to investigate these cases, it would not be appropriate for”

the death certification review service

“to review”

medical certificates of cause of death

“in cases already investigated by COPFS.”

In its submission to the committee, Healthcare Improvement Scotland provides further information about the work of the review service, including as part of that its inquiries service to support certifying doctors. It also notes:

“Since the service was established in 2015, the monthly median percentage of cases ... where the certifying doctor has made a clinical or administrative error ... has reduced from 44% to 24.4%.”

The submission also sets out the circumstances in which a referral might be made to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The Lord Advocate states in her submission that, in establishing what should be stated on a medical certificate of cause of death,

“the Procurator Fiscal may seek an independent medical opinion, for example from a pathologist for their view on the appropriate MCCD or whether anything would be gained from conducting a post mortem examination.”

She also suggests that

“it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCS in cases already investigated by Procurators Fiscal.”

In light of the submissions that we have received, I would welcome comments from colleagues.

No other member has indicated that they wish to come in. I thank Mr Robertson for lodging the petition, which raises an important matter. However, given the responses that we have received from the Scottish Government and the various legal bodies, I seek committee members’ support for Mr Stewart’s recommendation that we close the petition. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

No other member has indicated that they wish to comment—unless Mr Sweeney is indicating that he would like to come in.

It was just a loose hand—rather than a family pet or anything—that caught my attention.

We thank Mr Wright for his petition, which we intend to keep open. We will write to the various Government bodies and organisations that Ruth Maguire identified. Does the committee agree to our following that process?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we will be seeing Rhoda Grant again later, so I look forward to that.