Chamber and committees

At the moment, we cannot anticipate the range of other petitions about issues that are consequential to the Covid pandemic that we may subsequently be asked to consider. I will just paste to the wall the idea that this might be an appropriate thing for us to consider at some stage under deliberative engagement, which is part of the committee’s new remit. We could bring together various groups so that we could take evidence from them through the new deliberative engagement aspect of our responsibility.

At the same time, however, I imagine that the COVID-19 Recovery Committee might be doing work in relation to that, too, so we should perhaps liaise with it to see what its timetable and agenda are.

Are we content to take the actions that have been outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not rule out, at some stage, the committee taking oral evidence on the petition. In the first instance, we will see what formal responses we get.

We will keep the petition open. Are we agreed on the recommended actions that Bill Kidd set out?

Members indicated agreement.

I notice that Mr Mountain has strongly encouraged us to take evidence after we have received submissions on both petitions.

I think that we are agreed on that.

Sue Webber, do you know which school Callum attends? I do not see that information anywhere.

Okay. Are we content to write to the Government, in the first instance, to gather further information on where it stands on the existing legislation and to ask whether it is contemplating updating it? Should we also write to the British Veterinary Association to seek its views on the issues that the petition raises? The petitioner makes specific reference to the veterinary fees that arise when one dog attacks another. I am not a dog owner, so I do not know how much such costs would typically be. It would be interesting for us to have some idea of that and of the number of occasions in which vets treat animals that have been attacked in that way.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to take those further actions?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1894, on permitting a medical certificate of cause of death to be independently reviewed, was lodged by Mr Kenneth Robertson—as the MSP for Eastwood, I should say that he is a constituent of mine and has previously corresponded with my office on the issue.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 to permit a medical certificate of cause of death to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service when the case has already been reviewed by the procurator fiscal but not by a medical professional expert. It is quite a technical issue.

The petitioner states that the 2011 act does not allow for an application for review of a medical certificate of cause of death by an interested party where the procurator fiscal has investigated the deceased person’s cause of death. He notes that anyone can refer a death to the procurator fiscal but there is no obligation for the PF to investigate. An investigation may also only involve asking the certifying doctor if they are willing to certify the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief. The petitioner believes that that creates a dangerous loophole that could be exploited to cover up sub-standard care.

The SPICe briefing that accompanies the petition notes that the 2011 act was designed to

“introduce a single system of independent, effective scrutiny applicable to deaths that do not require”

procurator fiscal investigation. The death certification review service—DCRS—was established in 2015. That service checks the accuracy of approximately 12 per cent of medical certificates of cause of death in Scotland and also carries out interested person reviews in cases where questions or concerns about the content of an MCCD remain after an individual has spoken to the certifying doctor or if questions or concerns arise at a later stage. That is to check the accuracy of information contained in the MCCD.

The Scottish Government notes in its submission that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is responsible for the investigation of all sudden, unexpected or unexplained deaths in Scotland and that, in many cases, the MCCD will be provided by a pathologist, who is an independent doctor and specialist in causes of death. The Scottish Government also notes that, given the Procurator Fiscal Service’s independence,

“it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCDs in cases already investigated by”

the procurator fiscal and that it does not intend to amend the 2011 act to enable the DCRS to review cases previously investigated by COPFS—I apologise for all the acronyms.

In response, the petitioner reiterates his belief that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is unable to provide the same level of scrutiny as the death certification review service because the procurator fiscal is not medically qualified. He states that

“there are thousands of deaths every year in Scotland which are referred to the Procurator Fiscal but not investigated”

and, as such, are not eligible for medical review by the death certification review service.

It is quite a technical, targeted concern, of which my constituent has personal experience, although he refers to it in general in the petition. Do colleagues have any comments?

I am happy that we do that. It is a technical but nonetheless interesting issue. It would be useful to get that further evidence and, perhaps, to return to the Scottish Government on the back of it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sure that the whole committee congratulates Callum, and I am sure that he will make a very effective presentation when he is there on Friday. Sue Webber said that he is at home this week, which means that he might be watching us just now. If that is the case—congratulations, Callum.

That seems like an admirable suggestion. Do members have any other thoughts or comments?

We can write to the key stakeholder organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—that picks up on Paul Sweeney’s point about the role of swimming lessons as a life-saving measure. With regard to the suggestion about writing to local authorities, it probably makes sense for us to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the first instance, if that would be acceptable. I would also be interested to find out from Scottish Swimming where it is in the discussion about expanding its programme and what action is proposed. I would like to get an understanding of what public information initiatives are under way in relation to encouraging people to swim for the reasons that Mr Sweeney identified.

As there are no further suggestions, are members content to keep the petition open and to proceed to gather further information on the basis that I have outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

The next new petition is PE1892, which has been lodged by Evelyn Baginski. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a law that would make an attack by one dog on another dog a crime that would be subject to a penalty, whereby the owner would be required to pay a fine and reimburse any expenses that were related to the incident.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for a dog to be dangerously out of control. It says:

“A dog is deemed to be dangerously out of control if there is reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person or an assistance dog”.

In addition, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 provides for a civil regime in respect of dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control.

The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 relates to the offences of causing unnecessary suffering and facilitating animal fighting. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that, depending on the exact circumstances, certain conduct that relates to the behaviour of a dog that attacks another dog may fall within the scope of the offences in that act.

The petitioner states that the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 does not fully legislate for attacks by one dog on another and that it does not consider the financial effect on owners who have lost a dog in that way. To address the issues that are raised in the petition, the petitioner suggests the introduction of financial penalties to provide compensation to dog owners who have lost a dog as a result of an attack by another dog. The petitioner believes that such compensation could cover veterinary fees and funeral expenses.

I invite comments from colleagues. I realise that Mr Kidd, Mr Torrance and I must have been involved in the passing of the 2010 act, but I cannot quite recall the detail of the provisions, the deficiencies in which the petitioner seeks to address.

Do colleagues have comments?