Chamber and committees

PE1984, which was lodged by Amy Stevenson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to reduce the financial barriers that prevent parents from having contact with their children by introducing a Scottish equivalent to the C100 form, with a fixed fee for making applications for child residence or child contact orders.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 4 October 2023. We received a response from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety suggesting that, although work is under way to implement section 24 of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, it is likely to be later in 2024 before the Government is in a position to advance with the pilot scheme on mandatory alternative dispute resolution meetings.

The minister’s response also notes that the Scottish Government does not plan to review the current system for initiating actions for child contact and residence orders due to “other priorities and pressures” but refers to actions in the family justice modernisation strategy that could help to improve the experiences of individuals going through child contact and residence disputes.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

That brings us to agenda item 4, which is consideration of new petitions.

As always, before we consider a new petition, I say to those who might be joining us, either here or online, to hear their petition discussed that, in advance of the first consideration, we ask the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to comment on the issues raised by the petition. We also write to the Scottish Government for an initial view. We do that because, historically, when we considered petitions without first having done those things, we would agree them as the first two things that we should do. Therefore, it makes sense to carry out that initial inquiry if we are to meaningfully advance the issues raised in a petition.

PE2082, on improving the support provided to families affected by cot death, has been lodged by Kevin McIver and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop promoting the Lullaby Trust to Scottish families for cot death support, as that charity provides support only to families who live in England and Wales, and instead to provide practical support to families by prioritising the promotion of the Scottish Cot Death Trust, which has been supporting families since 1985.

Mr McIver tells us that he lost a child to cot death, also known as sudden unexpected death in infancy, and that he has received support from the Scottish Cot Death Trust. He is concerned that the literature provided by the Scottish Government since he had another child promotes the Lullaby Trust, an England-based charity that does not support families living in Scotland.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that, although it has worked in partnership with the Lullaby Trust and other organisations to develop and deliver resources on safer sleep for babies, it does not promote the Lullaby Trust as a baby-loss support organisation. It states that the Scottish Cot Death Trust was invited to become involved in the development of those resources, but it declined.

The response then goes on to detail work to support families who have experienced pregnancy and baby loss, including through the national bereavement care pathways. It also notes that the Scottish Government has provided funding to the Scottish Cot Death Trust to deliver its sudden unexpected death in infancy simulation and awareness training.

I am minded to try to establish with the Scottish Cot Death Trust, which is funded by the Scottish Government, why it declined to participate in the drafting of the resources that the Government sought to make available. That seems to be a curious lack of engagement. I understand the Scottish Government’s principal point in relation to the petitioner’s point about promoting the Lullaby Trust, in which it says that it does not promote that organisation but promotes the Scottish Cot Death Trust. I am curious, though, as to why the trust declined to participate.

Are we content to keep the petition open so that we can inquire on that point?

Members indicated agreement.

Your predecessor generously told us that, as we consider how the road might be completed, his advice to the committee, to the Parliament and to the Government would be to appoint Alex Neil as an A9 tsar to oversee the project’s completion. Would you welcome the opportunity to take a view on that concept, as much as on the nominated individual?

As it happens, I met Mr Neil, who was slightly surprised by the suggestion—not that he was disappointed, of course.

You referred to the Queensferry crossing. We had an interesting discussion with Màiri McAllan on that point, before she surrendered responsibility for the project to Fiona Hyslop. The Queensferry crossing project was driven by a Government bill—I was the convener of the hybrid committee that took forward the Queensferry crossing route planning and build design. Joe FitzPatrick was on that committee, too. Neither of us was invited to the opening, let me tell you, and that grievance still rankles.

More generally, my point is that the existence of a parliamentary committee that oversaw some of the harder work created its own momentum. Part of the issue with the A9 is that it is now a multisession project. The parliamentarians who were first involved in discussing it in the chamber have long since retired; we have in effect had 90 new parliamentarians since 2016.

As the project looks as if it could run until 2035, could Parliament be involved in some way, with some sort of institutional memory carrying forward until then, so that somebody else does not have to try to inquire later into everything that will take place in relation to the construction of the route from this point forward? Màiri McAllan thought that there was some merit in considering that.

Our next continued petition, PE1911, was lodged by Ann Stark, who I think I can see with us in the gallery again. I say, “I think,” because I have a big spotlight shining in my face and it is difficult to see anybody down at that end of the room from here. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and the 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 the next of kin as a matter of course.

We are again joined by our colleague Monica Lennon, who has been with us before when we have considered the petition. Good morning and welcome, Monica.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Royal College of Pathologists and other relevant organisations. The response from COPFS to the committee confirms that recent discussions with pathology providers have included the benefits of and possible difficulties with the suggestion to use CT scanners as an alternative to invasive post-mortem examinations. The response also highlights the HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland’s annual report for 2022-23. The inspector’s view is that consideration of the delivery model for forensic pathology is required. The report notes the cross-sector nature of work in the area and therefore suggests that the Scottish Government should lead on it.

Both the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathologists have highlighted the existing clinical guidelines relating to the use of CT scans in post-mortem examinations. The Royal College of Radiologists states that there should in principle be no reason why CT scans could not be used during post-mortem examinations in Scotland, and that the guidance notes that, at the time of writing, the availability of expertise in imaging interpretation was limited to a small number of centres in the UK.

The Royal College of Pathologists notes that many types of deaths that can be diagnosed by post-mortem imaging in England would not require an autopsy in Scotland. The submission suggests that the impact of scanning on the overall autopsy rate in Scotland is likely to be much less than in England.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions, which reiterate the key ask of her petition. She also notes that a meeting recently took place between her and the Lord Advocate—I think that Monica Lennon may have been at that meeting, too—in which they discussed her individual case and the changes that she wishes to see.

The committee has uncovered a number of issues throughout its consideration of the petition. We have gathered a lot of written evidence from a number of key organisations and have taken oral evidence to inform our thinking of the issues, all of which have had us as passengers in support of the aims of the petition as it progresses the issue. Before I invite committee members to suggest where we might go next, I invite Monica Lennon to give a brief statement.

PE2086, which was lodged by William Queen, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge those injured by Covid-19 vaccines and to have the NHS offer them appropriate treatment.

The SPICe briefing explains that, when someone presents to a GP, their treatment is not necessarily based on or connected to the cause of the illness but based on alleviating the symptoms and, if possible, treating the underlying cause, if that can be identified. The briefing notes that injury caused by the Covid-19 vaccine is still a live area of research and that it is currently difficult to find comprehensive and reliable evidence and research that details and defines Covid-19 vaccine injury. I should also say that I do have constituents who are concerned about this issue.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition acknowledges that, on rare occasions, Covid-19 vaccines can cause injury and that it does not take concerns over the safety of vaccines lightly. The submission states that recipients of the vaccines are given

“as much information on the potential side effects as possible”

and

“must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination.”

The petitioner has provided two written submissions, the first of which calls for the vaccine injured to be given time and a platform to speak about their experiences and asks for the Scottish Government to meet the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group. The second submission calls for more research into symptoms and illnesses that result from vaccination, improved diagnosis and treatment for mast cell activation syndrome, specialist clinics or multidisciplinary teams and financial support for private medical care where adequate treatment cannot be provided on the NHS.

In light of the responses that we have received, do colleagues have any clear idea about how we might proceed?

Yes.

Thank you very much for that, Monica Lennon.

We have now assembled a considerable amount of evidence. Having had a chance to discuss these matters privately as well, the committee is of the view that we now need to write to the Scottish Government directly highlighting some of the matters that we have raised.

I wonder whether one of my colleagues would like to summarise, for the record, what areas we are proposing that that letter would cover.