Chamber and committees

That is what I thought. I thought that you seemed a bit uncertain. Thank you for that.

Does Neil Kenward want to add anything on the longer term?

Thank you, convener. It is good to be with the committee. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the petition. I will not repeat your points, which were well made. I am here on behalf of my constituent, the petitioner, to assist and answer any questions that the committee might have.

My constituent and her family really appreciate the committee’s consideration so far, which has been thoughtful. I am pleased that your deliberations in December led to more people making submissions. The petition was not put out for public signature, so it has been done quite quietly. However, as we can see from the responses, people have some strong views based on their experiences.

The issues that the petition raises are sensitive. I commend the petitioner’s courage. The loss of her adult son, Richard, has been devastating and traumatic for the family, but what happened after her son’s death was also really traumatic.

I was handed a bundle of papers on my way in this morning. Ann McNair had been awaiting further information from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I will not go over the papers here, but it has taken a long time for the family to piece together what happened. For example, Ann had asked questions about body scanners, which would allow for a less invasive post mortem. The Crown Office has come back and identified some training issues, which mean that staff in Scotland do not have the skill set.

Looking at all the submissions and the work that Ann continues to do, along with people such as Lydia Reid, who I think is known to the committee as well, I think that more questions need to be answered.

It would be good to hear more from the Royal College of Pathologists. I note the submission that it has made. The royal college does not give its full support to the petitioner, but it is concerning that it says what it says in the context of what it calls

“significant pressures on pathology, post mortem and forensic services across Scotland”.

The submission talks about

“grossly inadequate facilities and staffing levels being the reality of current provision”

and highlights an issue that I raised in the previous parliamentary session, which is the

“recent failure of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service procurement exercise to identify compliant bidders for forensic services”

putting more light on the challenges that the system faces.

We have to question whether the system is fit for purpose. You mentioned some submissions that agree with the petitioner that tissue samples should not be taken and retained without the consent of the next of kin. There is support, including from Dorothy Barr, for the use of body scanners, which are used much more routinely in England and are believed to be less invasive, while being 99 per cent accurate.

In her submission, Yvonne Logan says that it is “offensive” that people are being told

“that tissue samples ‘belong’ to the procurator fiscal or pathologists for research, without consent.”

Most people would find that really troubling.

Melissa O’Sullivan, a nurse practitioner, supports the rules on tissue sampling being aligned with UK standards, with samples

“being offered back to next of kin”.

The petitioner has opened up an important conversation. In the end, it comes down to dignity. No one would question the important role and responsibility of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the investigation of sudden, suspicious, accidental and unexplained deaths in Scotland. However, many people feel that the system is not always compassionate, that it is hard to get information and that communication is not always as good as it should be. We have heard from the Royal College of Pathologists that the system seems to be unable to cope. More questions should be asked.

I will end by looking at the submission from Gerard Stark. He asks:

“Where is the dignity for the deceased”?

The Parliament is about to have a big discussion about dignity in dying. We have to extend that to look at dignity for the deceased and for bereaved families.

The petitioner says that her son was “butchered”. That is her view. She asks why body scanners are not an option in Scotland. She does not want another mother or family to go through that “unbearable heartache and pain”.

I said that that would be my final word, but it is important to refer to the thoughtful submission from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and to the council’s disappointment. It is important that we listen to SCoJeC’s views.

I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about this issue. I feel that I have just skimmed over the top of it, because so much of it is upsetting. Everything is there to be read. The petitioner might feel able to be more public about her story in due course. The work that the committee has done so far has helped to show that there are questions to answer. If we can improve the law, policy and practice, we should absolutely do that.

Yes, convener. The petitioner and some of the respondents to the petition have raised an issue about death certificates. The term “unascertained” is not popular. Many families—I have personal experience of this, too—feel that it is empty and meaningless. Some of the respondents have made that point very well. Gerard Stark talked about it not being a meaningful term and said that “uncertain” would be a more appropriate word to use. There are different practices in other parts of the UK. If the committee could get views on that from the Scottish Government and the Crown Office, that might be useful.

It is welcome that you went to the House of Commons last week and set out a proposal. You said to the UK Government that there should be a social tariff that would take £1,000 off the bills of people who are struggling the most. If the Government does not agree to do that, what will be the consequence? Without a social tariff, what do you fear will happen?

Thank you for that answer. I would say, though, that many people will disagree and say that there is a moral case for a freeze.

Natalie Don touched on the issue of profits, and you have given quite a comprehensive answer on that. Another figure that I have seen in some media sources in recent months is the more than £7 billion in operating profits that the big six energy firms have banked in just five years. Do you understand why some people feel quite offended when energy companies—I am not saying that your company does this—tell them to hug their pets, put on socks or jump up and down? Can you see why people feel let down? Do you see why, when people hear companies say, “Don’t freeze the cap—let’s bring in a social tariff,” they feel that the Government and the companies need to do more?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Thank you. It will obviously be a really multidisciplinary approach.

We have talked a little bit about routes into local government, including apprenticeships. We understand that there is an opportunity for a planning apprenticeship in England and, possibly, Wales but not in Scotland. Given the national importance of the work, what is the Government doing with colleagues in education and skills to make communities aware that the work provides really important green jobs and to promote it? Right now, young people are sitting exams and thinking about life after school. Perhaps local government does not seem to be the most exciting place for them to work. How can we promote that work and get people enthused about it?

I think that we all agree that the issue is very urgent. I think that we are out of time, so I will hand back to the convener. However, if any of the other panel members have anything to add, perhaps they could do so in writing.

Good afternoon. We heard from our previous panel, which included representatives of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Energy Action Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland, that the current situation is a collective failure, which does not reflect well on Governments or the industry itself. We also heard fears that the crisis will lead to

“a catastrophic loss of life”;

it does not get more serious than that.

Keith Anderson, is there a compelling case for a freeze on the energy cap in October?