Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener. I am very grateful to the committee for permitting me to attend this morning.

I have an interest in the matter as a result of meeting Mr Barr, who is a constituent, and taking some time to tour Hawkhead cemetery with him. I have seen at first hand the impact that the policy has had on many of the graves of people whose families are still living and visit the cemetery regularly. I am also very conscious of the work of “friends of” groups that care for cemeteries, which are, of course, very important places for people who have been bereaved.

From my 10 years as a local councillor, I am very aware of the challenges that Councillor Wood outlined. On the whole, councils are genuinely concerned about upkeep of our burial grounds and cemeteries to ensure that they are respectful and dignified places in which we can take pride.

However, councils have also been very conscious of the health and safety implications that arose from the tragic fatality at Craigton cemetery in Glasgow, although I feel that a blanket approach, rather than a more nuanced approach, has been taken. Councils are very keen to comply with guidance that is issued by the Government.

Councils are required to ensure that they stress test and monitor headstones, but the challenge for them often relates to finance. It can be very difficult for local authorities to maintain the standards that we would expect in cemeteries without additional burdens being placed on them, given the local government financial settlement.

I recognise much of what the petitioners have said about the blanket approach of laying stones on the ground not being the best way to proceed. That can lead to bereaved families coming to a grave and finding that their stone has been lowered. There is a lack of communication, and communities in different areas interpret the guidance in different ways. That causes great distress.

It is clear to me that there is a cost impact, so we have to look at how we properly fund local government to do the more detailed and considered work that Mr Torrance referred to.

From a public health angle, I asked Maree Todd, the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport, in a written question, whether there was any intention to provide a fund for local authorities to access in order that they can deliver what Mr Barr described as a rolling programme of making historical stones and larger stones safe. Unfortunately, the Government said in its response that there are no plans to provide such a fund. That might be useful information for the committee.

I am concerned that the issue is not just for local authorities. We have a number of private cemeteries in Scotland. Across the country, the Roman Catholic Church, the Jewish community and the Muslim community maintain their own cemeteries. For example, St Conval’s cemetery in Barrhead—one of the largest Catholic cemeteries in the country—is in my region. There might be cost implications, so we have to consider how the costs will be borne not only by local authorities but by religious groups.

If the Government wants councils to meet their obligations, it needs to be clearer about what the national standards should be. It is clear that the current blanket approach is not working. The Government has to provide funding for councils to maintain our cemeteries with the dignity and respect that we would all hope for.

Good morning to the panel, and thank you for your important testimony this morning. I want to expand on how the patient safety commissioner might understand emerging themes and patterns and so might be able to prevent some of the issues that we have discussed. To what extent do the witnesses think that their experiences are rooted in a failure to pick up on early signals of adverse outcomes? We have heard about some of that already, so I suppose that my follow-on is: what confidence do the witnesses have that the patient safety commissioner could improve the capacity to pick up on early signs of adverse outcomes?

I wonder whether Fraser Morton or Marie Lyon wants to comment on that.

What has been said about the commissioner’s independence is helpful. I want to pick up on what Dr Lamont said.

Do you see the patient safety commissioner having a wider role in social care? Given the debates that we are having in Parliament around a national care service and the potential for the provision of care to change, do you think that the commissioner might be able to go beyond their present scope? How would we hold the commissioner and ministers accountable in that space?

A number of respondents to the consultation on the Scottish bill felt that the patient safety commissioner should also cover social care. Indeed, social care is topical given the challenges in that sector. Also, as we have come out of Covid, there has been a renewed focus on safety in social care. Baroness Cumberlege, do you think that there is a case for including it in the patient safety commissioner’s remit?

I am grateful for that. I was keen to understand the challenges that might exist in including social care in the commissioner’s remit, so it was useful that you followed on from my question.

I appreciate that this is a known unknown, but is there any sense that, further down the line, there might be a distinct and separate commissioner for social care? Is it your sense that it would be better to try to separate out the two and have cross-cutting issues but not necessarily the same person doing it all?

Thank you.

Okay. You mentioned trying to assess where the barriers are and how they can be tackled. In our previous exchange, we spoke about the barriers that young people experience, and Gillian Mackay has picked up some of those issues. The last time that we had a discussion, you spoke about young people leaving the sport because of the pressure that they experienced from their family to do well, to get qualifications and

“to go to university and become a doctor or lawyer”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 4 October; c 12.]

There is a perception that that is quite a stereotypical view of Asian families in particular. Would you accept that that comment could have been perceived as being stereotypical in itself? Those are barriers that would often be universally experienced by young people, so what work has Cricket Scotland done to speak to young people? I think that you were saying that that is what you had heard anecdotally, but what work has been done to understand whether those are significant issues, regardless of who the young people are and where they come from?

That is interesting. On your last point, about working to advance the agenda of Food Standards Scotland, we did not take evidence from you or from anyone on the bill. Were you disappointed that you were not specifically referred to in the legislation? Did that concern you?

I assume that those discussions are at an early stage, but do you sense a willingness to find better understanding of the roles and, perhaps, look at how that might be enacted?

That is useful for us as a point to follow up, because it is important that we have those connections.

I will touch on the availability and accessibility of food. In the debate, there were amendments, particularly on access to food being a right. That debate will continue, because it was not concluded in the legislation. Should we continue to look at how we can create that right and that better access?