Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Tess White. Having read through the papers and the detail that we received, I have to say that this was a practice of which I, too, was largely unaware. As you have said, when one is confronted with the detail, it seems that there really is a requirement for the Parliament to be proactive and for the Government to take a legislative lead, particularly in light of the fact that other Parliaments across these islands have already taken that step. It does not seem really adequate that Scotland should be trying to find difficulties where clear direction is required and, indeed, has been given by legislative moves and the legal framework elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I do not know whether you feel similarly, colleagues, but are there any views as to how we might proceed? I think that we really need to be very direct in our questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, because I do not think that we will want to allow this to languish. Are there any suggestions as to what we might seek to clarify with the cabinet secretary?

So what would you like us to ask COSLA?

I see—okay. Are colleagues similarly minded?

We have had a couple of suggestions from Mr Choudhury and Mr Ewing. Are we content to keep the petition open and seek further clarification on the basis of what they have suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The last of our continuing petitions this morning is PE2087, lodged by Paul Irvine. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pass a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement. The petition was last considered at our meeting on 29 May 2024, when we agreed to write to COSLA, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it is proposing a requirement for

“each burial authority in Scotland to prepare and maintain a management plan which will apply to all the burial grounds for which the burial authority has responsibility ... Burial authorities will not be required to record their decision on dog access within the management plan, but they could choose to set out their position in the plan if they wish. Burial regulations will not create any new rules in relation to dogs. The decision on whether to permit dogs in burial grounds will remain at the discretion of each ... burial authority based on local factors.”

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed? I call Mr Golden, who is fresh back from Crufts.

Are you suggesting that, on this occasion, we close the petition based on the substantive responses that we have received?

If those aspects are not fulfilled.

That brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 2 April.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Because of the scheduling of the petition, we have ended up considering it almost as we come around to the anniversary of the death of Sharon Duncan’s son, David Hill, on 19 March 2022. I thank colleagues and the Scottish Rugby Union for the work that they do in keeping David’s memory alive and the work that the Parliament and others do to bring attention and feeling to the issue. He is still sorely missed by many of us here in the Parliament.

On the basis of those recommendations, are we content to keep the petition open and pursue the various suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE2067, which was lodged by Sharon Duncan and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission research to establish how many people aged 14 to 35 are affected by conditions that cause young sudden cardiac death, to clarify the number of people in Scotland who die annually from these conditions and to set up a pilot study to establish if voluntary screening can reduce deaths.

Is that Sharon Duncan in the public gallery? My eyesight is so faulty these days, but I believe that she is in the gallery—a very good morning to you.

We had hoped to be joined by Oliver Mundell for our consideration of this petition but, unfortunately, he is unwell and has not been able to attend the Parliament this week. He has sent his apologies.

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 20 March 2024, when we agreed to write to a number of organisations with a view to better understanding what research may be under way and to invite views on the call for a pilot study for a voluntary screening programme. Copies of all the responses that we have received are included in our papers for today’s meeting.

The response from Cardiac Risk in the Young—CRY—provides details on calculating and understanding the incidence of conditions associated with young sudden cardiac death. It suggests that there are inaccuracies in the way that the incidence is recorded by the Office for National Statistics, which has led to the UK and Scottish Governments underestimating the impact that those conditions have on families and society at large. That is clearly disturbing.

Similarly, the British Heart Foundation and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland both highlighted the importance of research for improving understanding of the prevalence of sudden cardiac death and how best to identify the risks associated with it. Both organisations indicated support for further research, with Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland believing that, if the Scottish Government commissioned research, including a pilot study on voluntary screening, it could provide crucial insight and offer a valuable contribution to the current evidence base.

We also received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health setting out how the Scottish Government and other UK nations engage with the work of the UK National Screening Committee. It noted that Governments cannot tell the NSC which issues it should consider or review.

In its response dated May 2024, the UK National Screening Committee states that it is not aware of any significant new work on whole population screening that would suggest a different outcome to its 2019 review. It does, however, plan to review evidence relating to population screening for sudden cardiac death within the next three years. The response also notes that the NSC’s terms of reference have been expanded to include consideration of targeted or stratified screening programmes, and although it has not yet been asked to consider targeted or stratified screening for sudden cardiac death, it can be alerted to any new published peer-reviewed evidence that might suggest a case for a new screening programme.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. She welcomes the responses from Cardiac Risk in the Young, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland and the British Heart Foundation, and also draws our attention to discussions that have taken place elsewhere in the UK, including an event at the Italian embassy in London that explored the mandatory screening programme for young people who are involved in organised sport in Italy, and how that programme might be adapted for use in the UK. Ms Duncan also shared information about the meeting that she had with the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to discuss the possibility of commissioning or supporting research into the impact of diseases leading to sudden cardiac death in Scotland.

Quite a bit of progress has been made, but there is still work to do. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?