Seòmar agus comataidhean

Davy, did you want to follow up on any questions?

I want to touch on something that Monica Lennon asked about and which came up quite a bit when we were on our visit. The review group included representatives from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and, coincidentally, the three centres are to be in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Lanarkshire was not represented. I understand that people from Lanarkshire were invited, but they took the view that, because there was a material interest, it might be prejudicial for them to take part, not realising that, in fact, it was potentially prejudicial for them not to take part. Notwithstanding their view of how that might have been interpreted, could that not have been challenged to ensure that the review group was more representative of all of Scotland, rather than just of the centres of excellence that ultimately benefited from the outcome of the review?

I have to say that, on our visit to Wishaw, everybody we spoke to was scathing of the contribution of Bliss.

Fergus Ewing would like to come in at this point.

I have found all the evidence that we have considered fascinating. For the sake of the petitioners, I will be pejoratively political. There is an idealistic argument that is based on the technical availability of services and the best survival prospects for children, and there is the reality that politicians come across on behalf of our constituents every day. The great transport network in the health service, which ferries children from the south of Scotland up to Aberdeen at the click of a finger when the need arises, is effectively unavailable when constituents are left waiting up to 18 or 24 hours for an ambulance to turn up to take them anywhere. The additional consideration is that they, in fact, will simply go to Glasgow in such cases. In a previous evidence session, I talked about a parent who had a critically ill wife and was concerned about whether, in his circumstance, he should have stayed with the critically ill wife if the child was not in Glasgow but at the other end of the country.

In a sense, the clinical directive has generated what it believes to be the outcome that will lead to the highest level of survival among the sickest babies. However, that is dependent on the infrastructure support behind it, which politicians have found does not always follow. At some point down the line, constituents will come to us with an experience that goes against absolutely everything that you have identified as the clinically designed outcome, because the practical reality will be that they will not have got the support that was necessary and they will feel that they lost a child in the worst circumstances because of it.

I think that we should do that on the basis that we are not exercising any judgment. We think that the petitions are all hugely important and that we have done what we can to progress them. However, it would also be possible for a fresh petition to be lodged at the start of the next session of Parliament.

PE1911 is one of the long-standing petitions that we have given consideration to in this session of Parliament. It was lodged by Ann Stark, who, if my glasses are not fogged over and I can see into the distance, is with us in the public gallery. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with 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.

Monica Lennon is with us again in relation to this petition, which we last considered on 23 April, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate. Throughout the lifetime of the petition, the committee has considered a number of issues concerning bereavement and pathology services. We have heard about specific improvements that could be made, such as the use of CT scanners for modern post mortems and giving loved ones more choice on the return of tissue samples. Indeed, we had a fascinating evidence session with clinicians who are using scanners for post mortems elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

We took evidence from the Lord Advocate and practitioners in England, and the committee raised several of Ann Stark’s points in writing with the Scottish Government, the Lord Advocate and the Royal College of Pathologists. That work uncovered that there has been a lack of ministerial leadership to oversee and drive forward improvements in pathology services. I put that issue to the First Minister directly at the Conveners Group, and the First Minister followed that up subsequently in writing.

The Scottish Government has reiterated on a number of occasions its position that it is essential that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is able to undertake independent investigations into the cause of death when a death is sudden or unexplained. The Scottish Government also maintains that it does not support legislative change to offer tissue samples to next of kin as a matter of course.

On the wider issues that we have explored, the Lord Advocate has provided information about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s exploration of CT scanning. Senior representatives visited Dr Adeley, the senior coroner from whom we took evidence back in May 2023, along with pathologists and radiologists in Lanarkshire. The Lord Advocate stated that the information obtained was very helpful and will form part of the on-going discussions about any improvements that can be made to the process of death investigation. However, the Lord Advocate also stated that it is clear that the use of CT scanning is only one tool that can be available to assist in establishing the cause of death and that it cannot eliminate the need for an invasive post-mortem examination in every case. I think that the committee accepted that that was obviously true. In certain circumstances, an invasive post mortem will always be necessary.

The submission highlights, however, that CT scanning is available in some circumstances in Scotland, although it has been restricted to particular cases such as homicides. From May this year, the University of Glasgow pathology department and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde were due to begin a service development pilot to investigate the potential benefits of incorporating CT scanning in procurator fiscal-instructed post-mortem examinations.

The petitioner, Ann Stark, has provided a written submission that reiterates her view that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s investigations into deaths should look only at criminal circumstances rather than all unexplained or sudden deaths. She continues her call for permission from the next of kin to be required in cases of non-suspicious deaths. The petitioner also reiterates that changes to the system would create cost savings that could be used elsewhere in the public sector.

The committee has received a written submission ahead of this morning’s consideration from Mark Griffin MSP, which calls for the petition to be carried over to the next parliamentary session. Monica Lennon is with us. Is there anything that Monica would like to add before we consider what to do next?

Thank you. I absolutely pay tribute to the petitioner, whose work on the petition has been remarkable, particularly given the circumstances that led to the petition being raised in the first place.

Progress has been made in that we have been able to articulate issues in a way that they have not been articulated before and to take evidence in relation to all of that. It strikes me that, depending on the decision of the committee and taking account of the progress that has been made in this parliamentary session, the matter could potentially be admirably pursued in a refreshed petition for the next session’s petitions committee to consider.

David Torrance, do you have any formal proposals to put to us on the petition?

We have evidence from parliamentary colleagues that directly challenges the assertion regarding the implementation of the existing law and that contradicts the Government’s statement that the existing law is sufficient in asserting that nothing is being done to enforce it. I think that the petition still has merit and that there is opportunity for further consideration, but are colleagues content with Mr Torrance’s suggestion, given the reasons that he has outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

I am quite happy with that additional suggestion. I think that Mr Ewing is also suggesting that parliamentary colleagues might want to keep a wary eye on any such announcement of proposals in the remaining time in this parliamentary session, because all colleagues will have the opportunity to raise such matters in the Parliament.

Are we content to proceed in the way that was suggested by Mr Torrance, with Mr Ewing’s addendum?

Members indicated agreement.