Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next petition is PE1902, on an appeal process for community participation requests. The note on the petition is quite long but, as if to prove my earlier point, we are joined again by Rhoda Grant, who was not necessarily expecting to be with us this morning. I am pleased that she is here, because it means that I now do not have to read out what would have been her written submission if she had not joined us.

The petition, which was lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The 2015 act was intended to encourage and support community involvement and participation in public services. Part 3 of the act introduces the right to participation requests, which aim to ensure engagement and dialogue between community participation bodies.

The right to appeal decisions on participation requests was examined by the Local Government and Communities Committee during its post-legislative scrutiny of the 2015 act, and a recommendation in relation to an appeals process was made in the committee’s final report.

A three-year evaluation of the operation of participation requests was published in April 2020 and concluded:

“Given the significant challenges to introducing an appeals process and in ensuring its fairness and robustness, alongside the very small numbers of participation requests completed using the legislation, this is likely to be a longer-term piece of work.”

The Scottish Government submission notes that the Scottish Community Development Centre has been asked to explore what an appeals process might look like and that the centre will report its findings later this year. I am delighted to ask Rhoda Grant to speak in support of the petition.

A recurring theme of this morning’s meeting seems to be the need to ensure that requests for appeals are recorded and the outcomes monitored, given that the same issue arose in a previous petition.

Do members agree to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

I am minded to agree with you and am supportive of your proposal, particularly in the light of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee’s inquiry on the matter. We could let that committee know that we have received this petition on the scheme. Of course, we would not be referring the petition to that committee—we would only be advising that we had received and closed it.

That brings us to the end of our formal business. I thank everyone very much.

Colleagues, are we content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We appear to be agreed on that.

It is an odd coupling—sorry, that is probably an unfortunate suggestion. [Laughter.] Combining hedgehogs and moles in the petition struck me as a bit random. Nonetheless, we will consider them together, albeit that there will be representations from different organisations.

I notice that Mr Mountain has strongly encouraged us to take evidence after we have received submissions on both petitions.

I think that we are agreed on that.

Sue Webber, do you know which school Callum attends? I do not see that information anywhere.

Okay. Are we content to write to the Government, in the first instance, to gather further information on where it stands on the existing legislation and to ask whether it is contemplating updating it? Should we also write to the British Veterinary Association to seek its views on the issues that the petition raises? The petitioner makes specific reference to the veterinary fees that arise when one dog attacks another. I am not a dog owner, so I do not know how much such costs would typically be. It would be interesting for us to have some idea of that and of the number of occasions in which vets treat animals that have been attacked in that way.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to take those further actions?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1894, on permitting a medical certificate of cause of death to be independently reviewed, was lodged by Mr Kenneth Robertson—as the MSP for Eastwood, I should say that he is a constituent of mine and has previously corresponded with my office on the issue.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 to permit a medical certificate of cause of death to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service when the case has already been reviewed by the procurator fiscal but not by a medical professional expert. It is quite a technical issue.

The petitioner states that the 2011 act does not allow for an application for review of a medical certificate of cause of death by an interested party where the procurator fiscal has investigated the deceased person’s cause of death. He notes that anyone can refer a death to the procurator fiscal but there is no obligation for the PF to investigate. An investigation may also only involve asking the certifying doctor if they are willing to certify the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief. The petitioner believes that that creates a dangerous loophole that could be exploited to cover up sub-standard care.

The SPICe briefing that accompanies the petition notes that the 2011 act was designed to

“introduce a single system of independent, effective scrutiny applicable to deaths that do not require”

procurator fiscal investigation. The death certification review service—DCRS—was established in 2015. That service checks the accuracy of approximately 12 per cent of medical certificates of cause of death in Scotland and also carries out interested person reviews in cases where questions or concerns about the content of an MCCD remain after an individual has spoken to the certifying doctor or if questions or concerns arise at a later stage. That is to check the accuracy of information contained in the MCCD.

The Scottish Government notes in its submission that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is responsible for the investigation of all sudden, unexpected or unexplained deaths in Scotland and that, in many cases, the MCCD will be provided by a pathologist, who is an independent doctor and specialist in causes of death. The Scottish Government also notes that, given the Procurator Fiscal Service’s independence,

“it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCDs in cases already investigated by”

the procurator fiscal and that it does not intend to amend the 2011 act to enable the DCRS to review cases previously investigated by COPFS—I apologise for all the acronyms.

In response, the petitioner reiterates his belief that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is unable to provide the same level of scrutiny as the death certification review service because the procurator fiscal is not medically qualified. He states that

“there are thousands of deaths every year in Scotland which are referred to the Procurator Fiscal but not investigated”

and, as such, are not eligible for medical review by the death certification review service.

It is quite a technical, targeted concern, of which my constituent has personal experience, although he refers to it in general in the petition. Do colleagues have any comments?

I am happy that we do that. It is a technical but nonetheless interesting issue. It would be useful to get that further evidence and, perhaps, to return to the Scottish Government on the back of it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.