Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have a series of suggestions on how we should proceed. Are members content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I am quite happy that we write to the Government on that basis and that, thereafter, we close the petition. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner and the petitioner’s advocate for raising this important matter with us. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

That brings us to the end of the public session of this morning’s meeting. We will next meet on Wednesday 29 May, when we will be taking evidence from Nicola Sturgeon MSP on our inquiry into the A9 dualling project in addition to the consideration of petitions.

We now move into private session.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to pursue the issues that Mr Ewing identified?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much, Mr Marra. Are we content in the first instance to embrace the suggestions that Mr Marra has made?

Following the conversation and the meeting that Mr Marra attended with the Lord Advocate, I wonder whether we might consider also asking the Scottish Government what progress has been made in relation to working with the UK Government to ensure that the differences between the system in England and Wales and the system in Scotland are being properly communicated to the next of kin. We could follow up on that specific point.

Are there any other suggestions that colleagues want to make? There were a few suggestions there. We will have to think from whom we would obtain information about the incidence in England and Wales, but we can certainly seek to do that, because that would evidence and underpin the contrast in how these matters are being taken forward.

Yes, that responds directly to what I thought are two perfectly legitimate questions that the petitioner has raised: why is there not one already and what exactly are the criteria to determine why there cannot be any more? Is the committee agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next of our new petitions is PE2084, which has been lodged by Randall Graeme Kilgour Foggie. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 to allow alkaline hydrolysis, accelerated composting and other more eco-friendly methods of disposal of human cadavers. Alkaline hydrolysis, also known as water cremation, is a method of disposal of human remains using hot water with the addition of chemicals. The current legislative framework for burial and cremation allows for the regulation of any new methods of body disposal in the same way that burial and cremation is regulated—how we move from one subject to another in the petitions committee!

The Scottish Government recently consulted on burial inspection, funeral director licensing and alkaline hydrolysis. The consultation sought views on proposals and regulations on all four topics under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016.

The report on the alkaline hydrolysis consultation states that 84 per cent of respondents support the introduction of regulations to allow alkaline hydrolysis, which I understand is practised elsewhere. It concludes that the Scottish Government will now consider the proposals for regulating alkaline hydrolysis in light of the consultation findings and that it will continue to engage with the funeral sector and other interested parties to further inform the development of policy proposals. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you, Mr Torrance. Would anybody else like to come forward with proposals?

PE2085, which has been lodged by David Cornock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory definition of residency for fatal accident inquiries into deaths of Scots abroad. We are joined in our consideration of the petition by our colleague Michael Marra. Welcome to you, Mr Marra.

The SPICe briefing explains that the term “ordinarily resident” is a commonly used and well-understood legal concept. The term is intended to be flexible to cover a wide range of circumstances.

In England and Wales, a coroner’s investigation will take place where the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death was unknown or the deceased died in state detention. The inquest will mainly determine how, where and when someone died. Coroners will rarely make wider recommendations but can do so through a prevention of future deaths report. That system is significantly different from the Scottish system of death investigations.

In Scotland, fatal accident inquiries aim to establish what happened and to prevent future deaths from happening in similar circumstances. Fatal accident inquiries take place in limited circumstances at the discretion of the Lord Advocate where a death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained or gives rise to a serious public concern and she considers that it is in the public interest to hold a fatal accident inquiry. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has a role in investigating a wide range of suspicious deaths. However, only a small proportion of those are deemed to require the level of public investigation that is delivered by a fatal accident inquiry.

The Scottish Government has stated that it does not intend to define “ordinarily resident” in legislation and has highlighted that inquiries short of an FAI can take place in relation to deaths abroad, such as the instruction of a post-mortem.

The petitioner’s written submission details his personal experience and raises concerns about the quality of communication to next of kin in such circumstances. The submission also outlines improvements that the Lord Advocate has committed to progress as a result of his engagement with her. The petitioner has obviously been pursuing the aims and objectives of the petition.

Before I ask members to give their consideration to what we might do, I invite Michael Marra to address the committee.

Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.