Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, convener. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak about the petition again. I will avoid repeating points that I have made previously.

I join the convener in thanking Ann and Gerry Stark, who are in the public gallery. I thank Ann for lodging the petition and for all the work that she has done to get to this point. They have raised difficult issues that many people cannot even face talking about, but the committee has had a number of supportive submissions from individuals who have had similar experiences.

Committee members know what the petition seeks to do. On the additional information that the committee has had since we last met, the information from colleagues in England is really important, particularly the submission from the coroner. We can see that there is a different approach in other parts of the UK, and divergence can be a good thing. When we have families telling us that there are serious issues about consent, proportionality and dignity for the deceased and their families, we have a duty to look at those issues. I really welcome the additional work by the committee, and I think that the submissions that have been received are helpful.

I still have concerns about the resource and workforce pressures that are raised in the submission from the Royal College of Pathologists. Those issues go beyond this petition, and they merit further explanation. I would certainly like to hear more from the Scottish Government.

To recap, we are here because of Ann and Gerry, who are the parents of Richard Stark. Richard was only 25 when he died in June 2019. It was a sudden and unexpected death. The committee might recall that Ann and Gerry had to fight for a very long time to get answers. Richard’s death certificate was changed about 18 months after he passed away, with the cause of death changed to being a suspected seizure.

Committee members will also be aware that the post mortem was very invasive. I know that this is not pleasant to hear, but, in the committee’s papers, there are details about Richard’s brain, tongue and other body parts being removed.

We have heard evidence about the use of scanners, particularly in different authorities in England. There are resource implications and costs to that, but we have heard how effective those scanners can be.

I am aware that the committee has been given a lot of information, but last week you got an email with a link to a video produced by professors at the University of Leicester. If you have not had a chance to look at that video—I think that it is only three minutes long—I would refer you to it.

On the aspect of the petition that relates to tissue and consent and the role of the next of kin, it should never take a family several months to find out what has happened to their loved one after death. In this case, we are talking about 65 tissue samples, and Ann had to fight the system to have those samples returned. This is going on and people are not talking about it—often because they do not know. Ann knew about it only because she was asking questions. That tells the committee that there are a lot of unknowns.

As you can imagine, it is difficult for Ann and Gerry to sit here today, so I do not want to add much more other than to say that we appreciate the work that the committee has done so far. Ann has felt voiceless in the whole process. The committee has been the only forum in which these issues could be brought into the public arena, so we really welcome the work that has been done. We note that the chief coroner has highlighted a number of points, and I believe that there has been an offer to connect the committee with senior coroners who have experience of the scanning technology. It would be very worth while to pursue that.

I am happy to stop there, convener. Thank you.

Perhaps Stephen Kerr could explain to the chamber in what circumstances he would support the bill. He is asking people to treat this in good faith, but I am not convinced that Mr Kerr would ever support the bill, and it would be better if he could just be clear on that.

When this debate is over, people might go back and read the Official Report of what was said. I have felt uncomfortable with some of the things that have been said over the course of the debate. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me—and others, I am sure—that trans men and women and non-binary people who currently work in the national health service and in social care are valued colleagues? We do not want to leave the debate with anyone thinking that they are not valued and not welcome. Can we get that on the record for the avoidance of doubt? It is really important that their contribution is appreciated and that they feel able to work in our public services.

Thank you. That is helpful. As the convener explained, we will go into those subject areas.

I will pick up on transport. You will be aware that, pre-pandemic, in Scotland our annual car kilometres were increasing. We have a target of 20 per cent reduction in car demand, but the Climate Change Committee is very clear that there needs to be a paradigm shift if we are to achieve that. I note that in the recommendations in your report you link the target with Scottish Government documents on the national planning framework and the strategic transport projects review. You are clearly looking for more alignment with other strategies and programmes.

What policies does the Climate Change Committee think that the Scottish Government needs to use to support alternatives to car use and to discourage car use? We still have a long way to go to get that modal shift to sustainable public transport and active travel. I know that you do not want to make policy recommendations to the Government, but it feels as though we are lacking in courage, both in the Government and in Parliament, to make some of those tough decisions. It will not all be popular. If you give us a steer on some of the carrots and sticks that could be considered, that would be helpful.

Can we stick with buses? You have made me think about our local situation in Hamilton, where the express bus service into the centre of Glasgow, which was really popular with students going to university or college, for example, was taken away during the pandemic and we do not have it back yet. In debates on this topic in the chamber, colleagues have talked about public transport deserts in their communities, and it can be very challenging in rural areas. It is great that more people have access to free bus passes, but if they do not have services, that is pretty useless.

Given the target to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by the end of the decade, do we need to see more action in that space, with bus services and integrated public transport that actually work for people’s real lives and timetables, whether they involve university, education, work, hospital appointments, socialising, shopping or whatever? A lot of people say that it is frustrating and difficult to get around, which is why they cannot give up using a private car.

What more could be done to resource public transport? The report from your committee talks about continuing the Covid-19 pandemic support for operators and local transport authorities. What is missing in that space, Professor Bell?

I think that we want to explore today how we can get away from what has been described as magical thinking and get meaningful targets that people believe can be achieved. As the convener explained, we will come back to transport, buildings, and land and agriculture.

Mark Ruskell asked about the budget. What more could be done in that regard to support emission reduction goals? I am thinking about options around non-domestic rates, land and buildings transaction tax and council tax. You may be aware of some reports that have been published in Scotland in recent months, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress report on options for increasing tax in Scotland to fund investment in public services. That includes proposals on a frequent flyer levy and a carbon emissions tax, which are also supported by the John Muir Trust.

We also have the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland report “Financing Climate Justice: Fiscal Measures for Climate Action in a time of crisis” and “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”, which was published last year and which talks about a wealth tax to fund publicly owned public transport and green bonds that could be issued by the Scottish Government and local authorities.

Do panel members have views on the role that those reports and recommendations could play in helping to achieve what we want to achieve in Scotland?

Professor Bell might be best placed to answer my question about the forthcoming circular economy bill. I know that your recommendations covered that. What could the committee expect to see in a Scottish Government bill on the circular economy?

I am sorry to interrupt, but you mentioned the public sector. What specifically could the public sector do in this space? The report from Circularity Scotland says that Scotland’s economy is only 1.3 per cent circular. You talked about people recycling more, but we also need to consume less in the first place. What levers could the public sector use? Is it about procurement or something else?

Good morning to the panel. I hope that you feel better soon, Lord Deben, and best wishes to Chris Stark as well. It is a shame that he was not able to join the panel today. I listened to the webinar last week when your report was launched and, like many others, I was worried by what we heard. However, today we want to focus on what can be done and what tools the Scottish Government and partners are not currently using that they could use.

What specific policy options that are available to the Scottish Government does the Climate Change Committee feel are currently being underutilised or are poorly aligned with supporting the achievement of Scotland’s decarbonisation targets?