Seòmar agus comataidhean

In a previous evidence session, some of my colleagues touched on the very healthy profits that have been made by the big six suppliers—albeit perhaps not from the current retail market—so they are not exactly in fuel poverty.

Neil Lawrence, you talked about the importance of the regulator, retailers and consumers working together, to try to foster some trust. I am looking at a news article from yesterday, which reported on comments by Martin Lewis, who is known through his work as the money saving expert. It is fair to say that the public trusts Martin Lewis more than it does politicians or energy companies.

In the article, he says that an

“energy bill surge ‘smells wrong’ as direct debits ‘increase by 100%’”.

People have always been encouraged to pay for energy by direct debit. However,

“After energy prices took a 54 per cent spike in April, some users of”

his

“website complained their bills went up by 100 per cent.”

Does that seem right and fair to you? What is the explanation behind it?

We heard from Citizens Advice Scotland and others that they are struggling to keep up with the demand for advice. I draw to your attention one of the comments that we heard. When Frazer Scott from Energy Action Scotland came to the committee, he warned us that the energy price rises could lead to

“a catastrophic loss of life”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 26 April 2022; c 23.]

this winter if the UK and Scottish Governments do not take further action.

What further action needs to be taken by Ofgem as regulator, the energy companies and Governments in the short term and, perhaps, in the medium to long term? Is there anything that local authorities, as they pull together their administrations after the elections, could do to help people at community level?

I want to follow up on Neil Lawrence’s offer to write to the committee in response to Elena Whitham’s important question about gender-disaggregated data. Does that mean that you are confirming to the committee that Ofgem holds that data? How recent is the data, and has it been analysed? I just seek clarification, so that you do not need to write to say, “We don’t have that data.”

That is what I thought. I thought that you seemed a bit uncertain. Thank you for that.

Does Neil Kenward want to add anything on the longer term?

Thank you, convener. It is good to be with the committee. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the petition. I will not repeat your points, which were well made. I am here on behalf of my constituent, the petitioner, to assist and answer any questions that the committee might have.

My constituent and her family really appreciate the committee’s consideration so far, which has been thoughtful. I am pleased that your deliberations in December led to more people making submissions. The petition was not put out for public signature, so it has been done quite quietly. However, as we can see from the responses, people have some strong views based on their experiences.

The issues that the petition raises are sensitive. I commend the petitioner’s courage. The loss of her adult son, Richard, has been devastating and traumatic for the family, but what happened after her son’s death was also really traumatic.

I was handed a bundle of papers on my way in this morning. Ann McNair had been awaiting further information from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I will not go over the papers here, but it has taken a long time for the family to piece together what happened. For example, Ann had asked questions about body scanners, which would allow for a less invasive post mortem. The Crown Office has come back and identified some training issues, which mean that staff in Scotland do not have the skill set.

Looking at all the submissions and the work that Ann continues to do, along with people such as Lydia Reid, who I think is known to the committee as well, I think that more questions need to be answered.

It would be good to hear more from the Royal College of Pathologists. I note the submission that it has made. The royal college does not give its full support to the petitioner, but it is concerning that it says what it says in the context of what it calls

“significant pressures on pathology, post mortem and forensic services across Scotland”.

The submission talks about

“grossly inadequate facilities and staffing levels being the reality of current provision”

and highlights an issue that I raised in the previous parliamentary session, which is the

“recent failure of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service procurement exercise to identify compliant bidders for forensic services”

putting more light on the challenges that the system faces.

We have to question whether the system is fit for purpose. You mentioned some submissions that agree with the petitioner that tissue samples should not be taken and retained without the consent of the next of kin. There is support, including from Dorothy Barr, for the use of body scanners, which are used much more routinely in England and are believed to be less invasive, while being 99 per cent accurate.

In her submission, Yvonne Logan says that it is “offensive” that people are being told

“that tissue samples ‘belong’ to the procurator fiscal or pathologists for research, without consent.”

Most people would find that really troubling.

Melissa O’Sullivan, a nurse practitioner, supports the rules on tissue sampling being aligned with UK standards, with samples

“being offered back to next of kin”.

The petitioner has opened up an important conversation. In the end, it comes down to dignity. No one would question the important role and responsibility of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the investigation of sudden, suspicious, accidental and unexplained deaths in Scotland. However, many people feel that the system is not always compassionate, that it is hard to get information and that communication is not always as good as it should be. We have heard from the Royal College of Pathologists that the system seems to be unable to cope. More questions should be asked.

I will end by looking at the submission from Gerard Stark. He asks:

“Where is the dignity for the deceased”?

The Parliament is about to have a big discussion about dignity in dying. We have to extend that to look at dignity for the deceased and for bereaved families.

The petitioner says that her son was “butchered”. That is her view. She asks why body scanners are not an option in Scotland. She does not want another mother or family to go through that “unbearable heartache and pain”.

I said that that would be my final word, but it is important to refer to the thoughtful submission from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and to the council’s disappointment. It is important that we listen to SCoJeC’s views.

I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about this issue. I feel that I have just skimmed over the top of it, because so much of it is upsetting. Everything is there to be read. The petitioner might feel able to be more public about her story in due course. The work that the committee has done so far has helped to show that there are questions to answer. If we can improve the law, policy and practice, we should absolutely do that.

Yes, convener. The petitioner and some of the respondents to the petition have raised an issue about death certificates. The term “unascertained” is not popular. Many families—I have personal experience of this, too—feel that it is empty and meaningless. Some of the respondents have made that point very well. Gerard Stark talked about it not being a meaningful term and said that “uncertain” would be a more appropriate word to use. There are different practices in other parts of the UK. If the committee could get views on that from the Scottish Government and the Crown Office, that might be useful.

It is a privilege for me, as their regional MSP, to host Louise Aitchison’s family in Parliament today, on what is the second anniversary of Louise’s death. I thank them for giving all of us the opportunity to remember Louise, because she is the person who matters today. In life, Louise gave much love, care and service to others. This photograph—this is Louise. We should remember her. Saving other women’s lives will be her legacy.

As Louise’s family are in the gallery today—they look forward to meeting other MSPs after question time—will the First Minister join me in paying tribute to Louise’s mother, Caroline Lyon, and to Marion Scott and The Sunday Post, for their work in securing the important fatal accident inquiry? The First Minister has recognised the importance of that work starting with urgent pace, so that lessons can be learned. Will she also confirm when domestic homicide reviews will be introduced?

It is welcome that you went to the House of Commons last week and set out a proposal. You said to the UK Government that there should be a social tariff that would take £1,000 off the bills of people who are struggling the most. If the Government does not agree to do that, what will be the consequence? Without a social tariff, what do you fear will happen?

Thank you for that answer. I would say, though, that many people will disagree and say that there is a moral case for a freeze.

Natalie Don touched on the issue of profits, and you have given quite a comprehensive answer on that. Another figure that I have seen in some media sources in recent months is the more than £7 billion in operating profits that the big six energy firms have banked in just five years. Do you understand why some people feel quite offended when energy companies—I am not saying that your company does this—tell them to hug their pets, put on socks or jump up and down? Can you see why people feel let down? Do you see why, when people hear companies say, “Don’t freeze the cap—let’s bring in a social tariff,” they feel that the Government and the companies need to do more?