Seòmar agus comataidhean

Great. I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that she is keen to work with the committee. I think that we would all appreciate that.

Is the Scottish Government still committed to reducing car mileage by 20 per cent by 2030? If so, how confident is the cabinet secretary that that can be achieved?

Okay—that is helpful to know.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned that there will be a members’ business debate, which Mark Ruskell has secured. I do not want to get into a political discussion in any great detail, but I have been conscious that, this morning Ross Greer, on behalf of the Greens, has said that it was the Scottish Greens that removed the peak rail fares. There is a perception that that policy was really championed by the Greens and the Greens alone, and there is now a bit of concern that, with the end of the Bute house agreement, the policy might no longer be so popular with the Scottish Government. Can you give some reassurance on that, cabinet secretary?

As you will be well aware, the four rail unions—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, Unite the union and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—have really championed that policy, based on their knowledge of the railways. I know that you cannot say too much in a pre-election period but, given that that policy came from a recommendation in the Scottish Trades Union Congress’s “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”, which was produced in 2021, what discussions are you having with trade unions? Can you give any kind of guarantee that the policy is still a priority for the Scottish Government, despite the Greens exiting said Government?

Good morning, convener, and thank you for your opening remarks. Having listened to your recap, I note that we have been on quite a journey. I pay tribute to Ann Stark and her husband, Gerry, as well as the committee. At the start of the process, we knew very little about the Parliament’s understanding of what was going on. The Government was not taking an active interest and, it is fair to say, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service thought that there was nothing to see.

The convener mentioned the meeting on 17 April with the Lord Advocate and Andy Shanks, who is the head of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit. I was present along with Ann Stark and Gerry Stark. The meeting lasted for almost two and a half hours. The Lord Advocate was very much in listening mode, but she had lots of questions, which speaks to the fact that, since Richard Stark’s death in 2019, the family have been trying to get answers. That shows how difficult it can be for grieving families to deal with the system. The petition has always been about improving the system, not just for the Stark family but for all families in Scotland.

I extend my thanks to the committee, because a lot of evidence and information is now available to us. We know that we need to learn lessons, but we also need to learn from other jurisdictions where families have been listened to and where the process of modernisation has been started, if not rolled out. Lessons have been learned in relation to the process, including about making efficiencies and savings at a time when public finance is under pressure, but the changes have also led to a more compassionate experience for families. On behalf of Ann Stark and Gerry Stark, I emphasise that the petition is about trying to minimise distress for grieving families at the worst time in their lives. As Ann has said in her written submissions, Richard’s death was not suspicious, but the family feel that they were treated in exactly the same way as they would have been were it a murder case or a highly suspicious death. That made their ordeal all the harder to bear.

I will touch on the discussions that we had with the Lord Advocate. I characterised her evidence session with the committee as tense, because it was quite difficult to try to tease out who was going to take responsibility for making change happen. The Lord Advocate has written to us since that meeting, making it clear that she shares the family’s desire for COPFS to make whatever improvements it possibly can. She reiterated her apology for the poor communication on behalf of the service and recognised that that caused unnecessary distress. There was some discussion about the family liaison charter, which should include looking at the medical history of the deceased and would inform whether a full invasive post mortem is required. We recognise, not just for the Stark family but for many families, that there is a communication issue, which is something that COPFS is looking at.

We know that COPFS is committed to the continuous improvement of its death investigation work. It is fair to say that it is as a result of the petition and the committee’s work that an improvement programme in the system for the investigation of deaths has been established. The purpose is to oversee a programme of work that is designed to achieve greater public confidence—which is really important—improve the service, deliver to bereaved relatives and deliver increased efficiencies in the investigation of deaths.

On the issue of samples, which I know is covered in the committee’s briefing papers, I want to reiterate that Richard Stark died in 2019. As we sit here today, on 28 May 2024, his parents and wider family still await confirmation that all of Richard’s body samples are accounted for. The Lord Advocate has confirmed in her letter to me that she is making further inquiries with pathology providers that are contracted to do that work. Again, that shows how difficult this can be.

As you have been told, COPFS regularly meets the current pathology providers, and the potential future use of CT scanners has, from time to time, formed part of their discussions. It is our view—it is my view from speaking to the family—that the conversations have not led to anything up until now and that that has been mentioned almost in an ad hoc way.

However, more positively, since the Lord Advocate last appeared at the committee, members of COPFS’s pathology, toxicology and mortuary programme board visited Northern Ireland. They received a presentation, which we are told was informative, from the state pathologist on the experience in Northern Ireland of utilising CT scanning. We welcome that.

Mrs Stark and the family suggested to the Lord Advocate that COPFS staff or members of its pathology, toxicology and mortuary programme board should perhaps visit Lancashire, where we believe that Dr James Adeley would be happy to facilitate a fact-finding trip. I know that, from time to time, the committee gets out of Parliament, and my suggestion to the committee is that it might wish to consider the opportunity for such a site visit. If the Lord Advocate and her colleagues are considering that, it would be worth checking where they have got to.

I will not repeat points that have been made about the resourcing issues and the workforce pressures that are facing COPFS and, more generally, pathology and other health services that are involved. It is very much a case of our needing to have the right people doing the right jobs. We have identified that there are shortcomings in the skill set in COPFS. That is why, in a paper that he submitted to the UK Justice Committee back in September 2020, Dr Adeley talked a lot about the importance of communication and the relationship with families. I have that submission in front of me. We want to minimise stress, deal with workforce pressures and use public resources better. We have heard about potential savings and at least achieving cost neutrality through the work in Lancashire.

I want to thank the committee, because we can see that your work is making a difference. We still have quite a distance to go, and, right now, I am not so confident about how engaged the Scottish Government is or about how meaningful that engagement is. Therefore, I think that the visit would be important. The opportunity here is to minimise the stress to grieving families, modernise the investigation of unexpected and sudden deaths and build resilience into the system. The scanners give us another tool that we do not currently have. The Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 needs reform.

Today, I am giving only one example: the Stark family’s situation. However, as you know from Ann Stark’s submissions, many other families have found themselves in that situation. I thank the committee for its compassion for the Stark family, but we want every family to experience the same level of compassion and for the system to be modernised. Thank you.

It is helpful to hear that work is continuing. We need to make sure that people have trusted sources of information, because constituents sometimes tell us that they are a bit worried about some of the people who may call them randomly.

The cabinet secretary talked about the importance of finance and funding. Is the Scottish Government doing any work to look at how the land and buildings transactions tax could be used to incentivise home owners to invest in upgrading energy efficiency measures and installing zero-emissions heating sources?

The Scottish Government’s review of environmental governance concluded in October of last year. When does the Government intend to lay its statement in response to that review?

I have one final question. I want to get a sense of the Scottish Government’s position on reviewing wider legislation, particularly in light of developments in the European Union. The committee received a letter from Lorna Slater, in her previous role, and I had a letter, too, in relation to my proposals on ecocide law. I welcomed Ms Slater’s support and proactive engagement on that. What is the Scottish Government’s position now?

I welcome the amendment and agree with the intention of having more effective enforcement. That theme has come up already in the debate on the bill. What assessment has the Government made of the resourcing requirement around it? We know that additional expectations on local authorities, particularly regarding enforcement, take time and resource on the ground. What assessment has been made and are there opportunities to work a bit smarter in that area?

Good morning. I am listening carefully, and I am looking for some clarity. During my time in the Parliament, I do not think that I have ever heard the Government say that the targets were not realistic or achievable, until recently. In recent years, I have heard the Scottish Government, rightly, be proud of the targets and the ambition, and that has been communicated not only in Scotland but around the world, particularly during recent conference of the parties—COP—summits. Is it the case that the Scottish Government was not being clear and straight with the public?

Yes, convener. I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the heat in buildings bill—that she cannot confirm whether such a bill will be lodged in this parliamentary session. I will build on the point that Mark Ruskell made about providing clarity and certainty for industry and those that we rely on to create jobs. I am also thinking about what the Existing Homes Alliance said recently about the importance of providing the right advice and support for home owners and householders. I am aware that, in countries such as Ireland, there is a network of one-stop shops that provide end-to-end support and project management services for home owners to help them upgrade their homes.

We know that many people in our communities are ready to make changes, but that they do not have the confidence to do it. Putting aside what might happen with the legislation, can the cabinet secretary give an update on the work that is going on to make sure that people across Scotland have the right advice and support?

Okay. I will try to stick to things that we can develop today.

We know that environmental stakeholders have been highly critical of the scope of the review—in particular, the level of consideration of environmental courts—and that some have called for a further independent review. Does the Government accept that the review that it published was too narrow in scope and has consideration been given to the need for a further independent review in the area?