Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with that, convener. The term is open to interpretation, which creates difficulties for us in determining what the petitioner is trying to suggest. I concur with what you are saying, but I am not sure how we take forward the petition in these circumstances. Does it change any of the views that we might have when there is not that definition or that broad span that gives us the opportunity to look at this?

Under the circumstances, I think that it would be better if we referred the petition to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, because it will have more opportunity than this committee will to look into and investigate the matter, which might result in more information. Therefore, under rule 15.6 of standing orders, I suggest that we hand the petition to that committee and ask it to take further action on it.

However, we should not be relying on the third sector to fulfil those needs. That is where the gap that you have identified exists..

There is much more to the matter than it first appears, as we found out when we took evidence, and there are options that we can consider. It is important that we write to the Scottish Government burial, cremation, anatomy and death certification team, highlighting the issues that we heard about during the evidence session and seeking information on the planned public consultation on draft regulations under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016. We should also ask about the expected timescales, as that is an important issue for the petitioners. That is my recommendation, convener.

I found it very interesting to have it explained last night that some individuals were unaware that they were in a care situation. We might assume that someone going through a process was being supported but, for many people, that was obviously not the case. You have identified that advocacy works extremely well, and the support continues when individuals grow, progress and do other things. If they relocate or if they have to change things, however, the whole system does not seem to add up. There needs to be much more partnership working or co-operative working. Do you think that we need to consider that, too, if we are to progress?

Under the circumstances, I think that we do not have much option other than to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. As you have already identified, NICE does not recommend the use of Evusheld for vulnerable adults who are at high risk of Covid-19, because there is not enough evidence. In addition, the petitioner no longer wishes to pursue the petition, due to the ineffectiveness of Evusheld against emerging variants. I do not think that we have any other course than to close the petition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Jasmin and Laura. It is good to see you again. Thank you for taking part in last night’s discussion. As has been indicated, it was a very robust session, at which we got a strong flavour of the issues.

You have spoken about having to navigate barriers. It is clear from last night’s discussion with people with lived experience that that was one of the big issues that they had. You have identified that there does not seem to be a joined-up approach across some of the agencies that are involved. What needs to change? If things are to improve, change is needed. Last night, we got a flavour of how people had found it difficult to navigate the system. Jasmin has identified that some people found that so stressful and so problematic that they ended up going down a different route. For some people, that was a final route. We do not want anyone to experience that. It would be useful to hear what changes you think that we need to see in relation to navigating the barriers.

As you identified, the evidence that we had from Stephanie Bonner was quite compelling. I think that there are areas that we can ask Police Scotland about in order to take forward the petition. It might be useful to find out how many complaints it has received about the way in which it has investigated unexplained deaths in the past five years, how many of those were upheld and what the main failings were that were identified in the complaints that were upheld.

It is important that we possibly also look at the review of the investigation of deaths, the national guidance that we have and the steps that are planned to ensure that updated guidance is fully implemented. As you identified, convener, many issues came out of the evidence session that we are not able to look into specifically, but I think that these areas would give us clarity about what Police Scotland are doing and how the police are moving forward to manage the process that was identified during the session.

Convener, you have already explained our position on this, and I think that the petitioner, too, must understand that, in reality, very little can be achieved under the circumstances. I therefore think that we have no other course but to close the petition. For a start, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation to remove the legal requirement to seek consent. Moreover, as the correspondence from the Scottish Government points out, there is an issue of confidentiality with regard to the royal household, and

“to maintain the ability to have free and frank discussions”

that confidentiality needs to be “recognised and respected”.

According to the Scottish Government, too,

“the detail of ... cases where laws have been adapted at the request of the Monarchy”

cannot be provided, because the

“Scottish Government does not record”

that sort of thing.

We acknowledge the petition, but unfortunately, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not think that we can do anything but close it.