Continued Petitions

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.

I fully agree with that idea. The petitioner and several respondents to the petition have been trying to establish parity with other practices in the UK, and it is important to investigate where practices should align.

I felt that the Royal College of Pathologists submission was a bit excessive in making the point about potential legal reasons for retaining samples from bodies. The implication that next of kin might want to defeat the ends of justice by denying a post mortem was potentially quite offensive. That would be the case in a limited and significant set of circumstances only. It is not relevant to the petition.

We need to understand exactly what the Royal College of Pathologists means by that. A thorough investigation is probably needed into the circumstances in which samples would be retained for a criminal investigation. In due course, once it is established that there is no foul play in relation to a death, the samples could be released for burial or whatever the family wishes to do with them.

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.