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.