Official Report · Committee

Continued Petitions

Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 (Post Mortems) (PE1911)

Wednesday 26 November 2025 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee About 11:30 Petitions 9 contributions · 4 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

9 contributions

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

PE1911 is one of the long-standing petitions that we have given consideration to in this session of Parliament. It was lodged by Ann Stark, who, if my glasses are not fogged over and I can see into the distance, is with us in the public gallery. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to the next of kin as a matter of course.

Monica Lennon is with us again in relation to this petition, which we last considered on 23 April, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate. Throughout the lifetime of the petition, the committee has considered a number of issues concerning bereavement and pathology services. We have heard about specific improvements that could be made, such as the use of CT scanners for modern post mortems and giving loved ones more choice on the return of tissue samples. Indeed, we had a fascinating evidence session with clinicians who are using scanners for post mortems elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

We took evidence from the Lord Advocate and practitioners in England, and the committee raised several of Ann Stark’s points in writing with the Scottish Government, the Lord Advocate and the Royal College of Pathologists. That work uncovered that there has been a lack of ministerial leadership to oversee and drive forward improvements in pathology services. I put that issue to the First Minister directly at the Conveners Group, and the First Minister followed that up subsequently in writing.

The Scottish Government has reiterated on a number of occasions its position that it is essential that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is able to undertake independent investigations into the cause of death when a death is sudden or unexplained. The Scottish Government also maintains that it does not support legislative change to offer tissue samples to next of kin as a matter of course.

On the wider issues that we have explored, the Lord Advocate has provided information about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s exploration of CT scanning. Senior representatives visited Dr Adeley, the senior coroner from whom we took evidence back in May 2023, along with pathologists and radiologists in Lanarkshire. The Lord Advocate stated that the information obtained was very helpful and will form part of the on-going discussions about any improvements that can be made to the process of death investigation. However, the Lord Advocate also stated that it is clear that the use of CT scanning is only one tool that can be available to assist in establishing the cause of death and that it cannot eliminate the need for an invasive post-mortem examination in every case. I think that the committee accepted that that was obviously true. In certain circumstances, an invasive post mortem will always be necessary.

The submission highlights, however, that CT scanning is available in some circumstances in Scotland, although it has been restricted to particular cases such as homicides. From May this year, the University of Glasgow pathology department and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde were due to begin a service development pilot to investigate the potential benefits of incorporating CT scanning in procurator fiscal-instructed post-mortem examinations.

11:30

The petitioner, Ann Stark, has provided a written submission that reiterates her view that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s investigations into deaths should look only at criminal circumstances rather than all unexplained or sudden deaths. She continues her call for permission from the next of kin to be required in cases of non-suspicious deaths. The petitioner also reiterates that changes to the system would create cost savings that could be used elsewhere in the public sector.

The committee has received a written submission ahead of this morning’s consideration from Mark Griffin MSP, which calls for the petition to be carried over to the next parliamentary session. Monica Lennon is with us. Is there anything that Monica would like to add before we consider what to do next?

Monica Lennon Lab Central Scotland

link

Thank you, convener. That was a helpful summary of all the work that has been done. The petition has already shone a light on practices that most families know nothing about until they are bereaved and find themselves in a difficult situation. I pay tribute to Ann Stark and her husband Gerry. Ann is here today with her friend. It has been a very difficult few years for the family. I know that Ann will feel that not a lot of progress has been made, but I think that, as a result of having the Lord Advocate here to give evidence, we were able to follow up on the issue.

The commitment on the scanner project is welcome, but it is clear that Scotland is still out of step with the rest of the UK and Ireland and other parts of the world where families have more choice and where reforms have been made following scandals coming to light. Colleagues will remember that Ann and Gerry had to hunt around Scotland to reclaim samples of their son Richard. After being told that there were no more tissue samples, we went to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, and samples were found. No one has ever truly apologised for that. Ann advises that, just last week, the procurator fiscal told her that the names of the officials who attended on the day that Richard died have all been redacted from paperwork, for data protection reasons. There is no transparency for families when their loved one has an invasive post mortem, even when the death is clearly not suspicious, as was the case with Richard. For Ann, the issues remain very traumatic and heavy.

On what is next, I appreciate that you have taken the issue directly to the First Minister, convener, but we still do not have clarity on the scanner pilot. It would be good to hear directly from the Lord Advocate and her team on that. On the issue of informing and getting permission from next of kin, and the real issues around human tissue retention, this is not really an issue for the petition, but Ann has asked me to draw to the committee’s attention the media coverage of some very difficult issues around human bones being sold widely on the internet. When organs are retained and families do not know about that, you can imagine where people’s minds end up. I refer to the part of the petition that says that the brain should not be routinely removed when the death is not suspicious. The reasons for that have been set out in other meetings.

I sympathise with the committee, given the time that is left in this session of Parliament, but I agree with Mark Griffin that, by keeping the petition on the agenda, we can, I hope, continue to make progress and maintain momentum. Because it is such a taboo issue, it is difficult to talk about and it has been difficult to get MSPs and ministers involved.

At the moment, the committee is the only hope not just for Ann but for the 3,400 people who have signed the petition and who are looking to the committee for your help.

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

Thank you. I absolutely pay tribute to the petitioner, whose work on the petition has been remarkable, particularly given the circumstances that led to the petition being raised in the first place.

Progress has been made in that we have been able to articulate issues in a way that they have not been articulated before and to take evidence in relation to all of that. It strikes me that, depending on the decision of the committee and taking account of the progress that has been made in this parliamentary session, the matter could potentially be admirably pursued in a refreshed petition for the next session’s petitions committee to consider.

David Torrance, do you have any formal proposals to put to us on the petition?

David Torrance SNP Kirkcaldy

link

I thank Ann Stark for the work that she has done on the issue. I have read the emails that she has continually sent to keep me and the committee updated throughout the whole process that we have been through.

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

I think it is fair to say that no petitioner has been more assiduous in keeping committee members abreast of developments, some of which have been outwith this committee: they have been the direct result of her own intervention.

David Torrance SNP Kirkcaldy

link

Yes. In the whole time that I and the convener have been on the committee—13 or 14 years—I do not think that I have seen a petitioner pursue their cause as fiercely and in as dedicated a way as you have, Ann. Thank you. I suggest that you bring a new petition to the Parliament in the next session, which will allow time for it to be considered fully.

I suggest that we close the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to amend the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 to require consent from families for procurator fiscal post mortems. The Scottish Government does not support legislative change to require tissue samples to be offered to the next of kin as a matter of course. The committee has extensively explored issues raised in the petition, including through multiple oral evidence sessions, a substantial letter to the Scottish Government and a question put directly to the First Minister.

Fergus Ewing Ind Inverness and Nairn

link

I absolutely support the tributes that the convener and Mr Torrance have eloquently paid to the petitioner for her efforts. I will make a few other remarks.

The petition is now just over four years old. Had it not been pursued so determinedly and doggedly by the petitioner, I do not think that the pilot for the scanner would ever have been granted. Because that pilot began in May 2025 in Glasgow, it would make sense to see what the outcome is. I thoroughly endorse the idea of bringing back a petition, but if CT scanners had been used, some of the anguish that was caused to the petitioner in the loss of Richard would have been avoided. Therefore, I think that it makes sense for the petitioner to consider ascertaining more information, perhaps through local MSPs or MPs, as to how that pilot is doing, when it will conclude and when the outcome will be known, as well as whether there will be any delay—as, sadly, there so often is. That might inform a further petition.

I also support what Monica Lennon has said. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Lord Advocate—a lady for whom I have the utmost respect—did not see fit to offer an apology. In her submission, she said that the reason why no change is being proposed is that the need to have independent investigations cannot be prejudiced. That is absolutely true. The whole point of having a prosecution system that is separate from Parliament is that it is entirely independent of politicians. That is at the core of a system of democracy. However, in no way does that prevent the return of tissue or, indeed, the avoidance of invasive post-mortem techniques. In other words, that does not prejudice independent investigations. That is a completely false argument and a non sequitur. It is very disappointing that the Lord Advocate should present an argument that appears to be flawed, I would argue. I am pretty sure that those of us who are here will return to the matter in the next session.

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

Of course, one cannot predetermine whom the Government of Scotland will be after the next election or whether the complexion of that Government might lead to a different view being taken were a fresh petition to be lodged.

Are colleagues content—however reluctantly—to pursue Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Jackson Carlaw Con The Convener · Eastwood

link

We are content to do so. We thank the petitioner very much and anticipate that she will ensure that the Parliament remains alert to the issues in the next session.

In this meeting

Everything on 26 Nov 2025 →

09:30 Decision on Taking Business in Private Procedure · 1
09:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 139
11:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 9
11:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 9
11:30 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 4
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 6
12:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 5
12:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
12:00 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
12:00 New Petitions Petitions · 1
12:00 New Petitions Petitions · 8
12:00 New Petitions Petitions · 3
12:00 New Petitions Petitions · 6
12:00 New Petitions Petitions · 3
12:00 New Petitions Petitions · 9

The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.