Petitions

Page 8 of our paper refers to petition PE283, which is from the Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs. How do members want to proceed with that and with petition PE370, which is from Lydia Reid, on behalf of Scottish Parents for a Public Inquiry into Organ Retention? Petition PE406, which is from Miss Margaret Doig, takes a slightly different view and concerns post mortems.

We have referred the petition to one of the justice committees because, in cases such as one involving a suspicious death and the possibility of a criminal prosecution, the need for a post-mortem would have to be considered on the merits of the case.

The clerks inform me that we have asked for the input of a justice committee. We will find out what the situation is in relation to the petition and deal with it as a separate agenda item before the end of the Parliament.In relation to the other two petitions, we have received a letter from the Executive. It speaks about"the development by the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland (now part of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland), with the strong involvement of family support groups, of clinical standards relating to the post-mortem process. These standards, which will be published shortly, will be mandatory on any NHS Trust carrying out a hospital post-mortem examination".The letter also says:"The Review Group on the Retention of Organs at Post-Mortem has been continued in existence for a further year, until October 2003, to undertake a third phase of work".It seems that the intention is to legislate on the matter early in the next Parliament. Petitions PE283 and PE370 are works in progress in that many of their concerns will be dealt with. I suggest that we refer them back to the Public Petitions Committee. Any concerns that remain will probably be taken up during the run-up to the introduction of any legislation. Family support groups are at the heart of work that is going on.

Do you want to send them a copy of the Executive's response?

I will send a copy of the Executive's response to all three of the petitioners and refer all three of the petitions back to the Public Petitions Committee. We will write to the petitioners to point out that it is likely that there will be legislation on this subject sometime soon and ask them whether they wish their petitions still to stand or whether they simply want to make their comments known to the Executive as part of the legislative process.I expect that we might get a different response from Miss Doig, whose concern is different to some extent—it is not only about post-mortems that are done after an offence has been committed, but about post-mortems that doctors carry out in general. The Public Petitions Committee might seek further clarification from the petitioner about what she wants. Meanwhile, because the petition covers areas of responsibility of the Procurator Fiscal Service, we will seek a response to it from one of the justice committees. The on-going work might allay the fears of some of the petitioners, but not of others.

I cannot answer that, but we will find out.Given that the issue is sensitive and requires a certain amount of background reading, I confess that it was not acceptable for committee members to receive the letter from Miss Doig at the meeting. I am inclined to suggest that we should pass her letter to the Executive to seek clarification, check what the relevant justice committee suggests and pass the matter back to the Public Petitions Committee to proceed with the matter.We should also ask all three petitioners whether they want their petitions to be continued in the new Parliament, given that the independent review group on retention of organs at post-mortem is carrying out a third phase of work, and that legislation on the matter is likely. At that point, I would expect all three petitioners to have their views expressed and acted on in the normal manner. Do members agree to my suggestions?Members indicated agreement.