Petition PE406 is on the law and code of practice regarding post mortem examinations. We agreed previously to await the findings of the Executive's consultation on organ retention and post mortems. The Executive recently announced that it will introduce a bill to deal with the matter, which will follow the forthcoming smoking and health bill. It was originally intended that that bill would deal with post mortem organ retention, but a separate bill will now deal with it.I understand from the Executive that an analysis of consultation responses will be published in advance of the bill, which we expect will probably be introduced in the autumn. The briefing paper on the petition outlines possible action in paragraphs 10 to 12. Do members have views on the suggestions? Given that there will definitely be a bill to deal with the issue, I incline to the view that at this stage the action that paragraph 10 outlines is the most appropriate. Does anyone have a contrary view?
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Organ Retention (PE406)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Roseanna Cunningham SNP 5
- Helen Eadie Lab 2
- Shona Robison SNP 1
- David Davidson Con 1
The record
9 contributionsWe could accept all the suggestions in paragraphs 10 to 12, because they are not mutually exclusive. Could we not also close the petition?
We could close the petition because of the forthcoming bill, but I would prefer us to be cautious and to wait until we see the colour of the proposed legislation before we make a final decision on the petition, unless there is a particular reason for closing it now. Clearly, we would like the upcoming bill to include the provision that paragraph 10 suggests, but whether it will be included is another matter.I propose that we write to the Executive with paragraph 10's proposal and, rather than conclude the petition at this stage, we could sist it—to use a legal term—which means that we put it to sleep until we see the bill.
Will we write to the petitioner for evidence?
I think that we should write to the petitioner to advise her about the proposed bill, but I am not sure that we should call for evidence.
I am happy with that, but I want clarification of the timescale for introduction of the bill. My understanding is that the bill will be introduced before the summer recess. Is that still the plan?
The Executive might introduce the bill at the last minute before the summer recess, to allow us to put out a call for evidence to be submitted over the summer. However, we do not know for sure whether the bill will be introduced then. The Executive's bill on smoking and health will be through all its processes by the summer recess. It will be a question of when the Executive can draft its bill on post mortems. Who knows when that will be? I expect that we will deal with the bill substantively in the autumn, after the summer recess.
The minister told me last week that the bill would be introduced before the summer recess to allow the Health Committee to take a view on where to go with it. Perhaps the clerks should clarify with the Executive when the bill will be introduced.
Perhaps they should do so, but it is probably fair to say that the bill will certainly not be before us within the next six months.
In this meeting
Everything on 14 Dec 2004 →- Scottish Parliament Health Committee Tuesday 14 December 2004 Committee business · 1
- Items in Private Procedure · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- Petitions Petitions · 1
- Petitions Petitions · 15
- Petitions Petitions · 9
- Petitions Petitions · 6
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.