Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: Wednesday, May 15, 2024
Official Report 672KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
That brings us to the consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to people who are tuning into our proceedings because we are about to consider their petition that, in the first instance, as a matter of course, we contact the Parliament’s independent research body—the Scottish Parliament information centre—and also seek the preliminary views of the Scottish Government. We do that because, historically, those have been the first two things that the committee has agreed to do, and it simply avoids us building further delay into our informed consideration of new petitions.
Medical Facility Parking Charges (Exemptions) (PE2079)
PE2079, which was lodged by Martin James Keatings, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce primary legislation to provide exemptions from paying medical facility parking charges and to create a new classification of parking badge for care givers. The SPICe briefing provides information on existing eligibility criteria for the blue badge scheme, noting that it applies primarily to on-street parking.
In responding to the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care notes the decision to abolish car parking charges at all car parks that are owned by the national health service. It is also noted that responsibility for parking policy beyond NHS facilities rests with local authorities and it is up to them to decide how much to charge for parking and whether any exemptions should apply. These were changes of some long-standing practice. The cabinet secretary also recognises the huge contribution that is made by carers and he says that, through implementation of the national carers strategy, the Scottish Government aims to drive forward long-term changes to improve the lives of unpaid carers.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner in which he responds to the cabinet secretary. He highlights that carers perform tasks in the absence of the disabled person whom they support yet, in such circumstances, they are unable to make use of a blue badge. He suggests that the introduction of a carers badge scheme would be a tangible demonstration of support for the role that carers play while also helping to address the financial impact that parking charges have on carers, some of whom are, in fact, simply volunteers.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to Disability Equality Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Carers Scotland to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition, specifically the proposed introduction of a carers badge scheme. We should also write to the Scottish Government to highlight the petitioner’s submission and seek further detail on what consideration the Scottish Government has given to introducing a carers badge scheme.
We should also highlight that a number of these people are volunteers and that parking charges represent a considerable additional burden. That maybe distinguishes them from other groups in society that request exemptions, many of whom are in completely different circumstances. I think that, in this instance, the petitioner’s ask is worth pursuing. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (Screening) (PE2080)
PE2080, which was lodged by Louise McKendrick, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement screening for people with, or at risk of, Li-Fraumeni syndrome due to TP53 mutation, in line with the guidelines recommended by the UK Cancer Genetics Group. LFS, as it is known, is rare, with researchers estimating that a few thousand people in the UK have it. The UK Cancer Genetics Group guidelines recommend regular screening for people with LFS.
The SPICe briefing that we have received notes that the guidelines that are cited by the petitioner do not actually recommend routine cancer screening for those who are identified as being at risk of having the TP53 gene mutation that causes LFS. Instead, the guidelines recommend that they be offered appropriate counselling and support and encouraged to consider whether they want to be tested for the TP53 gene variant.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states:
“The UK Cancer Genetics Group ... guidelines are endorsed and supported by clinical genetics teams ... across Scotland.”
However, it adds:
“We are aware of variation in how these guidelines are implemented across ... health boards in Scotland and of acute demand for MRI procedures in particular.”
The Government is
“considering how to better signpost management guidelines and ... improve the consistency in implementation”.
In view of the Government’s position and the UK Cancer Genetics Group guidelines, do members have comments or suggestions for action?
Reading the background information on the petition, I note that the LFS TP53 mutation is
“a genetic syndrome that predisposes a person to cancer, usually of an aggressive type”
and that the relevant authoritative body—the UK Cancer Genetics Group—has
“made recommendations for screening which have been implemented in parts of England, however they have not been implemented in Scotland.”
I see that there is a reasonably sympathetic reply from the chief operating officer of NHS Scotland, although it does not really give much information, other than saying that there are good intentions all round but that there is pressure on MRI scans, which is understandable.
In light of that, I certainly do not think that we should close the petition. We need to get more information. I would like us to go back to the Scottish Government and ask whether it can provide more information on what services are available in each health board. Given that this group of people are predisposed to cancer of an aggressive type, it seems to me to be a very serious disease, albeit a rare one. I see that the petition has attracted nearly 1,000 signatures, so there is obviously considerable concern. We should ask the Scottish Government to provide that further information in light of the gravity of the matter. Secondly, I suggest that we write to Cancer Research UK to seek its views on the action that is called for in the petition.
I wonder whether there are other things that we might do, convener. Maybe colleagues have other thoughts. It does not seem to me that the current response is adequate.
Do colleagues have any suggestions that we might add to Mr Ewing’s?
We should write to NHS Scotland’s genetic laboratories in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow to seek further detail on the work that they do to support the implementation of the UK Cancer Genetics Group guidelines and information on the genetic testing and support that is available for those who are at risk of having a faulty TP53 gene.
We have a series of suggestions on how we should proceed. Are members content that we proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for raising this fresh issue with us. We note the number of signatures that the petition has attracted. We will seek to take the issue further forward.
Chronic Kidney Disease (PE2081)
PE2081, on making chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority, which was lodged by Professor Jeremy Hughes, on behalf of Kidney Research UK in Scotland, calls on us to do exactly what it says on the tin, which is to urge the Scottish Government to make chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority.
The SPICe briefing notes that chronic kidney disease is a term that can be used to cover a range of kidney impairments, from a small loss of kidney performance with no symptoms to a life-threatening condition that requires regular dialysis or a kidney transplant.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the relevant cabinet secretary and minister have previously corresponded with the petitioner to advise that Scottish Government does not intend to increase the number of health strategies for individual conditions at this time. It is noted that the Government’s approach to clinical conditions policy is kept under regular review. The Government response also notes work to support people with kidney disease, including the launch of a national policy on the reimbursement of electricity costs for home dialysis for patients.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who is concerned that the Scottish Government’s criteria for choosing what will and will not be designated a clinical priority remains unclear. The petitioner poses two specific questions: why is chronic kidney disease not already a clinical priority, and why has the Scottish Government taken the decision not to increase the number of health strategies for individual conditions or to assign the status of clinical priority, and the civil service support that goes with it, to any additional conditions. The petitioner also highlights the potential benefits to patients and the clinical community where a condition affecting them has been designated a clinical priority: for example, bringing clarity on who within the Scottish Government has day-to-day responsibility for developing condition-specific strategies and action plans.
Do any members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to highlight the petitioner’s submission and seek information on the criteria for determining clinical priorities; an explanation as to why chronic kidney disease is not already designated a clinical priority; and further detail on the Scottish Government’s decision not to increase the number of health strategies for individual conditions, including chronic kidney disease.
Yes, that responds directly to what I thought are two perfectly legitimate questions that the petitioner has raised: why is there not one already and what exactly are the criteria to determine why there cannot be any more? Is the committee agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Alkaline Hydrolysis (PE2084)
The next of our new petitions is PE2084, which has been lodged by Randall Graeme Kilgour Foggie. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 to allow alkaline hydrolysis, accelerated composting and other more eco-friendly methods of disposal of human cadavers. Alkaline hydrolysis, also known as water cremation, is a method of disposal of human remains using hot water with the addition of chemicals. The current legislative framework for burial and cremation allows for the regulation of any new methods of body disposal in the same way that burial and cremation is regulated—how we move from one subject to another in the petitions committee!
The Scottish Government recently consulted on burial inspection, funeral director licensing and alkaline hydrolysis. The consultation sought views on proposals and regulations on all four topics under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016.
The report on the alkaline hydrolysis consultation states that 84 per cent of respondents support the introduction of regulations to allow alkaline hydrolysis, which I understand is practised elsewhere. It concludes that the Scottish Government will now consider the proposals for regulating alkaline hydrolysis in light of the consultation findings and that it will continue to engage with the funeral sector and other interested parties to further inform the development of policy proposals. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I put on record that the petitioner is a constituent of mine and he has discussed the petition with me, so I will let my colleagues make recommendations.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Would anybody else like to come forward with proposals?
We should write to the Scottish Government to ask, in light of the consultation responses, whether it intends to regulate alkaline hydrolysis in its development of regulations under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 and when it expects the outstanding regulations to be implemented.
Are we content?
Members indicated agreement.
I am happy to say to the petitioner that we will not bury the petition but will make efforts to keep it alive. We will wait to hear what the responses to our inquiries are.
Fatal Accident Inquiries (Deaths Abroad) (PE2085)
PE2085, which has been lodged by David Cornock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory definition of residency for fatal accident inquiries into deaths of Scots abroad. We are joined in our consideration of the petition by our colleague Michael Marra. Welcome to you, Mr Marra.
The SPICe briefing explains that the term “ordinarily resident” is a commonly used and well-understood legal concept. The term is intended to be flexible to cover a wide range of circumstances.
In England and Wales, a coroner’s investigation will take place where the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death was unknown or the deceased died in state detention. The inquest will mainly determine how, where and when someone died. Coroners will rarely make wider recommendations but can do so through a prevention of future deaths report. That system is significantly different from the Scottish system of death investigations.
In Scotland, fatal accident inquiries aim to establish what happened and to prevent future deaths from happening in similar circumstances. Fatal accident inquiries take place in limited circumstances at the discretion of the Lord Advocate where a death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained or gives rise to a serious public concern and she considers that it is in the public interest to hold a fatal accident inquiry. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has a role in investigating a wide range of suspicious deaths. However, only a small proportion of those are deemed to require the level of public investigation that is delivered by a fatal accident inquiry.
The Scottish Government has stated that it does not intend to define “ordinarily resident” in legislation and has highlighted that inquiries short of an FAI can take place in relation to deaths abroad, such as the instruction of a post-mortem.
The petitioner’s written submission details his personal experience and raises concerns about the quality of communication to next of kin in such circumstances. The submission also outlines improvements that the Lord Advocate has committed to progress as a result of his engagement with her. The petitioner has obviously been pursuing the aims and objectives of the petition.
Before I ask members to give their consideration to what we might do, I invite Michael Marra to address the committee.
10:15
Thanks very much, convener, and thank you to the committee for its consideration.
The petition of my constituent—Davy Cornock, as I know him—arises from, as you have noted, convener, a very deeply personal tragedy: the loss of his son, David, who died in Thailand in 2019. That is a loss that many of us cannot begin to comprehend. That tragedy has been exacerbated by our legal system, which has failed to give Davy and his family the answers that they have long sought, as a fatal accident inquiry into David’s death never took place.
The crux of the issue appears to be the definition of “ordinarily resident”, as the convener set out. It is on that matter that Mr Cornock’s petition is seeking a change from the Scottish Government through the Parliament.
Since the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed by this Parliament, not one single fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of Scots abroad has taken place. On 8 February 2024, I raised this issue directly with the then First Minister in the chamber. He agreed that
“it is the issue of residency—in that particular case, ordinary residency—that is causing the issue”.
Regarding any potential changes to the legislation, Mr Yousaf said that he would
“take a look and speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on that matter.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2024; c 25-26.]
My office has followed up with the First Minister’s office on 22 March and again on 24 April but, as yet, we have received no response. I ask whether the committee might consider using its good offices to help me in that regard to elicit a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who is still in post following the recent change of First Minister.
I was pleased to accompany Mr Cornock to a meeting with the Lord Advocate on 28 March. The Lord Advocate has agreed to contact the Foreign Office regarding formalising a memorandum of understanding to ensure that families are given the correct information if a family member dies abroad. There is some progress there, I am glad to say.
However, in order for the Lord Advocate to carry out a fatal accident inquiry or to instruct one into a death abroad, the issue of residency will have to be addressed. I note that the Scottish Government has made the submission that the convener references, in which it is stated that the term “ordinarily resident” has been established through case law and the Scottish Government does not intend to define the term in legislation. I will come to that in short order.
Regarding the fact that no fatal accident inquiries have taken place into deaths abroad, the Scottish Government’s submission concedes that that is the case but also notes
“that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are able to conduct inquiries short of an FAI in relation to deaths abroad, such as the instruction of a post-mortem examination which has allowed further information to be provided to the family and given them reassurance and closure about the circumstances”.
I suggest that it would be worth the committee exploring the nature of those inquiries that are short of an FAI and the circumstances in which they might be granted. That would be very useful to my constituent. Mr Cornock’s family has certainly not had any reassurance and closure about his son’s death—very far from it, in fact.
In closing—if I can be so bold, convener, as to make some suggestions as to how the committee might consider proceeding with the petition—it is noteworthy that no FAIs have taken place into deaths of Scots abroad in the eight years since the legislation was passed. I hope that the committee will agree with me that that shows that there is a problem with the legislation and that Parliament should be considering what that is. It indicates a flaw in the system.
I appreciate the significant differences between the legal systems in Scotland, and England and Wales, as the convener set out. I suggest that the committee might seek to ascertain how many deaths abroad of people from England and Wales have been investigated in the same time period, from 2016 to the present. That might offer some ready comparison for whether the laws and procedures that we have in place are serving our constituents on a level footing to the rest of the UK.
Finally, regarding the Scottish Government’s position that “ordinarily resident” need not be defined in legislation, it might be worth the committee seeking the view of other stakeholders on this matter, such as the legal profession and perhaps Police Scotland, to understand the impact of that decision on their work in this area. If it is not the definition of that term, certainly how the term is used in our legislation and the ambiguity around it are part of the issue that is leading to a lack of justice and transparency and a lack of resolution for constituents.
It is not just Mr Cornock. I do not believe that there will be any members of the Scottish Parliament who do not have constituents who are in a similar situation, looking for answers about how a loved one died abroad. There is an issue of broad justice in this. If the committee could be implored to continue assisting my constituent in this matter, it would be of great assistance to many people in Scotland.
Thank you very much, Mr Marra. Are we content in the first instance to embrace the suggestions that Mr Marra has made?
Following the conversation and the meeting that Mr Marra attended with the Lord Advocate, I wonder whether we might consider also asking the Scottish Government what progress has been made in relation to working with the UK Government to ensure that the differences between the system in England and Wales and the system in Scotland are being properly communicated to the next of kin. We could follow up on that specific point.
Are there any other suggestions that colleagues want to make? There were a few suggestions there. We will have to think from whom we would obtain information about the incidence in England and Wales, but we can certainly seek to do that, because that would evidence and underpin the contrast in how these matters are being taken forward.
Can we also ask the First Minister for an update? Mr Marra said that he wrote to the First Minister’s office and is still waiting for an answer. Therefore, can we also ask the First Minister’s office for a response?
Sorry, Mr Marra, did you say that you wrote to the First Minister?
I did. I raised the issue with the First Minister in the chamber and had no response. We followed up with a letter twice. Obviously, that First Minister has now demitted office and there is a new First Minister. It may be worth—if the committee was so minded, as Mr Choudhury suggests—trying to ascertain the current First Minister’s view of this issue as well. I imagine that it is in common with that of the Government.
We could certainly draw the First Minister’s attention to the fact that we have received a petition following up on the issues that were raised with the previous First Minister at FMQs. Do you know the date?
Yes, I raised the matter on 8 February 2024, and I wrote on 22 March and then again on 24 April.
Thank you very much. Are we content with the suggestions that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner and the petitioner’s advocate for raising this important matter with us. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.
That brings us to the end of the public session of this morning’s meeting. We will next meet on Wednesday 29 May, when we will be taking evidence from Nicola Sturgeon MSP on our inquiry into the A9 dualling project in addition to the consideration of petitions.
We now move into private session.
10:22 Meeting continued in private until 10:28.Previous
Continued Petitions