Our next agenda item is discussion of the annual report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. Specifically, Laura Paton, inspector of prosecution at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, has raised several concerns over the current model for the provision of forensic pathology services in Scotland. Those concerns are outlined in the annual report, extracts from which can be found in paper 4. Laura Paton has described the efforts to reform the forensic pathology system as
“ad hoc, rather than transformational”,
and she notes the COPFS’s preference to move towards a national forensic pathology service.
We are invited to consider whether to ask COPFS, the national health service and the Scottish Government for their views on the points raised by the inspector of prosecution, and to ask whether there are any further plans to review the current model for providing forensic pathology services in Scotland. I ask for members’ views on our proposed course of action.
If I read between the lines of the chief inspector’s words, there is a sense that there is a clear need for reform. The existing arrangements are not satisfactory or sufficiently robust. Although the COPFS has an obligation to be responsible for such activity, it does not have an obligation to undertake it—it is dependent on others to undertake it—and it cannot get the necessary focus on undertaking reform.
I am certainly happy for the committee to consider trying to provide a bit of impetus for a reform agenda here. I am not arguing for a national model, but I am arguing for a model that is available in all parts of the country—that is an absolute necessity—to the right levels of satisfaction for us all. That is my fundamental point.
My additional point is that I have had experience of constituency cases that have come to me over a number of years where the experience of families when a pathology service has been required to act has not always been that great. If there has been a fatality, that is a traumatic period. In my constituency experience, I have had a couple of cases, many years apart, during which I have had assurances that the arrangements in question were becoming stronger. However, based on recent experience, I am not absolutely sure that that is the case.
We could probably do with giving a bit of impetus to the reform process. I certainly support the suggestions that are made in the paper from the clerks.
I agree with John Swinney. In my experience over the years and in more recent times, families have to make representations about the release of a body in unexplained circumstances, particularly on religious grounds when burial within a certain period of time is required. There is huge pressure on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and pathology services to do that. To say that the process should be driven forward not by the COPFS but by the Government is quite a radical proposal. I do not know enough about the issue to comment on whether that is the right approach.
We have absolutely no time, but it strikes me that we would want to know a bit more about what modernisation of pathology services has taken place. Some families have made representations to the Parliament about the trauma that they have experienced and about the need to change the principles according to which pathology investigation is done, which is not within the parameters of what we are talking about here. Whoever is in charge of the service in the long run, we need to be assured that pathology services will be modernised so that we can have the most efficient service. We can then take a view on who is best placed to run it to achieve the required change in the dynamic of the process.
Laura Paton’s report is shocking. The overarching tone is one of complete and utter frustration. She says that everybody knows where the problems are. This is a significant cost to the public purse. She even talks about not wanting to conduct another review because doing so will cost more money, will take more time and will reach the same conclusions on issues that are already known to be the problem.
I agree with John Swinney. I presume that impetus from us would be helpful, but I am not entirely sure what that would look like in practice, given that we appear to know what the problems are, yet the agencies responsible do not appear able to find a way to deal with them.
12:00
Do members have any other comments?
Thank you very much for those comments, which are all absolutely appropriate. From my perspective, I welcome the observations of HM Inspectorate of Prosecution. This has perhaps been a long time coming. From personal experience, I know about some of the challenges that are faced in relation to the provision of pathology services in local areas. I highlight the fact that the challenges that we face in that regard perhaps extend to other organisations, such as Police Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and even education bodies, but that is perhaps a bit further down the line in terms of our wider approach.
With regard to the recommendation that is made in our paper, are members happy for us to pursue that approach now and then to revisit the issue?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our agenda. At our next meeting on 1 November, we will continue our evidence taking on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We will hear from organisations on the proposals to embed trauma-informed practice in the criminal justice system.
We now move into private session.
12:01 Meeting continued in private until 12:35.Previous
Access to Court Transcripts