Seòmar agus comataidhean

The birds cannot take off without that landscape.

We would therefore hear from coroners and pathologists and subsequently seek to hear from the minister in pursuit of the petition. Do colleagues have any other suggestions, or are we content to proceed on that basis? I see that we are content. We take the petition very seriously. We will keep it open, and it will obviously form a significant part of our workstream as we go forward. I hope that the petitioner feels that we are taking this seriously as we explore the issues raised and take oral evidence.

The next petition is PE1911, which is on a review of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. We are joined by a number of people in the public gallery who are directly affected and involved. We are also joined by Monica Lennon, who has an interest in the petition.

The petition, which was lodged by Ann Stark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the 2006 act and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems are carried out only with permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to next of kin as a matter of course.

At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to seek additional information from a number of bodies, and responses from them are included in our meeting papers.

The Royal College of Pathologists confirms that resource concerns are not the only or main reason for its disagreement with the proposal to automatically offer tissue samples to the next of kin. It reiterates the challenges regarding timescales and practicalities.

The chief coroner outlines the process of tissue retention and return in England and Wales, and includes a link to guidance on computed tomography scanning for the purposes of post mortems.

We have a written submission from Ann Stark, whom we thank for her assiduous contributions to our deliberations. Her submission highlights the use of body scanners as an alternative to post mortems, and additional information from her about their use has been summarised in the meeting papers that we have received and considered. She stresses the importance of people having a choice about how their body is handled and the importance of consent.

The committee has also received a number of written submissions from individuals in support of the petition and of the points that the petitioner has raised in written evidence.

As I said, we have Monica Lennon with us. Welcome once again to our proceedings, Monica. Before I open up the discussion to members of the committee, if there is anything that you would like to say in support of the petition, I invite you to do so.

Thank you, Monica. Thank you also for offering comment on behalf of the petitioners on this very difficult and sensitive petition. Having considered the evidence on the petition, I can say that we take the issues that it raises very seriously and that we want to explore it further. I suggest that we invite coroners and pathologists to give evidence, because I would like to understand the differences in approach between Scotland and England and to bottom those out.

It might be sensible for us to wait for the responses that we are expecting from local authorities and then write on the back of that evidence. Are we all content with that as the next step forward?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner. We are closing the petition for the reasons that we have set out. However, we understand the issues underpinning it, and we believe that there is a forum in which those issues might yet be taken forward.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE1965, on limiting estranged couples’ claim on an estate after seven years of non-medical separation. The petition, which was lodged by Mark MacLeod, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to limit married but informally separated and non-cohabiting couples’ claim of prior right over descendants of the deceased after seven years of separation.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it has carried out consultations on the matter in recent years. It notes concerns with the proposals, including potential unintended consequences and difficulties in stating when any period of formal separation began. The Government indicates its intention to undertake further research on the law on intestate succession and confirms that it will continue to keep the law of succession under review in the light of its findings.

The Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill has been introduced. Members might wish to note that section 72 of the bill proposes reforms to the effect that, when someone dies without leaving children, the spouse or civil partner should inherit the whole estate. Under the proposals, a spouse or civil partner is defined as including the situation in which the couple has separated.

Members might also wish to note that the petition is substantially similar to PE1904. We closed that—as recently as March—on the basis that the Scottish Government had indicated its intention to carry out further research on intestate succession. At that time, the committee also noted that unfortunately, from the point of view of our consideration, the legal experts did not support the action that was called for on the matter.

In the light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions on how they would like to proceed?

Are there any other suggestions? Could we perhaps couple that with a suggestion to the petitioner that the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill is currently live—it is only at stage 1—and that it might be sensible to engage with that consideration?

Okay—so we are writing to Transport Scotland on the issues that we have identified, writing to Argyll and Bute Council and writing to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. Are there any other suggestions?

Since there are no further suggestions from members, are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.