Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Alliance will potentially have something to offer for our consideration of the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1909 calls for the removal of the gender-based domestic abuse narrative and for it to be made gender neutral and equal. The petition, which was lodged by William Wright, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make domestic abuse policies, guidance, agendas and practices gender neutral; to introduce equal domestic abuse provision and funding for everyone in Scotland, regardless of any protected characteristic; and to ensure that all domestic abuse joint protocol guidance, policies and practice for Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are gender neutral.

At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to stakeholders to seek their views. We have now received submissions from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, ASSIST, the Minister for Equalities and Older People, the petitioner, and Abused Men in Scotland—AMIS—which is a male domestic abuse charity that operates a helpline service across Scotland. The submissions have been shared in full in advance of the meeting.

Some key points are raised in the submissions. COPFS says that the current definition of domestic abuse

“includes abuse of male victims by female perpetrators”.

Police Scotland states that there is no sex or gender variance in the level of service that a victim will receive. The Minister for Equalities and Older People states that, in September this year, the Scottish Government will engage and consult on a

“national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men”.

ASSIST states that a gendered approach is important in recognising that men and women

“may require different services and service approaches.”

AMIS recommends that, instead of domestic abuse approaches being gender neutral, they should be gender inclusive, and that measures should be proportionate instead of equal. It raises a concern that the sharing of the overall funding for services that support men and women gives the misleading impression that male services are adequately funded. It also advocates

“Revised gender-informed training for all in the justice system”.

The petitioner’s most recent submission provides further information about his experiences as a male victim of domestic abuse. He also suggests several other stakeholders that the committee may wish to hear from.

There is quite a lot for us to consider. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Thank you for drawing that point to our attention. As a constituency MSP, I have heard examples of that, too. It is very disturbing. That word possibly leads people into a degree of conjecture. In the instance that I encountered, it was more that the constituent felt that something was being covered up in terms of not being able to determine what had led to a death in hospital. It would be useful for us to pursue that as well.

Thank you very much for joining us, Monica. We will return to the petition when we have further information.

PE1931, which was lodged by Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion for rural properties and their households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second. All legislative and regulatory responsibility for telecommunications rests with the UK Government and Ofcom. The Scottish Government has, however, introduced a programme of work to improve digital connectivity in Scotland, which is what the petitioner seeks to influence.

The petitioner aims to ensure that priority is given to properties with slower internet speeds in rural areas, in particular, and he explains that rural households should have fair access in order to prevent digital exclusion.

The Scottish Government’s initial response sets out the measures that it has taken to date in relation to rolling out internet connectivity in rural areas. The response highlights the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme, which was created to ensure that everyone can access a superfast broadband service.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Welcome back. We move to our second witness on PE1804, on HIAL’s plans. I am delighted to welcome David Avery, from Prospect, whose name has been referred to and brought up numerous times in our deliberations. You are very welcome to the meeting.

We have read Prospect’s most recent response to events in our papers ahead of this morning’s session, so we will move straight to questions.

Thank you. I see that nobody else has suggestions. On that first point, we previously indicated that we might like to undertake a site visit, so I formally suggest that we would like to do that.

David Torrance’s second point is well made. The evidence that we received from the minister was that additional legal protections are not necessary because protections are in place, but as is often the case, we might want to inquire whether those protections are being used.

Are members content to proceed by writing to local authorities?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next continued petition is PE1837, on providing clear direction and investment for autism support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder—that is the key idea—can access support and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

When the committee wrote to the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care on 17 November, we were particularly interested to find out whether the proposed learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill would address the petitioner’s concerns, and to know, in the interim, what support measures will be put in place for individuals who have autism but do not have a learning disability or mental illness. We also wanted to know how the minister intended to collect and disseminate examples of good practice.

The minister provided examples of current work and recent pilots, all of which are set out in full in members’ papers. The minister indicated that, should a new commission or commissioner be created via the proposed legislation, detailed consideration would be required on what their powers and duties should be. In the meantime, the Scottish Government plans to collate and analyse good practice from health and social care partnerships.

The petitioner has responded, stating that the minister’s submission, once again, did not explain specifically where autistic people who do not have a learning disability or mental health issue can access support. He notes that the pilot projects that were mentioned are time limited and area specific; that post-diagnostic support is required on a lifelong basis and not only at the point of diagnosis; and that the petition is due to be discussed at the next meeting of the chief social work officer committee, later this month.

Do members have any proposals? I suggest that we go back to the minister with the points that have been made. The minister told us that the powers and duties of a commission or commissioner would be reviewed. That might suggest that responsibility for the petitioner’s particular objective might be allocated within that framework, but it has not actually been said. I would be happy to go back to the minister and ask again, very specifically, about the petitioner’s concern about what is proposed for people who do not have a learning disability or mental health issue.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1845 was lodged by Gordon Baird on behalf of Galloway community hospital action group. Rhoda Grant again joins us to discuss the petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an agency to ensure that health boards offer fair and reasonable management of rural and remote healthcare issues.

When we last discussed the petition on 8 September, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the remote and rural general practice short-life working group, as well as to rural health boards. We have received various submissions from stakeholders and a late submission from Finlay Carson MSP, all of which have been shared with members.

The chair of the remote and rural general practice short-life working group highlights its recent report and its recommendation that a national centre of excellence for remote and rural health and social care be established. Work on implementing the recommendation is under way, including work to explore the potential role of a rural health commissioner, which is a position that has been successfully established in Australia.

The responses from NHS Shetland and NHS Orkney and from NHS Grampian provide information on their respective approaches to public engagement. We have also received a further submission from the petitioner, which is included in full in members’ papers, and a submission from Claire Fleming in support of the petition.

Before the committee comes to a view on what to do next, I ask Rhoda Grant whether she wants to say anything.

PE1911 calls for a review of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 as it relates to post mortems. The petition, which was lodged by Ann McNair, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the 2006 act and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with the 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.

We hope that Monica Lennon will join us, but she has been delayed. She might well join us during our consideration.

I remind members about the very difficult circumstances in which the petitioner brings us her petition. The petitioner’s child died suddenly and underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive than the petitioner had originally thought that it would be.

The committee last considered the petition on 1 December 2021 and heard that, in England and Wales, next of kin are given a choice about how they would like small tissue samples to be handled. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Royal College of Pathologists. We have now received responses to that correspondence.

The Scottish Government responded in consultation with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. They explained that, if tissue samples are returned to next of kin, it might impair their ability to investigate the circumstances surrounding a death or establish a definitive cause of death.

The Royal College of Pathologists suggests that returning tissue samples would provide only a marginal gain and would need to be

“traded off against further complexities in the authorisation and consent processes”.

Those complexities are listed in its submission.

The petitioner’s recent submission reiterates the key points of her petition, expressing that being told that samples of her child belong to no particular person is the cruellest thing that she has ever heard. On the issue of invasive post mortems, the petitioner suggests that an alternative would be to use a scanner that provides results that are more than 99 per cent accurate.

The committee has received several submissions from individuals stating their strong support for the petition and its aims. Notably, submissions were in favour of authorisation for retention of tissue samples and using scanners for non-invasive post-mortem examinations where possible.

Consideration of the petition and submissions falls into two distinct areas. One is the authorisation of post mortems and the extent to which discretion can be granted to next of kin in that process. The second relates to the final determination as to what befalls tissue samples that might have been retained.

Monica Lennon has now been able to join us. Welcome, Monica. I am delighted to have you with us. Would you like to say anything as we consider the issues afresh?

Thank you, Monica. If we have not already done so, it would be useful for the committee to receive some of the submissions to which you refer.

You are right: the suggestion that the procedures and processes that are followed might be governed by an underresourcing of pathologists’ work rather than by a freshly determined view of what best practice and policy might be is concerning. The committee might want to pursue that.

Body scanners are now being routinely used elsewhere. If a submission that we might be yet to see vindicates the view that we cannot have scanners in Scotland because of an argument that people are not adequately trained to use them, that would seem inadequate. Use of a body scanner would, obviously, be a far less invasive way to undertake a post mortem.

We might come back to those questions if we can consider the matter. We might want to write to the Crown Office and others to establish whether all that is correct.

Do colleagues have any suggestions in relation to the other evidence and submissions that we have received?