Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our final petition is PE1911, which has been lodged by Ann McNair. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 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.

I would like to start by immediately acknowledging the very difficult circumstances in which the petitioner brings us her petition and which have been detailed in the petition and the submission. The petitioner’s child died suddenly and underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive in nature than the petitioner had originally thought it would be, and which involved the removal of tissue from her child. The petitioner was told that tissue samples

“belonged to no particular person”

and would be held as part of medical records.

The petitioner also notes that it took her 10 months to locate her child’s tissue samples and that

“No-one seemed to know where these samples were being held”.

She also says:

“I felt these tissue samples were still part of my child.”

She highlights that practice in Scotland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, where tissue samples are automatically offered back to the family.

The Scottish Government’s submission sets out the different types of post-mortem examinations that are carried out in Scotland and explains how tissue samples are collected and stored. The submission states:

“Tissue samples are a very small part of an organ”

and are “chemically treated” to

“produce a tissue block ... from which a very thin section can be cut by a biomedical scientist.”

The Scottish Government also notes that, if a nearest relative requests the return of tissue blocks,

“any reasonable request will be treated sympathetically by the Procurator Fiscal.”

However, if there are “suspicious circumstances”, the procurator fiscal might need to retain tissue for further investigation.

The committee has also received a submission from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities on the petition, which is summarised in members’ papers.

Do members have any comments or observations?

The next item is consideration of continued petitions. The first continued petition is PE1853, which has been lodged by Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor Douglas Philand and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide a lifeline all-year-round freight and passenger ferry service between Campbeltown and Ardrossan.

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 1 September, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. In the Scottish Government’s initial submission to us, we were told that it was not operationally possible to extend the current operating period of the Ardrossan to Campbeltown service as there were no available vessels. It was noted that the Scottish Government has committed to securing two new ferries, which are currently under construction. Subject to a robust business case and funding, it might be possible to use one of the new vessels to provide a year-round Campbeltown service. The MV Sannox is due to be delivered between July and September of next year.

The petitioners themselves had also explored whether it would be possible to use an available vessel that was not currently part of the Caledonian MacBrayne fleet to provide the service. In its most recent submission to the committee, the Scottish Government suggested that suitable second-hand vessels were rare but that the recent purchase of—and I hope that I say this correctly—the MV Utne indicated a willingness on its part to consider this as an option. The Scottish Government also highlights the creation of the islands connectivity plan, which will be prepared as the successor to the 2013 to 2022 ferries plan.

The Government also states that determining the long-term future ferry requirements for Campbeltown will involve a community needs assessment, which will be carried out with communities and other stakeholders throughout 2022 for all Clyde and Hebrides ferry services and northern isles routes as part of the islands connectivity plan. It is expected that the plan will be published by the end of 2022.

Bearing in mind the subsequent submission from the Scottish Government, do members have any comments or suggestions?

PE1856, which has been lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite the union, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support to taxi drivers; setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives; and reviewing low-emission standards and implementation dates.

When we last considered the petition on 1 September, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to raise concerns highlighted by the petitioner and to highlight his suggestions that funding be extended and incentive levels increased for drivers to upgrade their cabs; that there be greater clarity on exemptions to the low-emission zones and for taxi cabs to be considered exempt from LEZ charges in line with other forms of public transport; and that the Energy Savings Trust should increase the current £10,000 grant for liquefied petroleum gas retrofit by £2,500. We also sought further details of the national stakeholder group and the timescales associated with establishing it.

In response to the committee’s most recent correspondence, the Scottish Government states that, in relation to increasing the grant offering to taxi drivers, funding and budget plans have already been set for the current fiscal year, and future funding rounds will be subject to the usual spending review process. The Scottish Government also provided further information about LEZ exemptions, noting that LEZ-compliant taxis are

“an important and valued part of the urban transport mix”

and stating that funding is available in the current fiscal year for operators wishing to take up the support on offer.

Finally, the committee might wish to note that the petitioner has been put in touch with the relevant officials at the Scottish Government to discuss engagement between Transport Scotland and the taxi sector.

In light of the Scottish Government’s most recent submission and further contact from the petitioner, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that I am right in saying that taxi drivers operate under licences from local authorities, so we could write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for an audit of the number of licence holders prior to the pandemic and the current number. That would indicate the strength of licence holders on the ground, which I think would be helpful.

I take Paul Sweeney’s point, so I think that we will take evidence on this matter. It would be quite nice to get some geographical representation; I do not know whether the taxi associations will be able to give us a steer on this matter, but it would be useful to hear from the wider country. I realise that we cannot hear from every local authority, as that would make things quite busy. We will write to people in the first instance, but I think that we will end up taking evidence directly.

Marie, did you hope to come in as well?

Thank you.

Thank you both very much. Do any colleagues want to respond to that? I am minded to keep the petition open if the committee is so minded. Rhoda Grant suggested that we contact HIAL to get a clear idea of its plan, including what buildings have already been purchased and the potential loss of money in relation to those.

That is without casting aspersions on anybody. We simply cannot substantiate the point. Nobody can.

Are we minded to keep the petition open, to write to the Scottish Government further on monitoring—that is the key issue that arises from the petition—and to ask how, in the absence of monitoring, it can be assured that we have in place the provisions that are required?

No alternative in the event that that delay becomes permanent.

The next petition is PE1837, on which colleagues might remember that we took evidence at our previous meeting. The petition was lodged by Stephen Leighton and 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 can access support and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 6 October, when we took evidence from Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care, and two Scottish Government officials: Hugh McAloon, deputy director for children and young people’s mental health; and Jacqueline Campbell, unit head, children and young people’s community mental health. The evidence-taking session highlighted a number of key themes, including learning disability and autism in legislation, access to support services, user-centred services and good practice; and funding.

At that session, the minister stated that the Scottish Government was committed to publishing a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill and to creating a commissioner to uphold and protect the rights of autistic people and others with neurodevelopmental difference.

The committee also heard that the support that is available to people with autism varies significantly across Scotland—that was quite marked—and could be particularly scarce for those who do not also have a learning disability or mental disorder, which is at the heart of the petitioner’s concern. That increased the risk that people could be turned away from services, leaving them with no alternative route for support.

The minister recognised the need

“to ascertain what is going on out there that is right and what is not going ... so well”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 6 October 2021; c 26.]

and emphasised the importance for people with autism to influence decision making. The minister also highlighted a number of recent funding announcements that are relevant to the petition, and it was a very informative evidence session.