Seòmar agus comataidhean

Clearly there are risks, but there will always be risks with any policy.

Cabinet secretary, the target for the end of the decade is really ambitious. How concerned are you that, due to the financial pressure on local government, we see more councils reducing their school transport offer to simply align with the statutory requirements? We hear from families that, as a result, they will have to drive their children to school, because they will not have a school bus and no service bus is available. Therefore more people will be driving in those areas.

On the inequality point, those who do not have a car and cannot afford private transport such as taxis will have quite difficult walks to school. For example, we have heard that children in Lanarkshire will have to walk alongside canals in the winter for up to an hour each way, or through underpasses and so on.

I know that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity is considering those issues right now, to see what could be done to utilise the young person’s bus pass. Are you aware that that could pose a risk to getting people on to public transport and out of their cars? We need to make sure that policies and behaviour changes align. Could the cabinet secretary take that issue away to look at it in more detail? School transport is key to reinforcing good habits and people’s early use of buses.

Yes. If you want to bring me in now, that is fine. Am I off mute?

I apologise if I got the name of the policy wrong. Just for clarity, is the Government still fully committed to a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres travelled between 2019 and 2030? Are you confident that it can be achieved?

Thank you. I appreciate that there is a lot happening today and this week.

Is the summer the best time to do that public survey, given that one of the groups that the policy is trying to benefit is people who go to work? Peak fares have been seen as a tax on workers. Is there a danger that we might miss the opportunity to get feedback from people who are on holiday? How will that be managed?

That is great. I have one more question on buses before I hand back to the convener. Cabinet secretary, you rightly mentioned that reducing bus journey times makes bus travel more attractive. Will you give an update on when you expect there to be significant reallocation of road space to buses, including on the trunk road network? It has been a while since I have written to you, but when will we see progress on priority bus lanes or motorway lanes for buses on the Glasgow motorway network? When you wrote to me last year, I got the sense that there was a lack of construction-ready bus projects and that only a small amount of the money had been allocated. I get a lot of emails about that issue. Will you give us an update?

Great. I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that she is keen to work with the committee. I think that we would all appreciate that.

Is the Scottish Government still committed to reducing car mileage by 20 per cent by 2030? If so, how confident is the cabinet secretary that that can be achieved?

Okay—that is helpful to know.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned that there will be a members’ business debate, which Mark Ruskell has secured. I do not want to get into a political discussion in any great detail, but I have been conscious that, this morning Ross Greer, on behalf of the Greens, has said that it was the Scottish Greens that removed the peak rail fares. There is a perception that that policy was really championed by the Greens and the Greens alone, and there is now a bit of concern that, with the end of the Bute house agreement, the policy might no longer be so popular with the Scottish Government. Can you give some reassurance on that, cabinet secretary?

As you will be well aware, the four rail unions—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, Unite the union and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—have really championed that policy, based on their knowledge of the railways. I know that you cannot say too much in a pre-election period but, given that that policy came from a recommendation in the Scottish Trades Union Congress’s “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”, which was produced in 2021, what discussions are you having with trade unions? Can you give any kind of guarantee that the policy is still a priority for the Scottish Government, despite the Greens exiting said Government?

Good morning, convener, and thank you for your opening remarks. Having listened to your recap, I note that we have been on quite a journey. I pay tribute to Ann Stark and her husband, Gerry, as well as the committee. At the start of the process, we knew very little about the Parliament’s understanding of what was going on. The Government was not taking an active interest and, it is fair to say, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service thought that there was nothing to see.

The convener mentioned the meeting on 17 April with the Lord Advocate and Andy Shanks, who is the head of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit. I was present along with Ann Stark and Gerry Stark. The meeting lasted for almost two and a half hours. The Lord Advocate was very much in listening mode, but she had lots of questions, which speaks to the fact that, since Richard Stark’s death in 2019, the family have been trying to get answers. That shows how difficult it can be for grieving families to deal with the system. The petition has always been about improving the system, not just for the Stark family but for all families in Scotland.

I extend my thanks to the committee, because a lot of evidence and information is now available to us. We know that we need to learn lessons, but we also need to learn from other jurisdictions where families have been listened to and where the process of modernisation has been started, if not rolled out. Lessons have been learned in relation to the process, including about making efficiencies and savings at a time when public finance is under pressure, but the changes have also led to a more compassionate experience for families. On behalf of Ann Stark and Gerry Stark, I emphasise that the petition is about trying to minimise distress for grieving families at the worst time in their lives. As Ann has said in her written submissions, Richard’s death was not suspicious, but the family feel that they were treated in exactly the same way as they would have been were it a murder case or a highly suspicious death. That made their ordeal all the harder to bear.

I will touch on the discussions that we had with the Lord Advocate. I characterised her evidence session with the committee as tense, because it was quite difficult to try to tease out who was going to take responsibility for making change happen. The Lord Advocate has written to us since that meeting, making it clear that she shares the family’s desire for COPFS to make whatever improvements it possibly can. She reiterated her apology for the poor communication on behalf of the service and recognised that that caused unnecessary distress. There was some discussion about the family liaison charter, which should include looking at the medical history of the deceased and would inform whether a full invasive post mortem is required. We recognise, not just for the Stark family but for many families, that there is a communication issue, which is something that COPFS is looking at.

We know that COPFS is committed to the continuous improvement of its death investigation work. It is fair to say that it is as a result of the petition and the committee’s work that an improvement programme in the system for the investigation of deaths has been established. The purpose is to oversee a programme of work that is designed to achieve greater public confidence—which is really important—improve the service, deliver to bereaved relatives and deliver increased efficiencies in the investigation of deaths.

On the issue of samples, which I know is covered in the committee’s briefing papers, I want to reiterate that Richard Stark died in 2019. As we sit here today, on 28 May 2024, his parents and wider family still await confirmation that all of Richard’s body samples are accounted for. The Lord Advocate has confirmed in her letter to me that she is making further inquiries with pathology providers that are contracted to do that work. Again, that shows how difficult this can be.

As you have been told, COPFS regularly meets the current pathology providers, and the potential future use of CT scanners has, from time to time, formed part of their discussions. It is our view—it is my view from speaking to the family—that the conversations have not led to anything up until now and that that has been mentioned almost in an ad hoc way.

However, more positively, since the Lord Advocate last appeared at the committee, members of COPFS’s pathology, toxicology and mortuary programme board visited Northern Ireland. They received a presentation, which we are told was informative, from the state pathologist on the experience in Northern Ireland of utilising CT scanning. We welcome that.

Mrs Stark and the family suggested to the Lord Advocate that COPFS staff or members of its pathology, toxicology and mortuary programme board should perhaps visit Lancashire, where we believe that Dr James Adeley would be happy to facilitate a fact-finding trip. I know that, from time to time, the committee gets out of Parliament, and my suggestion to the committee is that it might wish to consider the opportunity for such a site visit. If the Lord Advocate and her colleagues are considering that, it would be worth checking where they have got to.

I will not repeat points that have been made about the resourcing issues and the workforce pressures that are facing COPFS and, more generally, pathology and other health services that are involved. It is very much a case of our needing to have the right people doing the right jobs. We have identified that there are shortcomings in the skill set in COPFS. That is why, in a paper that he submitted to the UK Justice Committee back in September 2020, Dr Adeley talked a lot about the importance of communication and the relationship with families. I have that submission in front of me. We want to minimise stress, deal with workforce pressures and use public resources better. We have heard about potential savings and at least achieving cost neutrality through the work in Lancashire.

I want to thank the committee, because we can see that your work is making a difference. We still have quite a distance to go, and, right now, I am not so confident about how engaged the Scottish Government is or about how meaningful that engagement is. Therefore, I think that the visit would be important. The opportunity here is to minimise the stress to grieving families, modernise the investigation of unexpected and sudden deaths and build resilience into the system. The scanners give us another tool that we do not currently have. The Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 needs reform.

Today, I am giving only one example: the Stark family’s situation. However, as you know from Ann Stark’s submissions, many other families have found themselves in that situation. I thank the committee for its compassion for the Stark family, but we want every family to experience the same level of compassion and for the system to be modernised. Thank you.

It is helpful to hear that work is continuing. We need to make sure that people have trusted sources of information, because constituents sometimes tell us that they are a bit worried about some of the people who may call them randomly.

The cabinet secretary talked about the importance of finance and funding. Is the Scottish Government doing any work to look at how the land and buildings transactions tax could be used to incentivise home owners to invest in upgrading energy efficiency measures and installing zero-emissions heating sources?

The Scottish Government’s review of environmental governance concluded in October of last year. When does the Government intend to lay its statement in response to that review?