���˿���

Thank you very much, convener, and good afternoon. I begin with a heartfelt “thank you” to you, convener, and to all the committee for your extensive and thoughtful work. You have been considering the petition for quite some time. On behalf of the petitioner, Ann Stark, who is here today with her husband, Gerry, I want to record the family’s gratitude to you as well as my thanks to them for the personal sacrifices that they have made in pursuing the petition—as always, inspired by their much-loved and much-missed son, Richard. From your summary, convener, it is clear that the progress that has been made would not have been possible without the petition and the committee’s work, so I offer a genuine “thank you”.

I know that a lot of work has happened behind the scenes, but I think that there has been significant progress since the last meeting at which the petition was discussed, in May last year. Some real movement has occurred. However, it is quite an honest reflection from you, convener, that we are now at a difficult crossroads in relation to both the time that we have left in this session of Parliament and, given the complex nature of the matter, the fact that, although we have had some clarity, we still do not really know who in Government is taking the lead on the issue and where responsibility for it lies. In your letter to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health last year, you told her that the committee had been quite

“struck by the lack of clear ownership over policy, direction and decision-making across postmortem services in Scotland.”

We have had a better understanding of the Lord Advocate’s role, which is unique, but it is still clear that no one organisation is taking responsibility for addressing concerns or leading on improvements. In fact, at one point, the Lord Advocate passed the matter back to the committee. The petition is relevant and essential—that remains the case.

I will touch on some of the progress that has been made. Your summary was very helpful, convener, so I will not repeat those points. I have become aware, through Ann Stark’s direct meetings with the Lord Advocate, that there will be a visit to the coroner’s office in Lancashire next Friday, 2 May, which is really good news. I am not sighted on the detail of who will be included. Ideally, the committee would have been represented, but I do not know whether that is still possible. I think that that is a bit of a breakthrough, because we have always felt that Scotland has been lagging behind and has been an outlier—not in a positive way—in relation to the choice and modernisation that we have seen in other parts of the UK and the world. The committee could ask for an update on the scope of that meeting.

We also believe that a pilot scheme involving the use of scanners is about to be embarked on. We understand that the Lord Advocate was going to update the committee, but I am not sure whether that has happened ahead of today’s meeting. It feels as though there is more work to be done on that.

Beyond the work of this committee, the Criminal Justice Committee has taken a keen interest in the issue. The annual report for 2022-23 of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland made a number of recommendations, and—similarly to your work, convener—it reflects the fragmented nature of pathology services in Scotland.

Let me bring us back to why that matters. Ann and Gerry Stark have had a terrible loss, which was made worse by the trauma of having to deal with the system and the services, of which there are many. There was a lack of communication with the family and a lack of compassion around sample retention, as it was a journey of discovery to have Richard’s samples returned to the family. It feels as though we are making progress on scanners, although there is work to be done.

The committee could do further work on the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006. I do not think that the Scottish Government has given proper reasoning for its not supporting any change to the law. Why is it that next of kin in England and Wales have choices, including about reuniting samples with the body prior to the body being released for funeral and about samples being returned to the family for a separate funeral at the appropriate time, but those choices are not available in Scotland? There has been progress in Ireland during the past couple of years. I do not think that the minister, Jenni Minto, has given a proper reason for that in her response, so it would be useful to probe the matter further.

It is for the First Minister to organise his Government and ensure that there are no gaps in ministerial responsibilities. The minister told the committee that she has responsibility for hospital-arranged post-mortem examinations, and I believe that the First Minister has said that there will be a light-touch reshuffle due to circumstances, so the issue could be considered by the Government at that point. However, it is not clear whether all of the work on the co-design of what the future of pathology in Scotland should look like sits within Ms Minto’s portfolio or whether there is a role for Angela Constance, as part of her portfolio. The Government needs to put that in writing to this committee and to the Criminal Justice Committee.

This continues to be a matter of importance not just for Ann and Gerry, but for all of our constituents. When I checked earlier this morning, more than 3,400 people had signed Ann’s petition. It was good that the convener was able to raise it with the First Minister at the recent meeting of the Conveners Group. I noted the First Minister’s answer and the follow-up letter. It is good that Government is beginning to engage, but there is still a lack of detail.

That convinces me that it would be helpful to keep the petition open, given that we are coming into the final year of the Parliament and there is interest among a number of ���˿��� and at least one other committee, and given that the Scottish Government is beginning to show interest and understands that there needs to be change. The Government has been quite vague and non-committal about what that change should look like, and, if more written and oral evidence could be taken, the committee is well placed to do that.

I will conclude by saying that we have not had a full update on the visit to the coroner’s office in Lancashire or what the scanner pilot scheme would look like. If the Lord Advocate has not written to the committee on that, the committee could follow that up.

We want to send a signal to people across Scotland that, where there are gaps in legislation or policy, there is a place in the Parliament where people can come and have their experiences heard and change can happen. We have made a lot of progress, but there is still a bit of a journey ahead. I would be grateful for the committee’s on-going interest in the matter, because there is more to be done.

I agree with Mark Ruskell on that. It is important that we get further evidence on the petition. There is a whole range of relevant stakeholders.

Okay. In your opinion, the offer, which is 3.4 per cent—is that right?—or £1,050 for those in the lowest grades over the same nine-month period, is good, fair and progressive, as you have described it. Let us get some context, then. Scottish Water executive members’ total pay, including benefits, increased from £585,000 in 2023 to £842,000 in 2024. That is 43 per cent higher than it was in 2023. Can you say, in just a few words, how that significant increase can be justified when the rest of the Scottish Water workforce has been offered a 3.4 per cent rise in basic pay for 2024-25?

But you have an opinion. You have just told us that it is a good and fair deal and that you are disappointed in the unions, which you have not yet bothered to meet.

You sat down with the trade unions then. Your door is open, which is good, but you have not managed to meet with the unions, even though the workers walked out last week. We hear from the trade unions that industrial action is now likely to escalate. Are you aware that emails have been sent to Scottish Water employees that have been described as “union busting” or “anti-union”?

And what is the reason for that?

You say that you are ready to meet them. Are you talking about this week? Do you have availability this week?

But I was very brief. [Laughter.]

Would you be able to give us more details after the meeting? If Simon Parsons can help, that would be great.

Convener, I hope that you agree that it would be helpful if, after today, we could get some correspondence that sets out whether the projects in the capital programme were delivered under budget, on budget or over budget, and a read across to those that were open tenders and those where the contractors were invited in, and whether there has been any impact on bonuses for the senior team. It would be helpful for transparency if we could have a look at that.