Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 16 March 2011

16 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Certification of Death (Scotland) Bill

Finnie, Ross LD West of Scotland Watch on SPTV

The bill was interesting. When it first came before the Health and Sport Committee, there was a sense that it was a relatively simple matter and that it would be disposed of relatively quickly. However, it proved to be rather different once we got into the detail.

As the minister pointed out, the proposal was based on extensive work by a review group and the model that the Government chose was one of those that the group put forward. I am bound to repeat the comment that I made at stage 2, which supports Richard Simpson’s comment, that the review group itself pointed in the direction of using electronic recording. I can see that there are difficulties when, at a rather late stage in the proceedings, members make clever suggestions that are difficult to encapsulate, but electronic recording was part of the review group’s recommendations, so I share the disappointment that attention was not given at an earlier stage to the possibility of, and the benefits that might accrue from, adopting such a system.

The second issue that quickly arose was the level of scrutiny. I do not necessarily share the view that it is possible to find a Shipman. None of the reviews says that it is and nobody seriously suggests that an individual who is determined wilfully to avoid any form of checking will be subjected to such a test under any system. However, as Richard Simpson made clear, there is a need for public confidence. The comparison was between the level of scrutiny that was applied to cremation cases and the level that was applied to burial cases. The evidence was clear and we were left uncomfortable about the level of review.

I am grateful to the Government for increasing its level of scrutiny. I am also grateful to the minister for writing to the convener of the committee setting out a matter that caused me some concern, which was the statistical basis for the ramblings—sorry, I mean the random sampling approach; it is quite difficult to say. The statistical basis for that random sampling, which was conducted by the Information Services Division at NHS National Services Scotland, is set out clearly in the letter and the accompanying one-page note.

Having considered that information, I am greatly encouraged by the combination of preparation for, and review of, the system. However, the minister must be clear that, because of the very different way in which the system will operate, it is imperative that there be clear, open and transparent review and that the results of any such review be published.

I am not sure about the level of doctors’ competence. I do not know whether they have the competence to fill in a death certificate when they qualify or whether they need many years’ experience before they can fill one in. That is a matter about which only medical people can tell me. However, death certification is important and I share Richard Simpson’s view that it is a question of establishing public confidence.

The minister dealt with other matters satisfactorily in her response to the committee’s recommendations. Those concerned not only the medical review, but bringing medical reviewers into the ambit of the check on overseas deaths. She also responded to the evidence about the necessity to expedite procedures to meet the requirements of faith groups. Those responses made substantial improvements to the bill.

The changes that have been introduced radically change the bill, which is much stronger as a result of the committee process. We need to monitor progress carefully in certain areas, but I am satisfied that the bill is worthy of support at decision time.

10:54