Hansard

I do not support amending the bill to introduce discretionary powers to create electronic medical certificate of cause of death forms for use during the test site phase. That would be unnecessary, and would be likely to delay the start of the test sites in the new system. I have already made a commitment to exploring the feasibility of electronic MCCDs. Such a feasibility study would examine various options, including the different information technology solutions that are available and the different methods of verifying the identity of the certifying doctor.

As we all know, devising IT systems can be complex, costly and time consuming, with long lead-in periods. We are talking about a new IT system for which the business case has not yet been made and the costs, practical considerations and timescales have not yet been fully explored. I do not wish to jeopardise the implementation of the new death certification system. It is fair to say that the new processes that the bill will introduce mark a significant departure from current practice. There is a risk that trying to test the operation of a completely new process at the same time as introducing a new electronic system would be overly complex and that the operational difficulties of one might have a negative impact on the other. For that reason, we think that it is sensible to test the operation of the system outlined in the bill first. Only then will we be able to judge whether it is necessary to introduce electronic completion of MCCDs. However, as I have said, I see the potential benefits of electronic completion of MCCDs and I undertake to consider the feasibility of introducing such a system.

Amendment 7 would require additional information to be added to the MCCD for use during the piloting of the test sites. I cannot support that. Again, there is a risk that making the inclusion of that information mandatory would result in complications and cause delays during the testing of the new system. For example, in cases in which the deceased was to be cremated, the amendment would require the recording of the next of kin’s acceptance that the information on the MCCD form was correct. Delays could quite easily result if there were difficulties locating the next of kin or it was not known at the point of completion of the MCCD whether the deceased wished to be cremated.

Further, it would potentially be insensitive to pressure the next of kin to make a decision about the adequacy of the MCCD so close to the death. That is why we have provided an opportunity in the bill for certain family members to apply within three years of the death to have the MCCD reviewed by an independent medical reviewer.

Also, we do not think that it is appropriate to require the other additional information to be included in every MCCD used during the piloting of the test sites. That would make completion of the forms more complex and time consuming, which might have a negative impact on the main objective of testing the system that is set out in the bill. The bill makes provision to allow additional medical information to be included in MCCDs. The General Register Office for Scotland has recently consulted on that issue. There is therefore no need for that information to be added to MCCDs for the purposes of the test sites. The results from the test sites may lead to some of the changes that Richard Simpson is arguing for today.

For those reasons, I oppose amendment 7.