Hansard

Yes. Thank you, Stewart—I have lost my train of thought now.

In the case of a sudden death where we did not know a lot about the patient and we did not have a huge amount of information, our phone call to the procurator fiscal would prompt the question whether we had any real concerns. My response would typically be, “No, I have no real concerns,” so we would then be told, “Thank you very much—go ahead and do the certificate.” That is not a review.

We will need to consider the provisions carefully. We will need to consider the training of procurators fiscal and of doctors so as to ensure that, if we are to rely on half of all reviews being undertaken by the procurator fiscal, an adequate process is followed.

I do not wish to reiterate all the arguments that I advanced in earlier debates on the electronic aspect, but I remain disappointed that, in her opening speech at this final stage of the bill, the Minister for Public Health and Sport yet again did not mention electronic certification. I urge the Government and the minister, even at this very last, dying stage of the present Government—I had to get that in—to commit civil servants to commence consideration of the electronic aspect during the forthcoming interregnum period. We have had two months already; let us have some urgency on the matter. Let us consider what currently exists in the Information Services Division and let us begin now to examine the possibilities for developing a modern system. Although the minister said in her speech that we have a modern system, it is not—it is a revised system, based on an old paper system, with all that system’s flaws.

I still have concerns about the signature on the certificates. Previously, two thirds of them would be reviewed by a second and third doctor. Now, a junior hospital doctor will be able to sign the certificates, and no further review will occur in 50 per cent of cases—although it will vary from individual to individual.

I would like the guidance or the regulations to provide for a system that specifies that no foundation year 1 or foundation year 2 doctor should be able to sign the certificates; only those with specialist training in the hospital—what used to be called registrars—should be able to do that. Alternatively, there should be a counter-signature from the responsible consultant, to make sure. Furthermore, doctors should go through a specific training module.

All of that underlies my concern about retaining public confidence, which is fundamental to the revised system. Two thirds of individuals will welcome the fact that costs will go down from £160 to £30. On the subject of costs, I ask the minister to clarify something that she said earlier when she sums up: that there will not be a charge in relation to overseas deaths. I assume that there will still be a £30 charge—or will there be no charge whatever for people who die abroad? If that is the case, we will perhaps, as with the Eskimos, start to ask our elderly relatives to go to another country, albeit briefly, so as to save some money. That will not happen, of course, but I ask about the possibility of there being no charge. The system for overseas deaths that is now being put in place is a good one, with the central review, which I think will work well.

We have dealt reasonably well with expedited certification for faith burials, particularly for Jewish and Muslim groups. As we come to scrutinise the regulations and guidance, we will have to invite the Subordinate Legislation Committee to examine the matter carefully, with our colleagues in the Jewish and Muslim faith groups, so that the regulations ensure that the post hoc review system will be appropriate.

The bill has been amended appropriately, and I am glad that the Government responded entirely appropriately to the committee’s initial serious concerns. We will now have a modern, proportionate system—except for the fact that it should have been an electronic system from the outset.

10:45