Hansard

I begin by thanking the many stakeholders who submitted evidence on the bill, particularly the parents who generously shared with the committee their difficult experiences of losing a baby or a pregnancy. The evidence greatly assisted us with our deliberations and our understanding of the issues—that is reflected in our stage 1 report.

The loss of a baby is one of the most heartbreaking things that can happen to a parent. The excitement and anticipation of family renewal and a new birth turn to shock, grief and trauma. Add to that the experience for a parent of not knowing what happened to their baby’s ashes and there is a long-lasting and devastating impact on those affected. The bereaved parents who shared their views with the committee sent a clear message: the bill must ensure that the poor practice of the past never happens again.

The bill’s policy memorandum states that its purpose

“is to provide a modern, comprehensive legislative framework for burial and cremation.”

The evidence that we received welcomed the bill’s intention and the committee supports its aims.

A key purpose of the bill is to give effect to a number of recommendations that were made by the burial and cremation review group and the infant cremation commission. We therefore examined how the bill addresses circumstances involving pregnancy loss and the loss of a baby. We made a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government in our stage 1 report about strengthening the relevant provisions in the bill. I welcome the minister’s confirmation that she will introduce stage 2 amendments to address many of our concerns. Time does not allow me to address all the recommendations, so I will instead focus on a couple of the key issues. As my speech will use the terminology of the bill, I apologise in advance if my use of that terminology causes anyone distress.

A key objective of the bill is to establish a clear and unambiguous understanding of “ashes”. It defines “ashes” as not including metal and defines “cremation” as

“the reduction to ashes of human remains by the burning of the remains and the application to the burnt human remains of grinding or other processes.”

We agree with that definition, which accords with the infant cremation commission’s recommendation. The Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society UK also considered that the definition matched the understanding that many parents have of ashes.

However, stakeholders from the cremation industry raised concerns about the definition of cremation in the bill. They explained to the committee that the term “cremulating” was preferable to the industry. The committee also heard concerns that certain faith groups and nationalities do not wish burnt human remains to be cremulated. Their evidence made it clear to the committee why the terminology in the definition must be clear and accurate, and I seek clarification from the minister that the guidance for cremation professionals will ensure that, when appropriate, they must explain the process of cremulation to the bereaved so that they can make an informed decision about whether to proceed.

The bill provides for a number of different timescales in which women are invited to consider what arrangements to make after losing a pregnancy. We have called for the statutory timescales for decision making and the disposal of remains that are in the bill to be made more flexible. That is essential to allow women to make their decisions as quickly or as slowly as they wish.

Although we welcome the Scottish Government’s confirmation that it will consider amending the bill at stage 2, I seek clarification from the minister about the range of factors that she considers will enable health authorities to delay the disposal of remains after the end of the six-week period, such as when a woman is waiting for welfare payments or for a social fund funeral payment, or she remains incapacitated.