Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Health and Sport Committee 08 March 2016

08 Mar 2016 · S4 · Health and Sport Committee

Item of business

Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Chisholm, Malcolm Lab Edinburgh Northern and Leith Watch on SPTV

First, I think that the minister has dealt with the matter of my amendment 1050 in her amendment 128, which will be considered tomorrow. I assume that amendment 128 will be passed, so I do not need to move amendment 1050. However, I am not so sure about amendment 1049. My starting place is a paragraph in the minister’s speech in the stage 1 debate, which I am sure she will not mind me reading out. She said: “In setting out what will happen after a pregnancy loss, the bill ensures that the woman who has experienced the loss is at the centre of the decision-making process.” That is the first principle. The second is the provision of more time, on which the minister went on to say: “I intend to lodge stage 2 amendments to further support an even more person-centred approach to deciding what should be done with the remains of a pregnancy loss. That will ensure that no woman is ever rushed into making a decision and will provide extra flexibility where a woman needs more time to decide what she wants to happen.”—Official Report, 11 February 2016; c 86. I heard what the minister said, but I have struggled to find a specific reference in her amendment 1036 to a woman expressing the need for more time, so I remain to be persuaded about that. In amendment 1049, I have made it clear that “If the woman informs the appropriate health authority that she requires a further period to make a decision ... the authority must take such steps as it considers necessary to accommodate that request.” The minister, quite rightly, lodged amendment 1035 to ensure that everything could be finalised in less than seven days, if that is what the woman wants. I welcome that amendment. The other side of the coin is that, if the woman wants more time, it should be longer than six weeks. That is my first point. My second point is that I have some concerns about the words, “the best interests of the woman”. Obviously, we all want to act in the best interests of the woman, but who is to decide what that is? People always get a bit suspicious when someone is seen to be acting on a person’s behalf without having asked them. That came up in the context of the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill last week, in relation to the duty of candour and ensuring that people are always asked rather than assumptions being made in a paternalistic fashion. I am a bit suspicious of the wording about contacting the woman if it is thought to be in her interests to be contacted. It is more straightforward to say that the woman will be contacted, which will be followed by one of three things: arrangement of disposal of the remains, in accordance with her wishes; if she does not express a wish to influence disposal, its being done without regard to her position, since she does not have one; or the woman asks for more time. I think that my amendment 1049 deals with the fundamental principles of the centrality of the woman’s view and of explicitly allowing for a longer period, if that is what the woman wants. I remain to be convinced that all that is covered by amendment 1036.

Search Hansard contributions

Health and Sport Committee 08 March 2016

In the same item of business