Hansard

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. Once again, I pay tribute—as everyone else has—to Gil Paterson’s hard work on the bill. As I said in my opening speech, this is an important and sensitive matter. We have been able to demonstrate again the importance that the Parliament attaches to sparing victims in extremely disturbing cases unnecessary distress.

I will address some of the issues that members have raised. I think that John Finnie said that progressing the bill would cause no detriment whatsoever. I would be keen to explore that with him in greater detail, perhaps after the debate, given that, as I articulated in my opening speech, the crux of the matter is the concern of the Government—and of the Crown Office, as is clear in its letter to the Justice Committee—that the bill has the potential to make the situation worse. Of course, that is unintentional, but the 14-day time limit would ultimately make the situation worse for victims.

Some members have said, and Mr Paterson has reiterated, that the 14-day time limit would be extendable—indeed, it could be extended many times—but that does not address the issue. If the time limit were extended and there was a delay in releasing the body, that would only compound the trauma for the victim’s family as opposed to relieving that trauma, which is the very issue that the bill seeks to address.

A number of members have also talked about the protocol. I reiterate my strong belief that the protocol has been and is being successful. I note also that the Law Society of Scotland, in its briefing to MSPs, mentions that it believes that there should be more time to explore whether the protocol is working successfully before we, as a Parliament, introduce legislation.

I hope that it is of some consolation to the victims whose experiences we are discussing that there has not been a single defence post mortem request made since July 2019. I know that that may be of cold comfort because of the impact that the cases will have had on them, but I hope that it is of consolation that the new defence protocol seems to be working.

The issue of scrutiny is important. A number of members believe that further scrutiny can take place at stage 2. However, the Justice Committee’s convener was robust in saying that the committee is struggling for time because of Government bills, and I accept that the committee is progressing a lot of vital Government business. We are, of course, also in the midst of a global pandemic, and I think that it would be churlish not to recognise the impact of that on our collective legislative timetable.

The Government’s position remains that there are significant fundamental policy problems with the bill. The most concerning of those is the 14-day limit. I will not go into that in detail, because I have only a little bit of time in which to conclude my remarks. However, at best, the 14-day time limit would, I think, force defence agents to speculatively request a post mortem. At best, that would create scheduling problems for premises and pathologists. However, at worst, if an examination went ahead, it might delay the release of a body, all because of an artificial statutory deadline. Some members have said that it might be possible to address such issues by amending the bill, but I do not think that it could be amended sufficiently to improve on the current situation, in which there is no limit on defence post mortems.

A number of members have asked for further details of how post mortems are conducted and of the issues around the recruitment of pathologists. I will pass those requests on to the Lord Advocate, who, as members will know, as the head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, has responsibility for matters regarding post mortems, and I will ensure that his responses are provided to members.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, no one should detract from the hard work that Gil Paterson has done on this incredibly sensitive issue, which has been driven and motivated only by the desire to do right by victims and their families. He will be disappointed by the lack of support for his bill—indeed, I have spoken to him and he has expressed that disappointment to me. However, regardless of whether members intend to support or oppose the bill at decision time, I hope that it is understood that all of us have only the victims’ best interests at the forefront of our minds.