To ask the Scottish Executive what guidance will be given to hospitals in relation to consent being obtained before the removal of human organs for research purposes. (S1O-2248)

Hospitals are already aware that they need informed consent from the next of kin before removing organs for research or any other purpose. Revised guidelines on this matter were issued to the national health service in Scotland in April this year. I am considering what further action is needed in relation to the practice of the retention of organs post mortem.

Can the minister give a clear assurance to relatives that such distress to them will not arise in future?

I certainly want to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that, in future, the highest possible standards of practice are adhered to throughout the NHS in Scotland. That must include a practice of informed consent for parents. To that end, I have had a series of meetings with a range of parents' groups and I will make a statement on the matter shortly. I am pleased to give an assurance that I will do all in my power to ensure that distress for relatives is avoided in future—as it must be.

I am aware that the minister has met parents whose children's organs were removed without consent. Can she tell the chamber whether she will accede to the overwhelming request from those parents for a public inquiry to determine the details of the practice and to give them the assurance that they seek: that that will never happen again?

I intend to make a full statement on this difficult and sensitive issue. I have listened carefully to a range of views from a variety of parents' organisations. The national committee for organ retention holds a very strong view, as Nicola Sturgeon has indicated, that a full, official public inquiry ought to be held into the matter.

I have received a wide range of representations from other parents and parents' organisations who do not want a full, official public inquiry, not least because it will involve going back many years into the past, over very painful experiences that many parents do not want to be forced to relive.

That said, I respect the views of all parents on the issue, and I want to ensure that we implement sensitive, effective arrangements for dealing with the past that will enable parents to exercise choice to best meet their needs. Those arrangements must also allow the most effective, appropriate arrangements to be put in place to guarantee that such practices will never occur again in Scotland.

I must press the minister. We have shared much correspondence on the matter, and she knows that a number of the parents who have been pressing for a public inquiry have asked her to reveal the range of other organisations that are opposed to a public inquiry. She has not yet done that. I think that the case for a public inquiry is overwhelming, so I ask the minister: will she please accede to a public inquiry?

I addressed some of Tommy Sheridan's points in my previous answer. I repeat that my absolute, primary concern is to do what is in the best possible interest of all the parents concerned. The national committee for organ retention has involved about 40 parents. I have also spoken to the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society, the Association for Children with Heart Disorders and the Scottish Cot Death Trust. I have also spoken informally to people involved in providing counselling to bereaved parents at Yorkhill and other hospitals.

Those groups, between them, represent the interests of many hundreds, possibly thousands, of bereaved parents in Scotland. When I make a statement on the matter, it will be based on and sensitive to the needs of all those parents. We should be concerning ourselves with the outcome of our work on the issue, not the specific mechanism employed.