Contents
Petitions
The final agenda item is on public petitions. I refer members to paper 6. If members wish to keep a petition open, they should say how they would like the committee to take it forward. If members wish to close a petition, they should set out the reasons for that. I propose to consider the petitions in the order in which they are set out in paper 6.
Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
Fatalities (Investigations) (PE1567)
The first petitions are PE1501 and PE1567, which are on investigating unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents. The petitions are discussed on pages 2 and 3 of paper 6.
The committee is asked to consider and agree what, if any, action it wishes to take in relation to the petitions. The options include closing the petitions on the basis that the Scottish Government and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have made their position clear. Alternatively, in view of the change in leadership of the COPFS, the committee could keep the petitions open in order to ascertain whether there is any difference in the new leadership’s view. I seek members’ views.
The clerk’s paper is helpful. I confess that I have been able only to dip into some of the background, but I was struck by the additional information that one of the petitioners—Stuart Graham—provided that shows relative figures for such inquests in a range of jurisdictions. Scotland, along with some territories in Canada, appears to be markedly out of step with other parts of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and some states in Australia. I am interested in understanding why there is that marked discrepancy.
The minister’s letter is helpful in setting out the background and the objective of such inquests, which relates to the public interest, but I presume that there is a public interest in inquests in the territories and jurisdictions that I just mentioned. Before we decide whether to finally close the petitions, we should seek from the Scottish Government a better understanding of the reason for the differences in the numbers.
I take a different view. In particular, I refer to the letter from Frank Mulholland of 25 November 2015, which addresses precisely the point that has been raised. The letter, which is at annex A on page 8 of paper 6, acknowledges that there is a difference and describes precisely why.
I have, unfortunately, had limited personal experience of the process, although in fairness that was in relatively straightforward circumstances of investigation and legality. I felt that the process worked for me and my relatives. On the basis that the information that Liam McArthur seeks is in the letter from Frank Mulholland, I suggest that the Government’s position is clear and that we should close the petitions.
I take a different view from Stewart Stevenson, as I would like further information. I am looking at the paper online, so I am not sure exactly which page this is on, but it mentions a member’s bill in the House of Commons that addresses some of the concerns—to which Stewart Stevenson perhaps refers—about the high number of inquests elsewhere in the UK. I wonder what the outcome of that bill was. Do we have any information on that?
Is that Patricia Ferguson’s member’s bill here or a bill in the House of Commons?
I understand that it was in the House of Commons.
I am not aware of that.
It would be interesting to know whether the position has changed down south as a result of that bill.
I want a bit more information on full disclosure. I am dealing with an extremely complex constituency case that involves Police Scotland, in which there are significant concerns about the disclosure of information. From reading the former Lord Advocate’s letter, which Stewart Stevenson is happy to support, one would think that families were entitled to pretty much everything. However, from my experience, that is not the case. We therefore need more information about full disclosure.
If the new Lord Advocate is of the same opinion as his predecessor, I would be interested to know how often relatives are not given full disclosure. Full disclosure is a way to resolve an issue but, if we do not have it, families will continue to come to us with such petitions.
I am keen to get more information on those aspects before we decide how to deal with the petitions.
Frank Mulholland’s letter is comprehensive. It will not be easy to satisfy the petitioners. Every case must be considered on its merits, which is why it is not too easy to deal with the statistics.
Given that one of the consequences of the work of the previous Justice Committee and Patricia Ferguson was the charter for bereaved families, is there an opportunity to leave the petitions open to see what response, if any, there is to the charter? That will not deal with the specific concerns that the petitions raise, but it might give us pointers as to whether there are continuing issues.
I share Liam McArthur’s view and I would like more information about the discrepancy between the number of fatal accident inquiries that are carried out in Scotland and the number that are carried out in other countries. Having read Frank Mulholland’s letter a couple of times, I think that it seems to give us the bare facts—he does not go into enough detail. I would like more information so that we have a better understanding before we make a final decision.
11:30
I am minded to go down the route that Stewart Stevenson suggested. However, given that there is a new broom, it would be useful to ask the Crown Office for its views on the petitions. We should do that before considering whether to close the petitions.
I think that the committee is minded to keep the petitions open. I must admit that I shared Stewart Stevenson’s view to begin with, given the existence of the charter, which John Finnie mentioned. However, valid points have been raised and there is merit in keeping the petitions open. Do we agree to continue the petitions and to seek the information that has been asked for?
Members indicated agreement.
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
The next petition is PE1370, which is on an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction. It is discussed on pages 3 to 5 of the clerk’s paper.
The clerks have ascertained from Police Scotland that the timetable in relation to operation Sandwood has slipped since the letter of 11 March that is referred to in paragraph 23 of the clerk’s paper. Police Scotland recently informed the clerks by telephone that, because of complex live issues, the investigation report has not yet been completed and passed to the relevant deputy chief constable. The previous committee was informed in March that the report was expected to reach the DCC by around mid-May.
The committee is asked to consider and agree what, if any, action it wishes to take in relation to the petition. The options are to close the petition on the ground that the Scottish Government has made its position clear or to keep it open, in which case the committee might wish to write to Police Scotland to seek clarity on the timetable for completing operation Sandwood.
I do not think that we can close the petition until Sandwood is complete.
Are there any other comments? That seems to be the majority view of the committee. I wonder just how far Sandwood will take us, given that the petition asks the Government to hold an inquiry and the Government has made its position clear.
I do not expect us to wish to keep the petition open after we hear about Sandwood. To be blunt, I am reluctant for politicians of any character to interfere in the independence of the judiciary. However, in all fairness, there is a case for keeping the petition open until we see what Sandwood comes up with.
I agree with a lot of what Stewart Stevenson said. The reality is that this is a unique set of circumstances. The convener has heard me say many times that we should forget the individual whose name is on the petition, because the issue is about process. There is a unique inquiry that involves complex and live issues, and we need to understand how it will continue.
I take some reassurance from the change of personnel, certainly at Lord Advocate level, and I imagine that the Justice for Megrahi people do, too. However, we need to understand the process when an aggrieved party has issues with those who were charged with making important decisions about a criminal prosecution. We might need to look at such a model for the future.
The mood of the committee appears to be to keep the petition open until we hear from operation Sandwood. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
The final two petitions are PE1510 and PE1511, which are on police and fire service control rooms. The petitions are discussed on pages 6 and 7 of the clerk’s paper, and annexes G and H provide the latest information in relation to proposals for north of Scotland control rooms.
The committee is asked to consider and agree what, if any, action it wishes to take in relation to the petitions. What are members’ views?
On police control rooms, I think that assurances were given—not least because of the controversies and difficulties in relation to other control rooms—that any transfer of staff and operations from Inverness and Aberdeen would take place only once the new premises and operations were open and functioning in Dundee. However, I do not think that that has been the case. I have been led to believe that there are interim provisions for housing some staff from Aberdeen and Inverness, and at the very least I want some understanding of what Police Scotland is doing and why the earlier undertakings not to give effect to the transfer until things had been set up and robustly tested do not appear to have been fulfilled.
Call handling is going to come up as a result of the M9 incident, and we need to understand the relationship with that. Additional tasks were going to be allocated to Inverness and it might be helpful to clarify whether those tasks have been allocated there. Resilience certainly seems to be an issue, so I suggest that we keep the petitions open in the meantime.
If there are issues that are still to be resolved, the petitions should be kept open.
I think that other information is being sought about the robustness of the process, if I understand Liam McArthur’s comments right.
I certainly agree with John Finnie’s comments. We can probably pursue additional issues, but I understand that, after the transfer of call handling elsewhere, Police Scotland gave an undertaking that the transfer would not happen until the new set-up was fully and robustly tested. That was one of the concerns that emerged in relation to the M9 incident.
Does the committee agree to keep the petitions open pending the additional information that will be sought?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes business for today. The committee’s next meeting will be on 4 October.
Meeting closed at 11:37.Previous
Investigatory Powers Bill