European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Official Report 462KB pdf

---

Support for Families Abroad

Agenda item 3 is consideration of correspondence from Bob Doris MSP relating to the support provided by the United Kingdom Government’s consular service to citizens dealing with the consequences of the death overseas of a family member or friend. Bob Doris had intended to be at the meeting but unfortunately cannot attend.

I invite members to consider the issue as outlined in paper 3 and whether they are content with the suggested action outlined in it. However, I suggest that the committee recommends that because this is a reserved matter, it would be more meaningful if Bob Doris were to raise with the UK Government the issues outlined in the correspondence.

I support getting some clarification on the issue. I have been involved in the case of a constituent of mine, whose son died as a result of an accident in Thailand. For a variety of reasons, they came to me rather than going to the Westminster parliamentarian and it became quite difficult. We got help from the Westminster Parliament because I managed to bridge the gap with my connections there.

It is an important issue on which we should get clarification. I would hope that, as members of the Scottish Parliament, we would get the kind of respect and support that would help the family. At such a critical time, the family must be of paramount importance and we must make the system as helpful as we possibly can for them.

It is a valuable piece of correspondence. The matter is reserved but, when loved ones are lost in faraway places, people are not interested in the fine lines on the ground; they want action rather than correspondence, and that is why I am supportive of Bob Doris’s paper. However, to give it more weight and gravity, it is essential that he follow it up at Westminster as well, as that will put more focus on what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will do for us in such situations.

I note that, although the paper talks about a specific instance, a petition on the same subject was before the Public Petitions Committee and has been forwarded by it to the Justice Committee.

There is no point in two committees considering the same matter. It would be sensible to co-ordinate with the Justice Committee and, if it is taking action on the petition, for it to inform this committee. The same applies to the possibility of commissioning research.

I appreciate what you say, convener, about the Westminster Parliament, the UK Government and the fact that the issue is reserved, but it would be helpful if we at least informed the Justice Committee of our interest in the matter and asked it to keep us fully informed of whatever action or research it undertakes.

If the Justice Committee is willing to take the petition forward, I agree with your proposal. If it is not willing to do so, I presume that we would be left to consider the matter. However, we are quite happy to share the information that we currently have with that committee and support its bid.

You are right, convener. It is critical that somebody in the Parliament shows leadership on the matter. Stewart Maxwell is also right that we do not want to duplicate efforts. Our resources are finite enough as they are, so it makes sense to take the approach that he suggests.

Is the committee happy to agree in principle to suggest to Bob Doris that he needs to talk to Westminster as well and for the Justice Committee to lead on the matter if it wishes to?

Members indicated agreement.