We will move straight on to item 7, on petitions, without a break. [Interruption.] Pay attention, team.
For the record, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates.
Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
The first petition, which is a new petition, is PE1501, on public inquiries into self-inflicted and accidental deaths following suspicious death investigations. We have been told that the Scottish Government has committed to bring forward legislation to implement the recommendations in Lord Cullen’s “Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation”. Scrutiny of the proposed FAI legislation may be the most appropriate forum for considering the issues raised by the petitioner. I invite members’ comments.
On the fatal accident inquiry petition?
On PE1501 in particular—the new one.
Sorry—I was going to ask about PE1280.
We have not come to that one yet.
Okay—I will leave it for now.
Right. [Interruption.] Just bear with me a minute. I am getting prompting from all round me.
Are members content to consider the petition as part of our scrutiny of the forthcoming proposed legislation on FAIs? That is what I was trying to get from you.
Members indicated agreement.
Do members wish to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ascertain the level of investigation that has been carried out into the 4,000 deaths classed as self-inflicted over the past five years? We would like to have that statistic.
What am I getting back from you? Yesses?
Members indicated agreement.
Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
The next petition is PE1280, on fatal accident inquiries on deaths abroad. Like the previous petition, it relates to FAIs. Are members content to note the developments that are outlined in the papers and to agree to return to the petition once legislation on FAIs has been introduced?
I would like us to keep the petition open. The Government has been considering the matter and was going to make some proposals in, I think, September.
Do you mean September next year?
Yes—2015.
I request that the committee write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and ask for an update. A number of MSPs have raised the issue through constituents, and it has been going on for a while. I welcome the fact that the Government is considering legislation, but I would like a wee update.
If proposals are going to be published or a bill is going to be introduced in September 2015, will there be sufficient time in the parliamentary session to consider that proposed legislation?
We could ask that in the letter to the cabinet secretary.
The note from the clerk just says 2015, not September 2015. Maybe we could get a timeline from the Scottish Government for when it intends to introduce legislation.
Could we also ask what its thinking is about what the legislation will cover? Some of the petitions are on different issues. Will it be a broad bill on FAIs, will it just be on FAIs on deaths abroad or what?
We have been told, broadly, that a bill will be introduced in 2015. Obviously, the clerks have done their best to find out, but do members also want to ask whether there will be sufficient time for it to be processed in this parliamentary session?
Are members happy with something along those lines? Alison, you do not look as though you are.
No—I am.
You are. You are just thinking. You have your thinking face on. That is what we will do.
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
Petition PE1370 concerns an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction. Members have the most recent submission in annex A of paper 6. It makes it clear that Justice for Megrahi and Police Scotland have had two constructive meetings since we last considered the petition and, in a separate development, the Lockerbie relatives have made a submission to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Are members content to note the progress that is being made between JFM and Police Scotland and to maintain a watching brief on that and, perhaps, on what happens with the SCCRC?
Members indicated agreement.
Each time that we consider the petition, members of JFM make a long journey to come to the public gallery. We welcome their attention to what the committee is doing on the petition. They have kept going for a long time. In particular, I mention Robert Forrester, who has made a long journey to come to every one of the meetings. [Applause.] You must not clap.
We will keep the petition open while we monitor the progress between JFM and Police Scotland and at the SCCRC.
Access to Justice (Non-corporate Multiparty Actions) (PE1427)
PE1427 concerns multiparty actions. The Scottish Government has stated that, in the long term, it is committed to multiparty or class actions. It will consult on its approach to matters that will be taken forward in primary legislation following Sheriff Principal Taylor’s recommendations.
Are members content to keep the petition open until after the Scottish Government has developed its approach to the issue?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members also wish to ask the Scottish Government specifically to include the petitioner in its consultation and to respond to the petitioner’s concerns about the holding of documents by private companies?
The petitioner has highlighted the fact that there are issues in relation to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, but there are court processes for the disclosure of documents that are outwith that act, so the issue is partial. I do not have a problem if the committee wants to write to the Government about that, but I thought that I would be as well to point that out.
We appreciate the limitations of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, but its remit is to provide as much as possible. It would be courteous to the petitioner at least specifically to invite him to respond. Do you agree?
Okay.
Administrative Justice (PE1449)
PE1449 concerns preserving an independent Scottish administrative justice council. Since we last considered the petition, we have received submissions from the chair of the Scottish tribunals and administrative justice advisory committee, the convener of Accountability Scotland and the original petitioner. The chair of the advisory committee gives assurances that the end user is well represented on it. I see that we have a note of all the members of it.
Are members content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
In doing so, do we wish to draw the Scottish Government’s and the advisory committee’s attention to the letters from Accountability Scotland and the original petitioner?
Members indicated agreement.
Solicitors (Complaints) (PE1479)
The next petition is PE1479, on the legal profession and the legal aid time bar. Since we last considered the petition, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has proposed increasing the legal aid time bar limit from one year to three years with effect from 1 January 2015. The commission is currently consulting on those changes and the petitioner has been included in that consultation. The petitioner has indicated that, in his view, there should be no time bar.
Are members content to close the petition on the grounds that the time bar is being extended and that the petitioner has had the opportunity to participate in the consultation?
I would be happier if we waited until the consultation had closed and we were able to have a look at the outcome. I do not want us to prejudge the consultation. I would be happier to keep the petition open for one more cycle, if that were possible.
It seems sensible to keep the petition open until after 17 November.
I do not have a major problem with that, but I could never agree with the idea that there should be no time bar.
I am in the same position. One must have some point of finality unless it is a common-law crime, for which there is no time bar. Otherwise, one must have some kind of surety.
Is the committee happy to do what Alison McInnes suggests?
Members indicated agreement.
Supreme Court (Civil Appeals) (PE1504)
The next petition is PE1504 on civil appeals. The petition was originally referred to us for consideration during our scrutiny of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, which has now been passed. The committee previously wrote to the petitioner to ascertain what the point of general public importance was in her case and what reasons were given by solicitors for not representing her. Her response is in annex D. Does anyone have any comments to make on the petitioner’s latest submission?
Are members content to close the petition on the ground that the bill has now been passed?
Members indicated agreement.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
The next petitions are PE1510 and PE1511. They were referred to us for consideration during our evidence session with the inspectors of fire and rescue and constabulary in August, and the issues of police and fire control rooms have arisen again today. Are members content to keep the petitions open for the time being, given that we can raise questions on them when we take evidence on the budget?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Draft Budget Scrutiny 2015-16