Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
The clerk has produced a paper to accompany item 6. We have a number of petitions to consider, some of which may not be considered again. In fact, if we get through them all, we may not consider any further petitions in the current session of Parliament.
PE1370 requests an inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. As the petitioners are present, we will consider that petition first and then return to the other petitions. An update from Justice for Megrahi was circulated to members on 18 December, emphasising its position in relation to the appointment of an independent prosecutor to consider the findings of the police investigation known as operation Sandwood. The clerk’s paper reminds members that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced in November that it was closing its review of Megrahi’s conviction because it could not get access to his defence papers.
I seek members’ views on the petition. The possible options are set out on pages 9 and 10 of paper 6.
Operation Sandwood has ensured that the accusations that were made by Justice for Megrahi are back on track, and I know that JFM has every confidence in—indeed, it has praised—the way in which Police Scotland has dealt with the matter.
First and foremost, given that the operation is live, the petition must be kept open. There are wider issues, and I do not think that any criticism can be laid at the door of Justice for Megrahi regarding the timing of the voluminous amount of papers that we have received today. Those papers relate to the timeframe of exchanges, not least with the Lord Advocate.
There is a significant issue of process that should be a concern for the Justice Committee regarding the administration of our criminal justice system. In this particular case, we know that there were nine criminal allegations. I know that we are going over ground that we have been over before, but it is important that we do so. It is important to note that the allegations have been made by highly respected public figures. I stress that the issue is about process, and it is to the Lord Advocate’s credit that he recognised that there was a conflict as a result of the appointment of the independent Crown counsel.
Quite reasonable questions have been posed, initially in a letter of 24 August last year, and subsequently by the committee to the Lord Advocate on 5 November. Those questions remain unanswered.
I have to say that the issue of process is not, in my view, exclusive to the Megrahi case. We need to try to understand what should happen in the event of a criminal case in which the people who are charged with making important decisions are themselves the subject of accusations. As I have said, it is to the Lord Advocate’s credit that he has acknowledged that.
This is about process and postholders; it is certainly not about personalities. Having accepted that operation Sandwood has put the issue firmly on track after an unfortunate start, we have the suggestion that the Crown Agent is an independent person and will play a role in the process. As we have seen from the letters—I hope that members have had the opportunity to read them—any reasonable judgment would be that that is not necessarily the case, given that the Crown Agent defended the Crown Office’s position in a letter of 2012.
As I said, the timeframe is outwith the petitioners’ control, but there is a broader issue that goes beyond the petition, so I suggest that we should keep it open. It is also entirely legitimate that we would want to understand the significant issue of a possible gap in our process—indeed, the public would expect that we would want to do that. I would like the clerk to write to the Lord Advocate with particular questions. I hope that we will get a response to them that will advise us what further action, if any, we need to take.
I am quite happy to keep the petition open. Operation Sandwood is on-going. Obviously, it is a little disappointing in some respects that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has taken the stance that it has taken, but I fully understand why it has done so. What concerns me is some recent correspondence that seems to focus far too much on one individual whose role is to co-ordinate matters for the independent Crown counsel. I am not sure that I could agree with Mr Finnie on what questions we should address to the Lord Advocate, but I would like to reserve my position on that until we see what questions it is proposed that we address to the Lord Advocate.
John Finnie has raised important process issues, and he was right to highlight that this is not about individuals, but about the process. I support what he suggested doing.
There was a suggestion about a letter. One possibility that would not indicate that the view was necessarily the committee’s view would be to ask the Lord Advocate to respond to the recent paper from Justice for Megrahi, which, through no fault of JFM, was not delivered to members until fairly recently.
I certainly would not have a problem with that. The committee could then consider the matter again, if it chose to do so.
Yes. We can keep the petition open and ask for a response.
I am definitely happy with the deputy convener’s recommendation, particularly as the convener has particular views on things, as well. We should keep things as neutral as possible and ensure that we take cognisance of the letter that we receive. Asking for an explanation would be great.
We will keep the petition open and ask the Lord Advocate for his response to the points that Justice for Megrahi made in its recent contribution to us.
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioners for their attendance yet again.
Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
We kept open PE1280, on fatal accident inquiries, until the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Bill had been passed. Stage 3 of that bill concluded on 10 December and the bill, as passed, included section 6, on inquiries into deaths occurring abroad—that section is set out on page 3 of paper 6.
During an earlier evidence session, the petitioners appeared to be broadly content with the relevant provisions in the bill. As the clerk’s paper also notes, an amendment was agreed to at stage 2 that allows for FAIs into deaths abroad to be carried out even where the body has not been repatriated, which was one of the committee’s recommendations.
Does the committee agree that the petition can now be closed?
Members indicated agreement.
Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
Fatalities (Investigations) (PE1567)
PE1501 and PE1567 are on investigating unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents. PE1501 requests that an inquiry be held where a death is determined to have been self-inflicted or accidental following a suspicious-death investigation. PE1567 asks for a change in the law and procedures in investigations of unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents. We are taking the petitions together because they appear to make similar requests. Both petitions come from family members of persons who died suddenly, and the families are not satisfied with how the deaths were investigated.
In late December, the clerk received communication from the petitioner on petition PE1567, which has been circulated to members. It contains a heart-rending description of the death of a young man. I have every sympathy for the mother of that young man, as—I am sure—does the whole committee.
When we considered the petitions previously we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate, and asked him for additional information regarding the safeguards that are currently in place to ensure that investigations into deaths by the police or procurators fiscal reach robust and sound conclusions. We also asked what powers families have to question the outcomes of such investigations.
The Lord Advocate’s response, which is attached at annex A, to some extent reiterates information that we have already received. However, it also includes reference to the new charter for bereaved families, which sets out the different stages of an investigation process and confirms what information will be provided to bereaved families and when. Page 4 of the Lord Advocate’s letter also outlines the review and complaints processes that are open to bereaved families who are disappointed with an investigation. However, that is not the more formal process that the petitioners appear to be asking for; the Lord Advocate makes it clear that he is not contemplating any major legal changes in this area.
I seek members’ views on the petitions. Options are set out on page 7 of the clerk’s paper.
Does the rest of the committee agree that we should make a last-ditch attempt—if I can use those words—and write to the cabinet secretary asking for any reassurances that we have not heard before that could help us to resolve the matter, particularly regarding the details of police investigations and decisions by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service?
Does the committee agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Okay. We will keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary asking for any other reassurances that he can give us. Information on these and other petitions that are still open could form part of our legacy paper at the end of the session, if there are outstanding issues with them.
Solicitors (Complaints) (PE1479)
PE1479 is on the legal profession and the legal-aid time bar. The petitioner is asking that the time bar for making complaints against the legal profession be removed completely.
The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had planned to increase the time bar from one to three years, but the process has been delayed while it consults on the issue as part of a wider consultation. A copy of the SLCC’s most recent correspondence with the committee is reproduced at annex E.
I seek members’ views on the petition. Options are set out on pages 11 and 12 of the clerk’s paper.
I am of the view that there is no longer much merit in keeping the petition open. It seems to be slightly technical. The situation has not been resolved. I appreciate that we are back to the consultation phase with the SLCC. Things will undoubtedly change at some point, but I am not absolutely sure that keeping the petition open will serve a useful purpose.
I take a similar view.
I do likewise, convener. However, I suggest that we encourage active responses to the consultation.
Yes—although the consultation is not likely to address what the petitioner is asking for. Do we agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
PE1510 is on the closure of police, fire and non-emergency call centres north of Dundee. The clerk’s paper discusses the petition, along with PE1511. Since the committee’s previous consideration of PE1510, the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing has taken evidence from Mr Penman, Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary in Scotland, on his final report on call handling. What he had to say is set out on page 14 of the clerk’s paper. I seek members’ views on PE1510. Options are set out on page 13 of the paper.
I am keen to keep the petition open, because the subject matter is very much live. I know that there are different interpretations of the HMICS report. I certainly took it as vindicating retention of the control rooms. The process is on-going, but I hope that a decision will be taken to retain the control rooms. It would be appropriate to keep the petition open, given on-going events.
We also have PE1511, on closure of the fire and rescue control room in Inverness. Members will recall that the issues that are highlighted in the petition were raised during our evidence session with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, HM chief inspector of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union on 28 April 2015. I ask members for their views on whether we should keep one or both petitions open.
I agree with John Finnie that we should keep PE1510 open. I am less sure about keeping PE1511 open.
We have previously sought assurances from the fire service about PE1511. Although we have had some assurances, we have heard during the budget process some concerns about the impacts of the closures. I would keep both petitions open.
I agree with Alison McInnes—we should keep both petitions open.
I support that, as well.
I am happy with that.
I would not go into the ditch over it.
Okay. We agree to keep both petitions open. Do we want to do anything further with PE1511 or should we just keep it open?
We should just keep it open.
Okay. We will not take any other action. Thank you.