Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Official Report 392KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)

Item 5 is consideration of PE1280, by Julia Love and Dr Kenneth Faulds, which calls for the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to be amended to require a fatal accident inquiry to be held when a person from Scotland dies abroad.

We first considered the petition in October 2011, and we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to request an indication of when the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation to amend the 1976 act. From their papers, members will see that the committee has now received the cabinet secretary’s response, in which he reaffirms the Scottish Government’s commitment to amend the act but states that he is unable to provide a timeframe for that.

The petitioners have also provided a letter for the committee’s consideration, which was circulated to members electronically yesterday; they should have it in front of them now.

Do members have any comments or suggestions on what action—if any—the committee can usefully take in respect of the petition? I refer members to page 2 of paper 2, which provides some options.

I suggest that we opt for option (b), which is to keep the petition open as the petitioner requests. With regard to option (c), I do not think that the reply that we received from the cabinet secretary is appropriate. On reading the fourth paragraph of his letter, I am absolutely none the wiser as to whether any amending legislation will be introduced during the current session of Parliament. It is very equivocal and evasive on that subject. If you are committed to doing something and you have five years in which to do it, you should do it.

Although the legislative programme is busier than it was in the previous session of Parliament, it is nothing like as busy as it has been at other times, certainly in comparison with the first session of Parliament. I do not accept that that is sufficient reason not to bring forward legislation at some point in the next two or three years.

I agree with David McLetchie’s comments on the way forward, but I do not share his views on the fourth paragraph of the cabinet secretary’s letter, which are a wee bit harsh. I think that we must give the cabinet secretary the benefit of the doubt on whether the legislation will be brought forward at some stage in the current session of Parliament. I read the letter as saying that the Government cannot be absolutely sure when that will happen. I agree with David on the basic premise of keeping the petition open.

I agree with David McLetchie, and I think that it is lamentable that it has taken such a long time to achieve no movement. I hope that members will forgive my ignorance on such matters, but we have talked on previous occasions about members’ bills and bills that we can focus on ourselves. Could we consider this issue for that type of bill, or is it too complicated? What is the advice on that?

We could certainly explore that. My understanding is that because the Government has not brought forward a consultation or any proposals, there is nothing—I think—to prevent us from proceeding. Perhaps that would give the Government a push. If it introduces legislation at some point when we have something in train, that may accelerate matters. I do not know how you feel about that.

When I read the papers at the weekend, I thought that this was a good opportunity for us to take up that cudgel, and I would be keen to follow through on that.

I suggest that, rather than discussing something without having a background paper, we ask the clerks to prepare a paper on how we might go about introducing a committee bill ourselves. We could then discuss that at next week’s meeting, focusing on the process, whether such a bill would be competent in the circumstances and so on.

I think that you have covered it there.

We need to look at it all, and no doubt the cabinet secretary is listening to us. It is not necessary to write to the cabinet secretary to put the issue on the agenda for next week—or do members wish to do so? We will obviously keep the petition open.

I agree with that, convener. However, with regard to the proposal that we consider a committee bill on the issue, we should not think that, just because this is the only item before us, that is it. There might be other matters in the legacy work that was left for this committee that members might view as more appropriate subjects. I certainly think that we should have a background paper on the process, and that this matter is a very good candidate for such a process.

We have talked before about the fact that the first Justice 1 Committee brought forward a committee bill. Such bills have been a rare breed since then, and I think that it is time that we reactivated the process: this issue might be a candidate. I am not suggesting that it definitely is, but we should find out about the process and whether such a bill would be competent in the circumstances.

As I said, the cabinet secretary will no doubt know that we have discussed the issue today and that we are not content with the time delay in bringing forward legislation. Would the action that I have suggested be appropriate?

I have no problem with that.

Okay. We will keep the petition open.