Current Petitions
Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE841)
Item 2 on the agenda is current petitions, starting with PE841 from the Curran family, who call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to provide for mandatory inquiries in cases of road deaths that are caused by careless driving.
At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee considered responses from the Minister for Justice, the Lord Advocate and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. We agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the responses and to write again to the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate. Responses have been received and circulated to the committee. We have been joined by Elaine Smith MSP and John Swinburne MSP. I invite Elaine Smith to comment.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of PE841, which is from the Curran family, who are constituents of mine. Members of the committee will remember that I wrote to them about the case in September. I am aware that the Currans have responded to the replies from the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate.
My constituents have been dignified and eloquent in putting their case to the committee, so I do not want to repeat all the points that they have made. Suffice it to say that the current system—in which victims' families can be left in a horrendous limbo in which they feel that justice has failed them, that they have been given few answers to questions about why their loved one died and that there has been no official recognition of the death—is completely inadequate. It is not good enough to say, "We're sorry, but that's just the way the justice system works." There must be ways to improve the situation in Scotland: making a fatal accident inquiry mandatory when death has been caused by careless driving might be a way forward.
I acknowledge that the Lord Advocate has said that action is being taken to ensure that communication between procurators fiscal and victims' families is improved—in that regard, it is clear that the revision of the guidelines and training on death investigations is a good thing. However, as my colleagues will be aware from their casework, procurators fiscal and their staff deal with an enormous workload, which means that it is reasonable to question how much time they and victim information and advice officers would be willing or able to commit to addressing the concerns of affected families, especially when a case has already been resolved through criminal proceedings or when, in the eyes of the law, there is no victim acknowledged. That is a vital point.
I question how much detail is made available to victim information and advice officers on police investigations. For example, the Curran family still do not know why adequate evidence was not found to prove that the driver whose car hit Gillian's car was speeding, in spite of the fact that considerable damage was caused to Gillian's car. In such cases, families need hard facts so that they can be satisfied that the investigation has been sufficiently thorough. Unless they are given such detailed information, it is unlikely that families will be satisfied with vague reassurances from procurators fiscal or victim information and advice. Only a fatal accident inquiry would provide the necessary reassurance.
The Lord Advocate states that families' views are sought on whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry, but I invite the committee to consider asking him to elaborate on how proactively that is done and, indeed, on why such action is taken at all, given that families' views are not considered to be decisive in determining whether such an inquiry should take place. A mandatory fatal accident inquiry system in which the procurator fiscal took into account the views of families who did not want such an inquiry to be held would be more satisfactory. It might also be an improvement to enhance families' access to fatal accident inquiries. The Currans are involved in the lengthy and expensive process of applying for a discretionary inquiry. If permission is granted to hold such an inquiry—we hope that it will be—it will cost them thousands of pounds.
The point that my constituents are keen to make is that they are not being dogmatic in their petition. They want Parliament to seek ways of improving the system sufficiently to ensure that no other family experiences the trauma and aggravated distress that they have experienced.
I am here as an observer and to support the Curran family. I thank Elaine Smith for being succinct in making all the points that I would have made.
For 25 years I travelled the road on which the accident happened. I have spoken to the family and my heart goes out to its members because they cannot get closure. A fatal accident inquiry might bring the matter to an end for them, so I hope that the committee will consider the petition favourably.
Members have heard what has been said this morning. I am keen to hear what they think of the responses that we have received.
The family wants provision to be made
"for a mandatory inquiry in the case of a road death caused by careless drivers."
That does not tie in with the responses from the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate. Given that the matter is complex and raises many other issues, there is a case for it to be referred to one of the justice committees for more detailed consideration. It is good to note that it appears that amendments to the Road Safety Bill that is being considered at Westminster will seek
"to introduce a new offence of causing death by careless driving in Scotland, England and Wales, with a penalty of up to five years imprisonment."
That is indeed progress, but I do not think that it provides what the Curran family is after in its petition, which is why I would support our passing the matter on to one of the justice committees.
I agree. The answers that we have received from the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate clearly define the role of FAIs. They do not regard FAIs as being the right vehicle for recognising the circumstances of such cases. The petition should go to one of the justice committees for that reason. I agree wholly that families need that recognition, if they wish it, but perhaps a vehicle other than FAIs has to be found because, as I have just said, such inquiries' terms have been clearly defined by both the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate. We cannot avoid those definitions and the reasons behind them. It should now be up to another committee to consider the petition, I hope sympathetically.
Although I understand the view that the Lord Advocate and the Justice Department have taken towards FAIs, I cannot understand their rationale behind dismissing the Curran family's request for one. They say that FAIs do not always satisfy the people who are looking for an answer. At the same time, the Lord Advocate has admitted that there has never been an FAI in a case such as this. I do not know how he can say that the outcomes do not always satisfy the victims' families if that has never been tested: there has never been an FAI in such circumstances, so there has been no opportunity to make that judgment. I understand the rationale behind calling for an FAI, but I cannot understand the Lord Advocate's reasoning in dismissing that call.
We need to consider what the petition is asking for. The family are asking for recognition of the fact that there was a victim following the accident. If an FAI is not the way to achieve such recognition, the Justice Department must come up with some way to ensure that there is recognition when someone dies in a car accident. It cannot be acceptable to anyone that a court case can take place, a person be found guilty and the court determine that a death took place in that accident, but that it cannot be found anywhere in the records that a fatality took place. That is the bottom line. I have not yet seen an answer from the Lord Advocate or the Minister for Justice that explains how the outcome that the Curran family is seeking can be achieved.
We need to ask one of the justice committees whether it can find a way forward. I do not think that we can close PE841 without knowing that all the possibilities have been examined. The proposed changes to the road traffic legislation will not achieve that and the Scottish legal system needs to find a way to ensure that, when a fatality takes place in an accident, regardless of the circumstances, there is some recognition that someone died in that accident. That is fundamental to the petition. If we send the petition to one of the justice committees, we should do so with the recommendation that it should try to find a way forward in that respect. Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank our visitors for coming this morning.
Justice System (Child Sex Offenders) (PE862)
Our next petition is PE862, by Margaret Ann Cummings. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct a full review of the current system for dealing with and monitoring convicted child sex offenders. At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and to pass the petition to the Justice 2 Committee for information. A response has now been received from the Minister for Justice, which I would like the committee to discuss.
We have been joined by Paul Martin, who has an interest in the petition.
I would like to touch on a number of issues arising from the response from the Minister for Justice. I feel that it is important to amplify, as I have done before, the concerns of Margaret Ann Cummings, who will, I hope, have a further opportunity to respond.
Among the outstanding issues is disclosure in respect of registered sex offenders. The Executive has gone some way towards targeted disclosure, but Margaret Ann Cummings feels that there is still a debate to be had around whether disclosure should extend to providing the number of sex offenders who live within a particular postcode area, for example. The local debate has not been about providing names and addresses of registered sex offenders; it has always been about recognition of the disparities that exist and about the allocation of sex offenders to different localities in Scotland—perhaps on a divisional basis using police authorities or whatever.
The Minister for Justice has gone some way towards dealing with a number of other issues, including automatic early release, which is no longer in place for registered sex offenders. That is to be welcomed, and we have moved towards a more positive future through Professor Irving's recommendations.
I ask the committee to consider two possible ways forward. First, it could give Margaret Ann Cummings the opportunity to respond to the ministers' response to the committee. I would certainly welcome that—I know that Margaret Ann Cummings would, too. Secondly, the committee could investigate the effectiveness of the legislation for managing sex offenders. The Executive has already had passed, or is proposing, significant legislation in this area, so one of the justice committees could consider holding an inquiry into how effective the legislation will be and whether any other legislation could be introduced.
It must be recognised that neither justice committee has considered in detail an inquiry into the issue. It would give Margaret Ann Cummings and many communities comfort if Parliament could discuss the matter in detail, undertake a specific inquiry into how effective legislation will be in the future and target the question of how information is disclosed. More detailed discussion on the subject is needed.
I know that there are many examples from throughout the world—which I have mentioned to the committee before—of how disclosure can be dealt with. It would be helpful for a justice committee inquiry to be carried out to examine best practice around the world in order to ensure that we continue to develop the management of sex offenders. The issue faces us every day. It has been reported on, and the problem will not go away unless Parliament considers an inquiry on it.
As is standard practice in such situations, we should write to Margaret Ann Cumming. We have received a response and we would like to know her views on it. We will take on board Paul Martin's first request. I recommend that the committee write to the petitioner, asking for her comments. I am not unhappy about referring the petition to one of the justice committees, although we should not do that before we receive a response, in case there is something in it that requires us to examine the petition further. We could agree in principle that a justice committee will have to investigate the matter at some point, and we can hold our decision back until we have received a response from Margaret Ann Cummings. Paul Martin's points were well made and the course of action that he proposes is appropriate.
I agree entirely that we have to get the petitioner's views. The report from Professor Irving is excellent, and it is a huge piece of work. Somebody has to monitor the legislation and assess how it is rolled out. Only recently, we have discovered that agencies are not working together. Tragedies could have been avoided. It is important that we have that report, and that the minister ensures that we are updated on it. A committee must examine the situation and monitor how the legislation is implemented throughout the country.
Professor Irving has indeed carried out a significant piece of work. There are 36 recommendations in it; if they are implemented, they will go a long way towards delivering all the things that Paul Martin is seeking on behalf of the Curran family and other people.
I do not know how all this sits with respect to the European convention on human rights. Professor Irving himself wonders whether many, or at least some, of his suggestions are ECHR compatible. There is obviously a balance to be struck between the freedoms of individuals and the rights of families. We will have to see how it goes. Perhaps you can tell me, convener: is the report about to be implemented?
One option would be for our committee to monitor the situation, but that would mean that we would need to keep the petition open and continually come back to it. Ours is not the best committee to follow through on an issue in that way, but the option of keeping possession of the petition is open to us. Paul Martin has suggested that we send the petition to one of the justice committees, which could perform that scrutiny role. We will do that only when we have received Margaret Ann Cumming's response, in case her response requires us to go back to the Executive with a question before we send the petition to a justice committee. The first step is to get the petitioner's views. We can then pass the issue to a justice committee, which can monitor the implementation of the recommendations, as John Scott suggested.
That is fine.
Wind Farm Developments<br />(Property Values) (PE816)
Petition PE816, which is from Mrs Judith Hodgson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate financial compensation for individuals whose property values and businesses are affected by wind farm developments.
At our meeting on 20 April 2005, we agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Department of Trade and Industry, Views of Scotland and the British Wind Energy Association. The responses that have been received have been circulated to members. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?
Might we ask for the petitioner's views on the responses that we have received?
We can consider the petition again when we receive the petitioner's response. Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Legal Aid Board (PE751)
Petition PE751, which is from Ronald Mason, calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the procedures and practices of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and to amend the rules that govern eligibility for legal aid so that they include an automatic right for disabled people.
At our meeting on 25 May 2005, we considered responses from the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Disability Rights Commission and we agreed to seek an update from both organisations. Responses have now been received. Do members have any recommendations? Are members happy with the responses?
The petition has served its purpose. The Disability Rights Commission's response points out that there should be no automatic right to civil legal aid for disabled people because the same statutory test should be applied to everyone. That is a reasonable point. Given that the Scottish Legal Aid Board's response refers to certain recommendations that are about to be implemented, the petition has served its purpose and should be closed.
Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Housing Stock Transfer (PE829)
Petition PE829, which is from Mrs Anne Ayres on behalf of Carntyne Winget Residents Association, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the impact of the housing stock transfer on Scottish communities.
At our meeting on 27 April 2005, we agreed to seek the views of Glasgow Housing Association, Communities Scotland, the Scottish Tenants Organisation, the Property Managers Association Scotland, Shelter Scotland and Keystone Tenant Managed Homes. Responses have been received.
We might want to ask the petitioners for their views on the responses. We can then revisit the petition at another meeting.
I concur with Helen Eadie. I have circulated to members some leaflets and various bits of paper that Anne Ayres gave me.
I want to ask whether the clerk knows why there has been such a delay between our receiving the responses in June and our consideration of them today in December. I do not accuse anyone of anything, but I want to know why there has been such a long delay. Since the petitioner gave evidence—obviously, this is why we need to ask the petitioner for her response—so many things have changed. Meetings have taken place involving Michael Martin MP, Paul Martin MSP, Margaret Curran MSP and others, but we have not been given any information on those.
There is no specific reason other than the pressure of other responses to petitions. Today is the first opportunity that we have had to put the petition on the agenda since we took evidence on it. We will need to seek the petitioner's responses to the responses that we are considering today, so we will not get today's petitions back on the agenda for a few months. Although some petitioners may respond immediately, others take longer. The clerks try to get the petitions on to the agenda as quickly as possible, but there is no specific reason for the delay. The petition has not been held back.
I did not suggest that it had been held back. I contacted the clerk a couple of weeks ago to ask when PE829 would be on the agenda because the delay had been so long. I have raised the issue because I believe that it is important that the petitioner should have an opportunity to provide a further response; things have changed so much over the past couple of months.
We will look forward to the petitioner's response. If things have changed, we will look afresh at the new circumstances. We need to seek the petitioner's views on the responses that we have received so far.
Ambulatory Oxygen and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PE648)
Petition PE648 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the national health service in Scotland provides truly portable oxygen and pulmonary rehabilitation classes throughout the country.
At our meeting on 22 June 2005, we considered a response from the petitioner and agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive on that response. The response from the Minister for Health and Community Care has been circulated to members. Do members have any observations on how we should deal with the petition?
I spoke to Andy Powrie-Smith at a social event that I attended recently. My impression is that he is well pleased with the progress that has been made. The response that we have received suggests that the outcome is a success story for the petitioners, so we can simply close the petition.
Based on the responses that we have received, I think that sufficient time has now been given to the petition.
I still have concerns about the conservation devices. The minister's response states that the provision of such devices to people who need them is "under active consideration". I hope that that means that they will be made available in due course. I have concerns about the speed at which the conservers are being made available, given that they are obviously a vital part of the solution. I suppose that I am content that the petition be closed, but we can expect to hear from the petitioners again if conservation devices are not made available in the near future.
That might need to be under a different petition.
Public Libraries (PE831)
Petition PE831, which is from Catriona Leslie on behalf of Portree community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on public libraries to ensure appropriate provision in rural areas.
At our meeting on 27 April 2005, we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Library and Information Council, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Highland Council. Responses have been received. Are members happy to ask for the views of the petitioners?
The petition arises from a little local difficulty about the new location for a library. I believe that the issue is best settled locally without interference or suggestions from the committee.
We would not interfere, but we would be happy to see the petitioners' comments on the responses that we have received. We never sit in judgment on any decision that is made by a local authority. We might form opinions on the matter, but we would never take a decision on it.
I agree with the convener's recommendation about contacting the petitioner.
School Building (Funding) (PE832)
The last of our current petitions today is PE832, which is again from Catriona Leslie on behalf of Portree community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate the use of public-private partnership funding to build new schools and to urge the Scottish Executive to provide adequate public sector funding to local authorities, which are better placed to meet the needs of communities in building new schools.
At our meeting on 27 April 2005, we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive. A response has now been received. Will we ask the petitioners for their comments on the response?
Members indicated agreement.