Current Petitions
Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
With the committee’s agreement we will turn to PE1280, which is a current petition on fatal accident inquiries. That is because Julie Love is with us but has to leave early to attend a very important family event in Glasgow.
The petition, by Dr Kenneth Faulds and Julie Love, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the same level of protection to the families of people from Scotland who die abroad as is currently in place for people from England by amending the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to require the holding of a fatal accident inquiry when a person from Scotland dies abroad.
I invite members’ views on how we should proceed. [Interruption.] While the committee considers that, Bob Doris and Frank McAveety would like to say a few words.
Frank McAveety convened the meeting at which Julie Love gave evidence to the committee. I attended it, too. I have some remarkable constituents whom I try hard to represent. Jessie Harvey, who gave evidence on the previous petition, on kinship care, is one such person and Julie Love is another remarkable petitioner.
To get to the meat of what the committee is being asked to consider, as the Scottish Government has not fully considered the findings of the Cullen report and its recommendations on fatal accident inquiries, it will be quite difficult for the committee to work out how to progress the petition. I know that if I am privileged enough to be re-elected to the Scottish Parliament in May next year, it is an issue that I will not let go of. I am involved in research that goes wider than just FAIs. A catalogue of failures let down Julie Love and her family. The inability to get answers on how safety could be improved was only one of a series of failures in the system involving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a number of other agencies that let Julie and her family down.
I will say no more than that. It is, of course, for the committee to decide how to pursue the petition, but I know that it is difficult to operate in a vacuum, given that the Scottish Government has not yet given its response to the Cullen recommendations. I am keen for it to do so before we pack up for the next election. I hope that if I am privileged enough to be returned to the Parliament, the petition will be among those that the new petitions committee has to look at after May 2011.
16:00
I do not have a lot to add, other than to note the strength of feeling behind the petition, which was evidenced at a previous meeting of the committee and at the big launch that took place in my parliamentary area because of the involvement in the petition of Kenny Faulds, as a friend of the family.
Given the issues that have been raised, about which we could try to get clarity in a response from the Government, it would be helpful if the petition could be kept open between now and the dissolution of the Parliament for the 2011 elections or if it could be part of the committee’s legacy paper. The committee will need to look critically at those issues over the next few months. It is one of those areas that a lot of people do not know a lot about until they are confronted with it. Bob Doris has had the matter raised with him, and in the dialogue that I have had with Mr Faulds, I have identified a strong sense that there needs to be clarity from the decision makers and in the legislation regarding foreign and commonwealth criteria. I encourage the committee to keep the petition alive to ensure that the family can get a sense of closure on the issue and that no other families have to face the terrible dilemmas that they have faced since the tragedy occurred.
I thank colleagues for reminding us that the issue requires legislation—it is not something that we can just ask people to do. We have not received the Government’s response to the Cullen report and I gather that we are not expecting it imminently. We all know that the legislative programme is now more or less defined and that we are running out of parliamentary time, so I formally suggest that we hold on to the petition and do not contemplate closing it. I do not know whether that means suspending it or simply holding on to it—I leave it to others to work out the wording. There is, sadly, probably no prospect of our being able to do anything useful until next May. We may just have to accept the reality of that and ensure that it is in the legacy paper for the next committee, so that we—or whoever is here next time—have it on the agenda for the next parliamentary session.
It has taken the Government some time to respond to the Cullen inquiry. The committee papers show that the previous convener of the committee wrote to the Government on 11 February but that a response outlining the Government’s opinion was not received until 1 September. That opinion was that the Government would need to consider the Cullen recommendations carefully before it would know how to take the issue forward. I express my disappointment that it has taken the Government such a long time to respond, especially as we have now missed the opportunity to introduce legislation before the parliamentary elections next year.
It is incumbent on the Government, as well as the Parliament, to act quickly on recommendations, whether it agrees with them or not, and to give a response to allow people to move on. For the petitioners and families who find themselves in this situation, the issue will now be carried forward for, potentially, another eight or nine months depending on the shape that the next Government takes, which means that we may not get another response for anything up to a year or 18 months. Given the fact that the recommendations were made at the beginning of the year, I think that it was incumbent on the Government to respond a lot quicker to enable us to resolve the matter. I express my concern that it has taken the present Government so long to make any recommendations, especially as it will now not make any recommendations prior to next year’s elections.
I am sure that you speak for the whole committee. There is frustration about the length of time that it has taken.
Fergus Cochrane may be able to say something about the timing of what happens next. If we suspend the petition, will it realistically have to wait until after the next election?
Yes. If the committee agrees, we will be happy to speak to Scottish Government officials and pass on the comments that members have made this afternoon. We will obviously refer them to the Official Report of the meeting when that is published.
We will continue to liaise with Scottish Government officials. If between now and dissolution anything comes out from the Government, we will immediately bring the petition back to the committee and update members. If the Government does not make any announcement until after the next elections then, as with other petitions, you will flag the petition up in your legacy paper, detailing the consideration that the committee has given to it and the issues that you have pursued. It will be for the next committee to take those issues forward.
We will certainly keep in touch with Scottish Government officials to see whether anything comes out between now and dissolution. If it does, we will get the petition back to the committee immediately.
It is agreed, then, that the petition is suspended. I thank Julie Love for coming.