Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
Fatalities (Investigations) (PE1567)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of petitions; we have seven on-going petitions. Last week we considered two petitions, one of which related to fatal accident inquiries while the other related to the Megrahi conviction. Paper 1 provides background and options for action on the remaining five petitions. I will go through each in turn.
PE1501 and PE1567 are on investigating unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents. PE1501 requests that an inquiry be held where, following suspicious death investigations, a death is determined to be self-inflicted or accidental. PE1567 seeks a change in the law and procedures in investigations of unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents.
We are taking the two petitions together because they appear to make similar requests. In both cases, the petitions come from family members of a person who has died suddenly, who are not satisfied with how the death has been investigated. Since the papers were issued, both petitioners have submitted a small amount of additional material, which has been circulated to members.
The Scottish Government has said that it is not minded to introduce a form of inquiry similar to a coroner’s inquest, which would take place at an earlier stage in the investigation of a death than a fatal accident inquiry. Members will see that the PE1501 petitioners have informed us that they are seeking not a replica of the coroner’s system but a right to a judicial inquiry at the pre-FAI stage. Members will remember that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service intends to introduce a milestone charter setting out timescales for investigations and decisions in relation to a death that it is investigating.
What are members’ views on the petitions? Possible options are set out on page 4 of paper 1.
It is awfully quiet. I am waiting for the tumbleweed to blow past. Members must be exhausted after the previous session.
I do not have a problem in seeking further information from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about how it evaluates suspicious death investigations.
I support Roddy Campbell on that. As one of the communications says, it is not helpful to say that recourse is available through a judicial review—families would not ordinarily resort to that. Therefore, we need to take the opportunity to get further information.
Of course, the Solicitor General for Scotland has given the undertaking that, if no FAI is to be held, the family will not have to request information but will be told why that is the case.
I support pursuing the matter a bit further. At the heart of the issue is the need for families to be able to challenge the police’s findings, particularly with PE1501, in relation to which an assumption was made that the death was self-inflicted.
Do you want us to seek information from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on how it evaluates suspicious death investigations—in other words, should we take option 3?
Yes, we should pursue option 3.
Do members agree to pursue option 3?
Members indicated agreement.
Solicitors (Complaints) (PE1479)
PE1479 is on the legal profession and the legal aid time bar. The petitioner seeks complete removal of the time bar for making complaints against the legal profession. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission plans to increase the time bar from one year to three years, although there appears to have been a delay in implementing the change. The clerks have sought to find out from the SLCC why there has been a delay and when the changes will come into effect, but no answer has yet been provided. The SLCC was asked about the matter not just yesterday; it has had two or three weeks to reply. What are members’ views on the petition?
We should make a formal request, otherwise the matter might never be heard of again.
I am trying to recall the procedure. There is always discretion so, even if the time bar were to be increased to three years, discretion might be applied in the case of someone who may not have known that they had anything to complain about.
That is covered.
That is covered. That is fine. We will chase up a response from the SLCC by sending a more strongly worded letter. I am getting good at sending such letters.
So far, we have dealt with the matter at official level.
I will put my voice to it; that will be sure to make the wheels turn. We hope.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
PE1510 concerns the closure of police, fire and non-emergency call centres north of Dundee. The clerk’s paper 1 discusses the petition, along with PE1511. Since the committee last considered the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has announced that the police control rooms north of Dundee will not be closed until the new control rooms have the staff, systems and processes to take on the additional call demand.
PE1511 concerns the closure of the fire and rescue control room in Inverness. Issues highlighted in the petition were raised during our evidence session on 28 April with HM chief inspector of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union Scotland. What are members’ views on both petitions? Possible options are set out on pages 6 and 7 of paper 1.
Things have changed since these petitions were submitted, given the interim review on police call centre control rooms, but I am particularly concerned to establish whether the fire service has taken proper cognisance of that particular report, even though it related to the police. After all, issues with regard to staff retention, vacancies and call handling are pertinent to the fire service, too. Given that we have not yet asked the service whether it has taken up that report, I suggest that we write to it on the matter.
Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I support that suggestion; I also support keeping PE1510 open until the full report has been received and considered, which might be some time off yet.
So we are keeping both petitions open. With one, we are waiting for the report to be received and considered and with the other, we are writing to the organisation that has been mentioned. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.