Consular Support for Scottish Citizens Abroad
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a paper on the United Kingdom Government and EU consular procedures for providing support to families affected by bereavement of citizens abroad. The information has been compiled following a request from our colleague Bob Doris MSP that the committee seek an update on the UK Government’s current processes for dealing with this issue.
I welcome Bob Doris to the meeting—we are delighted to have him here. Mr Doris, I believe that you wish to make some comments on the back of your request.
Thank you very much, convener. I am delighted to be here today, too, and I thank you for the preparatory work on this issue that has been carried out on the committee’s behalf.
I will very briefly provide some context as to why I have a constituency interest in the issue. A few years ago, the son of a constituent, Julie Love, died in Venezuela, and it was felt that the support that she and her family received after Colin passed away was unsatisfactory. No matter whether the support came from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, local authorities or, indeed, support services in Scotland, it was clear that there was a need for improvement.
I have done a lot of work on finding out how such support might be improved, and indeed the situation is improving. However, it was felt that the first stop in seeking to provide more consistent support to families when people pass away in other countries should be at a European level with the institution of the EU itself.
Since writing to you, convener, I have met Victim Support Scotland, Strathclyde Police, the Lord Advocate and a number of other bodies to discuss the issue, and one thing that has come on to my radar is that a European victims directive is to be in place by 2015 to ensure more consistency in the support provided. I am certainly keen for that to happen.
This, then, is not just a case of my representing one constituent; a number of people across Scotland have been drawn to my attention via the formation of Death Abroad—You’re Not Alone, a new support group that has been set up in Scotland for families whose relatives have died overseas.
The intention is to have a consistent quality of support, not just for Scots who die in Germany but, say, Germans who die in Scotland, Spain or France, via the European victim support network and other authorities. I would be very keen for the European and External Relations Committee to give some cognisance to this issue and to get some information on the European victims directive that will be in place by 2015. I will certainly be following the issue and am keen to make representations, perhaps via this committee, on how to improve the situation.
Thank you very much for that. It is always helpful to have some background to put things in context.
As members will see, the Scottish Parliament information centre has produced a paper that sets out our investigations into the matter. I invite members to make comments or ask Bob Doris questions.
I thank Bob Doris for the paper and the information that we have received, and I congratulate him on this work. I, too, have been affected by the issue, having helped a constituent whose son died in an accident in Thailand. It was a major trauma for everyone concerned, and Mr Doris is right to highlight the real problems with, for example, getting the body repatriated. In the end, the family had to have a cremation to bring the costs down from £17,000 to £8,000 but even then, as you can imagine, getting £8,000 together was a huge issue for two pensioners. We managed to raise the funds locally, but having helped the family I am aware of the pertinence of the points that Mr Doris has made.
There is certainly a need to be met. For example, the SPICe paper that we received this morning highlights the very good approach that seems to have been taken in Denmark, which will provide support to repatriate the body. However, it is the only country that seems to have such a facility at the moment. The fact is that not everyone has insurance, and the other message that we need to get across and promote to members of the travelling public is that they must work through the small print of their insurance policies.
I welcome the establishment of the organisation that Bob Doris spoke about. We as a Parliament should do what we can to support such an initiative, which is important. It is all very well for us to say that the matter is reserved to Westminster and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but, if we all care, the bottom line is that we must ensure that the best support is in place for the affected individuals.
We should not leave families or the MSPs and others who support them to paddle their own boats. That is not the way forward—the best thing to do is to provide the maximum help and support. I would support further work by the committee on what we can do to give assistance.
Helen Eadie mentioned reserved matters, but significant devolved matters are at play, too. For example, how the police deliver a death message is not consistent across Scotland—perhaps that will improve with the national police force. There is also no consistency in the police referring families to Victim Support Scotland for support. The police are looking at improving that, which I have discussed with them. I have given just two examples from the devolved setting; the committee might decide that devolved matters are at play, too.
Helen Eadie mentioned insurance. As far as I know, most people take out insurance when they go on holiday abroad. Do you know what the insurance position is? Does insurance not cover the situation? Are people being conned into thinking that they are safe and that all such things are taken care of, when they are not?
I need more information on that, to be honest. There are two different situations. Sometimes people have been travelling overseas, but sometimes Scots who made their lives overseas are involved, so they do not have travel insurance. I will not give the details, but I have a friend who eventually decided on a cremation in France because of the expense of storing the body in France and returning the body to Scotland. No one should face such a choice in the European Union.
I have made the suggestion, which I am taking forward, that the travel industry has a role to play. When booking flights online, we have all seen boxes to click on to donate £2 to this or £1 to that. Perhaps the travel industry has a role in helping to provide funds for families who are in such terrible situations.
Travel insurance is a key responsibility, but families of people who do not take out travel insurance should not be punished and should not suffer because of an individual traveller’s choice.
Do not get me wrong—I think that you make an important point. I agree with Helen Eadie that we should look into the issue. I just wanted to get the facts about insurance straight.
Jamie McGrigor is right that it is people’s responsibility to have insurance, but we need to appreciate that many insurance companies do not insure people in many countries. We have people of 150-odd nationalities living in Scotland. When those people travel overseas to visit family and friends, or even for business, insurance companies simply will not insure them while they are out there.
Insurance policies play safe. Companies ask people what issues they have, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart conditions, kidney conditions or whatever, and then say that they will not cover people for those conditions. I do not know what the companies cover people for; they take money from us but they do not cover us for the issues that may be a problem.
Insurance companies are quite selfish in reducing people’s cover—they find ways of not paying out. Unfortunately, a lot of people are caught out by that. They do not see the small print and they get the insurance. They go abroad and have an issue, but the insurance company says, “Ah—you didn’t tell us about this, so we’re not covering you.” Families are then left to pick up the tab.
The most important element is the human dimension. When our people go overseas, their families need to know that, if an issue arises, our Government will step in and support them. That is an important aspect.
I am particularly keen to support the directive because it will take away that fear and burden from families and give a proper structure for dealing with issues. I know that there will be complications. For example, if a body is being sent back home from overseas, people will ask who is going to examine it, whether it is carrying any diseases and so on. There will therefore be issues to be dealt with, but I think that we can deal with them. It is just a matter of sitting down and going through them.
I therefore recommend strongly, convener, that this committee continues to support the directive and tries to find ways of accommodating it.
11:00
Okay. Thanks for that. Helen, did you want to come back in on a specific point?
Yes, on the insurance issue. Perhaps one of the things that we could do is write to the Association of British Insurers.
Gloria Hunniford highlighted on BBC television in the past week the issue of how the Association of British Travel Agents travel insurance is invalidated if people book online, as many of us do nowadays, their flights separately from their accommodation when going abroad. If people do not book a holiday package in that sense, they are not covered by ABTA insurance. That is the type of detail that the man or woman in the street might not necessarily pick up on. It is only when they are confronted by the dilemmas that Bob Doris’s constituent and my constituent have been affected by that people understand the detail. As I said, I suggest that we approach the ABI to ask whether it can comment on the issue or come and speak to us about it.
Good idea.
I thank Bob Doris for bringing the matter to the committee’s attention. It is not a subject that I had particular knowledge about. To add to the discussion, there is also the situation of a person dying during a journey from one country to another. I have had some experience of constituents who have fallen into that category. The issue is where the responsibility lies in such cases. I hope that such situations might be considered as part of the EU victims directive that Bob Doris mentioned so that the position is clear and consistent and that people do not have the kind of worries that Bob Doris’s constituent and other members’ constituents have had to face.
Good morning, Mr Doris. I have a couple of points. First, the proposed victims and witnesses bill will shortly be going through the Justice Committee. I would have thought that we would try to ensure as far as possible that the bill will reflect the EU directive. I do not know whether it is possible for you to engage with the Justice Committee on that kind of issue.
Secondly, for circumstances in which there is a fatal accident, I think that the Scottish Government is committed to introducing legislation in this session of Parliament to allow fatal accident inquiries to take place in Scotland for deaths that occur abroad, which is not the current position.
Those are just a couple of tweaks for the discussion. I think that you have raised an important issue, and I am glad that you have brought it to our attention.
To respond briefly to Mr Campbell, I am delighted that the Scottish Government is going to legislate to lift the bar on fatal accident inquiries into deaths overseas. That proposal was based on a representation by my constituent Julie Love and me to Lord Cullen for his inquiry into the issue, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government has listened to it.
I thank committee members for their general support for what I have said, which is very much appreciated. I have a general point to make, though. Our initial discussion was about the repatriation of a loved one’s body, but I should stress that there are other dimensions to the issue, such as when the police appoint a family liaison officer when a family contests that the death of a loved was sudden or unexplained but the authorities in the country in which the person died do not agree. A light has to be shone on the back channels that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the police can use in such situations, so the issue is wider in that regard. That was one of the reasons why I thought that the European directive that is on the horizon might be of interest to this committee.
Finally, I want to draw the committee’s attention to a particular event for which I hope I have got the dates right—I checked them in my notes of a meeting that I had with Victim Support Scotland just before Christmas. Victim Support Europe is holding a conference in Edinburgh between 29 and 31 May this year to explore further the kind of issues that we have discussed. I will attend the conference if I can, and the committee may be interested in it for its future work plan.
On a personal level, I will continue to pursue the matter. We should remember the human nature of the problem and the obvious fact that the European Union provides an excellent platform. We wrongly hear many negative things about the European Union, but surely, in this example, it has an exceptional role to play in supporting citizens across Europe at a time of incredible need. The committee may wish to follow that story.
Ian Duncan is going to tell us a wee bit about the directive that Bob Doris mentioned.
Ian Duncan (Clerk and European Officer)
Yes. The new victims directive might not be quite as useful as you think, as it will be a victims of crime directive—that will be its full title. Therefore, it will not cover those whose deaths abroad resulted from natural causes; rather, it will cover only those who have been affected by crime.
It might therefore be worth while if I look further into the matter when I go back to Brussels to see exactly what the scope of the directive is with regard to the criminal aspect and to see whether there are any proposals on the wider picture of death by natural causes. It might also be worth while if I bring back more information on what the EU sees as a good practice model. Consular support services work is currently being done in Brussels, and it might be worth while seeing whether the issue is being actively discussed at an EU level and whether more information will come back.
It might also be useful if I prepare a short paper that draws together the strands of today’s discussion and includes the various letters that we will write and information that we draw back. I can bring that to the committee as soon as it is available, and we can then have a further discussion.
There will need to be baby steps rather than giant steps, as there seem to be different avenues. I do not know what members think about Ian Duncan’s taking forward that piece of work and bringing information back at a later date for further discussion. I know that Bob Doris is taking his own actions, and it would be great if he kept us informed about how they are going. Does that next step forward seem reasonable?
It certainly does. It is, of course, for the committee to decide its own work plan and way forward. I thank the committee for its extensive engagement with me on my involvement in plotting things out. The idea is excellent.
I am disappointed to hear that the directive might not be what I hoped that it would be, but perhaps an outcome of today’s discussion will be that we could expand the directive’s remit. Would not it be something if the committee and I helped to instigate a direction of travel at the European Union level that improves the lives of families throughout the European Union?
I do not know about the early stage of the directives process and whether two years from a directive’s being brought in is at an early stage. It might not be in European Union terms: it might be a very late stage, with the early stage having been five years ago. Perhaps Ian Duncan can shed light on that.
Yes, I can. The directive is at quite a late stage. The expectation is that the directive will be finalised in the coming months, because the current Commission will demit office in May 2014, so it is quite far on. However, the next Commission, which will come in in 2014, will have to set out its own work programme at that point, and it may well adopt the issue as it begins to look at its five-year term of office. It is therefore not impossible to amend the particular directive, but that might not be in parallel with its scope. That said, the matter can be explored more thoroughly in the European Parliament. After 2014, the next Commission may well be able to take the issue forward.
There are a few opportunities to take steps forward. Perhaps we can bring in the information that Ian Duncan will gather.
I am considering the speed of the process. I am sorry, but it sounds rather slow to me. The direction needs to be multifunctional; we need to do several things simultaneously rather than take one step at a time.
The Parliament has a wonderful opportunity to put something in place for our community. Bob Doris has had the vision to bring the issue forward. He has the experience that his constituents have faced, which he has made us aware of. It is now up to us to support him to ensure that we deliver sooner rather than later.
Therefore, I think that we need to be proactive—we should contact the European Union sooner rather than later. Let us not wait until the new Commission comes in; let us get on with it. If the present Commission decides to pass the matter on to the next Commission, that is its prerogative, but we should not hold back. I think that we should push to make the process move a little faster so that members of other communities do not face the same difficulties that some constituents already face.
We have various bits of information. There is an opportunity for the committee to hold an inquiry on issues such as police consistency, the travel industry, insurance and so on. The other aspect is the European directive. When are you next in Brussels, Ian?
I am next in Brussels at the end of the month. I can certainly have early discussions at that point. We can move very quickly. The European Union moves very slowly, but that is not a reason for us not to move quickly.
What about interaction with the UK Government, bearing in mind that this is a reserved matter?
The early engagement that I would have would establish what avenues exist for taking forward such work. The first step would be to find out how we do that, where we should go and what would need to happen. I will come back with that information. You are quite right that the UK Government, as the member state, would have to be active in support of such a proposal.
I think that I read somewhere in the sea of papers that we have had that inquiries are being made with the consulates in Scotland; I do not remember whether Bob Doris is doing that or whether our committee clerks are doing it. If it is identified that there is a problem in other nations in the EU, perhaps we could ask the consulates what voluntary organisations there are in those other member states that provide support, with which we could link up. A networking approach might be a useful way forward.
If the issue is not on anyone’s radar just now but other countries share the same concerns, the question is how we can get it into a directive or get the Commission to think about bringing forward a directive on it. I feel sure that a directive in this area would command support across the EU.
Bob Doris will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I think that Victim Support Europe is pushing for the victims directive. Is that right?
Victim Support Scotland informed me about it. I do not know for sure, but I suspect that that is the case.
Does the plan of action that has been suggested meet with what we need? We need detailed information on the directive and on the European dimension of engagement with the UK Government before we can take matters forward. At that stage, we can have a discussion about how we want to deal with police consistency, the travel industry, insurance and so on.
Do you have any final comments, Bob?
I have some brief ones, because I know that time is pressing. I will not go into the detail of what the convener has suggested, because it is for the committee to decide on its own course of action.
As far as the reserved nature of the issue is concerned, I point out that when the Local Government and Communities Committee, of which I was a member, visited Brussels—we met Mr McIver when we were out there—we found out that Europe was very surprised that committees of the Scottish Parliament do not make direct representations as often as other nations and regions do. We were encouraged to do that far more. That is an important point to put on the record.
I also have a serious point to make about networking. I very much appreciate the committee’s clerks contacting various European consulates in Edinburgh. I was minded to have a networking event in the Parliament that would allow us to put a human face to the experiences that the various consulates have had. I would be happy to do that in conjunction with the committee, if it so chose.
No country likes it when other nations say that what it is doing is not good enough. It is a question of working in partnership and getting a degree of consensus. If we want to get a degree of consensus across Europe, I think that the network of consulates in Edinburgh would be an excellent place to start. I am keen to have such an event, and I would be happy if the committee wished to do something in partnership with me.
Given the committee’s work programme over the next few months, we would be very keen to have you do some of the work to inform the process. That would be extremely helpful.
Okay.
But we will support you.
Yes, we will. Thanks very much.