Chamber and committees

A lot of this is about the local politics. As the convener described, we are getting another programme for government in a couple of weeks, which has been brought forward by a period of months. You have given evidence about the interaction between the MTFS, the programme for government and the national performance framework—I think that that was in David Bell’s submission—and the lack of coherence across any of those documents and how they hang together. The First Minister has set out no reason other than politics for what he wants to do. It is not about good governance.

Would your organisation be concerned about recommendations to change the fiscal rules to carry more debt?

You have touched on this a little bit already, but could you say what you think the consequences are of the fiscal rules not being met by the Government?

Do you model any potential consequences of changes to those policies?

Okay. You mentioned that a fairly significant change to the fiscal rules was made after the election in the autumn budget. Do you think that it would have been realistic to see another set of fiscal rules at the time of the spring statement?

What was the period running up to the changes in fiscal rules that were made back in the autumn like? Those changes must have presented you with a whole set of different work to do in terms of producing new models under the new fiscal rules. Was there a conversation with Government, or did Government bring you the rules and you then just changed the models?

Is that fair, David?

I begin by thanking the committee for its continued interest in the petition. Having spoken to MSPs across the Parliament, I know that many members from right across Scotland have constituents who are affected by the issue. There is considerable interest in it across all political parties.

Today, we are joined by David Cornock and his wife, Margaret. I pay tribute to Davy, as he is known to me, for his campaigning work. Convener, you have outlined some of the changes that he has managed to obtain, but we should recognise that it is a time of continuing grief and great challenge for his family. I pay tribute to them for their work.

Since I spoke in support of the petition at the committee on 15 May 2024, you have received, as you have outlined, a considerable amount of correspondence from key stakeholders. Police Scotland highlighted that the decision to hold a fatal accident inquiry into a death abroad lies solely with the Lord Advocate. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service stated that, although it is correct that the COPFS can conduct inquiries short of a fatal accident inquiry in relation to deaths abroad, it relies on the person being ordinarily resident in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland stated its view that the concept of ordinary residence is widely recognised and accepted. The First Minister confirmed the Scottish Government’s position is that it is not necessary to change the law at present.

The UK Government’s Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls supplied statistics that showed that around 1,500 deaths of people from England and Wales abroad were reported to the coroner annually, and between 200 and 400 inquests have been concluded on deaths abroad in each year since 2016. Meanwhile, in Scotland, since the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed, not a single fatal accident inquiry has taken place into the death of a Scot abroad. Given that 200 to 400 inquiries have concluded in England and Wales each year, it is simply not credible to suggest that, in the past nine years, there have been no such cases that involve Scots or relate to Scotland.

The evidence suggests that Scottish families are being denied justice. Convener, you outlined some of the key differences in the system in your opening remarks. We recognise that the system has differences, but the outcomes for people are the key issue for the committee to consider in its work.

We have reached the point at which, as your committee’s inquiries and correspondence have made clear, the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 is not meeting the needs of Scottish families. Whether or not the legislation has met the Scottish Government’s intentions is another question. At this stage, it is only right that the committee considers asking the Lord Advocate and the appropriate Scottish Government minister to come and tell the committee and bereaved families across the country why they believe that the current situation is satisfactory. I believe that it is entirely unsatisfactory, and many grieving families agree with me.

We have heard quite a lot so far about the modelling that is required for different decisions. It strikes me as slightly strange that there would be what you called a touch on the tiller without the Scottish Fiscal Commission indicating what it thought the impact of that touch would be.

Okay. I am still not much clearer on the work that is going to be done, and, if I am honest, it does not sound like you are either, as an organisation. I do not mean that to be critical. It is just a new field that we do not really understand.