Contents
- Attendance
- Decisions on Taking Business in Private
- Demand-led Policing
- Petitions
- Justice Sub-Committee on Policing (Report Back)
Petitions
Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
Fatalities (Investigations) (PE1567)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of four public petitions. I refer members to paper 3, which sets out the options that are available to the committee in considering petitions. I just remind members that if you wish to keep a petition open, you should indicate how you would like the committee to pursue it. If you wish to close a petition, you should set out your reasons for wishing to do so.
I propose to consider the petitions in the order in which they are set out in paper 3, starting with PE1501 and PE1567, which are on investigating unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents. I seek members’ views on the petitions.
The committee has received correspondence on the Tornado collision. The story that has been brought to us—and which appears to be reasonably laid out—suggests that the opportunity to consider what happened may have dropped through the system, because of cross-jurisdictional responsibilities and the military aspect with regard to the home base of the person who died in Scotland being in England.
I would be interested to hear from the Scottish Government how it deals, in particular, with issues around military-related deaths. Of course, military matters are ultra vires for the Scottish Parliament, although I understand that it is intra vires for us to make inquiries. I would be interested to know the protocols for that, as it might lead us to an understanding, on behalf of the petitioner, of whether what has happened represents the best available outcome. Clearly, it does not put the loss of the individual who died in the accident in a different position, but I would want to know about that before considering whether to close the petition.
I should point out that it was a third party who brought the military issue to our attention.
That is correct.
It was not the petitioner—it was a third party.
I stand corrected, but my point stands nonetheless.
I take the point, and I agree with the proposal.
I fully support what Stewart Stevenson has said. Mr Jones is a constituent, and he has been in contact with me about the matter. I have written to Annabelle Ewing about it, as some of his wider concerns come under her remit, but it would be useful for the committee, while keeping open the petition, to go down that route.
Another constituent of mine has raised issues with the Parliament about mortuary services in Moray. Her husband died tragically and suddenly in a boating accident, and she has raised concerns about guidance given by the Crown Office to the police about destroying personal items. Because the petition addresses wider sudden death issues, I wonder whether we can write to the Crown Office for clarification on those issues.
I am happy to do so. I do not know what others think, but that proposal sounds reasonable. After all, it is a connected issue. The suggestion is a good one.
I wondered whether we should also write to the Lord Advocate to get his view on the military question that Stewart Stevenson has raised. As the incident that has been referred to was with a previous Lord Advocate, it would be good to know the current Lord Advocate’s views, if members think that that is a sensible idea.
I agree with that and with the points that Douglas Ross and Stewart Stevenson have made. As our papers indicate, Mr Jones has also expressed specific concerns about communications from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and that matter can be wrapped up in whatever we are going to say to the Lord Advocate in our letter.
Do Ben Macpherson or Fulton MacGregor have any views?
I am happy with what has been suggested.
I am in agreement with the proposals that have already been made.
Are we happy to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
The next two petitions, PE1510 and PE1511, concern police and fire service control rooms, and they are discussed on pages 3 and 4 of the clerk’s paper. A letter from Tavish Scott MSP is also included in the submissions. I seek members’ views on the petitions.
Again, we are not yet in a position to close the petitions. Concerns have been raised about the reorganisation of service centres in general, and we are now in a position to see whether those concerns are justified. I am sure that those who are running the services concerned are alert to those concerns, and I would not want to close the petitions until we can see that the reorganisation of service centres has delivered the improvements in service that are possible from it and the other benefits that have been claimed for it. Until we can see that, it is up to the police and the fire service to report on their experience and then be challenged on what they have said. At that point, it will be for us to consider whether it is the time to close the petitions.
I whole-heartedly agree with Stewart Stevenson. It would be useful to get Alasdair Hay’s view on certain incidents that have occurred around Inverness and which were highlighted by a former member of the fire service. I understand that since writing to the committee Tavish Scott has met Mr Hay, but, for the purposes of the committee and in the context of the petitions that are before us, it would be helpful to get in writing Mr Hay’s perspective on those incidents.
I am happy with what has been proposed by Stewart Stevenson and Liam McArthur and think that that is the best way to proceed. Do we agree to go forward in that way?
Members indicated agreement.