Chamber
Plenary, 27 Mar 2008
27 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Fatal Accident Inquiries
The motion welcomes an independent review by a figure of the highest reputation and legal standing to resolve a set of problems that I hope we all agree exists. I will concentrate solely on the holding of FAIs into the overseas deaths of military service personnel, which I raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice a few weeks after my election to the Parliament last May.
A number of members have mentioned the difficulties that are encountered by the families of service personnel who were based in Scotland and were killed overseas, but it is worth repeating that we in the Parliament are united in our support of, and our profound sympathy for, soldiers and their families, regardless of the differences that we may have about decisions that their political leaders have taken in sending them into the path of danger. Jeremy Purvis recently arranged a meeting involving veterans and representatives of service organisations, which members from all parties attended. We hope that that meeting will result in the establishment of a cross-party group on veterans' affairs, which may consider the issue that we are debating. The feeling at the meeting seemed to be that that should happen.
As we all know, the difficulties that the system poses for families of service personnel were brought into sharp focus by the deaths in September 2006 of 14 Royal Air Force personnel from Kinloss, but the system has been a problem ever since the current legislation was introduced.
We are discussing fatal accident inquiries because of the unfairness of a system that means that accidental deaths abroad of Scotland-domiciled service personnel trigger a whole set of legal proceedings that must take place in the south-east of England. Families that are already devastated by the loss of a loved one must travel hundreds of miles to a part of the world that is often unfamiliar to them if they want to attend an inquest. There is also the rather intimidating process of the inquest itself. Those families should be assured that their loss is being properly investigated and that answers are being found. How can they begin the difficult task of moving on from what has happened, with due sympathy for and consideration of their feelings, if they must travel down to Oxfordshire or Wiltshire to undergo such an ordeal?
Delays have been mentioned. Sometimes it can take up to five years to hold an inquest. The old saying that justice delayed is justice denied is relevant. Many families see inquests as part of the justice process—the state is taking account of what has happened and investigating it—and, as the Solicitor General said, legal proceedings can result in some circumstances.
Criticism has been made of the accessibility of justice. There is an old saw about law courts, like the Ritz, being open to all. An FAI is open to everybody, but a person from Scotland must travel down to the south-east of England and wait for four or five years for it to happen.
I will say something about my own experience when I served with the marines. In 1982, a number of Special Air Service and Special Boat Service soldiers died when the helicopter in which they were travelling to South Georgia ditched in the sea. In my troop, the mortar group of 45 Commando, there were a number of accidental deaths—such deaths are now referred to as deaths by friendly fire. Many of the people who were involved were from other parts of the United Kingdom but were firmly domiciled at the marine base in Arbroath. What is true for Scottish soldiers is also true for those who have been moved to bases in Scotland, whose entire family live on the base and who have, to all intents and purposes, made their home in Scotland. The same considerations must apply in such circumstances.
I do not know why such inquiries have not been addressed until now. It seems fairly obvious to me that they should have been. I am not trying to belittle the legal problems that lie in the way—the issues seem to be much more of a minefield than I understood them to be before I became involved. However, as far as I am aware, they have not been raised before now.
I would hate to think that an element of nit-picking is creeping into the tone of some of the correspondence on the subject. For example, I understand that, since last year, Whitehall officials have changed their position on the mandatory element, which Pauline McNeill mentioned and which has now been clearly enunciated by the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that better-informed people can shed light on why that is such an issue now.
The public, service personnel and their families will understand perfectly well that we are talking about a complex area that involves two different legal systems in two different countries with different jurisdictions, but they will not understand why we cannot now make progress when both Governments appear to want the same end.
I hope that, given the tenor of today's debate, there will be unanimity in the Parliament and that, as a result, the Scottish Government will be encouraged to act with haste to try to convince the Westminster Government to act, and that people in different parties in the Parliament will do their part by talking to their counterparts at Westminster to ensure that we can act as soon as possible.
Someone who has lost their loved one overseas in a military context will be already distressed without having to wait up to five years to get answers to questions to which answers can often be difficult to find—perhaps of necessity, given that they must be found in a service context, in which secrecy is often important.
Consideration should also be given to the fact that the families may be living cheek by jowl with other service families. Often, the circumstances of such deaths can give rise to all sorts of rumour, division and suspicion. That is exactly the kind of atmosphere that one does not want on a military base.
I am hopeful that our unanimity today will lead to early progress on the issue. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say.
A number of members have mentioned the difficulties that are encountered by the families of service personnel who were based in Scotland and were killed overseas, but it is worth repeating that we in the Parliament are united in our support of, and our profound sympathy for, soldiers and their families, regardless of the differences that we may have about decisions that their political leaders have taken in sending them into the path of danger. Jeremy Purvis recently arranged a meeting involving veterans and representatives of service organisations, which members from all parties attended. We hope that that meeting will result in the establishment of a cross-party group on veterans' affairs, which may consider the issue that we are debating. The feeling at the meeting seemed to be that that should happen.
As we all know, the difficulties that the system poses for families of service personnel were brought into sharp focus by the deaths in September 2006 of 14 Royal Air Force personnel from Kinloss, but the system has been a problem ever since the current legislation was introduced.
We are discussing fatal accident inquiries because of the unfairness of a system that means that accidental deaths abroad of Scotland-domiciled service personnel trigger a whole set of legal proceedings that must take place in the south-east of England. Families that are already devastated by the loss of a loved one must travel hundreds of miles to a part of the world that is often unfamiliar to them if they want to attend an inquest. There is also the rather intimidating process of the inquest itself. Those families should be assured that their loss is being properly investigated and that answers are being found. How can they begin the difficult task of moving on from what has happened, with due sympathy for and consideration of their feelings, if they must travel down to Oxfordshire or Wiltshire to undergo such an ordeal?
Delays have been mentioned. Sometimes it can take up to five years to hold an inquest. The old saying that justice delayed is justice denied is relevant. Many families see inquests as part of the justice process—the state is taking account of what has happened and investigating it—and, as the Solicitor General said, legal proceedings can result in some circumstances.
Criticism has been made of the accessibility of justice. There is an old saw about law courts, like the Ritz, being open to all. An FAI is open to everybody, but a person from Scotland must travel down to the south-east of England and wait for four or five years for it to happen.
I will say something about my own experience when I served with the marines. In 1982, a number of Special Air Service and Special Boat Service soldiers died when the helicopter in which they were travelling to South Georgia ditched in the sea. In my troop, the mortar group of 45 Commando, there were a number of accidental deaths—such deaths are now referred to as deaths by friendly fire. Many of the people who were involved were from other parts of the United Kingdom but were firmly domiciled at the marine base in Arbroath. What is true for Scottish soldiers is also true for those who have been moved to bases in Scotland, whose entire family live on the base and who have, to all intents and purposes, made their home in Scotland. The same considerations must apply in such circumstances.
I do not know why such inquiries have not been addressed until now. It seems fairly obvious to me that they should have been. I am not trying to belittle the legal problems that lie in the way—the issues seem to be much more of a minefield than I understood them to be before I became involved. However, as far as I am aware, they have not been raised before now.
I would hate to think that an element of nit-picking is creeping into the tone of some of the correspondence on the subject. For example, I understand that, since last year, Whitehall officials have changed their position on the mandatory element, which Pauline McNeill mentioned and which has now been clearly enunciated by the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that better-informed people can shed light on why that is such an issue now.
The public, service personnel and their families will understand perfectly well that we are talking about a complex area that involves two different legal systems in two different countries with different jurisdictions, but they will not understand why we cannot now make progress when both Governments appear to want the same end.
I hope that, given the tenor of today's debate, there will be unanimity in the Parliament and that, as a result, the Scottish Government will be encouraged to act with haste to try to convince the Westminster Government to act, and that people in different parties in the Parliament will do their part by talking to their counterparts at Westminster to ensure that we can act as soon as possible.
Someone who has lost their loved one overseas in a military context will be already distressed without having to wait up to five years to get answers to questions to which answers can often be difficult to find—perhaps of necessity, given that they must be found in a service context, in which secrecy is often important.
Consideration should also be given to the fact that the families may be living cheek by jowl with other service families. Often, the circumstances of such deaths can give rise to all sorts of rumour, division and suspicion. That is exactly the kind of atmosphere that one does not want on a military base.
I am hopeful that our unanimity today will lead to early progress on the issue. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on S3M-1638, in the name of Frank Mulholland, on fatal accident inquiries. Members might wish to note that a revised se...
The Solicitor General for Scotland (Frank Mulholland):
I welcome the opportunity to open today's debate. On 7 March, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced that he and the Lord Advocate had agreed that there...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
The Solicitor General for Scotland is opening the debate on the Government's behalf, so will he answer my question on the Government's behalf? What is the Go...
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
I thank the member for his question, which raises an important point. The matter is reserved, because defence is reserved, so it needs to be considered and w...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
I welcome the debate and Lord Cullen's forthcoming review, which will be the first proper review of the legislation on fatal accident inquiries in more than ...
Keith Brown (Ochil) (SNP):
SNP
I seek clarification. Margaret Smith has mentioned Scottish soldiers a couple of times, and her amendment mentions both"personnel, normally domiciled in Scot...
Margaret Smith:
LD
Yes. I included the phrase "normally domiciled in Scotland" to clarify that.Families who have lost loved ones through service for our country deserve our sup...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I begin by welcoming the review of the legislation governing fatal accident inquiries in Scotland. I particularly welcome the choice of Lord Cullen of Whitek...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
This is a useful debate. As members of the Justice Committee will be aware, I was minded to recommend that, as a result of a petition from Norman Dunning on ...
Keith Brown (Ochil) (SNP):
SNP
The motion welcomes an independent review by a figure of the highest reputation and legal standing to resolve a set of problems that I hope we all agree exis...
Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab):
Lab
When I had the privilege of being convener of the Public Petitions Committee, two of the most harrowing petitions that I encountered, from Enable and from th...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome this extremely interesting debate. The Solicitor General and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice are aware that, along with Margaret Smith and, as it...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon's debate. Like Pauline McNeill and Michael McMahon, I will support the amendment in t...
Michael Matheson (Falkirk West) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome the review and the fact that Lord Cullen has been appointed to undertake it. As many have said, he is an individual with great experience in this f...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
Will Michael Matheson comment on whether we should consider adopting in legislation the system in America, where it is illegal to overtake a school bus at an...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
That is a bit far away from the subject of fatal accident inquires.
Michael Matheson:
SNP
It is, but it is an issue that a fatal accident inquiry could consider, and it may be one of its recommendations. That brings me neatly to the issue of an in...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. It is an important one on an issue that affects families and communities the length and breadth of Sc...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I will address my remarks—as usual, very late in the debate—to one particular issue that is expected to be considered during the review: the status of recomm...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
Scotland is widely perceived to be a reasonably safe place to live and it is relied on as such. Whatever activity someone takes part in, be it white-water ra...
John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con):
Con
The debate and the review of the law on fatal accident inquiries are welcome. As others have said, Lord Cullen's wealth of experience makes him ideally equip...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Does the member share my concern about the deterioration of evidence when there are delays?
John Lamont:
Con
Indeed. If things are not dealt with in a timely manner, there is a danger that evidence becomes less good and less reliable. I agree with Christine Grahame'...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab):
Lab
Despite popular belief, we occasionally agree with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and the time is right for us to support him in his review of the legisl...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):
SNP
I welcome the spirit in which the debate has taken place and the concordat that the parties reached beforehand on the amendment, which we are happy to suppor...
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
I know that we will have a debate on this matter, but will the cabinet secretary first of all accept and act on the words of the Secretary of State for Defen...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
The short answer is that we cannot act until we have the flexibility provided by changes to the Scotland Act 1998. We are a creature of that statute and are ...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
If the Parliament votes for the amendment in the name of Margaret Smith, which suggests that the holding of FAIs into the deaths of Scottish service personne...
Kenny MacAskill:
SNP
We have indicated our general support for the idea—that is why we support Margaret Smith's amendment. I would be delighted if we could deal with the issue ou...
Margaret Smith:
LD
Is it the cabinet secretary's understanding that the UK Government would be prepared to support the making of a section 30 order on the issue, given that bot...