Hansard

The bill is technical but, as Mike MacKenzie eloquently highlighted, no one in the debate has lost sight of its human element. We would do so at our cost—it is important to recognise that. The bill has been 40 years coming, and the minister talked about its needing to be effective, efficient and fair. I feel that, by and large, it is, and for that reason I will support its general principles.

I am grateful to all those who contributed to the committee’s stage 1 proceedings and appreciate that, for many, it cannot have been easy. We heard from families against corporate killers, for which Louise Taggart is a tireless worker. She told us of the tragic circumstances of her brother’s death.

Patricia Ferguson has been a very able contributor in getting us to where we are now and has voiced her frustration at the failure to act in a timely way on what seemed very apparent, which resulted in other lives being lost. I was looking forward to speaking in next week’s debate on her bill. Her bill had a lot to commend it, and I will return to elements of it later. I certainly commend her for her tireless work.

Members have talked about the notable exceptions in implementing Lord Cullen’s review, and I was sympathetic to the proposals that were made about extending mandatory FAIs to cover children who die in residential care, other than those who die in secure accommodation, as well as those who die while subject to compulsory detention by a public authority. We heard how the review process could, in some instances, cause families distress rather than reassure them, and we must appreciate those concerns. Importantly, though, I heard nothing to suggest that, when appropriate, an FAI would not be called.

The term “public interest” has been used a lot, and FAIs are undertaken in the public interest. However, at this time, only the PF can apply for a fatal accident inquiry. Like other members, I am pleased that the bill provides the opportunity to reopen an FAI if new evidence comes to light.

I have sat through an FAI, and it was not a pleasant event. It related to a death in custody, and various interests had to be served. There were various tensions, and I hope that lessons were learned from it.

I welcome the requirement that the Lord Advocate must provide written reasons for why an FAI should not be held.

On the proposals that relate to mental health legislation, our stage 1 report states:

“The Committee asks the Scottish Government to further consider whether the Bill should be extended to include mandatory FAIs for both these categories of death”—

that is, deaths of persons who were detained under mental health legislation and deaths of looked-after children. It is important to put down a marker that we asked for that.

My colleague Alison McInnes talked about flipping, and it is pivotal that we get feedback from the Lord Advocate on the relationship between the causes for holding FAIs and whether those FAIs are mandatory or discretionary. It is clear that the existing arrangements are not understood and, because of that, many families have felt disenfranchised.

We are told that families have a point of contact in the PF’s office so that they can raise any issues or concerns directly, and the committee set great store by what we heard from the Solicitor General about the milestone charter and the undertaking to meet families and provide regular updates. As we know, it is the not knowing that causes concern—there is never an instance of having too much information on a subject as important as this. I therefore welcome the minister’s assurance that those matters will be put on a statutory footing.

Paragraph 51 of the committee’s report states:

“The Committee considers that, in the interests of those who have lost a loved one in often tragic circumstances and who must navigate the system, it is imperative that there be greater clarity and understanding around FAIs, their purpose and how they relate to other death investigations and civil or criminal proceedings.”

That is important, and we have heard about the relationships between those.

Often in such instances—other members will have come across this—people ask who represents the family’s interests, and they do not understand the simple response that it is a PF acting in the public interest who represents the family’s interests. We heard compelling evidence from families against corporate killers about the implications of not having legal aid. It is often the main breadwinner of the family who is the subject of the fatality.

Paragraph 172 of our report says:

“We believe it is imperative that families, trade unions and staff associations are able to participate in a meaningful way in an FAI and that families are represented appropriately and are kept informed throughout the process.”

Trade unions play a pivotal role.

It is important that we make every effort to explain the relationship between the Health and Safety Executive, the air accidents investigation branch and the other bodies involved.

We are keen for the sheriff’s recommendations to be respected. When lives have been lost, lessons must be learned. The issue of delays is also very important.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government is keen to act on deaths abroad and not to have the requirement for the body to be repatriated. We also took reassurance on the issues around service personnel.

We are trying to achieve, at the moment and for the future, an understanding of where and when a death took place, the cause of that death, any reasonable precautions that could have been taken to avoid it, whether there were defects in workplace practice that contributed to it, and any other relevant factors.

I keep coming back to the point about delays. I understand Patricia Ferguson’s position, and I share the concern of other members that things could be lost, although I hope not. I will pay great attention to the amendments that Patricia Ferguson lodges next week, not least on how we take forward the actions that the sheriff determines.

A number of matters are reserved, but a number of them are devolved so, at the very least, we could start picking up on the things that we can do.