Hansard

The absence of rancour in the debate and the support that exists across the chamber for the bill reflect well on the work that has been done by the members of the Justice Committee, my colleague Patricia Ferguson and those who gave evidence to the committee at stages 1 and 2.

We do well to remember that some 5,000 deaths a year are reviewed by the authorities and that somewhere short of 60 of them are subject to fatal accident inquiries. We should remember that the FAI is designed, quite properly, to determine the circumstances of a death, not to apportion blame. However, as John Finnie indicated, an FAI can be extremely difficult and upsetting for family members, close friends and those who were involved in the circumstances surrounding a death. They hear details—often for the first time—that have implications for how they might respond to the evidence.

In examining the circumstances of a death, it is right that a sheriff should act in a thorough and proper manner to examine all the circumstances of the death, and that can sometimes be extremely harrowing.

In those circumstances, it is good to know that general agreement has been achieved on some important elements. The evidence of the British Medical Association, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and others has helped to point the Parliament in a direction that will ensure that a fatal accident inquiry will not be held in all circumstances in which someone who faced mental health conditions died.

The opportunity for the Crown to intervene in the appropriate circumstances to decide on a fatal accident inquiry is appropriate and commensurate with the circumstances that we face annually. I have confidence that is based on experience that the Procurator Fiscal Service has the ability to make the appropriate decisions in most circumstances.

Elaine Murray’s amendments provided value to the discussion in enabling the ventilating of all the issues. I am happy that, at the end of the process, we have come to a decision that I certainly feel comfortable with.

The Government’s agreement to include representation from trade unions and staff associations in relation to relevant deaths while people were engaged in employment is a very helpful way forward in advising how we should deal with them.

The other important element has been establishing grounds for the investigation of deaths of citizens that occurred abroad. That subject has caused a great deal of upset for many families in Scotland to date. Seeing some form of solution is important and should give comfort to many relatives.

I am disappointed that amendment 1, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, which was an attempt to provide some kind of equality of representation, was rejected. The issue has been fully ventilated, and I do not intend to go into the circumstances again, but I have certainly been present when procurators fiscal have made it clear to families that they were there to represent the public interest, not the families’ concerns. Families have found that very difficult to understand. I implore the minister to ensure that the family liaison charter is seen as very valuable guidance for the fiscal service in future so that its culture can take on board the changes in the responsibilities that we expect of it in dealing with fatal accident inquiries.

The minister’s reference to the duties of coroners in England and Wales did not assist the debate. That was largely irrelevant, as the system in Scotland has always been different and families have always had a more positive experience here. We should invest in those circumstances rather than rely on the comfort that it is worse elsewhere. I am not particularly interested in how the matter is dealt with in other jurisdictions, unless that advises us of ways to improve ours.

To return to Patricia Ferguson’s amendments, I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. If experience tells us that we have gone in the wrong direction, and if we find that relatives who meet the new circumstances are challenged, as I suspect they will be, we must make an early change to make legal aid the norm.

The presence of lawyers at fatal accident inquiries does not necessarily mean the introduction of new conflicts. If the nature of fatal accident inquiries and the purpose of holding them are made clear to lawyers—if it is made clear that they are there to determine the facts and not to engage in legal exchanges—I am sure that we can find a more productive way of going forward.

In conclusion, I make it clear that we support the principles behind the bill and will vote in support of it. I am grateful to the minister for his approach in dealing with many of the questions and exchanges that have occurred during stages 1 to 3.