Chamber
Plenary, 27 Mar 2008
27 Mar 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Fatal Accident Inquiries
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 legislation that governs the fatal accident inquiry process. We also agree with the appointment of Lord Cullen; he is an excellent choice to lead the inquiry and, as many others have said, his reputation speaks volumes. We have no doubt that he will ensure that we continue to deliver justice in the 21st century.
Many members have referred to their own experiences of dealing with constituents who have been affected by the procedures that were followed during the FAI process. We have also heard about the public petitions process. Michael McMahon spoke effectively about the case of Mr and Mrs Curran, who made their concerns known through the public petitions process, after the death of their daughter, Gillian. It is important to put on record our appreciation of them for making their case so constructively, and of the Public Petitions Committee for ensuring that their concerns were amplified through the parliamentary process. The proposals to modernise the process that are before us today are a result of their actions.
It is important that Lord Cullen takes evidence from victims' families and considers a number of experiences that have been raised through the public petitions process. Those people's input is vital. He should also acknowledge that families find themselves part of the process through no fault of their own, that they have no specific knowledge and that the evidence they receive can be distressing. It is important to consider how to deal with families. As Pauline McNeill pointed out very clearly, families should get justice and answers through the FAI process.
We have received correspondence from Des Browne about how best to support service families. He sets out a welcome commonsense approach. The Scottish Government should build on that approach by considering how best to legislate to allow for the two main issues that Des Browne raises in his letter.
To paraphrase what Donald Dewar said in 1999, the Parliament is here to provide Scottish solutions for distinct Scottish needs. While we consider the pain that service families endure, the case for legislative change is compelling and right. We call on the Government to take the issue forward, taking into consideration the points that have been raised today.
If there was ever an argument for the UK and Scottish Governments to work together, this is it. That is why we will ensure that we work with the Government constructively to ensure that the families get the justice they deserve.
Nigel Don raised an effective point and genuine concerns about the monitoring of recommendations. We must recognise that a great deal of resource and time is invested in fatal accident inquiries. The crucial part of the process is in ensuring that lessons have been learned. That is the point that Nigel Don rightly raised. The monitoring of recommendations should play a crucial role in the process and it surprises many of us that more consideration is not given to ensuring that we monitor the recommendations and that they are delivered on.
The purpose of the fatal accident inquiry process is to learn lessons. If we do not monitor the recommendations that come out of an FAI, we do not complete the process. If we want genuinely to monitor recommendations, we cannot escape the fact that resources will be required. We and Lord Cullen will have to consider that issue. As Nigel Don said, resources will be required to ensure that we implement and monitor effectively whatever recommendations Lord Cullen makes at the end of his review.
We welcome the commitment to have the review consider legal representation for families. Michael Matheson spoke effectively on that point. Fatal accident inquiries are complex, and we sometimes underestimate the challenges that families face during the process. Labour members believe that legal representation is a key issue. The current provisions may have been right in 1976, but in 2008 very different arrangements are required. Lord Cullen's findings on legal representation will be crucial.
We are encouraged by today's debate, which has been constructive. I reiterate that we will work closely with the Scottish Government and ensure that it works closely with the Westminster Government, which will be crucial in ensuring that the points that have been made today and the recommendations that Lord Cullen will make are given the priority they deserve.
Many members have referred to their own experiences of dealing with constituents who have been affected by the procedures that were followed during the FAI process. We have also heard about the public petitions process. Michael McMahon spoke effectively about the case of Mr and Mrs Curran, who made their concerns known through the public petitions process, after the death of their daughter, Gillian. It is important to put on record our appreciation of them for making their case so constructively, and of the Public Petitions Committee for ensuring that their concerns were amplified through the parliamentary process. The proposals to modernise the process that are before us today are a result of their actions.
It is important that Lord Cullen takes evidence from victims' families and considers a number of experiences that have been raised through the public petitions process. Those people's input is vital. He should also acknowledge that families find themselves part of the process through no fault of their own, that they have no specific knowledge and that the evidence they receive can be distressing. It is important to consider how to deal with families. As Pauline McNeill pointed out very clearly, families should get justice and answers through the FAI process.
We have received correspondence from Des Browne about how best to support service families. He sets out a welcome commonsense approach. The Scottish Government should build on that approach by considering how best to legislate to allow for the two main issues that Des Browne raises in his letter.
To paraphrase what Donald Dewar said in 1999, the Parliament is here to provide Scottish solutions for distinct Scottish needs. While we consider the pain that service families endure, the case for legislative change is compelling and right. We call on the Government to take the issue forward, taking into consideration the points that have been raised today.
If there was ever an argument for the UK and Scottish Governments to work together, this is it. That is why we will ensure that we work with the Government constructively to ensure that the families get the justice they deserve.
Nigel Don raised an effective point and genuine concerns about the monitoring of recommendations. We must recognise that a great deal of resource and time is invested in fatal accident inquiries. The crucial part of the process is in ensuring that lessons have been learned. That is the point that Nigel Don rightly raised. The monitoring of recommendations should play a crucial role in the process and it surprises many of us that more consideration is not given to ensuring that we monitor the recommendations and that they are delivered on.
The purpose of the fatal accident inquiry process is to learn lessons. If we do not monitor the recommendations that come out of an FAI, we do not complete the process. If we want genuinely to monitor recommendations, we cannot escape the fact that resources will be required. We and Lord Cullen will have to consider that issue. As Nigel Don said, resources will be required to ensure that we implement and monitor effectively whatever recommendations Lord Cullen makes at the end of his review.
We welcome the commitment to have the review consider legal representation for families. Michael Matheson spoke effectively on that point. Fatal accident inquiries are complex, and we sometimes underestimate the challenges that families face during the process. Labour members believe that legal representation is a key issue. The current provisions may have been right in 1976, but in 2008 very different arrangements are required. Lord Cullen's findings on legal representation will be crucial.
We are encouraged by today's debate, which has been constructive. I reiterate that we will work closely with the Scottish Government and ensure that it works closely with the Westminster Government, which will be crucial in ensuring that the points that have been made today and the recommendations that Lord Cullen will make are given the priority they deserve.
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...