Hansard

I thank the Parliamentary Bureau and my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to bring this matter before the Parliament.

As background to today's debate, I note that Lord Cullen has published his report on the review of fatal accident inquiry legislation. I do not know whether the impending debate hastened the report's completion, but it is helpful that the report has emerged while attention is focused on the issue, following the most recent deaths at Halkirk level crossing, which I am sure will feature in the debate.

My focus on the issue was prompted by the death in January this year of local teenager Boab Milloy at the Gatehead level crossing in my constituency. That level crossing has half barriers that block vehicular traffic from proceeding across the crossing but do not fully cover the road and footpaths. Before moving on to the general topic, I advise members that the procurator fiscal has advised me that Mr Milloy's death is not to be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. As Lord Cullen's report makes clear, current practice in such cases is not to provide written reasons for decisions; those inquiring about the outcome are simply advised that, in arriving at the decision, all evidence was carefully considered. I am pleased that Lord Cullen recommends an end to that practice and that relatives and other parties with an interest in the matter will be advised of the reason for the Lord Advocate's decision not to apply for a fatal accident inquiry.

When I learned of Mr Milloy's death, I asked to be kept informed of the outcome of any inquiry that was conducted. That proved to be very difficult, mainly due to the number of agencies dealing with the matter. Members will see how difficult it must be for the public to know whom to pursue for such information.

I was, of course, aware of the fatal accident inquiry system and of its good reputation for drawing valuable lessons from sudden deaths in a wide variety of circumstances. I therefore submitted questions on previous inquiries into the deaths of pedestrians at level crossings. Having received confirmation of four pedestrian deaths at level crossings between 1999 and 2007, I was disappointed to receive this follow-up comment:

"Procurator Fiscal records are not structured in a manner that makes it possible to confirm if any of these four pedestrian deaths were followed up by a fatal accident inquiry."

When I then asked the local procurator fiscal whether an inquiry had ever been held into a death at a level crossing similar to the one at Gatehead, I was advised that the type of information requested

"is not recorded in a way which would permit it to be readily identifiable".

Members might begin to see the problems that we are facing on the issue. However, I am pleased to see that Lord Cullen has recommended that, in future, FAI determinations should be available on the Scottish Court Service website. That will provide access to a body of information that will be of value to many people.

Although Lord Cullen's report has just become available, having reviewed it in preparation for this debate I believe that it addresses a number of deficiencies in the FAI system and I am sure that it will be widely welcomed. One point in particular—it may surprise members that this is not done already—is that, in future, recommendations from FAls will be monitored to ensure that they are implemented.

However, I must say that, specifically in relation to deaths on the rail system, I found the report very disappointing. The report rehearses, in one paragraph, the complexity of the arrangements around the rail system, in which the FAI system has an interface with rail safety arrangements, which are a reserved matter. If anyone has waded through the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the rail safety agencies, they will appreciate the complexity of the arrangements. In light of that, I was disappointed to see how little evidence was submitted to Lord Cullen's inquiry by bodies responsible for safety in the rail industry.

Although the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland made a submission, it did not offer any comments on rail safety issues. The British Transport Police did not make a submission and the rail accident investigation branch made a single-paragraph submission, which focused solely on managing conflicting recommendations from one of its investigations and a fatal accident inquiry.

I was also very disappointed to note that the Office of Rail Regulation made no submission to Lord Cullen's inquiry. I asked whether it had made representations by other means and was advised that it had not. Given the importance of the FAI system, the minister or cabinet secretary may wish to take up with the Office of Rail Regulation its failure to submit a response. I note also that, although it is its rail network that is the subject of this complex system of regulation and inquiry, Network Rail made no submission to Lord Cullen.

The lack of input from the multitude of agencies that have a responsibility for rail safety may explain why the report makes no recommendations that bear directly on it. I think that that is a weakness in the report that would benefit from further consideration, either by Lord Cullen or by the relevant committee of this Parliament.

In order to provide the clearest possible system it should be clear that, whichever agency is investigating the cause of death, any sudden death in Scotland is subject to decision by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. All the arrangements entered into between agencies should reflect that.

The improvements in the FAI process should help us better assess whether level crossings in Scotland are currently as safe as they could be, but we are not helped by the fact that too many agencies are involved. Ultimately, there must be a clearer path to improving safety, which will reduce the numbers of deaths occurring at level crossings.

I am not yet satisfied that crossings such as Gatehead in my constituency are as safe as they could be. "Working properly" might be an acceptable assessment of safety by the industry, but people are still losing their lives. We need reassurance that every effort is being made to prevent further loss of life.