 Mae'r awgau yng Nghymru yn ddigwyddancio i'n droi召egon i ddechrau ei ddweudol o'r diwrnod heb eu sgol. Mae Gwladwch yn ddigwyddancio i'n droi 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. Yn ni'n mynd i, mae'n gweld gwladwn i'n ddigwyddancio i'r diwrnod i'n ddechu llwyddiadau Rwy'n gweld i'r ddweud. Maen nhw'n gweld i'r Cymru. Mae cwestiwneth eich nyfodol o'r cwestiwn hwn yn ddau byw'r Pwbl 10 min, please, for this statement. I'm pleased to update Parliament on our progress towards making the 2015 payments under pillar 1 of the new common agricultural policy. However, before I do, I want to touch briefly on two immediate issues affecting our farmers in Scotland. Firstly, of course, is the fourth road bridge closure, which is having an impact on some farmers and on the wider food and drink sector. The Government is quick to contact the animal feed sector and the whisky sectors and other relevant sectors, and, as members are aware, we secured an immediate relaxation of drivers hours, which has been helpful to these sectors. We've also been working with the industry to help to improve contingency planning as well, and we understand for instance that some livestock units only get feed deliveries once stocks get low with no contingency being in place. Clearly, that's too risky, so we've been working with stakeholders to help to ensure that they're better prepared. We'll keep in touch with the industry to monitor the impact of the situation, and, of course, we'll seek to resolve any problems that arise as quickly as possible. The second immediate issue is the flooding that's followed storm Desmond over last weekend. Naturally, the Government's immediate focus was on families and businesses, so we're flooded out, and my colleague Eileen McLeoz had an intense focus on those issues, but we must also be conscious of any impact on our farming sector. I've now had a full update from our agricultural officers who have told me that the impact so far in the sector has fortunately been minimal, but clearly I'll pay on-going attention to that, but, indeed, that situation has been confirmed by NFU Scotland as well. As well as those challenges, our farmers and crofters have also been facing unfavourable market conditions, which we're all familiar with, and an unhelpful exchange rate through 2015 as well. This has certainly been a challenging year for all our farmers and crofters, which is why we've known for some time how important it was to get the new cap implemented as quickly as possible. We're talking about over £400 million in new basic and greening payments, £45 million in couple support schemes for beef and £8 million for sheep, and later on, over £60 million will be issued through elfast payments, so that is substantial support for the sector. We also knew that getting that cash out of the door was going to be an unprecedented task for the Government. This is the biggest cap reform for a generation. It's the first time ever that pillar 1 and pillar 2 have been reformed in the same year. In 2015, we'll have launched nearly 20 schemes across both pillars. Nearly all of those schemes are either brand new or significantly changed from the old cap. In pillar 1, in particular, the changes are enormous. Some of those changes were imposed on us by Europe, such as greening, which is proving to be a major challenge for all member states. There are also things that we've successfully negotiated with Europe, such as the Scottish Clause to tackle what's known as slipper farming and to bring fair treatment for new entrants as well. There were policy choices that we made here in Scotland. Government and industry are working closely together with the support of most parties, if not all, in this Parliament. For example, having three different payment regions, such as having a five-year transition from historic to area payments and new couple support schemes for the beef and sheep sectors. However, there will always be consequences of those decisions. In the old cap, we had two schemes in pillar 1, the single farm payment and Scottish beef scheme, both of which were applied uniformly across the whole of the country. Today, we have six schemes in pillar 1, the basic payments, greening and younger farmer top-up, mainland beef, island beef and upland sheep. Every one of them involves geographic targeting. That targeting is done in three different ways across the six schemes. We've made those policy changes in order to tailor the new cap to Scotland's needs. We had meeting after meeting after meeting with industry leaders. The discussions were often intense, but the decisions were right and strongly supported by the industry and by this Parliament. We made all those choices with our eyes wide open. It was always made clear to the industry in particular that more complexity would have an impact on the payment timetables. NFU Scotland indeed have confirmed, knew about that and accepted it. We now have to calculate around 4 million hectares worth of new payment entitlements, not just for 2015 but for the whole transition period up to 2019. Some administrations, of course, don't need to do that if they made different policy choices in previous years. In England, DEFRA decided to adopt area-based payments from 2005 after the last cap reform. That means that calculating payments in England is much easier and they don't have to define new regions or issue new entitlements. Even though, despite that, they still face challenges. In Scotland, we have to allocate around 400 fields into three payment regions for the basic payment part of pillar 1. Thankfully, that work is virtually complete but has been a major undertaking. Meanwhile, IT teams have been writing millions of lines of new computer code to implement this complex new policy within the timetable imposed by the EU. Where are we as of today? On 17 November, I gave the Rural Affairs Committee a written update. I said that we aimed to start payments with a first payment run that should cover around a quarter of claimants. I said that the first payment should begin arriving by the end of December, the majority in January and all farmers should receive their first instalment in March and the balance in April. I also said last month that the first instalment payment would be at least 70 per cent of an individual payment. I can confirm today that we are on track for that start date for payments. The first payment run to around 25 per cent of farmers will get under way before Christmas with payments beginning to arrive in farmers' accounts before the new year. I know that almost everyone will be keen to know when his or her payment will be made. The answer to this under the new cap is, of course, the same as the answer was under the old cap, because it depends on each individual case. Straightforward cases, perhaps where there have been little or no change from last year, should need less processing than others. If the case is more complex or if it is one of the small percentage that we have had to inspect, then processing takes longer. In some cases, the European rules require us to contact the farmer for more information. In that scenario, I would urge the farmers to respond quickly so that we can get on with processing their claim. I have even heard stories of how we have written to farmers two or three times and yet to hear back so that we can get on with processing their claim and make sure that we have the accurate information. Farmers and crofters are also keen to know the value of their entitlements under the new cap. As required by Europe, we will, by the end of the year, issue to farmers illustration letters, setting out the number and value of claimed entitlements for every year from 2015 to 2019. I have to emphasise that that will only be an illustration as it is a European requirement and will not be the levels of actual payments necessarily. Under EU rules, we must then confirm the final value of the entitlements after all claims have been processed by 1 April. The illustrations are because of the European entitlement to get them out by the end of this year and then the final values by 1 April. Farmers will have full visibility of their five-year transition at that point. I know that people are looking forward keenly to getting that information. Here, too, the more complex cases may, of course, have to wait a little longer than others. I would say that that causes any problems for any individual farmer or crofter who should contact their area office. Or they could contact their new helpline 0300 300 222, which opened last week and is open for office hours. Don't worry, Alex Johnson, it's now part of the official reports, to help customers to get to grips with the complexities of the new cap. We also sent an expansion leaflet to all farmers in early December so that they know what to expect over the coming months. We've been in contact with the banks and, indeed, I've met them all personally to encourage them to help the industry through the coming months. This is undoubtedly a difficult time and, of course, I have to thank all farmers and crofters for their patience. We know how important those payments are, but it is an unprecedented task. I repeat for the Government, but we must get it absolutely right and make every effort to make sure that that's the case. We cannot have Scottish farmers facing the chaos of incorrect payments or the loss of funding through EU disallowns that their counterparts elsewhere have faced in the past. The Scottish Government has had an exceptional record of making cap payments in previous years, but 2015 was always going to be different. No one should doubt the Government's determination to deliver for the agricultural community. The £440 million of support that will be issued in the coming months through pillar 1 of the new cap alone is vital to food production, is vital to our environment and to our rural communities in the Scottish economy. Both the industry and myself, and I believe that most parties, if not all in this Parliament, agreed that even if it meant a different timetable, it was a price worth paying to ensure payments are as targeted and as effective as we can make them. On that note, I urge Parliament to support the Government's work to make the much-needed payments under this jointly designed policy as quickly as we can. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement and intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we'll need to move to the next item of business. If members wish to ask a question, please press request to speak buttons now. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of his statement. I do agree that we all knew that cap payments were going to be complex, but the job of the cabinet secretary is to provide leadership to his department to ensure that the system worked. That statement makes no reference to the fact that the computer system used was spectacularly over-complex, over-designed and completely unreliable. There was systemic failure that has contributed to delays. The farmers and thousands of rural jobs and communities that they rely on deserved better. I know from repeated freedom of information requests just how chaotic the whole system has been. The last time I asked the cabinet secretary how many farms are still to be visited, exactly when individual farmers know when and how much they can expect to receive and when will they actually get those payments, because it is still not clear from today's statement that we are well into the payment window and we are three years after the Scottish Government designed its business case. Will farmers know if they are straightforward or complex? Intuitively, when will they find out when they will get their payments? Will the cabinet secretary compensate those farmers for the cost of loans taken out as a direct result of the administrative failure of the cabinet secretary and his department? Today feels like an abdication of responsibility and the statement disappoints once again. There is still uncertainty and not even a hint of an apology, I think, are farmers and their livelihoods who depend on them deserve better. First of all, to say to Sarah Boyack, we are not well into the payment window. This is 10 December and the payment window is several months long. The previous cap, yes, was an excellent payment record because the payment window opened on 1 December and we managed to get the majority of payments out pretty quickly after 1 December. The old policy is radically different to the policy that we are dealing with at the moment. The reason why there are issues with the IT system—I am happy to acknowledge that—is that it is a very complex IT system, but it is dealing with a very complex policy. If we had a simple policy, the IT would have been simpler and perhaps we would not have had as many difficulties as we have had. However, because of an extremely complex policy in Scotland, that has led to some issues with the IT system. If there are lessons to be learned, of course we will have to learn those lessons. However, as Sarah Boyack and others will see, what other Administrations have had to go through that have had to deal with similar challenges in similar transitional periods, particularly the UK Government when it moved from historic payments to area payments in 2005, where I think that it was only 24 per cent of recipients in England had their payment by April when it moved from historic to area payments. In 2015, what Scotland is doing is not only moving from historic to area payments, we are introducing three different payment regions at the same time and new couple schemes and various other new measures all at the same time and at the request of many political parties in this chamber and indeed the wider agricultural sector. I thank the industry for its forbearance, for its patience. I have met many farmers over the last two or three weeks alone, including 70 on Monday evening in my constituency. I can assure you that the vast majority of farmers that I am speaking to are very reasonable about this. We have to accept that the key point is that hundreds of millions of pounds of support is going to make its way to Scotland's farming community in the coming weeks and months. I thank the cabinet secretary for the advanced copy of his statement. In October 2014, the NFUS issued a press release, welcoming the fact that the Scottish Government has made the growing of nitrogen-fixing crops a viable option for Scottish farmers, saying that, importantly, the rules will allow farmers to grow only one crop rather than two in 2015 to qualify. Just 14 months later, the NFUS is accusing the Scottish Government with considerable justification of gold-plating greening issues, including an insistence that two nitrogen-fixing crops be grown within an ecological focus area. Why is the cabinet secretary gold-plating so much within the greening proposals to the ultimate detriment of Scotland's arable sector and what action is he taking to address the concerns raised as he has pledged to do? Secondly, I have no doubt that SRPID staff are doing everything possible to get basic payments out as soon as possible, but can I ask what impact that human resource effort is going to have in the timing of future payments to schemes such as ELFAS, the beef calf scheme, agri-environmental and other schemes, and can he confirm that, despite a 1 January deadline for SRD applications to be approved, not one application has yet been approved? There are a number of questions there in Alex Ferguson's contribution. I will first touch upon the nitrogen crops issue, which is a topical issue, as he quite rightly says. Firstly, in the greening measures that are largely imposed on Scotland through the new common agricultural policy, Scotland had to take some decisions within that. One of the decisions that we had to take was to define what would be allowed within the ecologically focused areas, where 5 per cent is put aside for environmental purposes. Many stakeholders wanted no nitrogen-fixed crops to be allowed as part of that, whereas the NFU and some others wanted all nitrogen-fixed crops to be allowed as part of that. Therefore, the compromise that I put forward and have agreed is that nitrogen-fixed crops can be allowed, but certain management conditions contribute towards the environment to make sure that it is protected. Alex Ferguson is right that there are wider issues with the greening of the new policy, and there is a review of greening taking place at European level that the Government has been calling for loudly for the last year or two. That will take place in 2016, and we will make sure that we contribute to make sure that the greening measures are very appropriate to Scottish circumstances. In terms of the impact on other payments, yes, there will be an impact, because the priority has been to get the basic payments out the door. Again, that is what we need with the industry. There is always going to be a different timetable for the other payments. Some of those other payments are new. We did not have a sheet-couple scheme before, and the first time that will happen will be in 2016. Therefore, we have to get that right and get it out the door. I will keep Parliament informed of those timetables. Clearly, I want to minimise the impact on those timetables. If there are any other questions, the member should write to me, because I think that he had a lot of questions that he asked. I am afraid that I have a number of requests, so unless questions are short and answers to match, I am afraid that we will not get everyone in. When you addressed the subject of topical questions in the member of the 24th, you indicated that, at that stage, about 1,300 farm inspections remain to be carried out. Could you update the chamber on subsequent progress made in that regard and indicate when it is anticipated that this process might be concluded? One of the bureaucratic demands of Europe is that we have to start all the 1,300 inspections across all parts of Scotland before we can make any payments to any farmers. We are now on the brink of having achieved that, and that will be the case before the end of the year, which will be helpful. That is the feedback that we are now receiving from the area offices around the country. Hopefully, within a matter of days, all 1,300 inspections will have started, which will enable next year's payments to get under way in full, as we hope to do as quickly as possible. In his statement, the cabinet secretary says, we all made those choices with our eyes open, and I urge Parliament to support the Government's work to make these much-needed payments under this jointly designed policy as quickly as we can. Those remarks, as part of today's statement, signal to me something of an abnegation of responsibility. The cabinet secretary lists some of the many complexities, complexities or not, though. The delivery of payments is the sole responsibility of this Scottish Government and his department. He has known for many months and the need to play catch-up has not caught up with things. Have you any comments, cabinet secretary? Yes, I have plenty of comments in response to Claudia Beamish's question. Firstly, I am just trying to imagine in my head what would have happened, what the conversation would be today in the chamber, if I had not taken measures to tackle slipper farming in Scotland. In our vital resources, we are going to those who are not genuinely active farmers. The whole purpose behind some of the measures that we have adopted is to suit the European framework to Scottish circumstances, because we have hill farming, lowland farming, island farming and mainland farming. Therefore, if we do not tailor and take advantage of the flexibilities that we have at the EU to have three different payment rates and two different payment regions, then I am sure that the other political parties that we are standing here today are complaining that the Scottish Government has taken the wrong decisions, which have just taken that bit longer to get them right. It has been, as the cabinet secretary said, a difficult year for agriculture with problems in milk, beef, weather and transport. It should have been a good year for barley growing, given the demand in the whisky industry. When the cabinet secretary is in Europe next week talking about greening, will he impress upon the European Commission the issue of greening and its impact on growing barley? In my constituency, for example, on the island of Islay, there is a genuine problem in growing the small amount of barley required for the organic distillery because of the new regulations. It would be immensely helpful to my constituents, and I believe that he represents even more distillers than I do to make sure that that was changed and that this gold plating was dropped. Without opening up a debate as to which part of Scotland the best whisky is produced in, I am happy to say that I very much recognise the burden on our arable sector, particularly those growing barley for our Scotch whisky sector, be it that in Islay or Spaced or elsewhere in Scotland. That is why next week I am meeting the European Commission to ask for the equivalence measures that we are putting forward to replace the three crop rules. Part of greening should be given further consideration because the European Commission is only saying that we can do that if it is shaped in such a way that it is completely unworkable and will be unattractive to the arable sector in Scotland and therefore would be stuck with the three crop rule, which is largely designed for monoculture in eastern Europe and elsewhere and not in Scottish circumstances. I note the cabinet secretary's comments about the impact of flooding being minimal, but many border farms have been affected, which will simply compound the news that they will not receive full payments until April. Will the Scottish Government prioritise payments to farmers in my constituency who have suffered as a result of flood damage? I say to the member that, if he is able to pass many details of farmers affected by flooding, I very much appreciate that. Clearly, in the last couple of days, we are doing our best to speak to local representatives and through the NFU and we will continue that this week. If there are examples, please contact us with the details of whether we can give extra help to those farmers. I urge them all to contact their regional offices, but I will certainly give that some thought. I am doing that already, but it is a fair point that John Lamont raises that will all depend on the individual circumstances of the farms. I draw the chamber's attention to the fact that I have a very small registered agricultural holding and also state that I receive no public funding for it. Cabinet secretary, the basic and greening payments process has been at the heart of what you have said today, but farmers are also wishing to be assured that the coupled support scheme for beef and for sheep and indeed the £60 million for LFA areas is also unscheduled to be paid in reasonable time. I am sure that Stevenson is right that we have to recognise the importance of the other payments that will happen separate from the basic payments in the coming months. Normally, we pay the beef calf scheme in April. The LFA payments would go out round about March. I have said publicly already that there could potentially be a few weeks delay to some of those payments because the message that we have had from the industry is that all our efforts and resources should be focused on the main basic and greening payments, etc. However, clearly, I am keen to minimise any impact on the other payments, given the fragility of some of the sectors that are involved and the cash flow issues that they face. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary mentioned in his statement speaking with the banks encouraging them to help farmers through the coming months. We here reported that at least one bank has agreed to waive arrangement fees on loans farmers require to bridge because of late payments. Will the cabinet secretary consider a scheme to compensate farmers for interest payments incurred in such circumstances? Every farming business in Scotland has its own business plan and practices. I have spoken to the banks and they were relatively relaxed about the impact of the timetable for payments in Scotland and are very willing and keen to speak to any farmer who has cash flow difficulties and they will be sympathetic. I will continue to focus my efforts on ensuring that the banks are being as co-operative as possible. I ask the cabinet secretary whether the lowest payments of region 3 applicants, mainly crofters, have been complicated due to the time taken to process their claims following the insistence of the NFUS on a three-region model instead of two. If this disadvantage for crofters has been added to where their in-buy land goes along with their portion of common grazing, which has meant more inspections of those claims. I thank Rob Gibson for highlighting issues that are facing crofting and there are some issues that I am currently investigating. I would point out that our modelling estimates that under the new policy, the amount of direct payments that crofters receive is likely to increase from around £20 million in 2013 to around £33 million by 2019. Overall, the changes should bring a beneficial boost to payments to our crofting counties. I support the three-region model. The reason why I do that is because crofters and farmers generally are asking for measures to tackle slipper farming. Therefore, those who have the least activity should get the least level of payment compared to those who are more active farmers. We all agree that that is the case. I will continue to pay close attention to the impact on crofters and Rob Gibson's constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. I am grateful for the advance sight of the cabinet secretary's statement and, of course, remind members of my register of interests. We have been waiting for months for clarity on cap distribution. There has been real frustration and worry in rural Scotland, and there is no doubt that the Government's delay in payments will have serious repercussions for agriculture in Scotland. The cabinet secretary noted in his statement that the new helpline was launched last week to help farmers to get to grips with the reform cap. I have been informed that some farmers calling have found it to be of little use. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary explain more about who is staffing those lines, what information they will be able to provide, and will he ensure that they have the expertise needed to help farmers at this critical time? We are urging any crofter or farmer who has an issue to visit the regional office, and the feedback that I have had is that they find that immensely helpful. I hope that the helpline is being helpful. If it is not being, there are specific circumstances. I ask Jim Hume or anyone else to send the details to me, and I will certainly look into that. I could gently remind Jim Hume that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems were in coalition for a few years, and at that point they were arguing to scrap pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy. If it was up to them and they got their way, we would not be discussing any direct payments at the moment because there would not be any. Given the tremendous problems that farmers and land agents have had to face because of uncertainties surrounding payment amounts in times, what does the cabinet secretary commit to do in the future to help farmers to submit forms or to access their specific payment information when they may not have consistent broadband connections? Clearly, the Government is engaged in rolling broadband out across Scotland, which is a big priority, particularly for my colleague sitting on my right hand side, John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister. The huge sums are being invested in ensuring that our rural communities have access to online application forms. If they are unable to do that, again, they should visit their local office where they will get assistance to do that. I should also remind the chamber that for the applications for the new common agricultural policy, despite all the publicity around online issues, 65 per cent of applications were online compared to 35 per cent by paper. An increasing number of applicants are using online, but we will certainly continue to pay close attention to that and support it. The Scottish Government has put a high priority on the involvement of new entrants and those currently informing without a subsidy in those reforms. Can the cabinet secretary tell us what stage the Scottish Government is at with processing the new entrant grant applications? Well, different parts of the SRDP are at different stages. The agri environment schemes, for instance, are now in and will be taken to the next stage in January, and other parts of the capital schemes, particularly new entrants, are under way as well. I am happy to send a proper update if Liz Smith is looking for specific figures. I would also remind the chamber that one of the decisions that we took in Scotland again, which added into the complex mix, was to ensure that the new policy in Scotland catered for new entrants. One of the big flaws in the previous common agricultural policy is that new entrants were largely excluded from getting support, where, ironically, inactive farmers were getting support, which was wholly unacceptable and we have managed to change that. Reference has been made earlier, cabinet secretary, to discussions with the banks. I know that you represent the banks on the 19th of November. Is there anything further that you can tell the chamber about those discussions? I can really only reiterate what I have said already. I did meet the banks personally. I know that stakeholders, particularly the NFU in Scotland, have also met the banks and they are being very co-operative. If there are issues—that is not the case—I would ask members to contact me and let me know. I think that we can all take responsibility for urging our constituents to face cash flow problems, to notify their own banks as soon as possible because their banks are keen to hear from them to help. Is the cabinet secretary aware that the Scottish Crofting Federation is warning that the delays in payments to crofters could prove ruinous? What is his response to those crofts? My response is that the new common agricultural policy, as I have indicated before, will deliver a greater amount of direct payments to our crofting counties in this country, going from now until 2019 over the phasing-in of the new system. We will continue to work flat out. We have hundreds of officials working flat out round the clock in the Scottish Government to make sure that we can get the payments out as quickly as possible. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That ends the statement, and we now move to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths, etc. Scotland Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, SP Bill 63A, the marshaled list, SP Bill 63AML and the groupings, SP Bill 63AG. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in a debate on any groups of amendments should press a request to speak buttons. As soon as I call that group, members should now please refer to the marshaled list of amendments. We turn to group 1, mandatory inquiries. Persons detained under mental health legislation, and I call amendment 2, in the name of the minister. Groups with amendments 3, 4, 36, 5, 37, 38, 6, 39, 7 and 8. I ask the minister to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group, please minister. This group of amendments relate to mandatory FEIs for patients detained under mental health legislation, which were introduced at stage 2 by amendments pressed by Margaret Mitchell and passed by the Justice Committee. Margaret Mitchell's amendments mean that there will be a mandatory fatal accident inquiry into every death of a person detained under mental health legislation unless certain exceptions apply. The Scottish Government's amendments seek to reverse the effect of Margaret Mitchell's amendments. Amendment 4 removes a redundant definition of mental disorder, which is not referred to in the bill. That should be removed whether or not the other amendments in the group are agreed to. The definition is no longer required as it is only relevant to patients receiving treatment in hospital on a voluntary basis. Subsequent to stage 2, several bodies have written to the Scottish Government and members of the Scottish Parliament to express their opposition to those amendments, made at stage 2, and offered their support to have them reversed at stage 3. That is what the Government's amendments seek to do. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said that it is stigmatising to suggest that mental health care and treatment should be subject to special scrutiny in relation to patient deaths. The Scottish Association of Mental Health, or SAMH, a charity that supports and campaigns for people with mental health problems, said that the amendments, in my quote, are disproportionate and could add to the distress of bereaved families, unquote. The British Medical Association Scotland has said that, in my quote, there are of course deaths that would benefit from further investigation, but it is more appropriate for the fiscal to make the decision than to have a mandatory FEI for all cases, unquote. The amendments were not supported by the Mental Welfare Commission Scotland either, which believed that the provision was disproportionate and that we would not achieve the aims of national learning. Penumbra and the Mental Health Nurses Forum Scotland have also expressed their opposition. I understand members' concerns that we must ensure that proper care is given to those who are detained by the state due to their mental health problems, especially as they are some of the most vulnerable in our society. However, I believe that the systems that are now in place in the statutory review that will soon be undertaken best ensure that this is the case. Currently, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland may undertake an investigation where it is alleged that a mental health patient may have been subject or exposed to ill treatment, neglect or some other deficiency in care or treatment. The chief medical officer issued a formal circular to practitioners in November this year, making it mandatory for all deaths while subject to compulsory treatment under mental health legislation to be reported to the Procurator Fiscal. That ensures not only that an independent investigation can currently be carried out by the Procurator Fiscal to establish if there is any issue of criminality but if there is no criminality and it is in the public interest perhaps because there is suspicion of a deficiency in care or treatment, then the Lord Advocate can hold a discretionary fatal accident inquiry. That demonstrates that in the event that no FEI is to be held, that does not mean that there has not been an investigation of the death. Indeed, of the 5,500 death investigations carried out by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service each year, only 50 to 60 lead to an FEI, but for all those other deaths that are reported to the Crown Office, the circumstances have been explored by the Procurator Fiscal. In addition, section 37 of the Mental Health Scotland Act 2015 requires a statutory review of the arrangements for investigating the death of a patient who was detained in hospital by virtue of the Mental Health Scotland Act 2003 or the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 or who was admitted voluntarily to hospital for the purpose of receiving treatment for a mental disorder. That provision was the result of an amendment lodged by Dr Richard Simpson and was supported unanimously by this Parliament. At the instruction of the Minister for Sport, Health, Improvement and Mental Health, the Scottish Government laid an order this week commencing that provision, which will come into force on 24 December and any change to FEIs in those cases would pre-empt this review. That will be a review that has been and will be widely welcomed by stakeholders. The mental welfare commission in its stage 3 briefing to MSPs considers the review to be an important opportunity to create a system of investigation of non-natural deaths of psychiatric patients, which is proportionate, streamlined and effective. Although not a primary consideration of the potential impact, it is important to note that mandatory FEIs for detained mental health patients will effectively double the number of FEIs per year. That has been detailed in the supplementary financial memorandum to accompany the bill. It would mean that one out of every two FEIs would relate to a mental health patient, which would be disproportionate and would, in my view, and that of stakeholders, cause unnecessary distress to families of the deceased. Dr Elaine Murray's amendments are, I suspect, lodged to mitigate that, as they would mean that the Lord Advocate may decide that an inquiry is not to be held into the death if satisfied the death is from natural causes. That is an acknowledgement by Dr Murray, perhaps, that the provision via an exception in Margaret Mitchell's amendments for the Lord Advocate not to hold an mandatory FEI if there has been a mental welfare commission investigation is not enough. However, her amendment could give rise to practical issues of interpretation and application. There is no definition of natural cause and it raises more questions than it answers on perhaps on what basis would the Lord Advocate be satisfied that the death was from natural causes, how is natural cause to be defined for the purposes of this provision? The amendment could also lead to challenges by judicial review to the Lord Advocate's decision not to hold an FEI if, for example, the family believes that the death was not from natural causes. For those reasons, the Government wishes to reverse the amendments by Margaret Mitchell to return the bill to the original policy in respect of the treatment of mental health patients. Dr Murray's amendments are based on Margaret Mitchell's stage 2 amendments remaining in the bill. Therefore, if they are removed, Dr Murray has nothing to gain by pressing her amendments. For the reasons that have been outlined, the Government opposes the amendments that Dr Murray lodged as well. The Scottish Government's position is supported by a broad range of mental health organisations that work at the front line and represent mental health patients and those that work with and care for them. To recap, that is the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the BMA Scotland, the Penumbra Mental Health Nurses Forum for Scotland and Enable. Therefore, I ask Dr Murray to withdraw her amendments, and I move amendment 2 in my name. I call Elaine Murray to speak to amendment 36 and to other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2, the committee agreed by majority vote to amend the bill to require mandatory fatal accident inquiries when a person dies in compulsory detention under the Mental Health, Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003. That was in accord with Lord Cullen's recommendations in his review and had been supported during his consultation by organisations such as Enable. In addition, deaths of patients in compulsory detention in England and Wales are subject to a coroner's inquest. The bill, as amended, also allowed the Lord Advocate to make an exception where the circumstances of the death had been established through an investigation under section 11 of the 2003 act. However, it did not allow the Lord Advocate to make an exception where the cause of death was of natural causes and would not be subject to an investigation under this act. Therefore, deaths of persons compulsory detained from natural causes, rather than detention, would always be subject to a mandatory inquiry without any exception, which could be unnecessary and distressing to their friends and family. My amendment 37 would enable the Lord Advocate to make an exception of deaths that were from natural causes. Two thirds of people who die in compulsory detention die of natural causes. There should not be any requirement to conduct a fatal accident inquiry into those deaths, which everybody understands why they have happened. However, since the bill was amended, we have received representations from a number of professional organisations and crucially organisations representing people with mental health conditions and their families that are just to repeal those sections altogether. The Mental Welfare Commission believes that the priority should be for the review of the arrangements for investigating the deaths of detained patients to be established and that legislating at this stage would pre-empt the results of the review. Carer representatives on the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland advised that delays involved in the FAI process would have a significant and negative impact on bereaved carers. Penumbra agreed with the views of the MWC and the Royal College of Psychiatrists Scotland. The briefing from a navel that had made the original submission to Lord Cullen sent to us yesterday was ambiguous and I contacted the policy officer yesterday afternoon to clarify their position. She advised me by email that they have accepted the Government's position on the amendments, providing that there is a firm commitment that the review required by section 37 of the Mental Health Scotland Act 2015 into the investigation of the deaths of detained patients is progressed as a matter of urgency. That review is the result, as the minister has already said, of an amendment brought by my colleague Richard Simpson and unanimously supported by the Parliament. The Minister for Sport, Health, Improvement and Mental Health wrote to the chair of the Health and Wellbeing Committee, Duncan McNeill, earlier this week to advise that he intended to lay an order yesterday, which comes into force on 24 December, which would clarify the deadline for the review to be completed. If the minister or possibly his colleague, the Minister for Health, can confirm that this order has been laid and can advise of the deadline for the completion of the review, I consider that the stage 2 amendments have made an important contribution to this debate and to the acceleration of the review. I can confirm to the member and to the whole chamber that I have laid that order. As Mr Wheelhouse laid out, it will come into effect on 24 December of this year. The provision that we unanimously, as a Parliament legislator for, is that review should take place within three years. However, my clear commitment to this chamber is that the review should commence as soon as possible. In light of those assurances, I will not press my amendments, and Labour Governments will support the Government amendments in removing the stage 2 amendments. I currently have three members requesting to speak to ask if contributions could be kept as short as possible. Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Roderick Campbell. The reality is that, if amendment 3 is agreed to, mental health adults detained on a compulsory basis will have fewer human rights than criminals do who die in custody. I remain of the view that was originally stated by the charity Enable Scotland when they said that they thought deaths of people detained under the mental health care treatment Scotland act 2003 should be included in the mandatory category. Those individuals who have been deprived of their liberty should have the same protection as those detained in a prison or police cell. Since we heard evidence on this matter at stage 1, things have moved on. Stage 1, the Scottish Human Rights Commission did say that there was a gap in relation to the protection of the right to life for those who die in a mental health detention. Indeed, the Mental Welfare Commission also commented whilst opposing mandatory inquiries that they thought the current system was inadequate. We have moved on with section 37 and the order, which Jamie Hepburn has referred to already, and the chief medical officer's circular. I think that in the light of all that and the light of all that has been said, we should be content to support the Government's amendment. One final point in the question of relation to mandatory inquiries, we should perhaps take a gun to the fact that in the House of Commons the Labour MP for Stockport is seeking to scrap the chief coroner's current guidance that people subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards are in state detention and should automatically have an inquest because of the distress that causes to many people and families of sufferers from dementia. At stage 2, Margaret Mitchell's amendment to require a mandatory FAI for the death of any patient who died while receiving treatment for a mental disorder was further amended by my own amendment to remove reference to voluntary patients. The bill, as it now stands as the minister has said, provides for a mandatory FAI for any patient who dies while detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. It provides an opt-out for the Lord Advocate. I think that that effectively flipped the arrangements from what they were previously when the Lord Advocate could, if he considered it appropriate, order an FAI. I supported that move at stage 2 as the Scottish Human Rights Commission had advised that steps needed to be taken to ensure that systems of investigation meet article 2 requirements of ECHR and to remedy the current gaps and confusion in the system. I hope that we can all agree that when the state has the responsibility for someone's care and health that there should be a thorough and independent process to ascertain the reason for death. I acknowledge that there is disagreement over whether the FAI route is the right process. I have further reflected on the evidence that was submitted by Sam H, the BMA, Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Mental Welfare Commission, who all opposed the mandatory FAI approach. They argue that it is disproportionate, that it adds significantly to workload and perhaps most compellingly for me that it risks stigmatisation and would increase the distress of bereaved families. I have concluded on balance that there is a more proportionate and less distressing way to proceed that involves reform of the whole system of notifications and investigation rather than focusing solely on FAIs, and I will therefore support the Government's amendments removing the provision. However, today, when Jeremy Hunt is in Westminster, safety is profoundly shocked by the failure to investigate unexpected deaths of mental health patients in a particular NHS trust in England and Wales. We cannot be complacent, so in doing so and in supporting those amendments, I urge the minister to lose no time in proceeding with the review agreed in the Mental Health Act 2015, and I ask him to pay particular heed to the views of Sam H that there is a particular issue relating to suicides while under care. Thank you. I did ask members to be brief, so John Finnie, briefly please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Simply to say that I had supported Margaret Mitchell's position at stage 2, but I have heard, like others, particularly Elaine Murray and Alison McInnes, compelling evidence not only from the practitioners but from those who support the people who are in these circumstances, so I certainly will be supporting the Government's position. Many thanks. I now invite the minister to wind up, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will keep this brief because I am conscious of time. I just want to add that the issue of human rights has been raised by members, and I thank Alison McInnes, John Finnie and Elaine Murray for their responses. The Chief Medical Officer circular on the guidance by the Crown Office on reporting deaths to procurator fiscal has been issued so that deaths of detained patients can be independently investigated in accordance with article 2 of ECHR. That strengthens the realisation of Scotland, the right to life, enshrined in article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the long-standing Scottish tradition of crown discretion, as well suited, we think, to the requirements of European law, but I take the point on board that Alison McInnes made it, and clearly the minister has indicated that the review of section 37 will look at this more comprehensively. Many thanks. That brings us to the question in, and the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. This is the first division of this stage and of the afternoon, so therefore I will suspend for five minutes and thereafter we will have a 32nd division. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 2. This is a 32nd division. Members should cast their votes now, please. Order. Please. The result of the vote on amendment number 2 is yes, 94, no, 14. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. That then brings us to amendment 3 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask the minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 3 is yes, 94, no, 14. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. I now call amendment 4 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 36 in the name of Elaine Murray, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask Elaine Murray to move or not to move. In which case I now call amendment 5 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 37 in the name of Elaine Murray, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask Elaine Murray to move or not to move. In which case I now call amendment 38 in the name of Elaine Murray, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask Elaine Murray to move or not to move. That brings me to calling amendment 6 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 39 in the name of Elaine Murray, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask Elaine Murray to move or not to move. I call amendment 7 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 8 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 2, and I ask the minister to move formally. Question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 2, participation of trade unions and similar bodies in enquiries, and I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 10, 11 and 12, and I ask the minister to move amendment 9 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. The Scottish Government is happy to accept an amendment laid at stage 2 by Elaine Murray, which gives a statutory right of participation at a fatal accident inquiry to a trade union or staff association, though I did say that we would consider if the wording could be improved at stage 3. We have now held those discussions with Dr Murray, and I am pleased to say that Dr Murray has indicated that she was consent with the proposed amendments. Dr Murray explained that her amendment was intended to cover sectors where trade union membership was not permitted by law like the police. The term staff association does not, however, have a recognised legal meaning. It could arguably cover the likes of internal equality networks or even sports or social associations. Consideration has been given to alternative wording that would deliver the policy intention. Amendments 10 and 12 will cover bodies similar to trade unions, for example where trade union membership is prohibited, and it makes it clear that the body must represent the interests of workers in connection with the employment or occupation during which the accident resulting in the death happened. That is intended to exclude bodies of workers having a purely social function, for example a sports association, and bodies that represent workers' interests more generally such as political bodies. Amendments 10 also makes it clear that the requirement that the representation of workers' interests must be in a connection with the employment or occupation concerned also applies to the trade union. Amendment 9 makes it clear that participation should be for a trade union or a similar body and not for a representative. Amendment 11 is consequential. I hope that Dr Murray and other members will welcome those amendments, which clarify and improve on the original stage 2 amendment, and I move amendment 9. I introduce an amendment at stage 2 in section 10 to give a trade union or staff association representative of a person killed in the course of their employment, the statutory right to participate in a fatal accident inquiry into their death. The bill gives the statutory right to their employer and to health and safety inspectors, and I felt that it was important that the participation of trade union or staff association representatives should be given parity, not least for the sport that they can provide to the deceased family. The amendment was accepted unanimously, but I recognise at the time that the wording probably needed tidying it up. As the minister said, the term staff association caused some problems with its definition, but I was keen that where a police officer, for example, who died in the course of their employment, which sadly happens more often in that profession and most, the Scottish Police Federation or the Association of Police Superintendents should have equal rights to attend to the equivalent trade unions. The amendments is to group 2 revise a wording while retaining the policy intention of my stage 2 amendments, and therefore we are happy to support them. No other member has requested to speak, so I ask the minister to now wind up. In which case the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I now call amendments 10, 11 and 12, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 10 to 12 on block, please. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 10 to 12? Since no member has objected, the question then is that amendments 10 to 12 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 3, availability of civil legal aid, and I call amendments 1 in the name of Patricia Ferguson, which is grouped with amendment 13, and I ask Patricia Ferguson to please move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group. I rise to move amendment 1 in my name and to oppose amendment 13 in the name of the minister. At stage 2, my amendment, which was agreed by the justice committee and sought to ensure one of the key findings of Lord Cullin's reports into FAIs, would be implemented, namely that civil legal aid would be available to the families of the bereaved to allow them to be represented at an FAI. As the Parliament is aware, the bill has its genesis in the review of FAIs undertaken by Lord Cullin at the request of the Scottish Government. Lord Cullin made two particularly important points in relation to legal aid for families who wish to participate in FAIs. The first is that relatives often believe that the procurator fiscal attends an FAI to look after their interests if they are unrepresented, but the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service's own guidance makes it clear that that is not the case and also indicates that the role of the procurator fiscal is to represent to the court any matter affecting the public interest, not that of the bereaved families. Indeed, the procurator fiscal is perfectly entitled to decline to put questions on behalf of the families. The second point Lord Cullin made was that FAIs take place whether or not relatives consent to them, but if relatives want to participate, their ability to do so without representation is limited and they are at a considerable disadvantage compared to other interested parties. Indeed, the Faculty of Advocates stated in evidence to Lord Cullin that, and I quote, it is impossible for relatives to participate effectively in important inquiries without legal representation, whereas Sheriff J.P. Murphy observed that the relatives should not be expected to be capable of self-representation in the traumatic situation of an FAI. I have never seen a layperson do it adequately. My amendment had the effect of disciplining the normal financial conditions and thresholds and required ministers to come forward with a special scheme of conditions for relatives involved in FAIs. I had deliberately not been prescriptive as to what those regulations should be but had instead left to ministers the job of drawing up a scheme that would implement those intentions. I was doing so in the context of a presumption that legal aid would be available and that families would be able to be represented throughout the process and would also not find that cash had run out partway through an FAI, as has happened. The impact of the minister's amendment number 13 is to remove the entire provision, meaning that bereaved families will not have access to legal aid. It seems to me that this is a basic principle and one that I hope Parliament will today uphold by rejecting the minister's amendment number 13. My amendment number one seeks to ensure that, when ministers bring forward the scheme for legal aid, I hope that they will and that it was agreed to at stage 2, that it is required to do so by affirmative resolution. That would ensure that Parliament had the opportunity to consider if the provisions of the Scottish Government scheme fulfilled Parliament's objectives. I now invite the minister to speak to amendment 13 and the other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The group of amendments relates, as Patricia Ferguson has said, to the provision for legal aid for FEIs. Patricia Ferguson's amendment is only relevant if her stage 2 amendment on legal aid stays on the face of the bill, and for reasons I shall explain, amendment 13 laid in my name will reverse that amendment. The bill, as amended at stage 2, now provides for the establishment of a family charter, which will, as one of its effects, formalise the engagement between the bereaved family and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, and among the issues covered by the charter, the Procurator Fiscal will engage with the family on matters where they seek clarity on the circumstances of the death of their loved one from the FEI to inform the Crown's questions of witnesses, which will seek to serve the public interest. At present, if the bereaved family wishes to ask questions that the fiscal cannot ask in the public interest, they may be entitled to legal aid and will typically qualify for legal aid if they meet the eligibility criteria. The key test for agreeing legal aid around probable cause and reasonableness. Probable cause will always be satisfied where a relative has a right to participate in a fatal accident inquiry, and so the main question for the legal aid board will often be reasonableness. To give a real-life example of the reasonableness test in action, I am aware of an example where a relative was granted legal aid to explore specific mental health issues of the deceased that had been raised prior to that person's death. Further, I want to make clear that the reasonableness test will always be satisfied where a relative of the person requiring legal aid has died in prison. Civil legal aid has generous financial eligibility thresholds to ensure that anyone eligible will be granted legal aid, instead of controlling spend by restricting the types of cases that are eligible or capping the expenditure in any given year. Tests of reasonableness and probable cause are applied, as well as financial eligibility, to ensure that public funds are appropriately directed. The very nature of what a fatal accident inquiry is, is it not reasonable that both the family and the legal aid board may have no idea about the facts that may be reduced in the course of the fatal accident inquiry and therefore they may be at a genuine disadvantage if it is ruled that they are ineligible for legal aid? I think that the point that I was just making was that, where there is clearly either, and I will come on to it in more depth, a disagreement perhaps in terms of the line of questioning that the crown might want to take and the family might want to explore perhaps because it is not relevant to the public interest, there would be a case to be made of probable cause and reasonableness and in practice relatives of those who are bereaved do get access to legal aid for fatal accidents already. The point that I am making is that we do not need a provision in the bill to enable legal aid to be made available when there is probable cause and reasonableness. That already happens under the current regulations. As I was saying, the provisions as they stand allow us to ensure that legal aid is available for a wide range of matters and that help is given where it is needed most. That contrasts with the approach in England and Wales where cuts to legal aid mean that there is no longer access to legal help with specific types of family, medical, housing and welfare benefits problems. In certain cases, people even have to provide evidence that they or their children have been victims of domestic abuse or violence in order to access legal aid. We are trying to maintain the breadth of legal aid and the principles of legal aid that underpin it. Removing the test for one type of proceedings, in this case, fatal accident inquiries, would more importantly undermine the principles and the general approach to legal aid in Scotland, i.e. those of probable cause and reasonableness. If amendment 13 is not passed, I will bring in Ms Lamont in a second. If amendment 13 is not passed, that would in effect mean virtually automatic legal aid for fatal accident inquiries. It is simply not necessary for all parties to have fatal accident inquiries to be legally represented. I do take on board the member's point about what areas they are keen to explore and what their concerns are about the inquiry prior to going in. That is a new innovation as part of the bill, but it is simply not necessary for all parties to be legally represented since the Procurative Fiscal already has a duty to bring forward evidence about the circumstances of the death. I will bring in Ms Lamont. I wonder if you would accept that many many people in our constituencies feel that they are very poorly served by the fatal accident inquiry system, feel that they are entirely excluded, have no confidence in a prosecution service and what you are saying there is that we will not have to look at this, everything is okay. In fact, the real problem is that people are not able to engage when they have concerns about how their rights are being represented. Surely the proposal on this amendment addresses that. I listened to the point that Ms Lamont makes. I would just really point out that we are having a bill here on the back of Lord Cullan's review to reform the legal fatal accident inquiry process and the innovation of the milestone charter or family charter that is dubbed in the purpose of the act. I brought about both in terms of the line of questioning that Patricia Ferguson had taken and the solicitor general's own thoughts on that. It does significantly move us forward in terms of making the fatal accident inquiry process much more engaged with the families and there is a formal process in which families will engage and communicate with throughout to ensure that they are a part of it and feel that they are having their points addressed by the Procurator Fiscal and the inquiry process. I hope that in the passage of time, Ms Lamont will see that the system is being reformed to make it more family friendly. Its main purpose is to establish the facts around the death and to prevent further deaths happening, including I think that that is something that we all share. I want to reassure the member that the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service are doing everything they can to try to make the process more aligned with the family's interests as well and make sure that they do consult with families on the line of questioning. In terms of the change that might be proposed as a result of Patricia Ferguson's amendments, this would be at the expense of, as I said, the fundamental principles of both the system of FEIs and legal aid and it would force us to look at alternative controls on legal aid. However, this is not just a question about effect on legal aid. One of the key aims of the bill, something that I would hope to be shared across the chamber, is to make FEIs less adversarial. Funding legal representation to raise similar concerns and questions that should be covered by the Procurator Fiscal in the public interest would achieve the exact opposite in some circumstances. If it were to become the case that all parties at FEIs were legally represented, regardless of need, then such inquiries would inevitably become more adversarial, longer and expensive, with a potentially more adversarial nature and lengthier FEIs being the key considerations here. Those concerns were highlighted in consultation responses by those involved in the running of FEIs. The Sheriff's Association said that, and I quote, "...it's only where there is a conflict of interest between the Procurator Fiscal and the next of kin that there should be a necessity for separate representation. That is a matter that should be explored and determined fully by Scottish legal aid board before legal aid is granted." Lord Gill in his consultation response while serving as Lord President argued that increased legal aid for families of the deceased would lead to questions at FEIs becoming about blame, which are for civil litigation instead of about ascertaining the circumstances and causes of death. He also stated that, and I quote, "...the allowance of legal aid would negate the priorities of economy and expeditionsness that the proposals of the bill should achieve." Lord Carlaway said in a letter to me only yesterday, and I quote, "...there is no substantial reason why those seeking legal aid for representation at an FEI should be subject to less arduous financial tests than other applicants in other situations. It's difficult to justify a more lenient regime for the former than, for say, a victim of a road traffic accident who has suffered injuries of maximum severity." And he went on to say, "...should family members be routinely represented the inquiry risk losing its essential inquisitorial character and acquiring an unhelpful and inappropriate and quite possibly prolonged adversarial focus." I believe that our goal to make FEIs less adversarial is the right one. We should do what we can to avoid making FEIs more adversarial and creating greater difficulty in finding the truth to prevent the recurrence of death. I believe that it's important to preserve the principles underpinning the legal aid system. I urge members to support amendment 13 and reject amendment 1. I support, as did the majority of the justice committee, the provisions of legal aid for the bereaved families in fatal accidents in fatal accident inquiries, under the terms of Patricia Fergensen's amendment at stage 2, which I considered was proportionate and balanced. The key point here is that the Crown and Procurator Fiscal represents the public interest. It does not represent specifically the interests of relatives. It is therefore only right and fair that legal aid should be available to ensure that those interests are represented. That was, after all, another of the recommendations that were not included in the bill but made by Lord Cullen. If the Government uses its parliamentary majority to remove the provision, it will further fuel the view that the grave concerns about the absence of checks and balances in the decision making of the SNP majority government are well found. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I've listened to the debate with some interest. One matter that still puzzles me slightly about the opposition is that we had Lord Cullen in the Justice Committee at stage 1 and nobody asked him a question on this very issue. I'll accept that it came in at stage 2, but he wasn't asked. If this was an important issue, which the Government hadn't accepted from his report, one would have anticipated the opposition. We wanted to have questioned him on it, but it didn't take place. Patricia Ferguson has quite rightly referred to the bits in his report which touched on this matter, but what she didn't say after she said that the Procurator Fiscal was independent of any party, including the relatives, should not be regarded as they represented at the FAI. He or she is entitled to decline to put questions for the relatives, but Lord Cullen went on to point out, I note that the current office state in their guidance that, where necessary, the Procurator Fiscal will indicate to the relatives that it is unlikely that he or she will be able adequately to represent their interest and concerns at the inquiry and that separate representation is considered appropriate. I think that's the key. We've heard also from the Minister about Lord Carlaway's comments about the number of times when the issues between the family and the Procurator Fiscal don't diverge. Clearly, where they do diverge, there should be an opportunity to obtain legal aid, but with the milestone charter, I would hope that those situations where people feel that they have been deprived of that opportunity far fewer in-between. I'm just now finished. I'm afraid the member has indicated that he's finished his speech. I therefore call Patricia Ferguson to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm slightly confused by Roderick Campbell's contribution, I have to say, because in actual fact the whole point of having stage 2 is so that matters that haven't been dealt with at stage 1 can be brought up. I don't know if Mr Campbell is arguing that perhaps we just shouldn't have stage 2 at all, but in addition, the quote that he read out from Lord Cullen's very good report on FAIs says, and I'll read it again for the avoidance of doubt, that if in the case where the Procurator Fiscal can't represent the families, it is unlikely that he or she will be able adequately to represent their interest and concerns at the inquiry and that separate representation is considered appropriate. Yes, and we need the money to pay for it. Families who are in this situation will not always have resources to fall back on that will allow them to do that. But what always seems to me to be very strange about all of this is that the qualifications for legal aid for an FAI are at the moment the same as for any other piece of civil litigation, and in that case you have to be able to identify probable cause. It seems odd to me to apply the concept of probable cause to an FAI, because it isn't, as the minister said, litigation. It's not something in which parties join in a piece of litigation, so that seems to me to be a very bizarre attitude to take to this whole thing. The minister referred to the charter, which I'm very much welcome, but the point of the charter is that the ministers now accept that families need more information and require to be kept informed, then surely they must also have the right to be considered to have an interest in an FAI, an interest that will only be meaningful if they are represented. The charter does not provide, I'll be happy to minister. I'm grateful to the member for taking intervention. I do accept the point that she is making about the need for families to be represented where there's perhaps a difference of approach being taken by the Procurator Fiscal to that, which they would wish. When it comes to probable cause and reasonableness kick-in, that allows families to have a relevant interest in the FAI. It's about demonstrating that they have a relevant interest rather than someone who doesn't have an interest being represented in the inquiry. As I gave examples of someone who has a relative who dies in prison, it's very likely to get legal aid because of the difficulties that they face losing a loved one in a prison situation. That's just an example of how probable cause is demonstrated in reasonable tests. I think that I'm right, but I'll stand corrected if I'm not, Presiding Officer. Deaths in custody already automatically get civil legal aid for the families to be represented at fatal accident inquiries. The point about this is that the families who want to be represented in a fatal accident inquiry won't necessarily know that there is even an issue about probable cause until they're some way into the FAI process. How can you then cope with that, or is the minister saying that we're going to willy-nilly halt fatal accident inquiries to allow the Scottish legal aid board to reconsider a case before it actually resumes? No, I've heard what the minister had to say and it wasn't particularly helpful, I have to say. If you give me a minute to just respond to what's already been said, the charter itself does not provide for the Procurator Fiscal to represent the families. It does make it easier for the families to get information through the process, but it doesn't allow them to act on behalf of those people. At the moment and in the future, the Procurator Fiscal will represent the public interest and that's a different thing. I think that when it comes to the public interest, there may be a good alignment between the public interest and the interest of the family in many cases. Where there isn't what I'm saying is legal aid would be, there's a very high chance, subject to financial eligibility tests, as with other forms of legal aid, that relatives will have access to legal aid to take forward a line of questioning that might not be taken forward by the Procurator Fiscal. I just want to give reassurance to the member that, as the arrangements already apply but they'll be strengthened by the family charter, there's a process to ensure that Procurator Fiscal discusses the kinds of questions that the family would like to have heard. Trisha Ferguson, if you could begin to draw to a host. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm actually close to finishing. I would just say to the minister, I know he's trying to be helpful, but I'm afraid if you think about the process, that just will not work. Family members will not know that there is going to be a difference between their interest and the public interest until they see the line of questioning that goes forward. I would just say to the minister, none of us want to see FAIs being adversarial. In my view, and it's only my view, I'm not quoting from anyone here, FAIs are likely to be more adversarial if people haven't got the right to representation. It stands to reason. It seems to me that it's a basic principle, Presiding Officer, that family members, bereaved people who are having to go through the trauma of a fatal accident inquiry, should be assisted by the state to do that. I presume that you are going to press your amendment, Ms Ferguson. In which case, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palmynt is not agreed. There will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 1 is as follows. Yes, 45. No, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 13, in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 1. I ask the minister to move formally, please. The question then is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palmynt is not agreed. There will be a division. 30-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 13 is as follows. Yes, 61. No, 46. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 4, sheriff's determination and recommendations. I call amendment 14, in the name of the minister, which is group with amendments 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. I ask the minister to move amendment 14 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. This group of amendments are technical government amendments regarding the sheriff's determination and recommendations at the conclusion of a fatal accident inquiry. Amendment 14 removes the requirement for the Scottish courts and tribunal service to provide a copy of a sheriff's determination to any person who pays the specified fee. That is no longer required because all determinations will be published under section 26 subsection 1a by the Scottish courts and tribunal service, so interested persons will be able to obtain the determinations online. SCTS can provide printouts or alternative formats for cases where an interested person cannot access the website, for example under Equality Act duties. Amendments 15 and 16 are to tidy up a minor drafting issue identified in the new section 27a, which was inserted by an amendment by Patricia Ferguson with Scottish Government support. As Ferguson's amendment places a duty on Scottish ministers to publish an annual report and the number of responses to sheriff's recommendations made in the determination at the conclusion of an FEI during a financial year. Those amendments remove some potentially confusing words to make it clear that responses received in the eight-week period following the end of the financial year are to be included in the annual report for that financial year. That does not alter the policy proposed by Patricia Ferguson and I have shared those amendments with Patricia Ferguson as a courtesy. Amendments 17 relates to what happens when the Lord Advocate decides that further proceedings should be initiated either by reopening an inquiry or, exceptionally, by holding a fresh inquiry. In the interests of transparency, the bill does not provide for the withdrawal of the original determination from publication. It should, however, be made clear by means of the publication of a notice that the original determination has been set aside. Amendment 17 ensures that, at the point that the sheriff makes an order for further proceedings, Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service must publish a notice explaining that the determination has been set aside. An interested person going to the SCTS website will therefore see all of the relevant information together. Amendments 18 and 19 are technical amendments to section 33 relating to further inquiry proceedings. They relate to where a recommendation was made in the original determination by the sheriff but a recommendation in the same terms is not made in the new determination. In such circumstances, SCTS must withdraw from publication responses to such recommendations and any notices published in relation to them. Amendment 19 requires SCTS to withdraw from publication notices which state that part of a response to a recommendation has been withheld from publication in addition to those published which state that the whole of a response has been withheld or that no response was given. Amendment 18 is consequential to amendment 19 and I move amendment 14. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much and I call amendments 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 all on the name of the minister and all previously debated by the minister to move amendments 15 to 19 on block please. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 15 to 19? There's no member does. The question is that amendments 15 to 19 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I now move to group 5 and call amendment 20 in the name of the minister. Group with amendments 21 to 35 minister to move amendments 20 and speak to all amendments in the group please. Thank you Presiding Officer. Amendments 20 to 35 are highly technical in nature. Amendments 21 and 22 to whether amendment 34 mentioned below are the key substantive amendments of this group. The ad section 34, subsection 6 and schedule 1 to list of sections that come into force the day after royal assent. That is to permit the Scottish Civil Justice Council to begin work early in the new year on drafting rules for FEIs to replace the fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiry procedure of Scotland rules 1977. The SCJC currently has no powers to do so. Amendment 34 removes paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the bill and this removes the transitional arrangement for the Scottish ministers to make regulations for FEI rules before the SCJC takes on the responsibility. Amendment 20 is consequential on amendment 34. Amendment 31 inserts a new paragraph into section 4, subsection 3 of the SCJC act to make it clear that the court of sessions power to make inquiry rules is not prejudiced by the SCJC's specific statutory function of preparing draft FEI rules. Amendments 23 to 30, 32, 33 and 35 are technical remodeling of existing provisions, which do not have any substantive effect. They are needed because the Scottish Civil Justice Council will now take on the role of drafting FEI rules before it takes on the role of drafting rules for the Scottish tribunals. Amendment 35 makes some minor consequential tidying up changes to the tribunals act. I move amendment 20. Thank you very much. As no member has asked to speak, do you have anything further to add in winding up minister? Thank you. So the question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are. So I call amendments 21 to 35 or in the name of the minister and all previously debated and I invite the minister to move amendments 21 to 35 on block please. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 21 to 35? And as no member does, the question is that amendments 21 to 35 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. And that ends consideration of amendments. And we'll now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15113 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse on the enquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify crown ascent to the bill. I now call cabinet secretary Michael Matheson. For the purposes of rule point 11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty having been informed of the reports of the enquiries into the fatal accident and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Bill has consented to her prerogatives and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Many thanks. And so I now call on Paul Wheelhouse to speak to and move the motion and before I do, before you rise minister and invite all members to take part in the debate please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible minister. Ten minutes or thereby please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to open this stage through debate on the enquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Bill. The law relating to the investigation of sudden, suspicious and unexplained death is different in Scotland to the rest of the UK. Countries which follow the common law system such as England have coronars. In countries where there is a tradition of the civil law, in other words law deriving from Roman law, sudden and suspicious deaths are investigated by the procurator whose other duties include the preparation of criminal cases for prosecution. Scotland has historically a country where the civil law has been followed and so the duty of investigating sudden and unnatural deaths has been handed down over a number of centuries to the procurator Fiscal. The concept of the fatal accident inquiry has its roots in the reforms of the 19th century which quite rightly demanded the improvement of social and working conditions. The procurator Fiscal thus first became the guardian of the public interest in relation to industrial and occupational deaths in order to ensure the impartial investigation of fatal industrial accidents with a view to presenting the evidence to a sheriff. Later, the procurator Fiscal was charged with investigating any sudden or suspicious death in Scotland in relation to which there was a public interest in exposing and examining the facts of the death. There have been a number of pieces of legislation on fatal accident inquiries and the most recent, the fatal accidents and sudden death inquiries Scotland Act 1976 has served Scotland for nearly 40 years. It is right that the law should now be reformed and modernised and I should like to pay tribute to Lord Cullen who carried out a most thorough review of the legislation that has brought us to this point. There is a reason why I have sought to put the system of death investigation and a fatal accident inquiries in Scotland into context and to explain its historical derivation. Procurators Fiscal investigate some five and a half thousand sudden, suspicious or unexplained deaths every year. Clearly many of these investigations will result in criminal proceedings. In many cases, the Fiscal will conclude that no further investigations or inquiry is necessary. Only around 50 to 60 cases per annum proceed to a full fatal accident inquiry before a sheriff. The Scottish Government firmly believes that this system incorporates and permits a necessary and beneficial degree of flexibility. Cases that have led to public concern will almost certainly lead to an FEI before a sheriff, while those that do not, by and large, will not. One of the strengths of vesting all death investigation powers in a single public officer is that, when homicide has been excluded, the prosecutor's duty is not at an end, whereas, if suspicious circumstances emerge in the course of investigating what had appeared to be an expected death, the prosecutor is already aware of the circumstances. Deaths as a result of an accident in the course of employment and death in legal custody will automatically result in mandatory FEIs. Under the bill, deaths of children in secure accommodation and deaths in police custody, irrespective of the location of the death, will also now result in mandatory inquiries. In all other cases, discretion is given to Lord Advocate and the Crown Office to decide whether an FEI is required in the public interest. It is right that they should do so, since the Crown will first have to establish whether there has been any behaviour in relation to the death that merits criminal prosecution. It is only after that decision has been taken that consideration will be given to the need for an FEI where it is not mandatory. Lord Gill, the former Lord President, indicated in his evidence before the Justice Committee that it was right that the Crown Office should exercise discretion rather than the law becoming too inflexible. That would lead to many FEIs being held from which no lessons could be learned, yet the brief family or families would suffer the distress of a public examination of the circumstances of the death of their loved one. Under the bill, it will now be possible for the Lord Advocate to judge whether it would be in the public interest for an FEI to be held into the death of a person normally resident in Scotland who dies or is killed abroad. In coming to that decision, the Lord Advocate will have to take into account whether there has already been an adequate investigation of the death in the country where it took place. He or she will also have to consider whether there is a realistic prospect that an investigation in Scotland by the Crown Office will be able to properly establish the circumstances of the death given that it will have to rely on liaison with and the co-operation of the legal and government authorities in the country in which the death took place. Nevertheless, the Government believes that this is a major advance in the law of death investigation in Scotland, particularly as it will be possible to hold an FEI without the body being repatriated to this country. That is still a requirement for a coroner's inquest to be held in such circumstances in the rest of the UK. The requirement for the repatriation of the body was removed from the bill at the suggestion of the Justice Committee to whom I extend my thanks for their thoughtful and thorough consideration of the bill. There is therefore now parity in the bill in terms of a death occurring on the Scottish mainland in the offshore North Sea oil and gas area or abroad. I should add that the system in Scotland is quite different from that under the rest of the UK. Under the coroner system, the coroner is responsible for the investigation of the death or deaths, but the coroner also presides over the inquest. In Scotland, the procurator Fiscal investigates the death, but then if any FEI is mandatory or is ordered by the Lord Advocate, the Fiscal will present the evidence to a full judicial inquiry before a sheriff. We believe that the system combines and embodies the necessary elements of effective investigation, separation of powers and judicial independence to authoritatively determine the circumstances of death and any precautions that might have been taken and that should be taken in the future to prevent death in similar circumstances. The bill contains new provisions that require participants at FEIs to whom a sheriff has directed a recommendation to respond, setting out how they propose to implement the recommendation or if they do not intend to comply, why not. Patricia Ferguson brought forward an amendment at stage 2 that requires Scottish ministers to produce an annual report on responses to recommendations. Taken as a package, we believe that the proposals on requiring responses to sheriff recommendations and the annual report will provide a transparent record of what has happened in relation to those recommendations. It will also highlight whether participants have responded to those recommendations, though if the experience under a similar system for coroners inquest is a guide, very high response rates may be expected. Patricia Ferguson also laid an amendment at stage 2 that provides statutory underpinning for the family liaison charter, which the solicitor general promised during evidence at stage 1. The charter will keep brief families fully informed of the progress of a death investigation and the likelihood of criminal proceedings or the potential for a fatal accident inquiry. Patricia Ferguson did bring forward her own member's bill on fatal accident inquiries. Although she chose to withdraw it at stage 1, I think that it is appropriate at this point to acknowledge and pay tribute to all the hard work that she has devoted to the various issues surrounding death investigations and FEIs. I would like to thank her for the collaborative way in which she is engaged with the Government in relation to the bill. Elaine Murray laid an amendment on trade union participation at FEIs at stage 2. The Scottish Government accepted the amendment subject to amending the provision to ensure that it properly reflected the policy intention. I am similarly grateful to Elaine Murray for discussing that with me. As a result, we have now amended the provision to ensure that it means that bodies similar to trade unions who represent workers who are not permitted to join trade unions will be able to participate at FEIs. I should also like to pay tribute to Flight Lieutenant James Jones, who drew to the attention of the Justice Committee the anomaly that deaths of service personnel in the course of their duties in Scotland do not at present automatically result in a fatal accident inquiry, though a discretionary inquiry may be held. That fact was not raised by Lord Cullen in his review, nor was the matter brought up during the Government's consultation on its legislative proposals. It is a credit to the system of evidence taken by the Justice Committee that the issue was identified during its deliberations. That matter will now be progressed by means of a section 104 order under the Scotland Act 1998, which will be brought forward at the Westminster Parliament as the issue engages the reservation of defence matters and the armed forces. I am indicated during the stage 1 debate that we have received in principle agreement from the UK Government for this change. The Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government to put in place the necessary order next year. This bill is not the end of reforms of the system of fatal accident inquiries. In addition to the section 104 order to which I have already referred, the Scottish Civil Justice Council will be preparing rules for FEIs under section 34 of the bill, which will complement and supplement its provisions. Those rules will provide the kind of comprehensive self-contained set of rules that Lord Cullen recommended were necessary for FEIs. In future, it will therefore not be necessary to supplement the fairly sparse existing rules for FEIs with rules that were written for adversarial civil litigation and which may not lend themselves to an inquisitorial fact-finding process. The involvement of the Scottish Civil Justice Council will ensure that the new draft with spoke rules for FEIs benefit from structured, co-ordinated stakeholder input. Rules will cover matters such as preliminary hearings, which will now be the norm for FEIs, the agreement so far as possible of uncontroversial evidence before the start of an FEI, greater case management powers for sheriffs in line with the general thrust of the reforms under the Courts Reform Scotland Act 2014 and new provisions for further inquiry proceedings where new evidence comes to light. The intention is that the new act, the rules and the section 104 order will all be commenced at the same time. As it will take some months to work up suitable and comprehensive rules under the act, it is not anticipated that this will be until later in 2016. To conclude, the Scottish Government's bill provides for a coherent, proportionate, modernised system of fatal accident inquiries fit for the 21st century. It seeks to provide what Lord Cullen desired, practical measures for a system for inquiry that is effective, efficient and fair, and we believe that it is what the bill does, and we hope that the legislation is able to serve for an even longer than the 1976 act. I commend the motion in my name and ask members to support the passage of the bill. I call Dr Elaine Murray. Seven minutes, please, Dr Murray, type for time. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Fatal accidents into the circumstances of a death are undertaken in the public interest, as we were hearing, in order to determine the time, place and cause, and to establish whether lessons can be learned to prevent similar fatalities in the future. They are intended to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial, and they do not attempt to allocate guilt in a criminal sense. We are all in agreement that they should continue to operate in that manner. The current legislation has been recognised to be inadequate for some time. As long ago as March 2008, shortly after Lord Cullen had been asked to conduct his review of the fatal accident process, a debate was held in this Parliament on the inadequacies of the system, during which members of Parliament were informed by the direct knowledge of the experiences of their constituents. Nine of Patricia Ferguson's constituents died when ICU's stock line plastic factory exploded in May 2004. It was because of their frustrations with the delays in the system that a judge-led public inquiry was not held for four years that Ms Ferguson introduced her own members' bill, the inquiry into Death Scotland built a Parliament in November last year. She introduced draft proposals for consultation in August 2013. Lord Cullen had reported his findings in 2009. The Scottish Government responded in 2011, but did not bring forward its own legislation until after Patricia Ferguson's bill had been introduced. It may seem cynical, but I wonder whether that bill would be with us today if Patricia Ferguson had not already started the building with her own member's bill. Nevertheless, having been introduced in March this year, the bill has progressed fairly rapidly. As members know, Patricia Ferguson agreed to withdraw her own bill and to work with the Government on amendments. Her bill had sought to introduce time limits in which certain decisions should be taken and family members informed. During the stage 1 evidence-taking, the Solicitor General had advised the committee of her intention to drop a charter, advising what bereaved families could expect with regard to communication. A copy of the draft charter was circulated to justice committee members over the summer. Patricia, at stage 2, in agreement with the Government, said that it is an amendment that set this on a statutory basis. She and the Scottish Government also agreed an amendment that required ministers to prepare an annual report on sheriff's recommendations relating to FAIs, and some clarifying amendments have been agreed this afternoon. I mentioned both those amendments because it was one of the justice committee's recommendations that the bill will be amended to include some of the additional aspects of Patricia Ferguson's bill. I do not know that the bill even is amended. If I do know that the bill even is amended does not address all the issues that Patricia Ferguson had hoped to cover in her bill. However, she will be speaking in the open debate. She will no doubt pass count on those issues. The bill does not address all Lord Cullen's recommendations, and it may be that the future plans of the Government may bring some of those things into effect later on. However, I do believe that this bill is an improvement in the current legislation, and its effort is welcome. I am pleased that my own model stage 2 amendment was accepted. The bill now gives representatives of trade unions of which the deceased was a member at the time of their death the automatic right to attend a fatal accident inquiry, giving trade unions parity with a deceased employer. My original amendment, as I said, made reference to staff associations as I was keen that bodies such as the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Police Superintendents should have the same entitlement to attend if one of their members dies. I am grateful to the Scottish Government for improving the way that the bill is expressed through its stage 3 amendments today. The Government amended the bill at stage 2 to enable an FAI to be held when a death has occurred abroad, even if the body cannot be repatriated. There are circumstances such as deaths at sea when retrieval of the body is not possible. That in itself, whether there is not the possibility of a burial or cremation ceremony, is very upsetting for families without also deviring them from the possibility that a fatal accident inquiry could be held in the public interest. Flight Lieutenant James Jones brought forward to us at stage 1 the issue of service personnel who die while in service in Scotland. I am pleased that the issue has been brought forward to the UK Parliament and, hopefully, there will be a resolution of that issue. I am grateful to Flight Lieutenant Jones for drawing our attention to that issue. Patricia Ferguson introduced an amendment that has the majority support of the committee, which ensures that families could be legally represented through the complexities of a fatal accident inquiry by removing the reasonableness test for the eligibility for legal aid. We are, indeed, very disappointed that the Scottish Government chose to delete this amendment today, particularly as the amendment continues to have the support of all the opposition parties in this chamber, especially after Ms Ferguson's early explanation of how the need for families to be confident of receiving legal aid at the commencement of the FAI process. It is now notable that families of those who die in prison are treated differently in that regard from those who die at work or, indeed, families whose relatives die in the street. The committee, on the majority vote, had also amended the bill at stage 2 to implement one of Lord Cullin's recommendations, which had not been in the Government's bill, to make fatal accident inquisiment mandatory where people die in compulsory mental health detention. At the time, that has been supported by third sector organisations such as Naible in their submission to Lord Cullin's review, and we had also been told that corners inquires were mandatory in those circumstances in England and Wales. However, several organisations, including health professionals and crucially mental health patients and their families, subsequently wrote both to the Government and MSPs asking that those amendments be deleted from the bill and to revert to the original wording that provides for discretionary FAIs in those circumstances. As I said during the amendment stage, my correspondence yesterday with Naible indicated that they too were content with this change, so long as adequately insurances were given that the review required by section 37 of the Mental Health Act into the investigation of deaths of patients at the time of death were detained in hospital under mental health law would be progressed as a matter of urgency. We have today heard that the order to do that has already been laid yesterday and that the review will be undertaken as soon as is possible. It was well worth while amending the bill at stage 2 in order to be able to achieve that reassurance today, and I know that everybody will be grateful for that. Despite our disappointment over the deletion of Patricia Ferguson's amendment on legal aid, we believe that the original bill has been improved by comparison with Patricia's bill and by the simple court amendments that were agreed at stage 2 and stage 3, and we will be supporting it in this evening's vote. I begin my contribution to today's stage 3 debate on the inquiries into fatal accident in the sudden death Scotland bill by acknowledging Patricia Ferguson's significant involvement in the legislative process following the withdrawal of her own bill and her co-operation with the Scottish Government at stage 2. I also thank the witnesses and stakeholders for their insightful evidence, which has informed the committee's scrutiny of the bill. Thirty years after the system of fatal accident inquiries was enacted, it is not surprising that significant form and modernisation was required. Consequently, in 2009, Lord Cullen's review of the law governing fatal accident inquiries made a number of important recommendations, many of which are contained in the bill. However, during its stage 1 scrutiny, the Justice Committee identified a number of weaknesses in the bill that needed to be addressed at stage 2. For example, a common criticism from bereaved families was the long delays before the commencement of inquiries aggravated by patchy communication from the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Office. Concern was therefore expressed that the Scottish Government did not include that in the bill. Lord Cullen's recommendation of an early hearing should therefore have been included, especially as those early hearings would have required the Procurator Fiscal not to keep relatives informed, not only to keep relatives informed of the progress of the investigation, but also crucially to focus attention on ensuring that fatal accidents were held as quickly as possible. However, following the commitment of the Solicitor General to produce a milestone charter outlining what families can expect from the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to the timings of investigations and decision making, the committee came to the view that early hearings were no longer deemed necessary. Furthermore, in relation to fatal accidents inquiries into deaths abroad, the Justice Committee questioned the requirement that the body must be repatriated to Scotland for the fatal accident inquiry to be heard. Taking into account evidence that occasionally exceptional circumstances would render this impossible, the Scottish Government amended the bill accordingly at stage 2. Turning now to the stage 2 amendments on legal aid for families and the amendments to the mandatory inquiries with the Lord Advocate's opt-out for individuals detained on a compulsory basis under the mental health legislation, those were recommendations from Lord Cullen, not included, but voted for by a majority of the Justice Committee at stage 2. I still consider that those amendments for mental health detainees ensured that the right balance was struck between ensuring that the mandatory FEI was not carried out unnecessarily and ensuring that the deceased rights had been protected. The amendment on legal aid recognised that the Lord Advocate does not represent the interests of the families but rather the public interests. Today, the Scottish Government has overturned both those amendments, and two consequences flow from that. First, the total absence of checks and balances in the decision-making of this SNP majority Government has been laid bare, and that continues to justify or play be an issue of grave concern. Christiana. We heard from the Member and we heard from other contribution before that somehow it's not a proper democratic process. It is a proper democratic process, and a Government cannot accept everything that the opposition would. If it did, it would be an opposition bill. What's the point being in Government if you cannot direct some part of the legislation, some part approved, some part off you don't? I can remind the member that she has herself a member's bill, which she accepted at stage 2. The point is that there are, I think, five subject committees with SNP have—no, seven out of nine subject committees with SNP has a majority in the—there are checks and balances, and I take the sedentary point from Ms Grahame in the Westminster Government, and that's been proven quite recently with decisions from the House of Lords. The point is that there are no checks and balances on this majority Government because we're never supposed to have one, and thus we've got the despicable decision today on the petition— Members just closing. Can I just close by saying that there is no doubt that individuals who are detained under mental health legislation are amongst the most vulnerable in society, yet today the SNP Government has ensured that they are not afforded the same protections as criminal who die in custody. Whilst a bill generally will have a positive impact on bereaved families' experiences of the FEI system in Scotland, I believe that the Scottish Government can take little comfort of pride in how it has discriminated against these vulnerable mental health detainees. Too much. We now move to the open debate. I call on Christian Allard up to four minutes, please, Mr Allard. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yes, I did make the point, and I would like to make it again. It's very, very important that we understand the strength of this Parliament in this place, particularly when we see that members in the opposition can bring forward members' bills and which is fantastic, is a very great thing to do, not only this. I will come back during my contribution. A person can come and give evidence in a committee and change the bill itself, which is quite incredible. It's not only opposition members who can contribute to drafting of a bill, but people who come and give evidence in a committee can do that as well. I'll talk about retired flight, Lieutenant Jones, of course. But as a member of the committee, I'm delighted to see this afternoon the passage of another of many bills we are scrutining this year in the Justice Committee, and I would like to thank the members and the clerks, and they will be delighted to know that that's the second of the stage three bills we've done this week. This bill will modernise the fatal accident inquiry process and will make it effective, efficient and fair. Following recent event today's right, Presiding Officer, that I shall remind the Chamber that the interest of the families in the fatal accident inquiry is to ascertain the circumstances and the cause of death. It must be the primary concern of us all not to confuse a fatal accident inquiry, the procedures in civil cause, where any question of blame are to be addressed, and that's very, very important that we see that all through, and I do think that at stage one and stage two and now at stage three we have some willing of some members who want to maybe go to a more adversarial kind of inquiry, and I don't think it will help the process, and it will not help the family to understand more about the process. There are two things I would quickly like to say today, Ellen Morell did speak about them already. It's first of all the fact that the first jurisdiction in the UK, Scotland, is here to allow inquiries of death accurate abroad. We vote the repatriation of the body of the disease, but what I would like to say about that and to make sure that families understand, it's very important that the public out there understand only in exceptional circumstances, and I repeat in exceptional circumstances only, and it's very important to make that point. But like the minister said, we have gone beyond the practice in England and Wales and quite rightly so, I would say, and I can refer to the minister again when he said that it's very important that advance that has possibility should exist, particularly that is not the case in England and Wales. I very much welcome this president, and the reactions that we give to many people in Scotland. People who are working abroad in challenging conditions and in difficult conditions sometimes are particularly thinking about in the office of Scotland, a lot of all workers are working all across the world, and it's very important they've got that. And to finish off, I would like to talk about Retire Flight, Lieutenant James Jones, and when he came and gave evidence, and it's fantastic to see that one person can make so much difference, and I very much look forward to the route of the order on section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 that emerged through this bill, that will ensure that those who risk their lives for us can be reassured at appropriating questions in the future, particularly in light of those days when we are asking them again and again to make the ultimate sacrifice overseas. I would like to thank again Retire Flight, Lieutenant James Jones, for coming to the committee with all his efforts. This may not have been possible. The relations of the past have been learned, and I look forward to a fair settlement for service personnel in Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This afternoon, when we pass this bill, as we will, with Labour support, we will make some significant changes to the FAI system in this country, but I can't help but observe that we've missed the opportunity to make some radical and important changes to the FAI system at the same time. Lord Cullen's review, ordered by the Scottish Government, was a good one, but it didn't go quite far enough for me, if I'm being perfectly honest, as colleagues probably already know, but it obviously went too far for the Scottish Government. As members know, I introduced my own bill, and I should say at this point that I'm very grateful to the clerks to the Justice Committee for their assistance with that, and to the legislation team in the Parliament, as well as to Patrick Maguire of Thomson Solicitors, who was most helpful in that regard. However, I would also like to thank the members of the Justice Committee, who were very helpful to me and were very accommodating and gave very careful consideration to the bill that I proposed. As members know, the decision of the Justice Committee was that the best vehicle to take forward some of those issues was the Government's bill, and they urged that we should co-operate to take forward the issues that were being discussed. I think that the areas where we agree that the charter will make a difference to families, I think that it will make it easier for them to understand the process, and it will make it easier for them to get information in advance of an FAI, and, hopefully, through the process of an FAI, too. I think that the annual report of the recommendations made by sheriffs with regard to their consideration of fatal accident inquiries will also be important. I'm glad that the Government eventually agreed that that report should be laid before Parliament, because I think that it's important that we, if we're not going to do post-legislative scrutiny of bills like this, at least look at the outcomes that we have laid before us. I am very disappointed that the Government didn't agree to accept the stage 2 amendment that I put through about civil legal aid. We've rehearsed perhaps the debate around that one enough this afternoon, but I do think that it is remarkable that those who perhaps are involved in the death of someone in custody will still remain having legal aid as they should, but bereaved families whose family member has perhaps died as a result of an accident at work will not necessarily have that guaranteed to them. I think that this Parliament has done those families a disservice today. I will say this, Presiding Officer, and others have referred to this already, but I do think that there is a very important question about scrutiny in this Parliament. I'm not going to make a long or a big point of this, but I do think that when all the opposition parties agree that there is a point that is worth pursuing and do so because they have a genuine concern and they have aired the issues and discussed the issues, it is very sad that the Scottish Government chooses to use its majority to vote that down. I have no compunction about saying that I know that the amendment was only agreed at stage 2 because there isn't a Government majority on that committee, and I'm very grateful to all those members who gave it careful consideration whether they voted for it then, or today, or not. As Elaine Murray quite rightly said, my interest in FAIs was sparked by the death of nine members of the community at the stockline factory in my constituency and by the terrible weight that they had for a fatal accident inquiry. I hope that the recommendations that we have put through today and the bill that will emerge as a result of those deliberations make sure that families in the future do not have to have the experience that those nine families had over a prolonged period of four years. The current legislation governing the fatal accident inquiry system is nearly 40 years old and it has been six years since Lord Cullen reported on his review into this matter, so I think that we can all agree that this bill has been a long time coming and I'm therefore pleased that we've finally reached the home straight on reforming and modernising the FAI system. At the outset, I would once again like to praise Patricia Ferguson for the work that she undertook and the tenacity that she showed and the professionalism as she undertook the work that ultimately led to this Scottish Government bill. The bill is introduced including a number of improvements to the FAI system. The initial bill set out the requirement to hold the mandatory FAI for the death of a child in secure accommodation and deaths under police arrest. It allowed FAIs to be reopened if new evidence was found and required bodies that are affected by a sheriff's determination to formally respond, setting out what actions they have taken. Those are all welcome improvements, but, as others have said, not all of Lord Cullen's recommendations were included and, in particular, I'm referring to the decision not to include deaths of people detained under mental health legislation within that mandatory category. That changed at stage 2 and has reverted earlier this afternoon during stage 3 amendments. As I said earlier, I have concluded on balance that there is a more proportionate and less distressing way to proceed that involves reforming the whole system of notifications and investigations. However, I think that the debate that it generated has been worthwhile and I'm sure that there is a greater understanding among all involved that a more rigorous and coherent system for investigating deaths of those detained for mental health reasons is required. Already, an additional safeguard has come into place, meaning that all deaths of people detained under the Mental Health Scotland Act 2003 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1995 will end up on the Procurator Fiscal's Desk for his attention. I welcome the minister's assurances this afternoon about the timetable for the review. I hope that the review will pay particular attention to death by suicide while detained. At stage 2, I pressed the minister on whether it would be appropriate to send the requirement to hold the mandatory FAI in two further categories. Firstly, as the result of a death of a child who was looked after by the state, even if they lived with their parents or guardians at the time of their death. Secondly, on a little niche area for patients with dementia who immediately before their death had received prolonged treatment using psychotropic medication, because we know that that type of medication causes sedation, confusion and movement difficulty and overuse of such drugs in such situations has been implicated in an increased risk of stroke. A number of organisations, including the Mental Welfare Commission, have raised concerns about the widespread use of those drugs in care home settings, and the most vulnerable people in our society deserve our attention. I was pleased in both those instances to receive assurances from the minister that attention was focused on those areas, and I did not therefore press my amendments. I welcome the Government's recognition of the need for a national child death review system to review the deaths of all children and young people, not just those in care. I understand that the work of the steering group to develop a model for that system is on-going, and I look forward to hearing of its outcomes. I was also grateful to the minister for acknowledging that the prolonged use of psychotropic medication for dementia patients is an issue that could also be explored in the wider review, and I will continue to pursue that. As I said, Patricia Ferguson has been tenacious in her pursuit of improvements. Like her, I am disappointed that her amendment on legal aid secured at stage 2 has been removed this afternoon at stage 3, but nevertheless she can feel content that she has improved the initial bill. Fatal accident inquiries are held in the public interest, but behind every death there is a family, and those who knew and loved the deceased people who are seeking answers, and Ms Ferguson's amendments make sure that they will be part of that process and will be kept informed. Overall, I support the bill, I support the changes that make the current systems, and we will support the bill at decision time. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a preliminary, let me hear rumblings about the SNP overall majority. For eight years in here, we had a Labour-liberal coalition majority, and I cannot recall on any occasion, on any committee, I managed to get an amendment through where they had a majority on every single committee. Let us just park that one for a start, and there is not an overall SNP majority on the justice committee. No, I am going to proceed because I have heard enough about that for eight years of it. I very much welcome this legislation and commend the work of members of the justice committee, which has increased the relevance and potency of the bill. I congratulate Patricia Ferguson for much that she did in pursuing her own bill, most of which persuaded matters to change in the Government's legislation. Indeed, this particular minister, who does listen and I think does collaborate where it is possible with other members who do not always agree. I want to turn to something that has already been mentioned, which is the death of service personnel. There was a very bizarre situation where, if you were a Scottish service personnel who died abroad out with the UK, there could be a discretionary FAI, but if you died in Scotland in service, there was not. In fact, there could be an inquiry in England, but there was nothing in Scotland. To the best of my knowledge, the only FAI that has taken place involving service personnel in Scotland was a Mull of Kentire Chinook helicopter crash, and that was simply because there were some civilian people on that plane. I think that it is wonderful that the evidence to the committee we are now moving, and I congratulate Westminster—not often you will hear that—for going to move a section 104 under the Scotland Act, which I know is mentioned, in schedule 2 of this bill. Not only do I think that that is going to be welcomed by families, I think that it will be welcomed by the larger Scottish community, but I have a question for the minister. I am looking for confirmation that that will apply to historic service personnel deaths in Scotland. I am wondering if we are able to have FAIs now that we have never had into incidents that took place. The other incident is death of Scottish residents abroad, which I think my colleague Christian Allard referred to, where it just seemed again bizarre that you had to bring up mandatory to bring a body home to have a discretionary FAI. Obviously, there are circumstances where there will be no body to retrieve a loss at sea or other circumstances, so if it was possible to pursue a discretionary FAI without it, why not do it so? I am glad that the Government moved on that. I turned to Patricia Ferguson's bill and much that she did persuaded movement in the Government's legislation. Family liaison charter is very important. I think that the idea of making the recommendations of the share of binding was very attractive initially, but once she got into the detail of it, she began to realise that it had huge unintended consequences not only from the parties that might have to be called to an FAI, but widened its scope enormously. Let's say that some widget was found to be faulty and part of the reason why suddenly I know who is manufacturing these widgets all over the world, who is operating them, suddenly a whole ramifications of people coming into it made it very difficult. In reality, not just are we having recommendations published now and the responses to them, many of the faults that have taken place are remedied before the thing even gets to an FAI. It is a very foolish employer that does not immediately look to its practices. The other thing was time limits. I will be very quick on this because I think that there are huge problems in having mandatory time limits in FAI. For example, the bin lorry FAI. There are many questions out there about whether that went ahead too quickly. So there can be good reasons why you do not do it. You may have a health and safety inquiry, you may have an aviation inquiry. All of these may be necessary to take place quite frankly before you have the FAI and even whether the Crown decides whether or not to go any further with a prosecution. All in all, I support that. Although the original bill is so old, it does not necessarily mean that all statutes pass to its sell by day, but this one was. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights creates a right to life, and with it the duty on a state to investigate the loss of life. I know that that is a duty that this state does not take lightly and has not in want in the future. During the course of this passage of this legislation, I think that there has been a number of very interesting bits of discussion on the issue of mental health being won. I think that the willingness of people to move their position on various matters throughout this bill has certainly been persuaded. I think that that is the nature of the scrutiny that has taken place in the willingness to engage, so I am very pleased about that. Likewise, and much has been driven, and as many others commend Patricia Ferrigs in the family charter, the milestone, I think is significant. I have to say that it will be a challenge for Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service if they are going to service that properly, because it is a very emotive thing dealing with any death. The minister talked about the history of the legislation and clearly it is an evolving situation, and that will prove part of it. Lord Cullen reported in 2009 that some initial administrative issues are picked up, but the bulk of his recommendations did require primary legislation. That is why we got here and we know that not all of his recommendations were taken up by the Scottish Government. Indeed, the question of legal aid. I was very happy to lend my support to that, and of course I am disappointed about it. Who knows what a majority-green future administration will do when it comes to wielding power? However, it is arithmetic. There will not be any aeroplanes, you are right, yes. A member's experience is all different. I have experience of an FAI from the point of view of a death in Custry. I can tell you that it was a very harrowing experience for everyone involved. I was there ensuring that ferreted ranks were represented. They were represented by a lawyer. I have to say that the finding showed no disregard for the welfare of the individual who sadly lost his life quite the reverse. However, it was a very searching experience for everyone. It certainly is not a forum for the layperson. That is the most important thing to say. Elaine Murray's motion on the amendment at stage 2 on trade union and staff association now refined is very welcome. The other thing that I think maybe sounds very dry but is very important too is the case management that is going to be adopted. The less trauma we can have associated with the process, I think, the better. Allowing FAIs to be reopened and reconvened is very important. I have already dealt with an inquiry from a constituent about a historic case, and I think that it is clear that that will not apply. I think that we need to get that message very clear that it will not cover FAIs covered by the 76 legislation. We know that any death is traumatic, a death where there are no remains is additionally traumatic. Many of the issues covering that with the absence of a body I think have been very sensitively dealt with and will be very reassuring to people. I have to say that I imagine that families are completely unconcerned whether something is mandatory or discretionary and what they want is answers. Again, I come back to the family charter. That will play a very important role in that. Likewise, the deaths abroad service personnel, that is to be welcome. There was a lot of discussion about the findings, my colleague Christine Grahame touched on that there. Your initial thoughts on what can be achieved can often be shaped by what you hear, and there are challenges about that. Of course, if you go back to the initial purpose, it is to understand the cause and put in place mechanisms to avoid repetition. That is very important. Public interest is very important and public reassurance is very important. I think that the legislation will play its part in providing some public reassurance and will certainly be supporting it at the conclusion. Many thanks. We now move to closing speeches. I call on Annabelle Goldie. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Goldie. I welcome this stage three debate on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden death Scotland Bill. I share the tributes that were already paid to the Justice Committee, to Patricia Ferguson and to the many witnesses and stakeholders who have helped to inform the legislative process. As the bill concludes its parliamentary passage today, it is worth reflecting on what its purpose is, which is to implement the 36 recommendations of the Cullen review, which require primary legislation. Some six years after those were published. That review, of course, was timely because the relevant legislation was elderly. It had not necessarily kept pace with other developments in the justice system, not least the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law. The test of day, Presiding Officer, is whether the legislation achieves the policy objective to reform and modernise the law governing the holding of fatal accident inquiries in Scotland. My party's assessment is that it does indeed do that, and we shall support the bill at decision time. There is very positive and noteworthy provisions, not least the requirement that sheriff's determinations should be published and that anyone who was a party to the inquiry and to whom a recommendation is addressed should have to respond accordingly. Just as the Justice Committee did at stage one, I urge the Scottish Government to find ways of ensuring that sheriff's recommendations are respected. At stage two, Patricia Ferguson lodged a welcome amendment to the bill, creating a statutory obligation on the Lord Advocate to produce a family liaison charter. It is the case that the issues surrounding the often intermittent communication of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service with bereaved families are well documented. There are no doubt numerous reasons can be a juice for such pastimodic contact, but it does exacerbate an already extremely difficult and sensitive time for relatives. The cross-party support for that amendment, I think, was very welcome. I join other members in acknowledging Patricia Ferguson's considerable work to reform FAIs. I was troubled by the removal from the bill of her provision to ensure legal aid for families. I think that fatal accident inquiries are entirely different beasts of civil litigation hearings, and I am not sure that distinction was appreciated. Can I comment briefly on the Justice Committee's stage one report on the lack of clarity surrounding the purpose of a fatal accident inquiry that is held in the public interest? I think that there is a real misunderstanding in this area, and it serves to raise the expectations of families if there is not greater transparency. I think that there is an obligation and all parties involved to provide that transparency. How does a fatal accident inquiry relate to other investigations involving fatalities, and how does it relate to the role of the family of families that is affected? Greater transparency would help to demystify a complex system while managing the expectations of what the inquiry will ultimately achieve. As I conclude my remarks this afternoon, I want to turn to Margaret Mitchell's stage two amendments that, despite receiving support from all but the SNP members of the Justice Committee, were removed in total from the bill today. I noted in the minister's comments that the provisions did not attract wide support from stakeholders, although perhaps that is because the policy intent was not fully understood. It is worth noting that Lord Cullen himself acknowledged that an FAI should be held into the deaths of those detained by the state, especially those who are most vulnerable, and that those FAIs are in the public interest. My colleague Margaret Mitchell sought to put that recommendation on to her statutory footing, and it is unfortunate that that has been overturned. It has implications for our unicameral parliamentary system, for the robustness of scrutiny and for the legitimate power and authority of a scrutinising committee by majority to change a bill. I think that ear brushing such change out at stage three is unimpressive. That said, this is a good bill. It will receive the support of my party and it will have a positive impact on the system of FAIs in Scotland. Many thanks. First of all, I note that the absence of ranker and largely the agreement across these benches of support for the bill reflects highly on the work done by Justice Committee and Justice Committee members. The contribution of Patricia Ferguson, my colleague on the back benches, and those who gave evidence to the committee at stages one and two. It does well to remember that some 5,000 deaths a year are reviewed by the authorities, resulting in somewhere short of 60 being subject to fatal accident inquiry annually. The fatal accident inquiry, we should remember, is designed quite properly to decide the circumstances of a death and is not designed to a portion of blame. However, as John Finnie indicated, a fatal accident inquiry can be extremely difficult and very upsetting for family members, for close friends and for those who have been involved with the circumstances surrounding a death. Often, for the first time, they hear details that have an implication on how they might respond to the evidence that they have heard. In terms of an examination of the circumstances of a death, it is right that a sheriff should act in a thorough and proper means to examine all the circumstances and sometimes that can be extremely harring. In those circumstances, therefore, it is good to know that general agreement has been achieved in relation to some important elements. The evidence of BMA, SAMH, mental welfare and commission and others have helped to point this Parliament in a direction that would ensure that not in all circumstances will a fatal accident inquiry be held where a death occurs involving someone facing mental health conditions. The opportunity for the Crown to intervene in the appropriate circumstances to decide a fatal accident inquiry is appropriate and commensurate with the circumstances that we face annually. I have confidence that, based on experience that Procurator Fiscal Service has the ability to make the appropriate decisions in most circumstances, the amendments proposed by Elaine Murray provided value to the discussion in ventilating all the issues. I am happy to see that, at the end of that process, we have come to a decision that I certainly feel comfortable with. Secondly, the agreement of the Government to include representation from trade union and staff association representatives in relevant deaths, while engaging in employment, is a helpful way forward to advising how we should deal with them. The third element that has been important today is establishing grounds where the investigation of deaths of citizens at a carabroad has been a subject area that has caused a great deal of upset for many families in Scotland to date. And to see some form of solution going forward, I think, is important and should give comfort to many relatives moving forward. I am disappointed that Patricia Ferguson's amendment number one, an attempt to provide some kind of equality of representation, has been rejected. It has been fully ventilated. I do not intend to go into the circumstances again, but I have certainly been present when procurator ffiscals have made it clear to families that they are there to represent the public interest and not the family's concern. Families have found that very difficult to understand. I would implore the minister to ensure that the family liaison charter is seen as a very valuable guidance to the fiscal service in the future in order that the culture of the fiscal service could take on board the changes in the responsibilities that we expect of them in the future in dealing with fatal accident inquiries. The minister's reference during the debate to the situation in England and Wales in relation to the coroners and coroner's duties, I do not think that assisted the debate today. I think that it was largely irrelevant in that the system in Scotland has always been different and has always been a more positive experience for families. We should invest in those circumstances rather than relying on the comfort that is worse elsewhere. I do not think that I am particularly interested in how it is dealt with in other jurisdictions, unless it advises us in ways of improving our own. Returning to the circumstances of Patricia Ferguson's amendments, I hope that the Government will bear that in mind going forward. If experience tells us that we have gone in the wrong direction, we make an earlier change to the way forward as we find from those relatives who meet the new circumstances if they are challenged. I suspect that they will be challenged that legal age should become a norm. In my final comments in that regard, I would suggest that the presence of lawyers at fatal accident inquiries do not necessarily mean that the introduction of new conflicts. If the circumstances of a fatal accident inquiry are made clear to lawyers that they are there to determine the facts and not to engage in legal exchange, I am sure that we could find a more productive way of going forward in terms of the nature of a fatal accident inquiry and the purpose for its holding. However, in conclusion, I make it clear that we support the principles behind the bill, we will be voting in support of the bill and I am grateful to the minister personally for his approach in dealing with many of the questions and exchanges that have occurred during stages 1 to 3. Am y bryd, thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Peelehouse. Mr Pearce will now come to the poll. Peelehouse joined up with the debate. Mr Peelehouse, I can give you eight minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to accord my thanks to members for their contributions to this debate. I just want to, before I indulge in going through the detail, to respond to one point, which I think is important to address at the beginning. Graham Pearson raised it in relation to the Procurator Fiscal being able to point people towards legal aid. That is something that I will take forward and see what we can do with both the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and, indeed, the legal aid board, to make sure that people are aware of the options that are available to them, if they feel that the Procurator Fiscal is not going to take forward a line of questioning. I hope that I did try and reassure members that we were aware of this issue, but I will take forward that point and see if there is something that we can do in the family liaison charter to make that more explicit. However, the bill provides the legislative framework that is needed to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations, while the detail of procedure, of course, will be provided in comprehensive bespoke rules, which are written purely for fatal accident inquiries, rather than such inquiries having to rely on the ordinary cause rules in the sheriff's court, which has been the case until now. I want to delay—there is a point in relation to—Dr Murray raised the point about the delay in bringing forward the Government bill, or perceived delay, I should stress—that the FAA bill had, inevitably, to wait in a queue of civil reforms, including the Court of Form Scotland Act 2014, and it was not being delayed until such time as Patricia Ferguson. I think that it is a happy coincidence, perhaps, if we can put it that way. However, we certainly were glad to work very closely with Patricia Ferguson. I appreciate the very hard work that she put into her bill, and I appreciate the constructive approach that she took there after having withdrawn her bill to work with the Government on amendments. The bill builds on Lord Cullen's recommendations, of course, which were directed to the Crown Office and which have already been implemented by the establishment of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit, which now oversees death investigations in Scotland. The Crown Office has also made a major contribution to the reforms that we are bringing forward in the family liaison charter, which, as a result of Patricia Ferguson's amendment, will go into statutory footing, which, as the First Minister announced, when she gave evidence to the Justice Committee at stage 1, the charter will provide clarity regarding what information the brief family will be provided with at the different stages of a death investigation, and that is why I feel that it is possible perhaps to foresee information about legal aid being slotted in there, and how and when that information will be communicated to them by the Crown Office, giving the choice to the brief families, as well as to how they want to communicate with the Crown, which is important as well. I thank the Crown Office for its expedited work on this, which included a public consultation on a draft charter over the summer in time for stage 2. As a consequence of an amendment—as I say, this is now on a statutory footing—it is entirely appropriate that the Crown Office should take the lead in such matters, given the position of Lord Advocate as the independent head of the system of death investigation in Scotland. It is worth remembering that section 48 subsection 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that, in a quote, any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity of head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of death in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person, unquote. It is important to note how fatal accident inquiries fit into other investigations of death in Scotland. As has been said previously, Procurators Fiscal has a common law duty to investigate all sudden suspicious, accidental and unexplained deaths to establish the circumstances and cause of death. 11,000 deaths are reported to Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service each year, and they investigate about half of those. Some cases are also investigated by other agencies, including the Health and Safety Executive. That was a point referred to by Christine Grahame, the air marine and rail accident investigation branches, the care inspectorate and, of course, the Mental Welfare Commission. That sometimes causes a delay in the commencement of a fatal accident inquiry, but these are all very important investigations themselves. The Crown Office engages with those agencies and may instruct the police to investigate the circumstances and consider whether criminal charges should be brought, which lead to prosecution. Consideration of criminal proceedings takes primacy, but very often investigations by the Crown are held up and delayed by investigations by, for example, the air accident investigation branch, and members will be aware that there was considerable delay before the AAB produced its report into the Clutha tragedy in Glasgow. Those delays are a matter of regret as they lengthen the period of time before any fatal accident inquiry can take place. I want to turn to some of the points that have been raised in debate. A number of members, Christine Grahame, Christian Allard, Graham Pearson and John Finnie, all referred to the issue of deaths abroad being covered by the new bill. The Justice Committee queried the requirement for the repatriation of a body for an inquiry into the death of a Scot who died abroad. I agree that there are many occasions when a body may have been lost or is otherwise not available for examination or post mortem. I want to pay particular tribute to Mr and Mrs Beverage, who gave evidence to the Justice Committee at stage 1. It was a very brave thing to do. Clearly, the death of their son Blair Jordan in very harrowing circumstances was extremely distressing for them to deal with. I am grateful, as I am sure, members of the Justice Committee were, for them to come in to give their personal experience. I hope that today they take some satisfaction, although it will not benefit their own family because it would require a retrospective fatal accident inquiry that will give them the confidence that, if any situation arose that was similar to the situation that Blair went through, that a mandatory fatal accident—sorry, the Lord Advocate would have discretion to hold a fatal accident inquiry and also in the circumstances when the body may be lost at sea as well—would be covered. It is right that, in such exceptional circumstances, the possibility of a death investigation and potential in FEI into death abroad should not be lost. For that reason, we proposed the amendment at stage 2 to remove the requirement for the repatriation of a body. That will, indeed, hopefully help relatives. The Government recognises also the need for bereaved families to be kept informed of progress with death investigations. We believe that the Crown Office's charter will provide reassurance and enhance public confidence in the system. The charter will provide information about the system and timescales to families, and will be written in a way that is understandable and accessible to everyone. I hope that that, in some way, goes towards dealing with the concern that Patricia Furr has had underlying her bill about the timescales to ensure that families are aware of what to expect so that there are no nasty surprises in terms of delays that are encountered and that they are kept informed all the way through about the likelihood of a criminal prosecution. Just before your run-out of time, I want to know the answer to my question, which was the death of service personnel in Scotland for whom mandatory FEIs were not available. You are coming to it. Excellent. I will sit down. Thank you. I will pick that point up. In terms of the military FEIs being retrospective, the answer is no. A discretionary inquiry will have been considered at the time of the incident. However, in future, I hope that, from the armed forces community and their families, they will take confidence in the fact that, if such an event is ever to happen again, it will now be mandatory to have a fatal accident inquiry into the death of service personnel in Scotland. Alison McInnes referred to the child death review and I look forward to hearing about the outcome just to inform the member that the child death review steering group has submitted its report to the Scottish ministers, and this is currently being considered by the Scottish Government, so I hope that it is not too long before that is made available. To sum up, the bill will ensure that FEIs remain fact-finding inquisitorial judicial hearings, held in the public interest to establish the circumstances of sudden, suspicious or unexplained deaths or those whose circumstances cause public concern. FEIs are not meant to hold people to account, as the media occasionally mistakenly suggests, nor are they specifically to provide answers for bereaved families, though they will normally do so. Questions of blame or guilt are for civil or criminal proceedings. FEIs are held in the public interest to establish the cause of death and to permit the sheriff to make recommendations as to how deaths and similar circumstances may be avoided in future. The bill also ensures that the system will be in keeping with other justice reforms, including the use of specialist and summary sheriffs, preliminary hearings, the early agreement of uncontroversial facts and greater scope for the location and accommodation of FEIs. When taken together with the section 104 order and the new FEI rules, which will be brought forward by the Scottish Civil Justice Council next year, the bill will represent a significant modernisation and reform of the law on fatal accident inquiries. I commend the bill to Parliament. Thank you. That concludes the debate on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths, etc. Scotland Bill, on a point of order, Neil Findlay. We have been notified today that the LCM that was put down in relation to the trade union bill has been rejected by the parliamentary clerks. Clearly, there is a willingness across this Parliament to reject the trade union bill and the fact that it has an impact on the functions of government, particularly in relation to things such as payroll deductions, facility time and a whole range of features in that bill that are clearly the preserve of the Scottish Government. I am asking you, as Presiding Officer, how we can get that LCM before this Parliament or an LCM before this Parliament, because we have that cross-parliament support with one or two exceptions to reject this bill. It is only the rules of this Parliament and the standing orders of this Parliament that are stopping that from happening. Therefore, this Parliament should be able to change that to ensure that we can reject this bill. I am looking for your ruling. Thank you for your point of order, Mr Findlay. Can I say that it was my decision that it is not a relevant bill and therefore no LCM can be tabled? There are other ways that the Parliament has, if they wish to discuss the matter, and I am sure that the Government and any other interested parties will take those discussions forward. But there is no possibility of an LCM being lodged in the Parliament because it is not a relevant bill. We now move to decision time. Is this a further point of order, Ms Ferguson? I am very grateful for your clarification, Presiding Officer, as to why it is not appropriate. If it is merely a matter for the standing orders of this Parliament, would it not be possible to ask the Standards and Procedures and Appointments Committee to consider a change to standing orders to allow that bill to be taken? I have already set out all of my reasons in my letter to the cabinet secretary. Any member can have a look at that. I have asked for it to be lodged in Spice. It is not simply a matter of standing orders and at that point I am now moving on to decision time. Is this a further point of order, or is it the same point of order? I am going to a letter that many members have not seen. I think that it is only right that members see that so that we can decide how we take this matter forward. I wonder when you will provide that letter to all members of this Parliament. Mr Findlay, I am sure that when you leave here tonight you can go down to Spice where the letter has been there since before 2 o'clock this afternoon and is available to every member. We now move to decision time. The question is that motion number 15113, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden death etc. Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden death etc. Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.