 Ysgrifenniad hwnnw, dr Dr Richard Simpson. My apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer, for anticipating your greetings to us. Deputy Presiding Officer, at First Minister's questions, Nicola Sturgeon said, and I quote, having delivered the target of zero delays over six weeks—this was in respect of delayed discharges—we have progressively toughened that target, and are now focusing on ensuring patients are discharged within 72 hours. Figures obtained from the information services division show that, since July 2012 to August 2015, there have been 4,785 occasions where a patient has been delayed over six weeks when ready for discharge. There has not been one month since July 2012 but that target of zero delays has been delivered. In the last two months, 191 and 195 patients have been over six weeks. Deputy Presiding Officer, in terms of openness and transparency, will you invite the First Minister to correct the official report? Thank you, Dr Simpson, and thank you for the advance notice of the point that you wanted to make. However, as you will be aware, I am not responsible for the accuracy of members' contributions in the chamber. However, you will also be aware that there is a mechanism for any member to correct the record if they so wish to do and if they feel it necessary. I now turn to the first item of business this afternoon, which is the debate on motion number 14328 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Bill. Could I invite members who would like to contribute to this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please? I call on Paul Wheelhouse to speak to it and to move the motion. Minister, 14 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Bill. I would like to record my thanks to the Justice Committee for their consideration not only of this bill but also Patricia Ferguson's members' inquiries into Death Scotland Bill, which I will speak about shortly. Presiding Officer, in 2008 Lord Cullen, the former Lord President of the Court of Session, was asked to undertake a review of the fatal accident inquiry legislation and his review team undertook a comprehensive and thorough review reporting in November 2009. Lord Cullen made 36 recommendations for reform of the system. Some were addressed to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and have already been implemented principally by the establishment in 2010 of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit, which now oversees death investigations in Scotland. The SFIU provides advice to Procurators Fiscal investigating deaths locally, lazes with Crown Council on complex death investigations and lazes with the bereaved family or families involved. About 11,000 deaths are reported to the Crown Office each year. Fiscal conduct investigations in around half or five and a half thousand deaths and from this total of five and a half thousand there is held an average of 50 to 60 fatal accident inquiries per year. Thus, the overwhelming majority of deaths investigated by Procurators Fiscal do not result in a fatal accident inquiry because one is not deemed necessary. Lord Cullen's aim was to set out practical measures for a system for inquiry that is effective, efficient and fair. That is also the aim of the Scottish Government's bill. It will build on Lord Cullen's recommendations implemented by the Crown Office to make the system more efficient, for example by greater use of preliminary hearings and by more flexible accommodation arrangements for FEIs. It will ensure that FEIs remain inquisitorial fact-finding hearings. FEIs are not meant to hold people to account, as the media occasionally mistakenly suggests. They do not apportion blame or guilt in the civil or criminal sense, and that is for civil or criminal proceedings. FEIs are inquisitorial judicial inquiries held in the public interest to establish the circumstances of sudden, suspicious or unexplained deaths which have caused serious public concern. The sheriff will consider what steps, if any, might be taken to prevent other deaths in similar circumstances. The bill will rationalise and extend the categories of death in which it is mandatory to hold a fatal accident inquiry to include deaths of children in secure accommodation and deaths under police arrest irrespective of location. It will, for the first time, permit discretionary FEIs into deaths of Scots abroad. I thank the family of Blair Jordan for sharing their experiences with me following Blair's death off the coast of Japan in 2009. In regard to deaths abroad, the Government is minded to take into account concerns raised by the Justice Committee to remove the requirement that the body must be repatriated before such an inquiry might take place. There may be occasions when a body may have been lost or is otherwise not available for examination or post mortem. It is right in such exceptional circumstances that the possibility of a death investigation and potential in FEI into a death abroad should not be lost. That will be an advance on English law in practice, where there would be no coroner's inquests in those circumstances in the absence of a body. The bill will, for the first time, permit FEIs to be reopened if new evidence arises, or if the new evidence is so substantial to permit a completely new inquiry to be held. Sheriffs will be permitted to disseminate determinations to regulatory bodies which can implement any recommendations made. Finally, and crucially, the bill will, for the first time, place a requirement on those to whom sheriffs direct recommendations at the conclusion of inquiry to respond to indicate what action they have taken or if they have not taken action to explain why not. Sheriffs make recommendations in around a third of all FEIs for precautions that might be taken to prevent deaths in similar circumstances in the future. The response or lack of response to a recommendation will be published along with the sheriffs' determination to create a public record. This procedure will replicate the system that is used under coroner's inquests in England and will foster compliance with sheriffs' recommendations in a transparent way. Presiding Officer, the question of delays in holding an FEI has often been cited as one of the main concerns with the system of FEIs. Lord Cullen opposed the introduction of statutory timescales. He believed that the complexity and diversity of FEIs meant that timescales would be counterproductive. Rigid timescales might actually mean that the FEI might not achieve the aim of finding out the cause of death and any recommendations by which it might have been avoided. That view was confirmed by 80 per cent of respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation on legislative proposals. Presiding Officer, there are very often legitimate and unavoidable reasons for delays between the date of death and the beginning of an FEI. For example, the need to wait for the outcome of other investigations by bodies such as the health and safety executive, or the air accident investigation branch, or the possible need to obtain expert advice, or the need to consider whether criminal proceedings are appropriate and, above all, the overriding necessity of conducting death investigations thoroughly. That factors of particular relevance in relation to the complexity of some investigations, especially those involving medical cases and, of course, helicopter crashes. Like the Justice Committee, I welcome the commitment by the solicitor general to produce a charter for families. That will provide clarity regarding what information the bereaved family will be provided with at the different stages of a death investigation, and how and when that information will be communicated to them by the Crown Office. It is proposed that the Crown Office will offer to meet bereaved families within three months after the date that the death has been reported to them to give them an update on the progress of the death investigation and the likelihood of criminal proceedings and the possibility of an FEI. The charter will also explain the different stages of a death investigation and set out the commitments of the Crown Office in terms of keeping in touch with relatives. As helpfully suggested by Patricia Ferguson, who is interested in FEIs, is, I know, driven by her experience of the stockline tragedy, the Scottish Government is minded that the bill should be amended at stage 2 with a provision that will underpin the charter. A charter with statutory status should address concerns over delays and communication and complement the provisions in the bill to make the FEI system more efficient. I am happy to work with Patricia Ferguson on such an amendment. The Scottish Government has been discussing with the UK Government proposals to permit death in Scotland of service personnel in the course of their duties to be subject of a mandatory FEI. Following representations that I made to the UK Government, I am delighted to be able to tell members that the UK Government has given its in principle agreement that it should be possible for a mandatory FEI to be carried out for such deaths in the same way that such deaths would be conducted through a coroner's inquest if it incurred in England or Wales. I commend Flight Lieutenant James Jones for bringing this important matter to the Scottish Government and the Parliament's attention. This change to law will not however be affected by amending the bill. This matter falls within the defence reservation and thus the change will have to be achieved by means of an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. I have written to all relevant UK ministers to inform of our intention to seek a section 104 order. I would like to take a moment to explain why there are some matters that are not provided for in the Scottish Government's bill. There is no provision in the Government's bill for mandatory FEIs for death, resulting from industrial disease or exposure to hazardous substances. That is because, as the Solicitor General confirmed in her evidence before the Justice Committee, the Lord Advocate can exercise his discretion to have an inquiry, particularly in cases involving a new type of industrial process or a new disease, where there would be public concern about the issues. However, there is little, if any, value in public interest in holding an FEI into a death, resulting from an industrial disease, where the dangers are already well known and well acknowledged. There is no provision in the Government's bill for mandatory FEIs for detained or voluntary mental health patients. Neither the Mental Welfare Commission nor the Royal College of Psychiatrists believe that it is necessary or even desirable to hold mandatory FEIs in such cases. Indeed, there is concern that this may prove distressing to the bereaved family. The Royal College of Psychiatrists described it as undually legalistic, in that it will impose large numbers of elaborate, expensive and drawn out judicial procedures upon families, clinicians and services with no discernible benefit and prospect to justify it. Members will also be aware that new section 37 of the Mental Health Scotland Act 2015 requires ministers to carry out a review within three years of the arrangements for investigating the deaths of compulsorily detained mental health patients who were admitted voluntarily for treatment for mental disorder. The amendment for this section was proposed by Dr Richard Simpson, and the Government accepted the desirability of a statutory review in this context. I do not believe that it would be appropriate or sensible to legislate to extend the mandatory category in relation to deaths of mental health patients in advance of the work of that review. I now turn to Patricia Ferguson's bill, and while I do not support the member's bill, I would like to pay tribute to the work that Patricia Ferguson has done in relation to the system of fatal accident inquiries over the past couple of years, informed by her involvement, as I said earlier, with helping families affected by the stockline tragedy. Although Ms Ferguson originally claimed that her proposals would implement Lord Cullen's recommendations in his review, she now believes that they do not go far enough. However, I note in some respects that Ms Ferguson's bill contradicts Lord Cullen's conclusions. The Government believes that its bill is a proportionate response to Lord Cullen's recommendations to reform the system of FEIs. Criticism of the system has arisen from some high-profile and controversial cases, some of which did not, however, even result in an FEI because the circumstances of death were established in criminal proceedings. Some of Ms Ferguson's proposals are, in our opinion, inappropriate and unworkable, and we believe that they would have a significant potential negative impact on the Crown Office, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the legal aid fund, and that is why we urge members to resist them. However, the Faculty of Advocates has also commented that the proposed inquiries in today's Scotland bill, put forward by Ms Ferguson, could result in FEIs becoming longer, more complex and more expensive when they aim to make the process quicker and more transparent. They go on to say, we think that certain aspects of the proposed bill have the potential to encourage FEIs to become adversarial in nature, as opposed to inquisitorial. I know that that is not what Patricia Ferguson intends to happen, I recognise that, but that is their view and it is one that we share. Other intended and unwelcome consequences are the increase in the length, complexity and additional expense of FEIs and the potential for injustice arising from the provisions relating to the enforcing of recommendations. Although I know that Patricia Ferguson has amended some of her original proposals, the main planks of her bill remain largely untouched. In particular, there are two areas where regrettably the Scottish Government believes that reforms may not be workable. First, the proposal to make sheriff's recommendations legally binding and appealable with criminal sanction in the event of non-compliance, and second, mandatory inquiries for deaths from industrial diseases. However, I have already set out the Scottish Government's position in relating to the latter. In terms of the former, I welcome Patricia Ferguson's argument in the explanatory notes for her bill that a sheriff's determination should be inadmissible in evidence and should not be founded on in any other judicial proceedings. That is also what the Scottish Government's bill provides. The Scottish Government entirely agrees that this is an essential element of the distinction between, on the one hand, the fact-finding inquisitorial nature of an FAI with the sheriff empowered to make recommendations and, on the other, the fault-finding adversarial nature of other legal proceedings. It is not the purpose of the FAI to establish liability for negligent actions. As Ms Ferguson has suggested, if liability arises from the death, then a civil case is the forum where those matters are examined. That statement of principle is, however, undermined by the provision in her bill to make a sheriff's recommendations enforceable with an appeal process. In addition, the suggestion that an FAI might be held before the sheriff's personal injury court is another example of an area of disagreement with Ms Ferguson. Personal injury actions are adversarial proceedings that seek to establish negligence as grounds for the payment of damages as we dress. FAIs are inquisitorial actions that should not apportion blame or guilt and are thus a completely different legal specialism. Ms Ferguson's bill would effectively turn FAIs into preliminary hearings for subsequent civil action, which is opposed by many stakeholders, including Lord Cullen, Lord Gill and the Health and Safety Executive. However, I have met Patricia Ferguson on a few occasions throughout this process to try and find common ground, and I am more than happy to continue to do so. I am pleased that we have found areas where we hopefully can work together in taking forward our own bill. To summarise, the law relating to fatal accident inquiries in Scotland has not been revisited for almost 40 years and never before by this reconvened Scottish Parliament. Lord Cullen identified areas for reform and, thanks to the charter that the Crown Office is introducing, brief families will be fully informed of the progress of a death investigation and the likelihood of criminal proceedings or the potential for an FAI. For those cases that do proceed to an FAI, the Scottish Governance Bill provides for a coherent, proportionate modernised system of fatal accident inquiries fit for the 21st century, and it will bring forward technical amendments to improve and clarify the bill at stage 2 in the spirit of the inquisitorial principle that the Government is inviting the Parliament to endorse today. I intend to work closely with Ms Ferguson to put the charter that the Crown has brought forward on a statutory footing. I commend the motion in my name and thank you for your attention. Many thanks. We have a little bit of time in hand this afternoon, I should say that at the start of the debate. I now call on Christine Grahame to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. Ten minutes please, Ms Grahame. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak as convener on behalf of the Justice Committee, the lead committee considering this bill. As members will be aware, but I'll just remind the chamber for good measure, this means just that and I'm not speaking any personal capacity, I will not veer off peace. At the outset, I'd like to thank all of those who took the time to write evidence to the committee and, in particular, those family members who told us about their frustrations with the justice system over the investigations into the tragic deaths of their loved ones. It's not easy coming before a parliamentary committee at any time, but especially when the pain at the death of loved ones is, as always, very near the surface. I'd also like to put on record my thanks to committee members who are hardworking as well as our also hardworking clerking team. I, too, would like to acknowledge Patricia Ferguson's on-going and extensive work in this area. As part of our consideration of the Government's bill, we heard evidence on Ms Ferguson's related bill on fatal accident inquiries, which has informed the committee's thinking on this FAI process. We published a separate Stage 1 report on Ms Ferguson's bill, and I understand that it will be debated next week, so I'll not explore it in any detail in my speech today. I should also make clear that our scrutiny of the Government's bill predated the recent FAI into the tragic events that happened last Christmas, and therefore the issues that it raised are not reflected in our report in any way. The committee unanimously supports the general principles of the bill, which we consider is essential in updating a law enacted almost 40 years ago. We also hope that the bill will be used as an opportunity to provide more clarity and understanding about fatal accident inquiries, especially for those who have lost loved ones in often tragic and unexplained circumstances. It cannot be emphasised enough that an FAI, however, is held by the Crown in the public interest, as indeed are criminal prosecutions under common law. We have, however, made a number of recommendations aimed at improving certain aspects of the bill, and in the time available, I refer to a few no doubt members will elaborate. Much for taking intervention. I wonder if the committee looked at the definition of what was in the public interest, because, in my experience, it is drawn so gnarly that issues that people feel would be of public concern are excluded from an FAI. I think that that would be very dangerous when we have been interfering with the independence of Lord Advocate who takes decisions of what are not in the public, or are not in the public interest, but I will come to a point where families are told why there is not going to be an FAI. Delays and the role of families are, again, very important. In evidence, we heard about a real lack of clarity and understanding about the role of the bereaved family in an FAI, and that cannot be emphasised often enough. Again, quite understandably, relatives may have the understanding that the FAI is on behalf of the deceased, and we understand why that is, but, again, it is held, again, in the public interest. It is also not a trial, and that is why, if there is a prospect of a criminal prosecution, it may be delayed until a decision is made in that regard. There was also concern not just in those aspects, which are important, but also about a perceived lack of communication with families at various stages in the often lengthy process and around decisions not to hold an FAI when it is not mandatory. In that regard, we welcome the requirement that the Lord Advocate will provide written reasons for a decision not to hold a discretionary FAI, but consider that that should be given whether or not a request is made, Ms Lamont. That will be whether or not the family make a request, so there is some explanation to the family and relatives of why the prosecution or the Crown has decided that it is not in the interest to have an FAI in the public interest. That will now be mandatory. Although one of the main criticisms of the current system was the lengthy delays between a death and the start of an FAI, we understood that there could be a good reason for that, not least as I have said, to establish whether criminal proceedings are appropriate. However, families told us that they often receive little communication or explanation as to what is happening in the intervening period, and we should always bear in mind and I stress again that families are grieving that an FAI for all sorts of reasons will be an added or deal. The committee was therefore encouraged when the Solicitor General announced to us that the Crown Office is working on that milestone charter that the minister referred to to clarify what the bereaved family should expect from the process. I also welcome the minister's commitment in his response to our report that he will bring forward an amendment that will place the charter on a statutory basis. As the minister said, mandatory FAIs currently are held where a death occurs in Scotland either as a result of a work-related accident or whether deceased was in legal custody at the time of death. The former does not apply to the armed forces or indeed police officers on duty. To give some context, and I will repeat what the minister said, death investigations are carried out by the Crown Office prosecution service in roughly half the deaths reported to the PF. That is about 11,000 a year and only some 50 to 60 result in an FAI. We heard from some witnesses that mandatory FAIs should be held in a number of circumstances in addition to those specified in the bill. For example, after the death of a person detained on mental health legislation and the death of a looked after child, as these can involve some of the most vulnerable people in our society, others did not think that it was necessary or proportionate to hold an FAI in each and every case. The committee asked the Scottish Government to consider this issue further. I know that the minister has concluded that the decision in these cases should be left to the Lord Advocate acting in the public interest. On deaths abroad, we welcome the provision in the bill to allow FAIs to be undertaken when a death has occurred abroad, but we were concerned about the particular stipulation that for an FAI to be undertaken into such a death, the body must be repatriated. We felt that there could be circumstances where there would be sufficient evidence to hold an FAI without the repatriation of a body. For example, someone lost at sea and we therefore recommended that the Scottish Government bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to allow for some discretion in this area, and I therefore welcome the minister's commitment to do just that. Turning to service personnel, the committee was surprised to hear that mandatory FAIs are not held into the deaths of military service personnel in Scotland. Such deaths would be subject to a mandatory coronary's inquest if it occurred in England and Wales, and FAIs can be held into the deaths of Scottish service personnel that occur abroad. The committee was therefore concerned that mandatory FAIs are not held following the death of service personnel in Scotland. We are keen for the Scottish Government to look into the issue further, and I note the minister's response that a change would need to be achieved through an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, as the matter is reserved. I am encouraged—I think that the committee would be encouraged—that the UK Government has in principle agreed that such deaths in Scotland should be treated in the same way as England and Wales. That was an issue raised with us by a member of the public and a commendum for his resolve in pursuing it with the committee. On sheriff's recommendations, we welcomed the proposals in the bill to require sheriff's recommendations to be published and obliging those to whom they are directed to respond. There was general agreement among witnesses that the recommendations should be published on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website, as proposed in the bill. Like the committee convener, that is a move that I would welcome, but I wonder whether she would agree with me that the final report of perhaps a yearly return should be laid before this Parliament. Back to what I said is my caveat at the beginning. I speak with my convener's hat on, so you have got it on the record, but I cannot comment on that today. I have no doubt that the minister has heard it and can. Although some felt that the Scottish Government or another body should take a more active role in pursuing that they are implemented, others highlighted difficulties in placing a duty on a particular body to do this and, in balance, the committee considered the requirements in the bill were sufficient. I note that the minister in his response highlights that the provisions of the bill in this area broadly replicate the system in England and Wales, which he believes is appropriate and workable. I have touched on some of the issues that have been raised in evidence during the committee's stage 1 consideration of the bill, but I am sure that other committee members will wish to pick up some of the areas that I have not had time to cover. I look forward to hearing other contributions in this debate and also to debating Patricia Ferguson's bill next week. Thank you very much. Many thanks. I now call on Elaine Murray. Ten minutes or so please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I also start by thanking the clerks, Spice and the witnesses who contributed to our consideration at stage 1 on behalf of Labour members. On 7 March 2008, the Justice Secretary of the time, Kenny MacAskill, announced that there was to be a review of the fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiry Scotland Act of 1976. That was to be conducted by the right honourable Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, a former Lord President of the Court of Session. A debate took place in the Scottish Parliament on 27 March 2008, led by the Lord Advocate, during which members of all parties expressed concern over the functioning of the 1976 act. Lord Cullen reported in November 2009, but it took until 2011 for the Scottish Government to publish its response. The further three years for it to publish a consultation on proposed legislative change in July 2014, the Government Bill was finally introduced on 19 March this year, some five and a half years after Lord Cullen had reported. The Justice Committee agreed to the general principles of the inquiry into fatal accidents and sudden deaths, etc. Scotland Bill, which takes forward some, but not all, of the recommendations of Lord Cullen's report on his review of fatal accident inquiry legislation of 2009. However, that was not the only bill to address those recommendations. While the committee took evidence on the Government Bill, it also considered the alternative approach offered by Patricia Ferguson's members' bill, the inquiry into Death Scotland Bill. Members who, like me, sat in this Parliament in 2004 will recall the support that Patricia Ferguson gave to her constituents affected when ICI's stop-line plastics factory exploded on 11 May 2004, with the loss of nine lives. Her experiences supporting her constituents and her frustration at the lack of action by the Scottish Government following Lord Cullen's review in 2009 led her to draft a proposal for a member's bill in August 2013 and following consultation to introduce her own bill in November last year. The Justice Committee's stage 1 report makes reference to the member's bill and the ways in which it differs from the Government Bill, but it does not make recommendations about the member's bill in the stage 1 report that we are discussing today. Instead, the committee published a shorter stage 1 report on Ms Ferguson's bill, and had anticipated, I think, that stage 1 of both bills might be taken on the same day. I do not know whether we made a formal recommendation to this effect, but it certainly seemed to be the favoured way forward when we discussed our report on both bills. However, I understand that the Scottish Government officials thought that it might be too confusing for members to consider two bills covering the same area of policy on the same day. Actually, we frequently do that in the Justice Committee. We have more than one bill in front of us on one day. So, Labour members are disappointed that this has not happened. I had, in fact, a tabled amendment to the motion agreeing the principles of stage 1 of the fatal accidents and sudden deaths, et cetera, Scotland Bill, which reflected the recommendations of the Justice Committee regarding how proposals in the two bills might be considered together, but, unfortunately, it was not selected for a debate today despite the chamber's deaths to the student that it was competent. The legislation currently in operation, the fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiry act of 1976 limits, mandatory fact fatal accident inquiries to deaths in work-related accidents, where the death has occurred in custody. The Lord Advocate has discretion to decide not to hold a mandatory FAI in the case of a death in a work-related accident or in legal custody if the circumstances of the death have been established during criminal proceedings. The Lord Advocate can also decide to hold a fatal accident inquiry in circumstances other than when it is mandatory if a death is sudden, suspicious or unexplained, if it is in the public interest and lessons can be learned to prevent similar deaths occurring in the future. This bill does not take forward a number of Lord Cullen's recommendations. For example, he recommended that the scope of the bill be extended to include children who die in residential care other than secure accommodation and deaths of people in compulsory detention by public authority. The Scottish Human Rights Commission agreed with Lord Cullen that fatal accident inquiries should be mandatory for the deaths of persons held in mental health detention. However, in a case where the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland's investigation had established the circumstances of the death, the Lord Advocate would have discretion not to hold a fatal accident inquiry. Families against corporate killing agreed with the position taken by the Human Rights Commission, considering that people held in compulsory detention are amongst some of the most vulnerable. In order to keep families informed of progress, Lord Cullen suggested that an initial early court hearing be held shortly after the reporting of the death to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. In evidence to the Justice Committee, Lord Cullen went even further and suggested that an earlier meeting take place to inform family members about processes and timescales. The status of such a meeting, however, was unclear. The solicitor general's recently published milestone charter should cover the information that should be included in his meeting, and the committee therefore felt that the early meeting would not add anything further. In the bill, the fatal accident inquiries remain mandatory where someone dies in a work-related accident or in legal custody, and the mandatory category is extended to children kept in secure accommodation. Discretionary fatal accident inquiries are extended to deaths abroad where the body is repatriated. A number of witnesses who attended committee, including the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, which represents workers employed at sea, argued that the bill should give the Lord Advocate discretion to hold an FAI without the body being repatriated, as lessons could still be learned in such circumstances. We welcome the response from the Scottish Government, indicating that it intends to bring forward an amendment at stage 2, which will allow the Lord Advocate discretion to permit a fatal accident inquiry in some circumstances when it has not been possible to retrieve the body. We also welcome the provisions in the bill that enable a fatal accident inquiry to be reopened under certain circumstances. A strange anomaly, as has been mentioned, was uncovered during the consideration of the bill through the evidence provided by a member of the public, which I think came as a surprise to both members and the minister that fatal accident inquiries cannot be held for service personnel on active service who die in Scotland, whereas the coroner's inquiries in the same circumstances can be held in England and Wales. This, we were advised, is because service personnel are appointees of the Crown and not employees. I welcome the announcement from the minister today that the UK Government is considering a section 140 amendment, because some aspects are reserved. I hope that that will soon be resolved to enable the families of service personnel dying in Scotland to have the death of their loved one investigated as it would be had that person died in England and Wales. Addressing delays in holding fatal accident inquiries and keeping families informed of progress were major concerns for the committee members who heard a number of possible routes to that suggestion. Bereaved families should be central to the fatal accident inquiry process. They and the appropriate trade unions and staff associations must be kept informed and unable to participate. The draft mile stone charter, which was referred to earlier, provides commitments to bereaved families in terms of the timescales by which certain communications with families should take place at various stages in the process. Bereaved families must be better included in the inquiry process. I look forward to the stage 2 amendments, which the minister has indicated will place this charter on a statutory footing and will improve accountability to families. The law society in its briefing on the bill voiced its concern that Lord Cunlun's recommendations regarding the provision of legal aid to families without their having to demonstrate reasonableness is not reflected in the bill. The society points out that FAIs are in fact finding inquiries in the public interest and that such can be very complex and therefore families may be in particular need of legal advice. Whether the Lord Advocate decides not to hold an FAI, whether it be discretionary or mandatory, the Government bill requires that written reasons should be provided to families on request. The committee in its stage 1 report recommended that the requirement of this, that the information should be requested, should be removed and that the information should be provided to families as a matter of course. Lord Cunlun proposed that the Scottish Government published a share of some recommendations and the Government Bill proposed that this is done via the Scottish Courts and Tribunals website rather than the Scottish Government undertaking publication itself. It is not clear, however, on whom the duty to monitor implementation of recommendations would rest. This is a matter of particular concern. For example, the law society in its briefing comments it does not seem to be any sanction proposed against parties where they fail to comply or co-operate with the sheriff's recommendations. Patricia Ferguson hoped to address this in her bill by enabling a sheriff to make legally enforceable recommendations where that is appropriate. That is the party to which the recommendations is aimed would be within the Scottish jurisdiction and the recommendation would be capable of enforcement. Her bill that is currently drafted does not make that as clear, but she spoke about amendments to her bill during the evidence session that we took on her bill. I think that that would have been the effect of the amendments that she was proposing to apply to her own bill. If that solution is not enforceable, we urge the Government to consider how enforceability can be strengthened under its own proposals because we believe that that is still an omission in the bill and an omission that will be distressing to families who are loved on to died under those circumstances. Scottish Labour will vote for the bill at stage 1, but we do so very much in the hope that some of the suggestions brought forward by our colleague Patricia Ferguson in her bill will be included as amendments at stages 2 and 3. Many thanks and I now call on Margaret Mitchell. Seven minutes or so please. I welcome today's stage 1 debate on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths Scotland Bill and thank the many witnesses for their valuable contributions and the Justice Committee clerks for their work in delivering this comprehensive report. Indeed, it was the evidence from one witness, Flight Lieutenant James Jones, that highlighted that there are no mandatory FEIs carried out in Scotland following the deaths of service personnel abroad. I'm pleased to see therefore that the agreement in principle has been reached with the UK Government to ensure that a mandatory FEI can be held in these circumstances in the same way investigations into these deaths are carried out by a coroner in England and Wales. I also acknowledge and pay tribute to the extensive work done by Patricia Ferguson on her bill, which covers the same policy area and which we are to discuss more fully next week. In 2008, in recognition of the fact that fatal accident inquiries required significant reform and modernisation, Lord Cullen carried out a review. The treatment of bereaved families, the lengthy delays to the commencement of inquiries aggravated by patchy communication from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, formed the basis of many of the review recommendations and the subsequent provisions in the bill. These families have already endured the distress and pain of losing a loved one and whilst fatal accident inquiries are undertaken in the public interest, they undoubtedly significantly help to offer resolution and much needed closure for relatives. However, there are some important recommendations made by Lord Cullen in his review, which are not in the bill, including the suggestion to hold an early hearing with fatal accident inquiries or mandatory. Lord Cullen said that he proposed such a procedure simply to let the families and other persons who are directly involved know what is going on, so that they can be satisfied that all proper steps are being taken to progress matters. Stakeholders had mixed responses to the suggestion, with campaigners broadly in favour of the idea. Lord Gill, on the other hand, expressed doubts that formal meetings were necessary when the same outcomes could be achieved if the Crown established good protocols of conduct whereby the relatives would be kept in touch. Significantly, Lord Cullen himself, when giving evidence, stated, if the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service has made improvements such that fears about family not being kept fully in the picture are groundless, that makes an early hearing of the type that I described unnecessary. In response to some of this evidence and the legitimate concern that there is a pressing need to reduce the unacceptable delays that adversely affect bereaved families, the Solicitor General committed to producing a milestone charter. This outlines what families can expect from the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to the timings of investigations and decision making. The priority must be to keep the relatives informed, while at the same time concentrating the minds of the COPFS on the work to be done to avoid delays. The Justice Committee has yet to receive a draft of the charter. Perhaps the minister could give us some kind of idea of a timescale when this will be available, but if it measures up to the expectations, it most certainly is a positive step forward. Turning next to the Cullen review recommendation that mandatory FAIs should be held where someone is, at the time of their death, subject to compulsory detention by a public authority. This would include detention under the mental health legislation. During evidence sessions, concerns were expressed about how deaths of those detained under mental health legislation were investigated in practice. However, the committee, when considering its stage 1 report, came to the conclusion that there was no need for a mandatory FAI because, more or less, some deaths of those detained under mental health legislation were straightforward. For example, they clearly resulted from natural causes. Given that those detained under the mental health legislation are some of the most vulnerable in our society, I revisited Lord Cullen's review and noted that he states, even investigations into deaths by natural causes may reveal unsafe conditions. It is in the public interest that an FAI should be held into the deaths of those detained by the state, especially those who are the most vulnerable. Therefore, even so-called straightforward deaths, i.e., from natural causes, and despite the comments from the Mental Health Commission and others, which the minister referred to today, I now believe on reflection that there are still issues to consider before rejecting the need for a mandatory FAI to be carried out, and that there is merit in revisiting this issue at stage 2. Presiding Officer, there are two further areas that I would like to highlight. The first is the withdrawal of the reasonable test to which Elaine Murray made reference. This is for the approval of legal representation for the deceased relatives. Whilst I appreciate that this is not an access to Justin's question in the conventional sense, Lord Cullen emphasised that the crucial question is whether there is a public interest in families having that degree of support. I urge the Scottish Government to consider this question carefully at stage 2. Finally, Lord Cullen recommended creating a central team to coordinate and monitor FAIs, an idea that seems sensible and for which there is also a precedent in the form of the domestic abuse task force. If the improvements in the bill are to be realised, it is absolutely vital that the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service, which are already under immense strains, has the resources in place to deal with FAIs efficiently and effectively. I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the bill. Many thanks. We are fortunate this afternoon to have a little bit of time in hand and therefore I can allow speeches of a generous six minutes. I call Roderick Campbell to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Thank you Presiding Officer. Can I apologise to the chamber first of all for the fact that I am not able to stay for the full debate as I have another pressing engagement and could I also refer to my register of interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates? Presiding Officer, in the light of recent events in another part of country, it is perhaps fair to say that there is greater interest in fatal accident inquiries than for many a long year. Accordingly, it cannot be overemphasised that the purpose of an FAI is not to address issues of criminal behaviour and really these issues need to be resolved before an FAI can proceed meaningfully. An FAI should be about learning lessons from the past that can be applied in the future. This bill is of course the result of Lord Cullen's deliberations. The bill however does not follow his recommendations totally as Margaret Mitchell has already referred to. On some matters for example, the requirement to have an FAI where there is a death in a setting where an individual is detained in institutions such as a mental hospital, he reaffirmed his view that there should be a mandatory requirement that an FAI should take place. The government of course favour the Lord Advocate having a discretion in the matter. In my view, the difficulty of having a mandatory requirement is that it will inevitably require procedures to be adopted which will have no meaningful impact in those cases on the key question of learning lessons for the future. What is important however is that there is a clear understanding of such matters as what a graduated scheme of investigations actually means in practice and as was suggested in oral evidence by Cathy O'Sante of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, we need to ensure that article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is properly respected. I'm pleased however by the Minister's responsive attitude to suggestions on optimal best practice in this area. Whatever else there ought to be, there should be an acceptance that families and friends of people who die in these circumstances need assurance that their nearest and dearest demise has not given rise to any issues that require answers. In most cases of death by natural causes that will of course be true and of course we have to accept that considering article 2, the right to life, where an inquiry is required, case law suggests that any inquiry must be independent, effective, be prompt, subject to public scrutiny with the next of kin involved. I am however also mindful that since we took evidence the Mental Health Scotland Act 2015 has been passed with the requirement that a review of the arrangements for investigating the death of such patients be carried out within three years of the legislation coming into force and anything further or any further information the Minister can say on that review would be welcomed. On timescales for carrying out FAIs obviously we do need reasonable expedition and I can see the case for statutory timetables but in practice it may lead simply to an extra hurdle without necessarily bringing matters to any earlier conclusion. My view is therefore that we should rely on a commitment to good practice from the Crown Office. In relation to the question of a requirement on the part of the Crown to explain in the case of a discretionary FAI why no such inquiry is taking place, I am encouraged by both the milestone charter and with the government's support for the charter having statutory underpinning. A strong commitment to keeping relatives involved as to progress has to be an essential. On the question of the provision of written reasons to relatives as to why an FAI is not being held, I appreciate the Crown's response to the committee's recommendations but for me the key issue is that families know they have a right to request them. In relation to suggestions that Sherriff's recommendation should be legally binding I have to say that I'm on the side of those who believe that if that were adopted it would fundamentally change the nature of an FAI. As Lord Cullen suggests an FAI is not for the purpose of establishing rights duties and obligations and as Tom Marshall of the Society of Solicitor Advocates indicated quote one of the values of the inquiry process is that it ought to be an open process in which people should not be taking sides because the object is to get the facts into the open and to bring as much information to light as possible so that lessons can be learned. As to issues of compliance and who has a duty if any to monitor the aim must be for recommendations and responses to be easily available on the Scottish courts and tribunal services website but Patricia Ferguson's comment earlier on I'm certainly open to a wider dissemination of that information but obviously I think we ought to appreciate that that might have cost implications. Finally can I turn to the question of FAIs into the death of service personnel in Scotland. We heard evidence from Flight Lieutenant Jim Jones of the difficulties holding an FAI in Scotland for members of the forces who die in Scotland at the present time. The 1976 act of course refers to a requirement to hold an FAI where someone dies in the course of their employment or occupation which has been held to exclude both servicemen and I believe also it's argued to exclude police officers so it's led to the somewhat odd situation that an FAI took place into the helicopter tragedy in the Mull of Gintas some 20 years ago only because there were also some civilian deaths. This distinction based on the royal prerogative seems to have long outlived its usefulness. Indeed in civil cases it seems to be ignored and of course it remains alien to the inquest procedure served the border. In this respect Scotland does need to learn from its southern neighbour. I'm grateful however for the minister's comments earlier on on this matter and I've noted those carefully. Having servicemen in my constituency some of whom I will meeting tonight it would be good to be able to advise them that should they die in the course of their duties unexpectedly at least a mandatory FAI would be a possibility. Thank you Presiding Officer. Many thanks. I now call Patricia Ferguson to be followed by Christian Allard. Thank you Presiding Officer. As we've heard it's now seven years since the Scottish Government commissioned Lord Cullen to review the system of fatal accident inquiries in Scotland and some six years since he delivered his report so I'm genuinely very glad that we are now in a position where legislation based on his report is being debated. My own members bill which also considers FAIs and how they should operate was in part a reaction to the lack of progress by the Scottish Government but was also an attempt to make more radical reforms than those proposed by Lord Cullen or indeed by the Scottish Government. That has always been my position. In my view the most important people in this process should be the bereaved families. It is they who have suffered the greatest loss and they deserve to know why the death of their loved one occurred and that everything possible is being done to prevent such tragedies in the future. It has been suggested to me and we've heard today that FAIs should be about the public interest rather than about individual families but Presiding Officer, how can an inquiry be in the public interest if it doesn't have at its heart those most directly affected by it? It is, I think, fair to say that the Scottish Government and I differ in a number of areas and in a number of points of policy but I have no doubt that the minister sincerely wishes to make the system better. In my view he needs to go further and in this debate I plan to outline where the Scottish Government's bill must be strengthened at stage two. As the chamber knows the Justice Committee has recommended that the Scottish Government's bill is the best vehicle to take reform of the system forward and to surge the Scottish Government and me to collaborate, that's a good word. As the minister I think has indicated we met yesterday to consider how that might be done and in the spirit of that collaboration therefore I've written today to the parliamentary clerk withdrawing my bill with immediate effect. I've not taken that decision lightly but I have done so in the expectation that the Scottish Government will continue collaboration that began yesterday and in the hope that it can still be moved on a number of points. I don't have time today to comment on every issue that I have with the Scottish Government's bill but I will highlight some particularly important points. I very much welcome the draft milestone charter drawn up by the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service. This document outlines various stages that follow from a sudden or unexpected death and provides a timetable within which family members will be informed of decisions being made. That's very welcome. In the case of an FAI the charter states that family members will be advised within 14 days of Crown Council issuing instructions. Now that really is a welcome step forward but and this is a big but for me. It is often the time taken for Crown Council to make the decision that is the problem, not the time taken to communicate the decision once it is made. Now I realise that the circumstances of a death are complicated and that other investigations must take place in some circumstances before an FAI is held but families understand that too and that is why we must get the framework for that communication right. Now I appreciate the minister now agrees with me that these provisions should be enshrined in law and I will work with the Scottish Government on amendments to give effect to those provisions but whatever changes Parliament ultimately makes there should be no situations in future when people are left for four or five years not knowing whether or not an FAI will take place. That is just unacceptable. On another point I accept that the Scottish Government is carrying out reviews of issues connected to the sudden death of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act and the situation of looked after children and I'm very pleased that this work is being undertaken but I hope and I don't want to make too much of a point of this but I do want to make the point nevertheless Presiding Officer I hope that the findings of such reviews are implemented quicker than Lord Cullen's review of FAIs. Now I'm not quite persuaded that we need to wait for such reviews to be completed and I will reflect on that before stage two but I think it is a step forward. Moving on Presiding Officer to the findings of an FAI and whether or not those findings should be enforceable this is an area where the Scottish Government and I still disagree. The Scottish Government suggests as have others that making the sheriff's recommendations enforceable would turn an inquisitorial inquiry into an adversarial one but I would just ask can the minister really say that FAIs are never adversarial under the current system? The events of this summer suggest that some FAIs are extremely adversarial and you only have to ask any lawyer, family member or trade union official who has attended an FAI and they will tell you that when a worker and an employer are involved they can be very adversarial indeed. But the nature of an FAI should surely not be a reason for discounting enforcement when and if and only when and if a sheriff deems it necessary. Now I've cited before Presiding Officer examples of tragedies like those at Bellgrove and Newton where if the sheriff's initial recommendations had been enforced the second fatal accident would have been unlikely to have occurred. So surely as a Parliament we should seek to do all that we can in terms of the legislation we pass to prevent such fatalities. We've heard a lot today about the public interest. Preventing fatalities is what I would describe as being in the public interest. Now I'm very pleased to note that the Law Society seems now to be coming closer to agreeing with me on this point and I would sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will accept the amendments that I will bring forward on this issue at stage 2. Presiding Officer, in closing, given that I have now withdrawn my bill, I hope that you will allow me to thank the committee and its clerks for their consideration and their scrutiny of both bills. It has been a very interesting process to go through having been on both sides of the table now on more than one occasion. I can tell you which side I prefer to be on. I would also like to thank the non-governmental bills unit for all of their support through this process. Obviously, my own constituency office staff and Patrick Maguire of Thompsons, whose advice to me and commitment to the issue, covered by both bills, is second to none. Many thanks. I now call Christian Allard to be followed by Johann Lamont. Thank you for visiting, officer. For the accident and sudden deaths and foreseen tragedies, it's hard to comprehend how families and friends can deal with the aftermath of such a tragedy. I have an insight of what we are going through. I lost a loved one when she was only age 33 and we had to wait for the autopsy and for an investigation to take place before I could start organising funeral arrangements. It is an ordeal, but many families have to go through. Anything we can do to help people recovering from the sudden death of a loved one is very much in the minds of everyone. Everyone who supports this reform and modernisation of fatal accident inquiry legislation in Scotland. The legal process has to be clearly understood by all. Families must be at the centre of it and it must be effective, efficient and fair. Presenting officer, as another member of the Justice Committee, I would like to add my thanks to everyone who participated to make this report what it is. My thanks to the people and organisation who came to give evidence for their written submission and my thanks to the committee clerks for their work. I would like to thank also all of the members of the committee, a committee that works well, a committee with the SNP hasn't got a majority and I'm not talking about the role of the convener presenting officer even if she has left a seat. The strength of this parliament is in its committee structure which scrutinise the act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision for the holding of public inquiries in respect of certain deaths as proposed. We challenge and question not only the Scottish Government but also the judiciary system and the UK government. Presenting officer, in my contribution today, I would like to talk about one change in the bill that I will report asked for and by the Crown Office and particular fiscal service as indicated will be prepared to accept. I will talk then about another issue, one issue brought to our attention when taking evidence, an issue that asks a lot of questions and where the answer is a reserve matter, one for the UK Government to help, our Scottish Government to address and then record it a strange anomaly. I would call it another example of Britain's archaic system. Sometimes we need a lot of modernisation to make sure that we have to date and we were very surprised when we heard from one member of the public who came to see us. Presenting officer, one of the aims of the bill is to strengthen existing legislation to include death abroad. We heard that from other members who talked about it. For the first time, upon the recommendation of the review by Lord Cullen, there will be the possibility to have fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of people residing in Scotland who died abroad. The bill also makes provision for service personnel who died abroad. All witnesses welcome this new power, yet I was concerned that it would exclude cases where nobody could not be brought back to Scotland. I worked 30 years as a fishing industry presenting officer and now I will present many constituents from the North East to work offshore some abroad. My experience tells me that fatal accidents and sudden deaths happen. We know that they happen and yet for obvious reason and in those exceptional circumstances there is no way that the body can be brought back to the families. Jack Molloy of the Royal Maritime Transport Union told us that much. The solicitor general agreed that there should be some flexibility. I'm delighted with the Crown Office and the Poclary Bureau of Fiscal Service. I've reconsidered its position and my thanks to the Scottish Government for agreeing to consider our recommendation on page 23 of this report to bring forward an amendment at stage two. The Sengong issue which was debated a lot already and became a concern of us all at the committee and brought to our attention by retireer, RAF, Flylwyrton James Jones. Mr Jones said in his written submission I read the interpretation of the current act by the Crown Office discriminates against members of the armed forces in that we are not regarded as employees. He added that public interest is not given the same importance as in civil accidents. I have to admit presenting officer that first I was very much shocked to hear that members of our own forces were not considered as employed by the Ministry of Defence. Why on earth would boys and girls choose one of the most dangerous vocations on earth? One that we are all thankful for. They are not giving the same protection but we all enjoy. When Flylwyrton James Jones came to give evidence here in Parliament he told us that under the 1976 act a photo accident inquiry is mandatory only when the person was acting in the course of the personal employment occupation. I ask him to also clarify his comments about the MOD investigating itself and here is his reply I quote. It's okay for the MOD or the military aviation authority to do their own inquiries and that is important for them to do that because any immediate problems can be put right but such inquiries do not replace proper inquiries in the public domain. There is no input to a military inquiry. He added presenting officer it's like asking a person who runs a factory in which someone has died because the machine was operated and safely to cut out their own investigation and to make recommendations and then taking the factory owner's report and saying thank you very much that's fine. This isn't fine and I agree Flylwyrton Jones members of the armed forces should be employees and have the same rights of employees. Let me thank the Scottish Government again for looking at amending the bill to allow deaths of service personnel in Scotland to fall within the scopes. It's totally for me to thank the UK Government to redress the employment status of members of the UK Armed Forces but I'm very much encouraged by the discussion taking place between the two government. I won't share yet Margaret Mitchell's optimism. Modernising and reforming legislation in both matters is our duty as elected representatives. A lot has already been achieved as you can read in our report presenting officer. Families must remain at the centre of the legal process when dealing with fatal accident inquiries. I will repeat what Roger Campbell said, a fatal accident inquiry is what it is, an inquiry and not a trial. Let's make sure that this chamber does not give high expectation to the people of Scotland of what an FBI is really is. Understanding that legal process is a start and ensuring that it is effective, efficient and fair is what this Parliament needs to achieve. Deputy Presiding Officer, I think that we all recognise the importance of this debate and I particularly want to congratulate Patricia Ferguson on all that she has done to drive this agenda, which I don't think that the bill would be in front of us if that work hadn't been done and the work that she has done on behalf of families who have suffered as a consequence, in my view, of an inadequate system of FAI and redress for families. I want to contribute to this debate from the point of view of the dreadful tragic experience of some of my constituents. I don't intend to tell their stories, although they are powerful in themselves, but I want to make some comments drawn from their experience. All of these families lost loved ones in the health setting or while accessing health services, so I'm sure that you can understand concerns that the view is held that the NHS should take its own approach to unexplained death. To quote this spice briefing, the purpose of an adverse event review is to quote, to discover if any lessons for future practice can be learned, and I would say that that is of little comfort to those who seek justice for their loved ones. We must surely be concerned that, because NHS boards set their own policies in relation to adverse event reviews, practice varies from area to area. I urge the minister and the Scottish Government to look again at this. If there is a mandatory FAI for someone who dies in prison, why is there no rigor or consistency for an unexplained death in hospital? We really need clarification about if and when a procurator fiscal would be involved in an NHS case. What would be the nature of any investigation? What is the expectation of the standard of the investigation by the prosecution services in such a case? There is deep dissatisfaction. As I said, if there is a mandatory FAI for a child who dies in care, what is to be done if there is an alleged neglect by public services where a child has died somewhere who is not in care? We can see that contradiction. We need reassurance that a definition of the public interest is not narrowly defined. It should attest that stretches to NHS processes not being followed, pressures on staff, untrained staff, perhaps the impact or the use of bank or agency staff on the quality of the care that is required. In one case of a constituent of mine, procedures to check the patient were not followed. No, why was investigated in that, simply an establishment that procedures were not followed and reassurance that procedures will change, but no explanation how they will ensure that those procedures will be followed. I am sure that the minister can understand how unsatisfactory that must be for the family of concerned. It is critically important that families are at the centre of the process, struck by grief with lots of questions. You cannot overstate the importance of making real a commitment to the involvement of families. It cannot simply be, yes, we involve families when their every experience is of something different. I have had very varied reports on the effectiveness of family liaison. We need at the heart of this process honesty and compassion. We need to know, we understand, if there are not going to be an FAI, those reasons are explained. However, they must emerge from the evidence that has been investigated, rather than simply presumption about whether a particular case fits into a particular box. I know of a family who waited over a year to be told that they were not getting an FAI, while the family felt very strongly that that decision was made on day 1. If that is the case, we should at least be honest with people about that. In the context of very significant cuts to the prosecution services, we need to reassurance that the role is real and properly resourced. It is not good enough if people are told at the centre of the process when all of the time they feel that they are excluded from it. It may simply be that people have too much of a caseload to do their job properly. We should not have an institutional presumption against fatal accident inquiries. Where an fatal accident inquiry is granted, it is important to ensure that families have real engagement. I think that the whole question of legal aid is particularly important there, if these families are to be respected. While we can improve the FAI system and I accept that this bill will go some way to do that, I think that we need to reflect on why families want a fatal accident inquiry in the first place. They want the death of their loved one to be taken seriously. They want their day in court and for those who made decisions to be held to account. I think that that is entirely reasonable. It may not be for this bill, but we need to look at how we address that hunger for justice that is currently left despairing and with a feeling that their loved one was unvalued. It is being told that that is not what an FAI is for. If that is not what an FAI is for, how do we address that need, what does need to change in the system to leave people feeling that they are being attended to? There is a particular cruelty that families who yearn for justice for a proper investigation in order to respect the memory of those that they have lost are driven down the civil route, seeking compensation as a way of challenging injustice. However, that is cruel. First of all, it creates the impression that they are driven by financial interests and not grief and very often institutions then shut up shop and refuse to engage with families. They struggle to secure legal aid, but even where they do, if an out-of-court settlement is reached and a financial offer is made, even where someone does not accept responsibility, the person may have no choice but to accept, because if they do not accept, legal aid will be withdrawn, and so still they do not have their day in court. Loss and grief do not make people irrational or unreasonable, although sometimes a system appears to dismiss rather than understand. In my experience, doggedness, determination and a drive for justice have forced public agencies to move to understand that there is something here that needs to be investigated. However, the test of justice should not be the determination of individual families. It should be a system that understands the importance of response. It is easy to say why we cannot do something, but I believe that it is important to look at those questions differently. In the face of loss, we are entitled to ask why and be heard and answered. The current system does not do that. We support the bill, but it is not enough. I recognise the steps that have been made. I, for one, am sure that people across the chamber would be happy to work with the Government and any other agency beyond this Parliament who wants to address the brutal truth for too many families that, in the face of the loss of their loved one, there is nothing apparently the system can do. Strengthen the FEI system, but let us look at how we address those questions of injustice. Not simply telling people that things will be better in the future, but the one that you have loved and have lost deserves better an understanding of why we ended up in that situation in the first place. I support the bill, but I hope that we can get reassurance from the minister that it will take those very difficult issues far beyond the bill itself. Thank you. I now call Willie Coffey to be followed by Alison McInnes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be part of this stage 1 debate in modernising the fatal accident inquiry legislation. My own experience of this system is in relation to the death of my constituent Alison Hume, who, as members might recall, died in the Galston mineshaft accident in 2008. The subsequent journey that was made by her family, or probably better described as the journey endured by her family through the fatal accident inquiry process and subsequent fire service inquiry that followed on from that, was not and is still not a happy one for the family. The reasonable expectation that an FAI, followed by a fire service inquiry, would lead to the delivery of justice and much needed closure has not been met. I am looking at the current proposals in that light and will offer some comments that I hope might take us further along that road. First, I must recognise the work done by Scottish Government colleagues and colleagues on the committee for their efforts to begin the process of modernising the fatal accident inquiry process. There are a number of positive changes to take place, many of which emanate from Lord Cullen's review in 2009. The extension of categories of death that require an FAI is to be welcomed, as is the discretion to hold FAIs for Scottish residents who die abroad. I think that this latter extension must be a welcome change for those families who have to suffer the loss of a loved one abroad. I note to the committee's additional plea to hold discretion, to hold an FAI, even if repatriation of a body is not possible. It was also pleasing to hear the minister earlier say that the Scottish Government will now give consideration to include deaths of serving personnel in Scotland under the new legislation, and I think that that is very, very welcome. I think that it is right, Presiding Officer, to seek these extensions, and I'm confident that they will be supported by the public. Creating the new obligation to respond to a sheriff's recommendations is, of course, welcome, and if I may say so, a long overdue step in improving this system. There was no previous obligation to respond to FAI recommendations, and that was a severe weakness in my view, and gave rise to the unintended consequence of serious criticisms made against individuals being largely ignored. I also note the proposal to permit FAIs to be reopened if new evidence emerges that would suggest further consideration is required, and this too will be welcomed by many as a further example of modernising the system and making it serve the public interest even more. But I want to turn now to the experience of Alice in the Human's Family with the current FAI system and see whether those new proposals might address their concerns. What we have to understand is that a family like Alice in the Human's are on a journey where their destination is justice and final closure, but the end point in the fatal accident inquiry process is to establish the facts, cause of death and to identify any defects in the system and reasonable precautions that might have been taken and not to a portion blame or fault. As far as I can see, there are no powers proposed to ensure the implementation of recommendations or even to require a response to severe criticism of individuals found wanting during an inquiry. Lord Cullen himself commented that any investigation of a death in an FAI may disclose grounds for criticism and therefore form the basis for alleging fault. And whilst these new proposals will at least require responses to recommendations in an inquiry, the onward journey to securing justice still lies out with this process. So I would like to see a stronger approach taken if possible to ensure that a sheriff's recommendations are carried out and that any criticisms made by a sheriff are dealt with and also responded to. Very grateful to the member for those comments and I sympathise entirely with the constituency case that he mentions that it was a tragic one. I wonder therefore whether he will support my amendments at stage 2 on the issue of enforceability of sheriff's recommendations. Willie Coffey. I'm really keen to hear what the minister might say in summing up here. I do understand the explanations given by the minister and others about the difficulties in making this a requirement but I think there has to be perhaps a middle ground that achieves possibly takes as further in the direction that you wish and I think I wish to travel. These particular outcomes as I said Presiding Officer did not happen in the case of Alison Hume and her parents Hugh and Margaret Cowan. Serious criticisms were made by the sheriff of senior fire officers in their handling of Alison's rescue. Sheriff Leslie commented that the evidence presented to him by two senior officers was bullish if not arrogant in the determination to justify the subservience of the need to carry out a rescue to the need to fulfil the letter of Strathclyde firing rescues policies. No apology was ever offered until the former First Minister ordered a fire service inquiry. No disciplinary action was ever taken that we are aware of and the family has been left pretty much on their own in their pursuit of justice. Had it not been for the tireless and unfunded work carried out for them by HALO, a specialist trauma support service led by Diane Greenaway in Ayrshire, then I should have to think what the outcome would have been for this family. In summary Presiding Officer, there's much to commend the work already undertaken and the changes that will come in to help modernise the process but I sincerely ask my colleagues in the Scottish Government to consider any way of further strengthening those powers in relation to recommendations made by sheriffs and also to require a response from any agencies or individuals who are the subject of criticism and to place surviving families who are victims too, let's remember, at the heart of any new process which assists them in their journey to achieving justice rather than parting company with them at the end of the FAI process to make that one more journey alone. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Fetal accident inquiries provide an important opportunity to find out what went wrong and ultimately learn in order to prevent something similar from happening again in the future. Although, as others have said, they are primarily carried out in the public interest they also allow families the opportunity to gain closure when their loved one is lost. The bill before us repeals the 1976 act and enacts new provisions to govern the systems of FAIs in Scotland and it's been a long time coming. Lord Cullen was invited to review the system in 2008 and reported in 2009 and I would echo Johann Lamont's tribute to Patricia Ferguson. If it wasn't for Patricia Ferguson's determined and principled campaigning on this, we might still be waiting for the Government to address the reform that's required, so I congratulate Patricia on that effort. However, not all of Lord Cullen's recommendations have been taken forward and of those, three in particular are worthy of further serious deliberation at stage two, extending mandatory FAIs to cover children who die while in residential care, extending mandatory FAIs to those subject to compulsory detention by a public authority and giving the Scottish Government responsibility for publishing responses to sheriff's recommendations and I'll touch on all those issues in a few moments. The bill does provide an updated definition on legal custody to include any deaths while detained by the police and it also now requires a mandatory FAI where a child dies in secure accommodation and Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome those changes because the state is ultimately responsible for those whose liberty has been taken away from them. Due to our ECHR obligations under the article 2 right to life, it is a responsible step for any Government to take to examine the deaths in those situations. Because of that, and as the current review system lacks independence, we also believe that there should be further consideration given to extending the requirement for a mandatory FAI to include the death of any person who is subject to compulsory detention by a public authority at the time of death and that should include those who are detained under mental health legislation. Now, this was one of the most contentious areas that the committee explored during stage one and we were presented with many conflicting views from witnesses. Committee's stage one report asked the Government to further consider whether the bill should be extended in this way with the proviso that the Lord Advocate could have discretion not to hold an FAI in particular circumstances, effectively flipping the current arrangements. The Government has indicated that it feels that this would be disproportionate. Nevertheless, the Government acknowledges that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland believes that the current system for the investigation of deaths of detained mental health patients is confusing and has gaps. Further, the Scottish Government accepts that improvements should be made to how deaths and detention are investigated in practice to ensure that the process is effective and timely, that it supports learning and that reviews are of a consistent quality. I would challenge the Government's view that this bill is not the vehicle for such change and I would note that I am grateful for the work of Dr Richard Simpson during the passage of the Mental Health Act 2015 but to rely on that alone and indeed by the Government's own omission to wait up to three years for a review of those arrangements for investigating deaths in a hospital, risks missing learning points from events in the interim and does the families affected a serious disservice. Therefore, I will consider further whether there is scope to amend a bill at stage 2 to give effect to a more robust system. Similarly, the Government responds to Lord Cullen's recommendation about looked after children by saying that a national child death review system is currently being developed. The Government went on to explain that it is anticipated that the steering group in charge of that review will recommend the deaths of all live-born children and young people up to their 18th birthday and care leavers in receipt of aftercare or continuing care up to 26th birthday, who are resident in Scotland should be reviewed. I ask the minister to justify taking such a two-tier approach rather than including those deaths in the mandatory FAI system. In its submission to the committee, the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland did not support making such deaths subject to mandatory FAI, and they said that there was no certainty that it would lead to improvements in services for looked after children and those leaving care. The whole point of FAIs is to learn from the deaths and to improve matters, and that lack of confidence—evidence in that statement—the lack of confidence in the system surely suggests that Lord Cullen's recommendation on sheriff's recommendations needs to be reconsidered. Of course, that links back to Patricia Ferguson's work. While the committee report noted that there were difficulties in placing duties on certain bodies to monitor the implementation of sheriff's recommendations, it asked the Government to look at ways of ensuring that those recommendations are respected. I do not feel that he has sufficiently addressed that point this afternoon, and I urge him to work very closely with Patricia Ferguson in trying to improve that at stage 2. The bill goes quite some way to put the needs of families at the heart of the new system. An area of concern had been a requirement for families to submit a written request for the reason not to proceed to hold an FAI, and it was suggested that the Government amend the bill to remove that requirement, but on reflection I am content with the Government's response to that. Parliament today has an opportunity to reform and modernise the system of FAIs in Scotland, and Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the principles of the bill. Bill is yet another example of the Scottish Government and indeed this Parliament's bid to implement progressive policies for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The reforms to the fatal accident and sudden death Scotland bill, which repealed and replaced the 1976 act, will modernise the process and make it more effective, efficient and fair. Crucially, it strengthens existing legislation to include cases of deaths abroad, which I will say a bit more later on. Perhaps the most devastating time in a person's life when they have to cope with the family bereavement due to a fatal accident or sudden death, this bill will surely help the process and help families to come to terms with the daunting and often upsetting process of an inquiry. As we all know, legislation has to be updated and keep moving with the times, and after 40 years in my opinion, this bill does exactly that. It will minimise delays and avoid families getting caught up in red tape, which has happened so often in the past. The Justice Committee has asked the Government to reflect on evidence received in areas such as it has hoped for. This far-reaching bill will come for the very first time to allow for the discretionary FAIs to help into the deaths of people from Scotland who are abroad, and the body is repatriated to Scotland. I am pleased that that positive dialogue between the Scottish and the UK Government has brought this about. For example, the 2009 case of Blair Jordan, who died when he fell to his death aboard the tanker British Pioneer off the coast of Japan. Despite six years of searching for answers, his parents still believe they don't have the full picture of how Blair died, as no independent investigation ever was carried out. This bill means that other families might not have to go through the same agonising struggle for answers regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of their child. The bill will also make provision for a discretionary FAIs for the Scottish service personnel who die abroad, affording them the dignity and respect they and their families are due and deserve. Those are just some examples of how the bill, which broadly implements the recommendations of the Cullin review, extends the categories of deaths in which it is mandatory to hold an FAI. Furthermore, it updates the definition of the legal custody to include any death of a person while they are detained by the police or where a child dies in secure accommodation. It also empowers families who can now ask the Lord Advocate to give written reasons for the decision not to hold an FAI, which may help with their coming to terms with the situation. It would also help to minimise delays at such an upsetting time in a person's life by introducing a requirement to hold a preliminary hearing in advance of an FAI and encouraging the sharing and agreeing of evidence in advance. It will allow more freedom of choice of location and venue for an FAI and, importantly, allow FAIs to be reopened or reconvened if new evidence comes to light. In cases where the evidence is so substantial, it will permit a completely new inquiry to be held, which will absolve the feeling of finality for families who feel their vital pieces of information were not heard at the original inquiry. To summarise this detailed and intricate bill is actually quite difficult in such a short time space, but I commend it in all its aspects, as I believe it gives greater access to justice for families who have lost loved ones. Through this bill, the entire FAI process becomes more accountable, more efficient and less harrowing for families going through such a traumatic time. I am sure I am not alone in believing that where legislation can do this, it should be done. I welcome the bill as a much-needed forward-thinking modern piece of legislation, which takes into account the terrible circumstances that families find themselves in at times during their lives. For example, families looking for answers after the tragic death of a child will no longer face agonising delays. Waiting for answers and families of those who die abroad will not face mountains of red tape and delays as they struggle to cope with their bereavement. Once again, colleagues, Scotland's has shown that it can lead the way in modernising the justice system, and after 40 years, this bill will create a fairer, more accountable process for the people of Scotland. I have no hesitation in backing this excellent bill and fully expect to have support from the chamber and across all political parties. We in the Justice Committee have been taking evidence on the bill, which will bring FAIs into the 21st century and ease the pain for so many families throughout Scotland. I commend this bill wholeheartedly, thank you. Thank you very much. I now call Jane Baxter to be followed by Bob Dorris. Up to seven minutes, please, if you wish. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Any discussion of fatal accident inquiries is inevitably going to be an emotive one. Families who have experienced the loss of a loved one are often seeking nothing more than an explanation of why that person died. So we must ensure that public confidence in the system of fatal accident inquiries is absolute and that the systems in place surrounding them are robust. Lord Cullen's report into the superpuma tragedy is a significant milestone in the modernisation of the fatal accident inquiry process. It's taken a long time for his recommendations to be fully considered by this Parliament, but at least we can now continue the process of modernising this important process. My colleague Patricia Ferguson brought forward a member's bill to this end. The Justice Committee has recommended that her bill and the Scottish Government's bill be considered in tandem, as there are many areas of overlap between the two. The committee also spoke positively of many aspects of Patricia Ferguson's bill, some therefore very disappointed for Patricia and for all those who worked with her on the bill that she feels she should withdraw it, although I completely understand her reasons for doing so. But putting that to one side for the moment, we should look at the bill put before us today. There is much to be supportive of in this bill. Introducing the ability to hold discretionary fatal accident inquiries for the death of Scottish people abroad when their bodies are repatriated to Scotland is a sensible change. Increasing flexibility for the geographical locations for inquiries and what sort of building can accommodate them is also a positive step. It is anomalous that fatal accident inquiries cannot currently be reopened or a further inquiry be held when new and compelling evidence arises regarding it, so it's sensible that this has changed. There are however some deficiencies in the bill. Lord Cullen recommended in his investigation into the superpuma tragedy that relatives who are represented at a fatal accident inquiry automatically receive legal aid without having to demonstrate that it is reasonable in the circumstances. This seems fair in view of the circumstances from which fatal accident inquiries arise. It's understandable that families of deceased people will be unable to lead evidence in chief and cross-examined witnesses relating to the death of a loved one. This problem is often exacerbated by the circumstances of which many fatal accident inquiries arise with complex health and safety regulations or very technical details of machinery and workplace rules at the centre of such inquiries. Whilst the Justice Committee reports notes that fatal accident inquiries are fact finding processes and do not exist to establish guilt, I cannot support the conclusion that they have derived from this, namely that deceased people's families do not require automatic legal aid and I note that neither does the law society. The milestone charter proposed by the Crown Office, where the Crown Office will set out milestones in a case where they will give certain information to deceased people's families, is a positive step. It is, however, insufficient. I have concerns that this will become a formulaic and administrative task tending towards generic responses for families, a number of whom have raised concerns over the years as to why a fatal accident inquiry was not held after their loved one's death. The Crown Office is resisting a statutory right to request that it gives reasons for the decision not to hold an inquiry. However, it's clear that only a small number of families question such a decision each year and the giving of reasons would be a small administrative cost. In other contexts, the giving of reasons is a central plank of natural justice. It permits the public to understand the process used to make a decision and increases confidence in Government systems. I do not think that the Crown Office has anything to hide in this context and should welcome the introduction of a statutory right for the families of deceased people who have not been granted fatal accident inquiries to request reasons for that decision. As the law society has made clear, such a move would have minimal economic impact but reinforce public confidence in Scotland's system for the investigation of apparently self-inflicted deaths. Under section 27 of the bill, a person doing my recommendation of the sheriff is addressed must, if that person was a participant in the inquiry to which the recommendation relates, give the Scottish courts and tribunals service a response in writing. The law society has rightly raised the issue of the lack of sanction for those parties who fail to comply or co-operate with that requirement and the concomitant protracted correspondence with such parties well after the conclusion of the inquiry. The bill should provide for a more robust approach to this topic in order to minimise the risk of such a situation arising. In summary, whilst it is disappointing that the Scottish Government have rejected the Justice Committee's recommendation that Parliament consider both Patricia Ferguson and the Scottish Government's bill together, the bill before us takes the fatal accident inquiry system generally in the right direction. The issues of the bill that have been raised by others and that I have mentioned in my contribution today must be considered. Thank you. Now calling Bob Doris to be followed by Margaret MacDougall up to seven minutes, please, if you wish. Okay, thank you very much, Presiding Officer. On the 29th of January 2009, Colin Love went out for a swim beside, in the waters beside, a beautiful beach at Margarita Island in Venice. Well, I've mentioned it before in this chamber. Colin was a young man and he was a keen traveller. Colin never returned alive to Glasgow, never returned to Scotland. He drowned that day. Turns out the waters where he swam were notorious, were a notorious drowning spot. There were no warning signs. There was no lifeguards. There was no guidance from the former Commonwealth Office that this might be a dangerous destination for travellers to go to. The travel firms involved in Colin's carriage to Venezuela on the cruise he was on, there were no dangers raised there either. There was also no fatal accident inquiry, Presiding Officer. Now in this instance, I don't know if there shouldn't have been a fatal accident inquiry, but I do know that it was just simply wrong that it was against the law to give the Lord Advocate the discretion to have one if they sought fit. I read about Colin's death in the evening times. Caroline Wilkes, in one of the journalists there, has since reported on many occasions on the inspirational story of Julie Love, Colin's mum, who has campaigned tiresly ever since to improve support for those families who have lost loved ones overseas. That includes allowing for fatal accident inquiries to be held into the deaths of Scots when they do die abroad, not on every occasion but at the discretion of the Lord Advocate. I would also like to put on record, Presiding Officer, that Julie Love's campaign and the charity Death Abroad are not alone goes far further than that. It's about supporting those families in so many ways, and if time allows, I want to co-in some of that within the stage 1 debate this afternoon also. I also want to thank Caroline Wilkes for a number of reasons. After reading Julie Love's story, I arranged to meet Julie to see how I could be of assistance. In the six years since then, I've got to know Julie incredibly well. I'm privileged to call her a friend. Working with Julie all those years ago initially to submit evidence to the Cullen inquiry, and then supporting Julie with her petition to the Public Petitions Committee, both of those seeking to extend FAIs into the death of Scots overseas, Lord Cullen accepted the case that Julie made, and the Public Petitions Committee again only this week agreed to keep Julie's petition open, awaiting the outcome of the Scottish Government's FAI legislation. I'm delighted that the Scottish Government has also accepted these proposals, and they are committed, and they are contained within the bill this afternoon. It's also worth noting that I understand why people get so dismayed at the time that things take. That's six long years to get to this stage, and of course people have concerns in relation to that, but we are getting there, and the system does work. Sometimes maybe it just doesn't always work as quick as we would like it to. I want to look in a bit more detail in relation to the provisions within the bill in relation to discretionary FAIs and to those who die overseas. The Lord Advocate, of course, needs to have that discretion and independence and flexibility, but how does the Lord Advocate make an informed choice in relation to when to use that discretion? When should there be post mortems? Mortems when bodies are returned to Scotland? I certainly know from meeting many, many families through Death of Roger, not alone that where they have instructed post mortems or post mortems have been carried out in Scotland, they can quite often tell a very different story indeed from the post mortem that was conducted in the country where the loved one passed away. Surely a significant contrast from one post mortem to another may be an indicator that there's something not quite right. There will be lots of reasons, lots of provisions which may better inform the Lord Advocate, but the point I'm trying to stress to the Minister this afternoon is that that discretion can only be used if it's an informed opinion that the Lord Advocate can bring to bear. Will families of those who lose loved ones overseas be made aware of those provisions as a matter of course? There's a balance to be struck there because you don't want to distress families any more than they need to be because tragedies do happen. Whether by misadventure or just unlucky or just because of old age, things like that do happen and you don't want to distress families but we have to make sure that families at the centre of informing the Lord Advocate where they think there could be something amiss there. I would ask for some more information on that and I would agree as well in relation to where the body is not returned to Scotland that of course that should be opened to the discretion of the Lord Advocate. I know of a number of families where the reason the bodies were never returned to Scotland was that they couldn't afford to bring the bodies back. Indeed, they couldn't afford to save up to bring loved ones back because it was costing them money to keep the body into the loved ones body in storage overseas. A cremation was the only option that they had because of financial constraints, so we've got to bear that in mind as well. I'd like to widen that out just a little bit, Minister, when I've got the opportunity because I said at the start that I have no idea whether calling love's tragic death would have triggered a fatal accident inquiry or not had this legislation been passed. I know that we had the bizarre situation where we had to write to President Chavez in Venezuela asking for there to be lifeguards and signs put on that beach and I think the travel sector certainly didn't cover themselves in glory. I still don't think they cover themselves in glory in relation to this. Could a fatal accident inquiry in this situation have driven wider change? It might have identified that quite frankly how my constituent was treated by the link workers at the foreign and common office was pretty dismal to be fair. The fact that there's no consistent way in Scotland where a death message is passed on to loved ones in next of kin in Scotland when someone passes away overseas. I've been campaigning with Julie for a number of years now for the Scottish Government actually and Police Scotland and Victim Support Scotland and other agencies in Scotland to do better to support families of loved ones who pass away overseas. Death abroad you're not alone does a lot of good work but that's voluntary and with goodwill and passion and commitment but they do need more help and assistance and I accept there's significant reserve matters here but we are a devolved administration here minister. We have the UK Government, there's partnership working has taken place in relation to the progress of this bill. Let's extend that partnership working and let's work with Julie Love, Death Abroad you're not alone and all the partner agencies to make sure it's not just fatal accident inquiries that we get right for those that lose loved ones overseas but we actually get the whole system right working for them because right now it's just not. Thanks many many thanks and I'll call on Margaret McDougall to be followed by Mike McKennan to say generous six minutes. Thank you Presiding Officer. Having just joined the Justice Committee I wasn't part of the scrutiny on stage one of the bill so I've been listening to the debate with interest today and I found it very informative to hear the differing views and concerns raised. From my point of view I welcome the bill and support the general principles of the bill. I also see the need for this aspect of the law to be updated, modernised and clarified. As such I feel that the bill could be increased in scope in line with some of the changes that were proposed by Patricia Ferguson's bill inquiries into deaths which was introduced while the stage one into the fatal accident inquiry bill was ongoing. It would have been useful to compare and contrast both of these bills in one debate but the government decided otherwise. Patricia Ferguson has withdrawn her bill this afternoon and I know that was not an easy decision for her to take but I'm pleased to hear that she will be submitting amendments into the inquiries into fatal accident bill. I'd like to highlight areas where I feel that the fatal accidents and sudden death bill could be improved upon and I'll be focusing on two areas specifically the role of the family in the process and issues around those detained under the mental health act that were raised during the committee stage. Having come into this process late I'd like to start by saying that I agree with the committee when they state that there needs to be greater clarity and understanding around fatal accident inquiries. Not only how it all fits together but what role the family plays in what sometimes can be a very difficult and complicated process. Right now I feel the bill doesn't have the balance right. One of the central aims of Patricia Ferguson's bill was to make the process of investigation quicker, more transparent and critically give families a more central role. Both bills have similar themes when it comes to keeping families involved in the process. That said I believe the inquiries into death bill adds strength by introducing timescales to cut back on long delays as some people wait for more than five years to hear whether there will be an FAI. Though I note that not all of the evidence to committee supported that idea I'd also argue that there needs to be a duty to keep the family updated every step of the way. Communication also needs to be strengthened when it comes to the work proceeding an FAI and the family should be updated regarding this process. In addition to this I agree with the committee's view that the Lord Advocate should be required to provide written reason as to why an inquiry was not held without the family having to request it. I understand that this might be more time consuming but we must remember that the family will be grieving and they may be the only ones who have the interests of the deceased at heart. I also find it odd that the minister has seemingly flat out rejected calls for the mandatory FAI for those detained under the mental health act given that the system was described as confusing and contained gaps. More so given that the bill will update the definition of legal custody to ensure that any death while someone is detained by the police is covered. I understand that in a lot of cases this would be unnecessary and unwanted however the mental welfare commission Scotland made an interesting suggestion. They propose a two-tier system whereby a death which is clearly by natural causes as well as those that show no cause for concern are not investigated while all other deaths are. I wonder if the minister plans to look at this aspect again keeping in mind that the committee recommend that the Scottish Government revisit mandatory FAIs for those detained under the mental health act and taking into account the Scottish Human Rights Commission's evidence that mandatory FAIs may help deal with some of the human rights concerns that were raised at committee stage. I urge the Scottish Government to improve the system at later stages of this bill and introduce a robust investigation system that not only closes the gaps concerning deaths while detained through the mental health act but also rationalise and familiarise the current process as the justice committee suggests. As I said at the start of the speech, I welcome the general principles of the bill and shall be supporting it but I feel that there are certain aspects that could be improved on. I hope that the Scottish Government does take on board the feedback from both the committee and the debate today and I look forward to seeing the amendments that they bring forward to tackle the issues that have been raised in the debate. Mike McKenzie, to be followed by John Finnie, a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a layperson, that is to say a non-lawyer who is not a member of the justice committee. I do not propose to talk much about the technicalities of this bill. Instead, my focus will be on the effect that it will have or that I hope it will have out with this parliament and out with the courts in which are lawyers labour. There seem to me to be two concerns which the bill attempts to address, both having much merit. The first of these is the grief and the anguish suffered by families and friends who have suffered bereavement in tragic circumstances. I have lost both family and friends in this manner and so I know firsthand how important it is to have some understanding of how the tragedy occurred. For many, their faith sustains them in such circumstances and provides some help. For others, there is a loss of faith. For all, there is a need to try and understand, to find some explanation that will allow them to make at least some sense of what is often an apparently senseless tragedy. To understand the world in which we live with all of its uncertainties is a very human trait, perhaps the most human trait. Burns, I think, expressed it well unto a mouse when he says, still thou art blessed compared with me. The present only touches thee, but oh, I backwards cast my ear and prospects drear, and forward though I cannot see, I guess, in fear. Perhaps it is this need to understand that this need to understand becomes all the more urgent when we suffer bereavement because of the need to protect our remaining loved ones is thrown into sharp focus when we suffer tragedy. Perhaps it is because we are reminded of our own mortality and how precious life is. Perhaps it is that understanding of such tragedy is a necessary part of the grieving and hopefully the healing that we hope affected individuals are able to achieve. Whatever the exact reasons this need to understand is something that is part of the essence of our humanity. I therefore commend this bill as a humane bill, and as imperfect as any of our legislation may be, it's a step in the direction of greater humanity, and as such it should be welcomed. There's a community need to understand such tragedies too. I've lost three friends over the years from amongst the small rural community in which I live. Fishermen, all young men in the prime of their life, and I know how whole communities are affected when we experience such tragedies. I remember only too well the tangible poll that's hung over my own community for many, many days on each sad occasion. The somber talk is always about how this might have happened and why. So again, at a community level there is a need to understand and to try and make sense of the apparently senseless. Part of the intent of the fatal accident enquiries has to be about the public understanding of such accidents with a view to learning lessons so that in the future we can avoid such tragedies. We've come a long, long way in better workplace health and safety practice over the period in which I have worked in both the fishing and the construction industries, both industries which are known to have high risk factors and in which more work still needs to be done. I remember working practices which were common in my youth which are quite unthinkable now. In fact, a shudder to think of the risks we routinely took and thought nothing of. So much so that in an entirely rational way I regard myself as quite lucky to be alive. There is no doubt in my mind that the better regard which we now have for human life and safety has been driven in no small part by lessons we've learned from fatal accident enquiries. We should think a wee bit about this as we complain about regulation because in our work to streamline regulation and to make it work better, we must not lose sight of all that better regulation has done to lessen the possibility of tragedy and loss. Presiding Officer, there are no doubt aspects of this bill which can be improved. I leave others to comment on this as the bill passes through Parliament. However, as I understand that there is a place in repeal one act that was passed in 1976, it is surely a time that we updated our thinking. I am therefore pleased to support the general principles of this bill. We now call on John Finnie, after which we move to closing speeches. Mr Finnie of a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is legislation that is technical but is the very eloquent speech from the previous speaker, Mike McKenzie, highlighted. Certainly no one in the debates lost the human element to it and we would do so at our cost. It is very important to recognise that. Maybe 40 years in the coming and certainly the minister talked about the need for it to be effective, efficient and fair and that is by and large what I feel it is and for these reasons I will be supporting the general principles. I am very grateful to all those who contributed and I appreciate that for many it could not have been very easy. We heard from families against corporate killers and Louise Taggart, who is a tireless worker there, told us of the tragic circumstances of her brother. Like Patricia Ferguson, who was a very able contributor to where we are just now, it was the frustration and the failure to act timely on what seemed apparent that resulted in other lives being lost that was a great frustration. I was looking forward to speaking in the debate next week on Patricia Ferguson's bill. I thought that there was a lot to commend it. I will return to elements of it later but I certainly commend her for her tireless work. People have talked about the notable exceptions from Lord Cullen's review, extending mandatory FEIs to cover children who die in residential care, other than those who die in secure accommodation, as well as those who die subject to compulsory attention by public authority. I was sympathetic to a lot of the proposals that were made about that. We heard the review process and why that rather than reassure in some instances it certainly could cause the family's distress but we must appreciate those concerns. Importantly, though, I heard nothing that would suggest that when appropriate, an FEI would be called. Term public interest has been used a lot and things are undertaken in the public interest but certainly at this time it is only the PF who can apply for a fatal accident inquiry. I am very pleased, as others have commented on, that the opportunity would exist if the legislation passed to reopen an FEI if new evidence came to light. I have sat through an FEI and I have to tell you that it is not a pleasant event related to a death in custody and there were various interests that had to be serviced there. There were various tensions and, hopefully, lessons learned from that. I welcome the requirement that the Lord Advocate provides written reasons why an FEI should not be held. Particularly in relation to the mental health provisions, I would like to recount what the report actually says in relation to that. The committee asked the Scottish Government to further consider whether the bill should be extended to include mandatory FEIs for both those categories. That is persons detained under mental health and looked after children. I think that it is important that we put that mark around that we did say that. My colleague Alison McInnes talked about flipping. It is pivotal that we have the feedback from the Lord Advocate and the relationship between what are down as mandatory and discretionary causes for holding FEIs. It is quite clear, however, that the existing arrangements are not understood in the past because of that many families have felt disenfranchised. Families have a point of contact in the PF's office and were told so that they can raise any issues of concerns directly. The Justice Committee put great store on what we heard from the Solicitor General, the Milestone Charter and the undertaking to meet with families and provide regular updates. As we know in life, it is not knowing that causes concern. There is never an instance of having too much information on a subject that is as important as this. I welcome the Minister's assurance that matters will be put into on a statutory fruiting. Paragraph 51 and 52, the committee considers that, in the interests of those who have lost a loved one, in often tragic circumstances and who must navigate the system, it is imperative that there be greater clarity and understanding about FEIs, their purpose and how they relate to other deaths investigations and civil and criminal proceedings. That is very important because we have heard about the relationships between those. It is often in those instances that people have said—another member's will has come across this—who represents the family's interests and they do not understand the simple response that it is. It is a PF acting in the public interest to represent the family's interests. With regard to legal aid, again we have very compelling evidence from families against corporate killings about the implications of not having legal aid when it is often the main breadwinner of the family that is the subject of the fatality. At Paragraph 172, we said in a quote, we believe that it is imperative that families' trade unions, who play a pivotal role in this and staff associations, are able to participate in a meaningful way in an FEI and that families are represented appropriately and kept informed throughout the process. It is also important that we make effort to explain the relationship between the health and safety executive, air and impact accident investigation and the other bodies that are involved. We are keen to see sheriff's recommendations respected. Lice have been lost and lessons must be learned, and the issue around delays is very important. We are very pleased that the Scottish Government is keen to act on the deaths abroad and the requirement not to have the body repatriated. Issues of the service personnel, I think that we took some reassurance on that. In closing, what we are trying to achieve at the moment and in the future is to understand where and when a death is taking place, the cause of that death, any reasonable precautions that could have been taken to avoid that, whether there has been defects in workplace practices that contribute to that and any other relevant factors. I keep coming back to delay, so while I understand Patricia Ferguson's position and I share the concerns that others have that there may be the potential that things could be lost, I hope not. I will pay great attention to the amendments that come forward from Patricia Ferguson next week and not least around how we take forward actions that the sheriff determines. A number of matters are reserved, but a number of devolved. At the very least, we could start picking up on the things that we can do. Before we move on to closing speeches, I invite all members who have taken part in the debate to join us again for the closing speeches. I now call on animal goldie, seven minutes, or thereby these. I too welcome the opportunity to speak on this stage one debate on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths, Scotland Bill. I am very clear the principle underpinning fatal accidents is both long standing and still sound. They were introduced in 1895, but as recognised by all of us in this chamber, there is a need to modernise and reform the system of fatal accident inquiries in Scotland. I am pleased that the Justice Committee has expressed support for the general principles of the Bill at stage one, and I too would like to thank the convener, the clerks and the members of the committee for their contributions. The Bill, of course, is based on a number of sensible recommendations by Lord Cullen, and I do not propose to consider those in detail. I do note with interest, and Patricia Ferguson observed this, that his review started in 2008 and was completed expeditiously in 2009. We know, and the Scottish Government has certainly acknowledged that FEIs are often beset by delays, with one witness during the stage one scrutiny of the Bill indicating that some families have had to wait up to seven years simply to find out that an FAI is not to take place, and in other instances the commencement of an FAI has taken up to four years. The introduction of this legislation to the Parliament is certainly overdue, and I do praise Patricia Ferguson for her spirited efforts in keeping this matter before the Parliament. I think she has metaphorically put her foot on the Scottish Government accelerator. Not something I suspect where our foot is often to be found, but all power to her for what she has achieved. It is a case that FEIs may be in the public interest, but as numerous members have observed, they also offer the deceased relatives crucial answers regarding the circumstances surrounding the death, and it is deeply unfair to unnecessarily prolong that uncertainty and the closure that such an inquiry could afford. I think two recent tragedies have crystallised the contradictions inherent in the current system governing FEIs in Scotland. It has been reported extensively in the press that the families of those killed at the clue the pub helicopter disaster remain concerned that an FAI into the accident is not yet underway, but, meanwhile, an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy began just seven months after the accident took place. Now, we know there may be good reasons for delaying the start of an inquiry in the case of the clue the tragedy. I understand the final report from the air accidents investigation branch is still awaited, but from the point of view of the deceased relatives who will understandably be unfamiliar with the necessary protocols and procedures, such a system is confusing and seemingly contradictory, and it is in the light of these considerations that I join other members in welcoming the proposed milestone charter. I think that that combines flexibility with specific points for sharing information with families. The charter must be robust, and I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government and Lord Advocate will both prioritise and keep communication with bereave families under proactive review once this bill is passed. Now, secondly, we know that an FAI is an inquisitorial process which seeks to establish the facts relevant to the circumstances of the death. That is what the inquiry exists to do, but Lord Cullen emphasised in his review and I quote, It is true that an investigation of the circumstances of a death in an FAI may disclose grounds for criticism from which a basis for alleging fault may be inferred. That may be unavoidable if the FAI is to fulfil its function of investigating the circumstances of the death. It does mean that no witness involved in an FAI can be compelled to answer any questions that might imply that they are guilty of a criminal offence. Arguably, that may limit the usefulness of such inquiries in some circumstances. I think that that tension has been reflected with the on-going FAI into the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy. The Lord Advocate decided not to prosecute the driver prior to the FAI, but because of the possibility of a private prosecution, then the driver has declined to answer a number of questions on the grounds that he might incriminate himself. I think that there is a risk that what is and should be an inquisitorial process becomes conflated with an adversarial one. Fatal accident inquiries are undertaken to establish the facts, the where, the when, the why, whether precautions could have been taken, whether there were any defects in the system and whether there were any other contributory factors. I think in order to learn the necessary lessons, we need a holistic picture, not an incomplete one. It draws me on to something to which Mr Finney was referring in the previous contribution. I'm quoting here from the Law Society of Scotland. The society has expressed concern that Lord Cullen's recommendation that relatives represented at an FAI be entitled to receive legal aid without having to demonstrate that it is reasonable in the circumstances that is omitted from the bill. I was interested to say or to see rather that the society rightly observed on how daunting a task it is for those attending a quasi-court occasion being subjected to cross-examination, and the Law Society takes to view it that the expense of increasing availability of legal representation would be minimal in terms of the entire legal aid budget. I think that, Presiding Officer, the Minister should look very carefully at this. We really want an exhaustive examination of facts. We may be much more likely to get that if people understand what they're doing, where they fit into the process and what exactly they're expected to contribute. On the important issue of the sheriff's recommendations following conclusion of an FAI, and some members have alluded to this, not least Patricia Ferguson, the Law Society of Scotland again has expressed concern about the absence of sanction in the event of non-compliance or non-co-operation with the sheriff's recommendations. I have to see, I think that's a justifiable concern, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I do hope that the Minister will reflect on that. The bill does much to modernise and welcome fatal accident inquiries, and these changes are to be commended, and they represent the positive development of our legal system in Scotland. But I think I would urge the Minister to consider how FAIs interact with other court proceedings. This seems to me as yet a still somewhat unresolved tension. Now, these comments notwithstanding, this bill is needed. I think it does do a good job, and my party will support the bill at decision time. Very good. I now call Dr Leanne Murray, and nine minutes are there by Dr Murray. Generous nine minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Fadal accident inquiries are inquiries into the circumstances of a death undertaken in the public interest in order to determine the time, place and cause and to establish whether lessons can be learned to prevent similar fatalities in future. I think that we have heard a number of very thoughtful contributions from members throughout the course of this debate. Fadal accident inquiries, as we have heard, are intended to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial, but they can be adversarial at times, and they do not attempt to allocate guilt in the criminal or civil sense. However, as Willie Coffey said in his contribution, they can often be critical of people. As Patricia Ferguson said, they can be very adversarial if it is employees versus employers. As John Finnie said, from his own experience of the death of an FAI into the death of a person kept in custody, that they are not a pleasant experience. I do not think that there is a box that says inquisitorial, and that is a nice little inquiry and adversarial, which is what is happening in court. There is interlap between them both, and they can overlap each other. It is not as simple as it may seem to be in the first instance. A number of members made very interesting comments about what public interest means and how it is defined. It is a very fundamental question, and we are all quite blithly talking about it in the public interest, but do we really understand what that actually means? An example might be—this is hypothetical—a mother suffering from severe postnatal depression and has not been given the appropriate support and help, and she takes the life of her child. A crime has been committed, but the Lord Advocate might take the view that it is not in the public interest to prosecute. I think that we would all agree with that. There is an example where it is not in the public interest to prosecute in criminal proceedings. Indeed, and I think that there is a real recent case of that type. However, I think that an example does not actually provide the definition. I think that that is maybe easier to understand, but I think that there are other times where what the public interest is is not as easy to understand. As Patricia Ferguson said, preventing fatalities is surely in the public interest, and that is about learning the lessons and so on. As we have discussed, that was not the only bill that was brought forward to address some of the recommendations that was brought forward by Lord Cullen. Patricia Ferguson said to us that she deliberately intended her bill to be more radical than some of those suggestions. The Justice Committee recommended that the committee supported the general principles of both Patricia's bill and the Government Bill. Because of time constraints imposed by the coming to the end of this term of Parliament and the priority given to Government bills—quite rightly given to Government bills, and those have been—labor members of the committee were prepared to agree that the Government bill was the best vehicle to progress modernisation of the fatal accident inquiry process legislation during the few months that we have left. As we have heard this afternoon, Patricia Ferguson accepted that recommendation and withdrawn her own bill with immediate effect. I would like to again pay tribute to the work that Patricia Ferguson did on her bill. It must have been an extremely difficult decision for her to withdraw the bill after all the hard work that she, her staff and Patrick McWire of Thomson solicitors had put into the drafting and explaining of their bill. Indeed, given the experience that she had had with her constituents, she must have had a strong emotional desire to try and sort things out after going through that experience. I would like to pay tribute to her for that. I am not quite sure what that means for Tuesday's debate or whether it can go forward. I would not have thought so now that there is no bill to debate, so that will be a problem for the business managers in the bureau to resolve. I would also like to assure Patricia Ferguson that members of the committee will do our best efforts to fulfil her expectation that aspects of her bill will be taken forward. That is a commitment that we will probably make across the chamber, although there is not uniform agreement on which areas of amendment should be taken forward. I look forward to the Government and to working with Patricia Ferguson to do that. Many members spoke about the importance of the families of the deceased, Joan Lamont, Christian Allard and Mike McKenzie. I think that we all agree that they have to be central to the fatal accident inquiry process. Although the purpose of an FAI is to determine what lessons can be learned in the public interest, families must be kept informed regarding decisions. Decisions have to be made terminously. We must see an end to the times when people are waiting years and years and years only just to be told that a fatal accident inquiry is not to be held. As Joan Lamont said, families have a desire for justice for their day in court. They seek explanations. They are seeking that day in court, not the sort of recompense that civil action may result in. That is often not what people are actually wanting. Willie Coffey spoke of his constituent, Alison Hume, and the journey of her family and the lack of closure that the process has had for them. As we know, the bill does not take forward a number of Lord Cullen's recommendations, such as the extension to include children who die in residential care other than secure accommodation and deaths of people in compulsory detention by public authority. A number of members raised questions about that. Joan Lamont spoke about people who die in healthcare settings. For example, medical procedures are not followed. Many of us have had situations in which constituents have been unhappy about the fact that the health service investigates itself and that there does not seem to be any independent arbiter. The deaths of elderly people in healthcare settings are often a suspicion from families that, possibly, the elderly person was not considered important enough to receive some of the treatment that they should have received if they were younger. Alison McInnes made an important point about people detained under the mental health act. Margaret McDougall also made that point. We should perhaps be turning the process on its head and having mandatory inquiries in those circumstances, but with the Lord Add we are able to have the discretion not to hold an inquiry when the cause of death is known, for example, by natural causes or there is no cause for concern. That was the mental mcws suggestion. I have only got a couple of minutes left. I would like to wrap up. There are a few other things that were being said that I would like to refer to. Joan Lamont and Jane Baxter and Annabelle Goldie and her summing up also made reference to the need for people who are represented at the FEI to be entitled to legal aid without having to show that this is necessary. The process from everything we have heard today is extremely complex and people will be being cross-examined. They will find themselves under unusual circumstances. I hope that the Government will look again at that recommendation from Lord Cullen. Bob Doris spoke about his constituent Cullen Love who died in Venezuela. Indeed, his mother gave evidence to the committee that was very compelling. I am pleased to hear that the bill will be amended at stage 2 to include deaths where it is not possible for a body to be repatriated. I think that that will be welcomed by members across the chamber. A number of members also spoke about the death of members of the armed forces serving in Scotland. They are normally there. Again, we are hopeful to see that being resolved. John Finnie made reference to the importance, including trade unions and staff associations. I also included that in my contribution. I think that it is not a mission that should be rectified at stage 2. Jane Baxter was probably the only person who welcomed the ascension of the premises where an FEI can be held. I think that that will be of benefit to families and enable families to more easily attend freedom from fatal accidents inquiries. We look forward to more on that. I conclude by saying that there is merit in both the bill and the bill that Patricia Ferguson took forward. Many of us are looking forward to the process of amendment at stage 2 and stage 3, where I hope that many of the points made by members will be taken on board and will be progressed. Meanwhile, we are happy to support the bill. I have listened to the debate with great interest. I should say at the outset of my closing remarks that I was not aware that Patricia Ferguson had withdrawn her bill when I made my opening remarks. I do again want to pay tribute to the hard work that she has put into it, and I will commit to working with her on the areas that we have already discussed, where we believe that we have common ground. With that in mind, Patricia Ferguson raised an intervention earlier on the issue of reporting potentially back to Parliament. I am willing to look at that sympathetically to do it on a streamlined as possible basis, so perhaps by exception looking at areas where recommendations have not been complied with Presiding Officer, but I am willing to entertain a discussion with the member on that particular point. However, the Scottish Government's bill will modernise the way fatal accident inquiries are handled in Scotland. It provides, I believe, the legislative framework that is needed to implement the Cullen recommendations in order to build on the reforms already carried out by the Crown Office when the establishment of the SFIU, which now oversees desk investigation in Scotland, contains several new initiatives, such as the greater flexibility that Elaine Murray and others have referred to in terms of location of FEIs, discretionary FEIs into desk abroad, the possibility of reopening an FEI, if new evidence appears at Willie Coffey and others have mentioned. The bill will underpin the new charter for brief families in which the Crown Office has consulted, and I will come back to that shortly. The proposals on requiring parties to whom shares recommendations are addressed to respond to indicate what they have done by way of implementation will foster compliance, but I reiterate the point that I just made to Ms Ferguson. It is worth noting that we understand the response rate in the equivalent system under the coroner's system in England and Wales, which takes a similar approach, is 100 per cent, and we would anticipate a high rate of response in Scotland as well. Most parties to whom shares recommendations are addressed are only too keen to demonstrate compliance with its recommendations. Indeed, many of the parties attend the inquiries themselves and are able to hear the evidence as it unfolds and may have taken action before the inquiry even concludes to address those points. I am very grateful, because I have long been concerned about the extension of that point, which is that a recommendation to a particular employer that it does not think is obviously going to be worked on, but I see no mechanism whereby the industry in general, for example in that case, is ever told about this. I wonder whether administratively there is not going to be in the statute. There might be something that the Scottish Government can do to make sure that a wider circulation of those recommendations, where appropriate, is made. I thank the member for that point. It is a very valid one. The recommendations, once the party that is required to report back to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service, but potentially if we were to deploy a reporting mechanism as discussed, it would flag up if there were anomalies that perhaps industry or individual companies or representatives had not responded. I take the point that it is within the powers of the chef under the proposals that we put forward to contact the appropriate regulator for the industry to make them aware of the concerns that have been raised in the inquiry and, indeed, to draw their attention to the recommendations that have been made. As I said earlier, Lord Cullen, former Lord President of the Court of Session, is an acknowledged expert on public inquiries, and to those who believe his recommendations do not go far enough, I hope that we will be able to set out how we can address those issues. However, it is also clear that the Scottish Government's legislative proposals, which closely follow Lord Cullen's recommendations, were widely welcomed in the Scottish Government's consultation last year. I want to turn, Presiding Officer, as much as I can to address the points that have been raised by fellow colleagues across the chamber in the courses of debate. Christine Grahame set the scene very well in her speech on behalf of the committee, and I again want to thank the committee for its deliberations and the clerks. In relation to delays, the Scottish Government recognises the need for bereaved families to be kept informed of progress with death investigations, and we firmly believe that the Crown Office's milestone charter, as it has been dubbed so far, will provide reassurance and will enhance public confidence in the system. Putting on a statutory footing obviously gives it more clout, but I just want to reassure members that I know that some have not seen the detail yet, and the Crown Office has circulated that to appropriate stakeholders who represent families. We have had feedback, which has broadly been positive, but we are taking on board some points, particularly in relation to communication between the Crown and those families as to how they might want to have a different approach. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but one that is sensitive to the requirements of the individual's concerns so that it is done in an appropriate way. It is not necessarily requiring to have face-to-face meetings when that is inappropriate for them. To reiterate, it is proposed that the Crown Office will offer to meet bereaved families within three months after the date that death has been reported to them to give them an update on the progress of the death investigation. I hope that there is an explanation, if there is already potentially a consideration of a criminal inquiry or some other hold-up in terms of the process, to make them aware of why that is the case and what to expect in terms of the potential duration of those kind of inquiries. I think that a number of members refer to the air accident investigation branch. As we know, in the case of certain recent inquiries, lengthy and very technical considerations are required and, therefore, inevitably, there is some degree of delay. However, that does not stop us communicating better with the families. I take that point on board, and that is indeed what the milestone charter would seek to do to give better flow of information to the families affected. The Government is minded to support an amendment to the bill to give the charter a statutory basis that is suggested by Patricia Ferguson. I again want to acknowledge her raising that issue. Does the minister accept that it is not just how quickly the families are communicated with, it is how quickly the decision is made that is then communicated to them? Certainly, I take the point that it is possible to give us early possible information to the families who would be desirable, but we obviously have some situations, as I am sure that the member is aware, where things are out with the control of the Crown Office or, indeed, the Police Scotland as to information. However, to keep the families as well informed as possible, clearly I would be keen to see that done. Joanne Lamont referred to the public interest added to the number of other members. Just to say, the solicitor general in her own evidence to the committee stressed that the family's interest forms part of the public interest. I do very much take the point that was made, but I reassure the member that the family's interest is included in the definition of public interest, so that point is well made and noted. Would the minister accept that there is some attention where the family do not wish something pursued that would be in the public interest? I can see that that is potentially a situation that John Finnie raised. I am not aware of any specific cases, but I can understand the theoretical possibility of that. In relation to points that were made regarding military personnel, clearly I welcome the support from across the chamber and I do thank UK ministers for giving their consensus process. Simply do you have any kind of timescale for when we might have movement on that particular issue? I do not clear that it is not in the gift of the Scottish Government, but I do understand that the UK Government is willing to move quickly. I would anticipate that if the bill was to be enacted there would be a very swift process to bring a section 1 of 4 order forward in the houses of Parliament in London. I have addressed Patricia Ferguson's point on annual report. Elaine Murray made a number of valid points in terms of the areas of agreement that we have. I know that an area in terms of children in care and looked after children was one area that Elaine Murray raised that she was concerned about. We had not made progress on that, but Glasgow City Council, during its evidence, said that current measures are sufficient and that it supports the Government's provision that a mandatory FEI is not needed in every case. Deaths of children in care is one of the areas in which Patricia Ferguson's bill and my own bill that we have brought forward on behalf of the Government had agreement, both provide for mandatory FEIs into the death of a child in secure accommodation. I reassure members that the Scottish Government has set up a child death review working group to explore the current practice of reviewing child deaths in Scotland and to consider whether children should introduce a national collaborative multi-agency system and that is due to report in autumn of this year, so we do not have long to wait before we have something definitive from that exercise. I welcome the support from many members in terms of the provisions that we have made in relation to deaths abroad and I think that we have broad agreement on that point, so I will not take it further. I want to acknowledge the point that Bob Doris made in relation to Julie Love and the tragic circumstances of her own son's death and acknowledge the strong contribution that she has made and her organisation to this debate and to Mr Doris's own inputs to this point. Margaret Mitchell raised the point in debate, but I just want to clarify the provisions in the section 1 of 4 order will cover the deaths of service personnel in Scotland. It will not deal with the deaths of service personnel overseas just to clarify that point. That is already dealt with in existing provision in terms of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, I believe. Patricia Ferguson stressed the radical nature of her own proposals. The draft milestone charter I think will be a strong step towards dealing with the main concerns that she had driven by her own experience in terms of helping families, but I appreciate that we still have some discussion to make on that front. In terms of the adversarial nature, the debate was a considerable debate about the adversarial potential of FEIs. I do acknowledge that sometimes inquiries can be more adversarial than we would like. That is not to say that we should not do more to try to make them less adversarial, so that we can get to the truth and not stoke up the potential for adversarial debate at inquiries. I will refer to that in relation to legal aid as well. I know that a number of members have raised legal aid as an issue. The provisions that are in the bill have been designed to ensure that, in such circumstances, as legal aids provide perhaps where the Crown is not proposing to raise questions themselves, that might be of interest to the family. There is the possibility of applying for legal aid, as long as there is eligibility criteria are met, legal aid can be used to provide support for family members in that circumstance. Joanne Lamont mentioned NHS deaths at public interest includes, as I said, the family's interest. The Crown must consider whether circumstances of death in a case-by-case basis. The Lord Advocate might exercise discretion if there is public concern. I am conscious of the time that I have made to close up. It has been a fascinating debate. I welcome the broad support of members across the chamber for the general principles of the bill. I acknowledge the work that Patricia Ferguson has put into her own bill and I acknowledge that she is willing to work with me. I look forward to doing that. We wish to work constructively with Patricia Ferguson and other members, but we agree with the Justice Committee that the Government's bill is the best vehicle for reform of fatal accident inquiries. I commend the motion. That concludes the debate on stage 1 of the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths at the Centre of Scotland bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is decision time. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 14328, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths at the Centre of Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.