 Rwy'n rwyv yn cymryd duties o roi'r cymryd ni, mae'n 15 o'n defnyddio, rwy'n cael eu tynnu cyfrifio iawn, a'r cymryd yr frym ni wedi cael eu cyfrifio cyllide画iaf wedi'i cymryd yn colliolaeth i unig o bobl gyda Llyfrhinol ymddai Alesin McInnes. Y SNP yn gweithio'r gyfrifio poblu cyd-frogan ym Mhau newydd 5 ym ffyrdd yw'r graf. dismissed byw i ymddych i'r cyfrifio cymryd ymddych i ymddych i'r cyfrifio cymryd yr ysgolon Llyw Comment a Llywbododraeth yma yw'r cymdeithas na'r enthysgwulei Caerdydd, mae'r eistedd yn gyntafol i wrthgwrs ynghymnodau yn Gwyl Llywodraeth. Mae oeddwn i'w gwleiddoedd Lord Cullen wneud rwy'n amluminio ar gyfer cymdeithlo erbyn diolch yn Attilwyr. Lord Cullen yn ddechrau na'r aelod ac yn gwneud i'r gapfodol i gyllidion mewn Cynyddiadol i'r Cymdeithas yn 2008 a 2009. Rydw i'n grants i ddarlas Gymdeithreith. Lord Cullen, sy'n digad i wneud Can your opening statement? It's a very few remarks. My remit is to review the operation of the 1976 act so as to ensure, I quote, an effective and practical system of public inquiry into deaths that is fit for the 21st century. As I started my work it became clear that I was concerned not merely with legislation ond wrth i ddweud i gael byddwyr o gwaith o'r lleidiadau cyntafol, ar gyfer y cyfrannol, ac fel y ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ystafell. Rwy'n fyddwch chi'n fawr i'r gweithio, ac roeddwn ni'n gweithio'r ystafell yn gyfrannol o'r 3 rhaid o'r strans. Yn ei ddweud i'r syrnynt, ond i'r syrnynt i'r cyfrannol yn cael eu ddweud, a triple, ymydd y system ac sy'n cynnig i hynny ddim yn cael y ripport. As you said, it was published in october 2009, and since then there has been a number of responses by the Scottish Government. However, I am here to answer your questions and help you in any way I can. Thank you very much. I move straight to questions from members, please. I've got John Finnie, Elaine Murray, Margaret Mitchell, Roddy Campbell, so far. John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Lord Cullen. Lord Cullen, your review recommended that the ref of any child looked after a residential establishment should trigger a mandatory FEI. Can you explain the rationale behind that recommendation, please? Well, it was this, that where a child is put into the care of others, and I'm not talking about, away from the family, there is a responsibility of care and protection owed to that child. I felt that that was appropriate to be consideration for being covered by a fatal accident inquiry. I appreciate when not talking about compulsory measures because those are accepted by the government and now form part of the bill. The idea was simply that they are in the protection of others, and if something happens during the course of that time being protected, it is right and proper, there should be an FAI. I appreciate what has been said by the government that it does open up quite a wide range of possible situations, but I've said what I can say in my report and I can't really add to that. I mean, clearly the issue of terminologies is terribly important and that would include boarding schools. Now, there's no reason why, given the definition you said originally about being in the care of others, that would still apply to boarding schools. It certainly would, and I appreciate that, of course, but that is a matter perhaps of drafting. If the principle is accepted, then appropriate drafting could confine it to what I thought to be the areas of concern. Would that necessarily exclude boarding schools would be my point? Oh yes, I accept that. I wonder what Colin Cullen can touch on it and another point, and it is the issue of public interest. To what extent should public interest determine whether the Lord Advocate should hold a fatal accident inquiry? From the beginning, the conception has been that a fatal accident inquiry should be held in the public interest for the information of the public and, of course, for action if necessary. From the beginning, that also involves the need to provide for the participation of those who have been directly affected by what happened. Still, the initiative essentially lies with the public authority, namely the Lord Advocate, except in such cases where Parliament has cited that there must be one, a mandatory one, obviously subject to the proviso about criminal prosecution or an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, which might make that unnecessary. The essential idea is held in the public interest and everything must be responsive to that. Are you relaxed about there being a measure of discretion afforded by the Lord Advocate with that decision making? Yes, I am. I think that that discretion has always been exercised responsibly. I think that it is quite important that the public and the individuals concerned should know why it has been exercised against one. That is why I recommended that reasons should be given. Should that power of discretion be challengeable? I suppose that, technically, it could be challenged through the judicial review. That is technically possible, but then, of course, there would have to be some legal flaw underlying the matter. Of course, reasons are given. Those reasons of themselves might open up the way to judicial review. That would tend to suggest that the system is one of complete disclosure, and that is not always the case with deaths giving rise to public concern. I am not sure whether I can agree with your general statement that there is lack of disclosure. All I am saying is that, if reasons are given, they might open up the need for judicial review. It would not lead to a situation in which the court could say that there must be an enquiry. It would simply mean that, if the challenge was successful, the Lord Advocate would have to think again. There has been some debate about whether or not fatal accident enquiries should be a time limit for being forward in FAI. Some of the arguments against that have been that any criminal proceedings should have to take place first. In your view, would it be permissible or acceptable for an FAI to take place before criminal proceedings have taken place? I think that the general answer to that is that it would not be wise for them to start before the conclusion of criminal proceedings. I appreciate that proposals have been made by Ms Ferguson for time limits, and they include the possibility of an FAI opening only to be adjourned. My problem that I have with the latter idea is that how much could usefully be achieved during that first initial phase, because even perhaps an explanation of how the deceased came to die might be relevant to the criminal prosecution. There is always a danger that whatever is said creates a problem for the criminal prosecution if it is still on-going, so my answer would be better to have the criminal proceedings finished. One of your proposals, Lord Cullin, is to hold an initial court hearing soon after death is reported. What would that be if it was simply to have that then adjourned, which you have already said? Thank you for raising that point, because what I put forward there was the proposal, not that we embark on the FAI itself but merely have a meeting for the information or the relatives and interested parties to inform them as to the progress of investigation and proceedings if necessary criminal proceedings. That is something quite new. The idea would be to enable them to know what is going on, and I thought that it would be useful to have an independent person in the position of the sheriff able to say, can you give me an explanation as to what is going on here? There was no evidence that it would not technically be the beginning of the FAI, it would have been an application. Perhaps I could describe it as an application for a potential FAI, because it might not, of course, go ahead if there were criminal proceedings and it was found after that there was no point in having one. Therefore, the matter would simply be discontinued. It is simply in order to enable the families and other persons who are directly involved to know what is going on and to be satisfied that all proper steps have been taken to progress matters. I may say that we would be procedural rather than substantive, but might prejudice us about any subsequent criminal proceedings. Do you appreciate that this particular idea of mine has not found favour, I think, with the Scottish Government? Do not think that matters to the committee. However, it is an interesting proposal, and I thought that perhaps it was helpful. The other issue that I was wanting to ask you is whether there seems to be a difference of opinion between yourself and the Scottish Government, and Ms Ferguson was an issue of sheriff's recommendations, because you recommended that there should be an obligation to respond to sheriff's recommendations. I think that Patricia Ferguson suggests that it should be a legal requirement to comply with a sheriff's recommendation, although there would be the opportunity to explain why you had not done so. However, the Government has not taken forward your suggestion that information should be published on recommendations and responses in the report to Parliament. What is your current situation? There are a number of topics. The first one is to do with publication. I was anxious that everything should be done to enable the sheriff's recommendations to be brought home in the sense of being made known to the public and to put positions in some position of authority so that they could take what action was required. Hence, my recommendations about dissemination, and on the other hand my recommendations that there should be a publication of the sheriff's determinations and the response. From my point of view, I wondered how I could make sure that those determinations and the responses to them, or lack of response, got as high a profile as possible. That is why I recommended that they should be tendered to the Government so that the Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament could be aware of what was happening and what the responses were and take any action that was appropriate. However, that particular proposal about being published and the subject of an annual report did not find favour with the Scottish Government and instead they have left the matter in the hands of the courts and tribunal service. However, I still would like, if possible, to be as high a profile as possible given to the recommendations. I do not want it ever to be thought that those determinations and recommendations are overlooked. Some of the written evidence people, some witnesses and written evidence have said they did not think that the Scottish courts and tribunal service was the appropriate organisation to report. When I wrote my report, I hope that I am correct in saying this, I think that at that time the court and tribunal service did have our website setting out shaleps determinations and their recommendations. There was nowhere at that stage which set out what the responses might be. That was yet to come. The question is where should the responses go? That is why I thought that it was better to go for the Scottish Government than to the court service. It could of course go to both, with links between the two of them, of course. However, the point is a matter of profile. That is why I thought that the Scottish Government should be the best person to go. I mentioned the UK Parliament as well, because some of the potential recommendations of our sheriff could apply to reserve matters, which of course is a matter for the UK Parliament, such as health and safety. You also touched on the question of how the recommendations are dealt with. I have read the proposals by Ms Ferguson for the enforcement of sheriff's recommendations. I have some thoughts on the matter. My first thought is this. If a party to an FAI thought that it was likely to be the subject of a legal duty to comply with a sheriff's recommendation, it would want to have the clearest specification during the inquiry as to what that was to be and an opportunity to contest it, if necessary, with evidence. The position in regard to a non-partisimate in the inquiry would be even more significant, because that non-partisimate would not hear until after the FAI what was the sheriff's order. It would require to in fairness again to be given the opportunity to contest that, presumably, by some form of hearing evidence after the FAI had finished. What concerns me about the whole of that is that it runs counter to the idea that an FAI is there for the purposes of inquisition, not in order to establish rights and duties and obligations. That is quite foreign to the FAI and I think it would be inappropriate. It would involve, apart from anything else, considerable increase in the amount of time spent in the sheriff's court dealing with these matters, which are really matters to be followed up by organisations that have an interest in the matter, such as the health and safety executive or, indeed, one or other of the parliaments. That is my first comment. The second comment is this, that if the sheriff's recommendations are to become mandatory, then that places the sheriff in the position of being able to, if you like, enact a legal duty. Apart from the fact that that is foreign to the FAI, it places the sheriff in a rather strange position, because enacting of legal duties is really a matter for the Parliament. If the sheriff enacts a duty, which is to be complied with and necessarily enforced by punishment or a fine, if that is to happen, then the question is what you do with that duty if it turns out that it was not a wise recommendation or it has become superseded or some other reason for thinking that it is not good, how do you get rid of it? Would I suppose have to enact by legislation in order to get rid of it? Because, until that point of time, the party concern would have to comply with that legal duty. Now, I think that that is a point which shading into our constitutional issue as to who is in charge and it seems to me that is really a matter for Parliament. And the third point I would make, which is a purely practical one, is that some recommendations made by the sheriff simply are not the sort of thing which you would want to be made the subject of a legal duty such as recommendation to consider something or discuss something or collaborate. Some other recommendations might be misguided, they might be superseded, they might conflict with what was being done or recommended somewhere else in Scotland. So, to sort all that out, it would be far better to leave it to potential legislation or the action taken by some authority, which has got charged with responsibility for looking after safety. I am sorry to be so long in my answer but these are the three points that I felt when I had thought about the matter. Thanks very much, thanks. We do not also have a question of ECHR involved if some duty was being imposed after a recommendation it became binding and a party had not been party to the proceedings. Well, that is indeed because that comes back to the point that I mentioned earlier. If you do not participate in the inquiry and you suddenly find that a sheriff has imposed a duty on you, you have to start all over again by saying what is the case for it or against it. Thank you very much, Margaret. Good morning, Lord Connell. It seems to me that if the bill is to be affected, there are certain resource implications that have to be taken account of. For example, in your recommendations, you suggest that the reasonable test for legal representation for relatives could be withdrawn. I think that the idea behind that was that, while the trying to procurate a fiscal could ask some questions on behalf of relatives, then they represent the public interest. The Scottish Government rejected this saying in this financial climate that it is not the right time, but it seems that there is access to justice questions here. That is part of their answer and I quite appreciate that. What led me in this direction, as you will have seen from the report, was the reflection that the families have a distinct point of view, which not merely shows that they have a standing, as it were, to ask questions, but reasonable grounds themselves for asking what could have been done. I appreciate what has been said that the procurator of fiscal is there and can take account of what they say, but he is not bound to do so. He is not conducting his position, his part of the inquiry, on behalf of them, so they have a distinct interest. That led me to think about why they should not get access to legal aid, subject across to the limits of what is financial available to them, and why they should not have it. There was a reasonableness of their participation should not be a question. We are talking about updating and improving, but it seems to me that that is a key access to justice question. It can be treated as such, but it is not access to justice in the normal sense, because access to justice is normally referred to in the question of access to justice in a court of law. That is not a court of law, but the question is whether there is a public interest, to speak, in the families having that degree of support. Can I also ask you about the resourcing of the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service, because we have seen delays of up to four years before even a fiddle accident diary has been thought of. You had very specific recommendations about resourcing and creating a central team with the Crown and Procurator Fiscal, co-ordinating and monitoring. Yes, those delays have been very dismaying and very, very unfortunate. As you say, I made a number of recommendations to try to reinforce the need that the COPFS should put resources into the adequate priority being given to FAIs. You will hear from them as to what they have succeeded in doing. There is one respect in which what has happened is not in accordance to what I suggested. I suggested a team that would be devoted specifically to FAIs, whereas it has turned out to be part of a larger deaths unit approach to matters. That may be perfectly all right. I do not know if a lot of reassuring statements are made by the COPFS and I trust that it has been working well, but you will not be able to hear from them and judge whether that has been successful so far. There does seem to be a bit of a precedent, certainly in criminal matters, in which we have got the domestic abuse tax force within the COPFS to make sure that that has dealt with as efficiently as possible. It seems to me that there is a relationship between those two. As I said when I was opening, the working of this system is dependent on the working together of legislation on the one hand and the COPFS on the other. The two have worked together well enough to make sure that there are no unavoidable delays. Would that extra resource, in your opinion, go back to what Elaine Murray brought up about this early hearing that would give some information and communication? That is an important connection, because that is the context in which I talked about today. If the COPFS has made such improvements that fears about the family not being kept fully in the picture are groundless, then that makes the case for an early hearing of the type that I described earlier unnecessary. The two have worked together. The idea that I had in mind was to have this very early hearing just to make sure that there was a spur to effort and disclosure. However, if the COPFS system is working well, that makes the case for that early hearing less good. At present, we do not have the commitment to the early hearing in the bill, and it is not clear whether the Crown Procurator Fiscal has received the additional funding that would help to improve it. I appreciate that there is a problem about the early hearing, because when is it to be? The Government has said various things at different stages as to when it should be, tending to say that it would only be held when you know enough to know that the FAI is going to be going ahead. However, what I had in mind was something rather early on that. However, getting a time for this is very difficult. What do you relate it to? You are considering the whole range of FAIs that may cover a diversity of situations, diversity of accidents. It is very difficult. Does it just involve the Crown Procurator Fiscal, or does it involve Police Scotland as well? They would presumably feature in this as part of the work that is being done for the COPFS. They would not have a separate position, but they would simply be part of what is being done to investigate it. Thank you, Roddy. Thank you, convener. Morning, Lord Cullen. If I may, I would like to move to the question of the compulsory attention of people for mental health issues. You recommended that this would be suitable for a mandatory FAI. That recommendation is not being taken forward. Indeed, the Government has consulted on alternatives. We know that, despite those alternatives, that the Equality and Human Rights Commission—indeed, the Scottish Human Rights Commission—seem to have reservations. I do not know if you have the opportunity of looking at what the Government has said in their policy memorandum in relation to those detained for mental health reasons, and where the Government makes reference to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' graduated scale of investigations. However, in the light of what has happened since you initially reported that, how do you feel about the Government's proposals at the current time? How do I feel about the fact that they are not incorporating this in the act? At the time, and I think still, I felt that there was a clear read across between persons who were in custodial situation through criminal behaviour and, on the other hand, those who were in mental health hospitals by way of compulsion. Each of those groups of people are there by compulsion. They are also being protected, as it were, by the authority into whose care they have been committed. The Human Rights Act does not draw a distinction between the two, because cases are certainly cropped up where deaths have occurred in mental hospitals, where people have been held there compulsorily. They have been held to be covered by the Human Rights Act article 2, in the same way as those who are in prison or in the form of custody. That is why I thought they should be treated in the same way. Of course, I appreciate that it can be said that a person who dies in a mental hospital may die of natural causes, but then the same may be said of those who die in prison. Most of the things that apply in one would apply to the other. At the moment, I feel that there is still something to be said for this. Nothing has happened since then has changed my mind. I have read, of course, what is in the policy memorandum. It shows a number of possible avenues, but no mandatory avenue. That is what I had in mind. I still consider that there is a lot to be said for it. Notwithstanding the reservations of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Mental Health Department. Of course, this committee has got to balance everything up, and that is a point of view. It is balancing one thing against another. In more general terms, in your report you pointed out that in 1998-1909 there were 141 fatal accident inquiries, whereas in 2008-09 at the time of your report there were 57. Last financial year, I think there were 59 in the previous year, then there were 33 fatal accident inquiries. In general terms, do you think that as a society we have got it right, fatal accident inquiries being quite an expensive procedure? What is your general view on the number of fatal accident inquiries? I have heard nothing at any stage to suggest that we have too few or too many. That is it. Perhaps I will leave that particular word here. What would you draw by comparing the system that we have in Scotland from the system south of the border? I would hesitate to draw comparisons. I think that I have looked at their system for certain limited purposes, but not for an overall view. I am looking at the distinction that you make about an early inquiry before an FAI and preliminary hearings. Why is the preliminary hearing not good enough and you wish something else in advance of preliminary hearing? A preliminary hearing is there in order to organise the management of the FAI and the word you have embarked. You want to make sure that the time is properly spent, that you have proper arrangements for what is to come in the future, so you are on the way. What I mentioned earlier about an early hearing was simply and solely for the purposes of information being given before the sheriff, information for the benefit of the families and other interested persons. That is all. Why does it have to be done before a sheriff and not something that the Crown Office should be doing anyway in a more informal fashion, just keeping those interested parties particular? That is indeed the question. I thought that we would be better to have an independent person who could say, look, I want to make sure that you tell me effectively in front of everybody what the position is, what is happening, that is all. I am quite persuaded by that, because it seems that quite often, as it is in the public interest, grieving relatives and friends are unaware of their mixed messages about their role at any in an FAI, and it is quite hard for them to appreciate their position with regard to it. So you think that this earlier hearing would be helpful? I do not want to downplay what the COPFS has been doing and will be doing, not at all, but I think that it would be useful to have the addition of appearance before the sheriff, and if necessary, it could be heard in chambers. It does not have to be heard in public. I see. Not in open court. It could be in chambers. I do not see why not. That is interesting. I have got Christian, then I have got Christian. Good morning. I just wanted to press you on one particular point. We had one of members' bills that I wanted to be introduced on, and I wanted to add to cover all the work related to deaths in the categories of monetary FAI. What do you think about it? Do you think that it should be a human right to have it included? Are you talking about the suggestion in the Ferguson Bill to cover other work related deaths than the ones currently covered? I think that there are problems about this. If we take a typical example of industrial disease, by the time, perhaps long before the death occurs, it will be known what the person concerned is suffering from, and what kind of exposure caused that disease. The question is what public interest would be served by holding a public inquiry in order to establish either the cause of death or the kind of exposure that caused it? If it is then a question of where did he acquire this exposure? There will be an employment history. How much can the public interest be served by inquiring into the way in which that particular industry conducted itself? It could be years and years ago. It could be at a stage of time when there were old-fashioned practices that are no longer being followed. The question that I would ask is whether there is a public interest in having a mandatory FAI—that was one in all cases—into such deaths. I am not suggesting for a moment that there should not be an FAI into particular cases. For example, if there was some novel form of exposure or some cluster of things that was causing concern, would it be in the public interest to have it done as a matter of cost when it means, as somebody said earlier, the use of public resources? Do you think that it is a matter of public resources or a matter of repetition? Indeed. It could arise because you could have a number of workers who, some years back, had suffered from exposure or something. If you make it mandatory, then you have to have an FAI into the death of each of them. What does each of those inquiries establish? That is what I ask myself. You would have to have a mandatory for one particular type or new type if there was something novel. I am not suggesting for a moment that it would not be useful for the Lord Advocate in his discretion or her discretion to do that, but that does not matter. The SDUC has indicated that the ambit of the mandatory FAI should be extended where it is new industries such as fracking or nanotechnologies if deaths arise because of that. Would you be sympathetic to that being mandatory or would you think that that could be carried by the discretion of the Lord Advocate? There is a difficulty of terminology here. I think that the best course is to leave it as I open up the discretion of the Lord Advocate. It is quite difficult to find formal words that will bring in what you want to bring in without bringing things that you do not want to bring in. Lord Cullen, I would like to return to the convener's comments about the value of some sort of preliminary hearing and who might convene that. I wonder if you would like to comment on whether the timescale should be monitored because it has already been said that it can take a long time for FAIs to begin or to conclude. Do you think that someone should monitor the delays and report back to interested parties about those delays? Let's not call it a preliminary hearing that causes confusion. It is called an early hearing. If it is an early hearing, I think that the answer to your question of monitoring is simply this, if it has taken place. It is inconclusive because things are still in progress up to the sheriff to adjourn it to another date. That is the way in which matters can be kept before the sheriff. Should that be communicated? He will communicate through the parties. Of course, he will say, I appreciate all that has been said today. I hope that it has been useful for the families to hear all this. It is plain that we have to wait for at least a month, so I will adjourn this for another six weeks. That is the way in which we have done it. It is a sort of light touch-ish way of making sure that there is no unnecessary delay. Yes. It is a reassurance, if you like. Are there any further questions? Have you anything further that you wish to add, Lord Cullin? We haven't asked that. We ought to have asked. We don't mind being insulted. I don't think there is any. Just one second. No, I think that you have covered all the things that I thought you were going to ask about, and any of the things that I have not taken up from my report have come up anyway. Thank you very much indeed. I will suspend for a couple of minutes to allow witnesses to change over. Thank you very much. We are now into second panel witnesses. I note that you are certainly in the committee room to hear the previous evidence, which I hope you found useful. I bet that Julia Love, chairperson of the group Death Abroad, is not alone, and members will be aware that Ms Love is a petition PE1280 on fatal accidents abroad, which is being considered by the committee alongside the bill. Louise Taggart found a member of families against corporate killers in the fight with tenant James Jones. Our tired member of the RAF was advised on several inquiries on fatal accidents involving military aircraft. When questions are addressed to you directly, your light will come on. If not, you just indicate that you want to make a comment and I will call you, and your light will come on. The microphone comes on automatically. It may be that you wish to make a brief opening statement. I emphasise brief, because we have your written submissions, but you certainly wish to make a brief opening statement. I am sure that the committee would be happy to hear from you. Do you wish to do that? I will go straight to questions, please. Members, Margaret and Elaine. I think that most of you were in when Lord Cunn gave evidence, and you would hear him ask about legal representation and his proposal to drop the test for reasonableness. Do you have any experience of relatives finding it difficult to get legal aid for legal representation? I think that the difficulty when the death occurs abroad is applying for legal aid, but it is not available because it is in another country. Most families that I know of have definitely not had legal aid for travelling out with the country to attend court or whatever. They have had no assistance whatsoever. I do not have any specific examples, but after work-related death, it is often the main breadwinner who has been the person who has been killed. Therefore, there are significant financial issues for families left behind in those instances. If legal aid were to be more readily available, that would certainly be a positive move. Only to say that my own experience has been dealing with the families who were involved in the Nimrod accident in Afghanistan and whether bodies were repatriated to the coroners' cause in Oxford in England. I think that there were no real problems with that. Could I ask perhaps about the delays if you have experience with the delays in holding fatal accidents and inquiries and whether the proposal in the bill will help to speed up that delay? Do you have any suggestions that are not included in the bill? From our perspective, I know that Lord Cullen said that it was not necessarily helpful to draw comparisons with what happens in England and Wales, but in this instance it may be, but to look at what they used to do. It used to be the case in England and Wales that an inquest was held before the criminal prosecution took place. That would be the case where it had been decided by the CPS that there was not to be a gross negligence manslaughter case or a corporate manslaughter case. It was simply to be that the health and safety executive would take forward charges under the health and safety at work act. If there was to be one of the manslaughter cases that inquests would be held off with, the manslaughter case would go ahead in the Crown Court and then there might be an inquest. Whereas if it was just to be health and safety at work act offences, the inquest would be held first. The HSE would often say that they saw that as part of their investigative process and that things might come out of that inquest that they would find helpful for their prosecution and then the prosecution would go ahead. Families were getting answers earlier because the inquest would go ahead beforehand and it was not seen that that was negatively impacting on the subsequent criminal prosecution. I think that that should be something that is looked at and that we consider having the FAI before the criminal prosecution goes ahead. Perhaps, if not the full FAI, what Lord Cullin was suggesting was this initial hearing. An early hearing would just give more information to the families. Do what you have just described without jeopardising anything else, which is the reason for delaying a lot of the early-looking and informing relatives to be done in chambers with the families being informed of where we are now three months after the initial death, a maximum of three months after? I think that the early hearing probably would not give families as much information as they are needing at that stage. I am not sure how much progress would be able to be reported on at that stage. If it were something that was then going to be a bit of a, if you like, kick up the backside for the Crown Office and Prosecution Service to say that this has not been progressed, it needs to be progressed, what you are doing about it, that is a positive step. That in itself is not enough for a family. As somebody said earlier, we can wait up to four years for an FAI to kick off. We have instances of, as I said in the written evidence of families having had to wait seven years before they find out that an FAI is not then going to take place. These delays of seven, six years is wholly unacceptable, so families need more answers more quickly. It needs to be more than just an update on progress as to where we are at. It needs to be answered as to how has my relative died, why has my relative died? I think that it was purely for, as you say, to focus the mind and to try to stop these long delays. It would not be a preliminary inquiry establishing the facts, but it would very much be putting it on the radar and keeping track of it, as I understand it. Yes, I do not want to keep talking about what happened south of the border, but going back to the Nimrod inquiry, the families had meetings with the potential coroner long before the inquest. They talked issues through, which I think they found very beneficial. They got things off their chest. They knew that they could raise questions to him that they felt would be brought about the inquest. The talk of criminal proceedings came during the course of the inquiry. The talk of corporate manslaughter was a verdict that he could have returned. That went ahead before it. Is there any talk about criminal proceedings? There could be issues, however. If I say to Ms Taggart that the question as to how their loved one died or why they had died might very well if you proceed with an FAI, and that is the kind of issues that families wish to know would prejudice a trial? If that came up because the party that might be accused might not have the protection of presumption of innocence or representation, that is the kernel of what he was saying is to prejudice a trial. That is a grey area that you would get into. It is a grey area, but I think that there are some protections that are there, so a witness could not be compelled to answer a question that they thought might incriminate them. The determination of the sheriff could not be referred to in future criminal proceedings, so I think that there are protections that are built in. Does anybody else wish to comment? Do you think that there is sufficient protection? I mean, I have grave concerns myself, as you can hear from my question. Not that I haven't got sympathies for it, but I think that the issue that my colleague raised about the early hearing and procedural is about as close as you can get in circumstances where there might be criminal proceedings in the air without prejudicing a trial. You wouldn't want that to happen either if somebody should be taken up the trial afterwards and the trial can proceed because issues have been in the public domain in advance. My only thing about that is that, as I say, the inquest procedure in England and Wales has been carrying this out for a number of years and it hasn't then prejudiced the criminal proceedings. I think that there are certain instances where the coroner has stopped the inquest at a point where he's thought, hold on a minute, we need to refer that back to the CPS. That happened in Scotland, too, if it's not been foreseen. I think that that can also happen in Scotland as well. Again, that's another sort of protection that's there that, if the sheriff thought it had gone too far, he could stop the proceedings and refer it back for further consideration. John Lennon, you didn't wish to make an opening statement, but your opening paragraph, if your evidence, talks about the background of your organisation and it's a national campaign network that needs to stop workers and others being killed in preventable incidents. Clearly, there's a role for the health and safety executive in that. Further on in your evidence, you talk about, you say, often where a mandatory FEI does not take place because it's said that the full facts and circumstances have been explored in criminal proceedings, but you express an frustration about that. I wonder if you could share that with the committee, please. I think that it's fairly rare for a case to go to a full trial where it's a work related death. My brother was killed at work, which is why I'm involved with FAC. He was killed in 2005 and a criminal prosecution did go ahead in 2008. It was a full trial three and a half weeks long, but that tends not to happen. It tends to be that four or five years down the line, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service has come to a plea arrangement with the employer. That's what happens in court. You go into court, you hear the plea arrangement that's been made, you don't then get to hear from witnesses, you don't get to see all the documentation, you don't get to see the photographic evidence or whatever else there may be. In that sense, it's a bit of a burst your bubble. You've waited this long, you think that this is going to go ahead, you think that you're going to find out all the facts and circumstances, and then you don't. Then they come to you and say, we're not going to hold an FEI because we think that all the facts and circumstances have come out. How can they possibly have come out if you've not heard from anybody? Of course, the purpose of the full facts and circumstances coming out is that others can learn so, for instance, the open safety could initiate further proceedings. In my brother's case, we got to the end of the three and a half week trial, we're asked, do you want an FEI, and given all my campaigning background, you would have thought I would have said, yes, of course we do, but by the end of the three and a half week trial we're so exhausted that we couldn't live. Back in business, John. Okay, I follow on for that for the panel generally, if maybe Ms Taggart wants to pick it up. Two, and that is suggestions about making share of findings more effective, the recommendations. I'll pick that up. I mean, I think that it's fairly sympathetic to having more power behind recommendations so that organisations or businesses and companies can't just walk away from it, but so we'd be happy to hear whether you feel there should be more power to it. Anybody on the panel that wants to feel that? Ms Taggart, if you want to, do you miss love? Do you want to have a come in here? I'll just speak briefly just about my on-case for when my son died, and the recommendations so that there was no foot laxed inquiry, there was no inquiry whatsoever, but for me, and I suppose what kind of pushed me to put the petition through to the Parliament as well, was that there was no one speaking in my other half or any other families when a death occurs abroad, and it was simple things. I mean, I wrote to President Shavi, who was the president of Venezuela at the time, and I was just a mum, a wee Glasgow mum. Where is that? I felt that if there had been a recommendation from my elected MSP or the UK Government that there might have been, and what I was asking for, why was there not lifeguards on that particular beach, why was there no warning signs and things like that, which I feel for anybody, because calling researchers holidays thoroughly everywhere he was going, he was, you know, this is great, this is where I'm going to be going, I'll be doing this here, et cetera. For anybody in the future going to that same area, the same thing could happen, and it did happen again and again, and it's still happening today. So for me, I think the most important thing is recommendations. When someone dies abroad, our Government can recommend, I know it's not always that they will carry out these recommendations, but at least that process would be in place. The bill that's published then is helpful at section 6, the new one about inquiries into deaths occurring abroad, which does say an inquiry is to be held to death, if the Lord Advocate considers death as sudden suspicious or unexplained or current circumstances giving rise to serious public concern. So sudden suspicious or unexplained, do you think that that is helpful? I think that it will be, but I think that there has to be a broader discussion around it, but I think that it definitely will make a difference. Any other comments? So that the repatriating of military personnel who have died overseas, I think what's important is I think it's commendable that we can say that we could have an FAI here in Scotland rather than have a coroner's inquest in England because having spent three weeks with the families on the Nimrod inquest, I know how it's sort of grwling and demanding going south of the border for three weeks here, but I would say, and I hope I get a chance to explain later on, that what's also important is that we know how we deal with the deaths of service people in Scotland, not just repatriating people who have died abroad, because if you bring them back, you've got to bring them back to a system that is compatible for all. I don't know if you're ready to develop that particular line, John. Yeah, it's about how robust sheriff recommendations can be and if the panel had any suggestions to enhance the standing of them. Question for you, yes. Ms Taggart, part of the reason why we decided not to go ahead with the FAI at the end of the trial was that what was going to come out of it, what use could come out of it at the end. If a recommendation could be made, but nothing could be done about it, if it wasn't followed, then what valuable outcome was there likely to be given what we would then need to put ourselves through again? If recommendations can be binding, families would be more likely, and if the FAI was to take place earlier, families would be more likely to go ahead with it. They want lessons to be learned absolutely from the death of their loved ones. The example that I give at the end of my paper is about Barry Martin, and Michael Adamson was my brother. We had to listen to evidence at the trial that seven electricians had died across the UK between 2004 and 2006 because of the exact same failure, which is a failure to ensure that safe isolation equipment was being provided to electricians. If an FAI is held early and recommendations are made out of that, you potentially save six of those lives. You made a point about when there is a guilty plea. Let's say that there is a criminal trial first, but there is a guilty plea and you do not hear anything. There is plea bargaining. What is your thing there that we should then have an FAI, whether it is restricted or whatever, an FAI of some kind to establish the facts and circumstances when you have not been privy to any of the evidence if it is pre-trial? Facts and circumstances and go on to hear about lessons learned as well, to determine lessons learned. I think that there is even more of an impetus to make recommendations binding if there is to be a move to take FAIs out of sheriff courts, because that may be a good move for families who feel a bit more relaxed. It may take away some of the gravitas from what the sheriff then puts out at the end. I have always found sheriff scary. I have appeared in a professional capacity. They have gravitas but I just mean from the perspective of particularly if somebody has not been a party to the inquiry or whatever they get something out that maybe they think, well, do I really have to do anything about this? I think that I would go further than term them recommendations as well. There has been a move in England for these coroner's reports to be termed reports to prevent future deaths. I think that something more like that would be a helpful move. Again, it gives it more impact rather than a recommendation to have to follow that or do I not? I have got my glasses on. Elaine. Thank you, convener. Can I return to the issue of military deaths? I was surprised, not to say the least, to read in the evidence that Mr Jones had given to us, that members of the interpretation of the current act by the Crown Office discriminates against members of the armed forces in that they are not regarded as employees. I wonder if you could expand on the issue around that. Yes, I am not sure I am the subperson to expand on it. It is the Crown Office that needs to expand on it. But it does appear— What was the effect on that in terms of military personnel? As far as the Crown Office is concerned, the current act talked about employees and employers. For some reason, that has now been viewed as because service people do not have an official signed contract, they are Crown appointees that they are not considered to be employed. That has come as a big surprise for myself and a lot of my colleagues who have been unemployed for many years. However, that is their interpretation that they are not employees. Therefore, when we have a work-related death and a call from a mandated FAI, they are not being fitted into that category. I think that that is wrong. That interpretation seems to go against what I can call the intent of the act. When someone wrote the act, I am sure they did not sit down and say, let us put in the words, employee and employer, so that we can exclude military personnel. It was just a way of saying that it is work-related. That is what Lord Cullen has said. We carried this mandated FAI forward for work-related deaths. For me, the three people—I have only used this as an example—there are other examples. The three people, crewmembers who died in the Tornadoi de Collision, that was a work-related death. For me, I cannot get my head round any other explanation. I realised then that the Lord Advocate has the power to say, right, I can not go ahead with a work-related death as long as there has been a public inquiry or criminal investigation, but that has not taken place either. What has happened is that the Military Aviation Authority is part of the Ministry of Defence. It says that it is independent, but it is part of the Ministry of Defence. They have carried out an investigation. They produced a report. In carrying out their investigation, there was no independent judge present. There was no cross-examination. It was, by its own definition, an internal investigation. Families were not involved. No-one was allowed to put forward any questions. That is what has been presented to the procurator on the Crown Office. He said, oh, this will do instead of an FAI. I do not think it will do. If I could just bear with you a little longer, I cited that in my report as an example. If I go back to the accident on the Mull of Kentire, which is about 20 years ago, and I read through here the review carried out by Lord Philip in 2011, he says here that the inquiry is an internal process. The board of inquiry was not a substitute for a legal inquiry into the case of the circumstances of death, so it was in there. It goes on to say, and this is very interesting, that the Lord Advocate concluded that the fatal accident inquiry was necessary because some of those on board at the time of the crash were engaged in the course of their employment, and that comes up in the email that I got from the procurator in the court. While not mandating respect of all the deaths, the inquiry would relate to all on board. So, even 20 years ago, this line between civilian deaths and service deaths was being drawn, and the Mull of Kentire FAI only took place because there were civilians on board. Did you make those recommendations to the Government at the time of the consultation, and did you feel your concerns were taken up properly? The consultation document that you talked about this last year? No, I didn't. I was involved in this case. I must say that I wasn't aware of—no one pointed out that there was a consultation document coming forward. It is just fortuitous. A few weeks ago, when we were all bitterly disappointed about the Crown Office's decision not to hold an FAI for this tornado crash, I stumbled through the website and found, hey, there's a bill in process. Maybe this is a chance now to come forward, and unless you recognise what's gone wrong in the past, if you carry that forward, it will be wrong in the future as well. I presume that, in terms of Lord Cullin's—there's a pity we didn't really get the opportunity to ask Lord Cullin about this, but presumably it wasn't actually within the remit of his report, either, if you weren't aware of it. What's bewildering me is that I'm looking at section 2-3 of the bill, which, in the explanatory notes in the policy, says that it replicates a section in the 1976 act, and that says that it's mandatory, while the person was acting the course of their employment or occupation. It's not just employment, it's or occupation. Even if it's an argument, which I don't necessarily agree with, that you're not employed because of the system under which you're in the armed forces, it was your occupation. I thought that this was new and therefore cured the issue, but it seems to have been under the 1976 act anyway, so I'm not quite sure why the Crown Office considered that, if you're in the armed forces, you weren't doing something, in this case, on your occupation. I just put that in the air because I don't understand. I think that this is the first time that this has been challenged, but I think by referring to the statement about the Mull of Kentire, at some time then, someone decided, let us play around with these words, employee and employer, and take service people out, and that is wrong. I'm keeping away from employee and employer, it's just occupation. Even if you fail on the employment, which I don't think you necessarily do, occupation would seem to me to cover it, and it's not even new, it's under the 1976 act. Correct. Absolutely. Perhaps it's covered anyway, we can ask Crown Office. Yes, when I say that the Crown Office's interpretation is not in line with the intent of the act, after the Mull of Kentire accident, what is even crazier, is that a tornado took off from RAF Marum in England, flew over the border and crashed in Glen Ogle, Scotland. There was no fatal accident inquiry because these guys were not occupied or not employed, and because they had left England, England at English airspace, there was no correspondence inquest. In the course of the occupation? Yes, I know Madam, but this is the question that I'm asking to Crown Office, why are we coming up with these, because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't make sense to Angus Robertson, it doesn't make sense to the family's lawyer or the family's. Rodi, you want to come in at that point too. Just to say that it does need properly to look back at what it's worth, what the background was to the passage of the 1976 act, but all I would say is that it's not really a question, it's more of a comment that the royal prerogative and the comment system memorial in Saguvedia are not new, so I just put that in my way. You better tell us what these are, because... You've actually referred to that in your written submission. That's the answer. What I've got there is the answer back from the Crown Office for the Procurator Fiscal. I also said that in 2012 Lord Newberger, when he was dealing with the Snatch Land Rover accident, he made it clear that these people who died were employees and the MOD is their employer, so for me that makes it even clearer. You've got two arguments there, employee or occupation. You've got two lines of argument, Christian. I may add something, Mr Johnson. Is regarding as what you just said earlier about the MOD investigating itself, are you recommending that it should be a civil inquiry? What I'm saying is that it's okay for the MOD or shall I say the military aviation authority to do their own inquiry, but it's important they do that because if they have immediate problems they can put them right. What I'm saying is that this inquiry does not replace a proper inquiry in the public domain. There is no input to that inquiry. It's like asking a person who runs a factory and someone dies because of the way a machine is operated on safely and you ask the owner of the factory, please carry out your own investigation and make some recommendations and then take his report and say, thank you very much, that's fine. No, you wouldn't do that. You'd say, we need, as Lord Collins said, FAIs are carried out in the public interest. The public interest has not been satisfied in this case. As a representative of the North East, I'm quite used to public inquiries regarding an accident, but could you maybe elaborate a little bit on what is the difference between what the MOD has done and what's happening, for example, when you've got an accident in the North Sea with a superpuma. Is there a huge difference between the two kind of inquiries? Well, if I take the superpuma inquiry, the investigation there is carried out by the Air Accident Investigation Branch and they carried out a detailed investigation. It took, as a statement on the report, 30 months. Then it was decided, okay, this needs to be discussed now in the public interest, so we'll have an FAI. With the Ministry of Defense, we have this now the Ministry of Aviation Authority. They carry out an investigation and there are some very strict guidelines for that, in terms of reference, and the procurator of fiscal can take that report and say, yes, okay, that is a piece of evidence. Let us now have a fatal accident inquiry. I mean, you'll see in my report, even the president of the service inquiry, who I have been in touch with, said, look, there were certain courses of lines of interrogation that I want to go down, but I was prevented. And also, I don't think my report is complete. Since the FAI was rejected, he's written to me and said, it makes a nonsense of one of my recommendations, which was, we really didn't have enough skills to go the full way. I expected another inquiry to take place. The last question, if I may, is not only to Mr Jordan, but as well to Ms Love, regarding the recovery of the bodies, have you got some question to say, you know, how accident, you could have a problem when you can't recover bodies when a fatality happens abroad? So, have you got any views on this? Me personally? I think it's from Ms Love, that's right. Yeah. Well, I know, I was around when we brought the bodies back from Afghanistan. Of course, they went into, came back by Bryce Norton, and they went into a chorus in inquest there. And what I'd say right now, until we know how service people are dealt with, or what the interpretation is with regards to service people when they come to Scotland, I would say, I would say this, if someone has died abroad, I would bring them back through Bryce Norton, because in Bryce Norton, coming that way, you are guaranteed an inquest. Here in Scotland, you aren't guaranteed an FBI. Yeah, and my question was, if you can't recover a body, you know, you can't have one in England or in Scotland. If you can't recover the body, you're talking about the air. I would say, well, in the Nimrods case, it was very difficult to recover the bodies, but it was a token recovery, let's put it that way. I think there could be a point where the families should have an input to this. Do you want this body, do you want it repatriated to England or Scotland? Right now, I would go for England. I'd like to go for Scotland. I've lived here so long. I'd like to go for Scotland, but I know that my interests are best served if I came back and had people repatriated through England. Miss Love? I think that the question, you know, if the bodies aren't recovered, I mean, there's been very few incidents that I know of anyway for Scots, where I think there was when the Thailand, when there was the tsunami and there was a Scot there who I think is still not being registered as a death, it's still a missing person. So, there's been very few incidents where, you know, the body hasn't been recovered. Mainly, we've only had to deal with when the body has been repatriated back to Scotland and that there's been no inquiry whatsoever, no investigation. So, I wanted to be reassured that, you know, the members of the organisation, there is no concern about this? There's no major concern about that. I mean, there are missing persons organisations throughout the world that we deal with as well, but just now, there's been nothing, there's been no major where the body hasn't been recovered. I think that you're content with the section where it says, where it's discretionary when it's a death abroad, consider the death with sudden suspicious or unexplained or occurred in circumstances giving rise to serious public concern. Obviously, with the tsunami, we know what happened there, so you wouldn't want mandatory in all circumstances, surely? No, definitely not. I mean, there will be investigations carried out in, you know, other countries and we don't want to mimic them in this country, but there is, there's most definitely circumstances where the family feel that the investigation hasn't been thorough enough, you know, that the... Do you think, therefore, that this should be at the Lord Advocate, and the explanation was given to yourself, Mr Jones, why there was no FAI, but do you think that in circumstances where there isn't an FAI, there should always be a written, at least a written explanation by the Lord Advocate in fairly full written explanation, why there hasn't been an FAI? I think so, and I think even that, you know, let's talk about the preliminary hearing or inquiry. Early hearing, we must hear our words about that. Yes. Would be beneficial for families as well, because they could then express their thoughts at that stage. I think that my colleague asked the question about recovery of body, because there may be circumstances, particularly Christian, you may want to pick it up from your experience of the North Sea. Yes, and it's what I wanted to speak about, Mr Jones, is an accident will make it practically impossible in some circumstances to recover the bodies, so you will have a barrier to have an inquiry because of it. Yes, I think the inquiry that really was carried out by the by the Air Accident, the invasive migration branch into the superfumor, really focused on what went wrong with the helicopter basically. Again, that was a piece of useful evidence that the sheriff could consult or refer to during his inquiry. Can I just say that? I think that the concern of my colleagues in the panel is that in section 61C, one of the criteria is that the person's body has been brought to Scotland. We were concerned, notwithstanding what Ms Love has to say about bodies that are generally covered, but there may be a circumstance where that just is not possible, and yet an FAI really might be the appropriate way forward. I think that we might be looking fairly sympathetically, perhaps, and looking round that that might not necessarily have to be the case that a body is returned, but there may be sufficient evidence, notwithstanding that, to go for an FAI. Would you have concerns that a body must be returned to Scotland? I would say that I think that if it's clear that, based on what has happened, someone has fallen overboard, for example, then it's fallen overboard. There's no question about it that you can't find a body, so that shouldn't rule out an FAI. Sometimes we have aircraft accidents where there is really nothing left, bluntly. That shouldn't stop an FAI taking place. I mean, that's our point. Can I also raise as well? In some instances, more so in the past, but the Foreign Office has recommended to the UK and Scottish citizens that the body is cremated in the country where the person has died for financial reasons, etc. We've come across some families where they've had a cremation and then they've found out other things that it's possible of being suspicious. Obviously, they don't have a body, so they can't have a post mortem to investigate it further. That perhaps is not necessarily in the bill that it's mandatory, which it is at the moment. To mislew of a question about, we have just a submission from Police Scotland. Do you think that of the implementation of that bill, Police Scotland will not have the resources or the expertise to respond to the needs of the families of investigating abroad? I read the response, and I've not really had much time to speak to our trustees as well, but on my own personal opinion, I believe that within Scotland the resources are there for Police Scotland to support families just now. We don't have a process in Scotland that Police Scotland delivers the death message when someone dies abroad, and that system is already in place. We don't have a system where the family are allocated a police liaison officer, thanks very much. We don't have a process for that in Scotland, so those systems are already in place. There wouldn't be a financial impact there. I suppose that it would be if there had to be an investigation in another country. We don't have the statistics either, or we've got very scared statistics at how many Scots have died abroad and are repatriated back to the UK. What we would need to consider is how many investigations are we looking at. I would say that we have a maximum of three a year, but just now, within the past three years, we have maybe one every year going by the statistics that we have gathered. Oh, sorry, Mr Jones. Earlier on, you talked about the Lord Advocate giving the answers to why we didn't hold an FEI for the— We can't go into a specific case— No, okay. —that we can deal with the generalities. Oh, okay. Really, the reason—because someone referred to it—he gave me an answer here. He didn't. The final answer that was given was that the report prepared by the MOD was sufficient. I'm saying that that doesn't meet the criteria laid out in the bill. We can talk about the generality of whether it is internal reports. Yes. I'm saying that that report did not satisfy the criteria. Therefore, in my opinion, humble opinion, the Lord Advocate was wrong, or his department was wrong just to say that. Ms Taggart. Can I just make a couple of— Of course, of course. —things that is okay. In terms of the written reasons, I think that, as the bill is currently drafted, a family has to request those written reasons. That should be an automatic that a family gets written reasons as to why an FEI— I think that there's a requirement in the bill, but I'll just check. What sections is this? I think that it's a requirement to give them, but only if the family asks for them. What sections is that? A family shouldn't have to ask for those written reasons. No, no, I'll just check where it is in the bill. Somebody found it. Section 8. All right, thank you. Let's see what it says. Must, if required, to do so. You're quite right. Yes, so it should be a given that those reasons are given to a family. I'm duly saying that it shouldn't just turn up out of the blue either. There should be some sort of pre-warning to families that they're on their way, but a family should get a full explanation as to why an FEI isn't going ahead if it's decided that that's the case. We should keep it to the group of people categories that are— Yes, I think that that's sensible. Yes, must give reasons to, and then A, B, C is what you're saying in that section. And then just one more point to make about—there was discussion earlier about in mental health cases, whether those should be mandatory. I have personal experience of a school friend whose sister committed suicide in a mental health hospital. The circumstances of her death, two months later, I read about two other deaths in a Glasgow mental health hospital, very similar circumstances, all suicides. So I think those should be mandatory. They're some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They're under the care of a hospital. In those circumstances, particularly where there's a suicide, that absolutely there should be a mandatory FEI in those circumstances. We'll certainly put these to the crown and to the cabinet secretary when he comes. Can I thank you very much for your evidence? It's hard to do, but you did it very well. Thank you very much. I suspend for two minutes. Item 3, I consider six negative incidents all relating to pension schemes. The first is the firefighter's pension scheme amendment Scotland order 2015, SSI, 2015 of LEAP 140. It amends the firemen's pension scheme order of 1992. Consequential to the introduction of same-sex marriage and also sets out the revised 1992 scheme pensionable pay bands. The DPLR drew the attention of the Parliament to this instrument as it breaches the 28-day rule. Do members have any comments in relation to this instrument? Are members content to make no recommendation? The second negative instrument that we're considering is the firefighter's pension scheme amendment Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015 of LEAP 141. It provides transitional arrangements for members who transferred to the firefighter's pension scheme Scotland 2015 and sets out more detail on scheme governance and membership contributions from 1 April 2015. The DPLR committee agreed to draw the attention of the Parliament to this instrument as several regulations are wait for it, quotes defectively drafted where we heard that for. Do members have any comments in relation to this instrument? Not really in relation to the instrument, but I think it's bit concerning that so many of these instruments are defectively drafting. I think that the DPLR is making quite a bit of noise about this quite rightly. It seems that this is not appropriate for a professional Parliament of so much in the way of defective drafting. Are members content, however, to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? Do not take me up on that one. The third negative instrument that we're considering today is the police pension scheme Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015 of LEAP 142. It provides for reform pension scheme for police Scotland. The DPLR committee agreed to draw the attention of the Parliament to this instrument as drafting appears to be defective in a number of areas. Do members have any comments on SSI 2015 142? Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? The fourth negative instrument that we're considering today is the Firefighters' Compensation Scheme and Pension Scheme Amendment, Scotland Order 2015, SSI 2015 143. This updates provisions as a consequence of the coming to force of the Firefighters' Pension Scheme 2015 to ensure that compensation awards are made in the event of a qualifying injury or death in service in accordance with the compensation scheme. The DPLR committee agreed to draw the attention of the Parliament to this instrument as it breaches the 20-day rule and is... Do you want to join in with me defectively drafted? I don't say that flippantly. Do any members have comments in relation to this SSI? I take it silent. Are you content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? However, if I see the words defectively drafted again, that we may want to add and it's going to come up again, we may want ourselves to write in relation to this, because it's all very well, but familiarity does not breed. It does, in fact, breed some contempt here, I was going to say, of the kind that's not wanted. You would agree. The fifth negative instrument that we're considering is the Firemen's Pension Scheme amendment number two. Why is it called the Firemen's and not the Firefighters? I'm a bit taken aback by that, but there we are. Firemen's Pension Scheme amendment number two, Scotland Order 2015, SSI 2015-173. This clarifies commutation factors for firefighters retiring IC from the Firemen's Pension Scheme relating to the previous order 1992. The DPLR committee agreed not to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament. Do any members have any comments? Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? The final negative instrument that we're considering today is the Police Pensions amendment Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-174. It clarifies commutation factors for police officers retiring under the Police Pension regulations 1987. The DPLR committee agreed not to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament. Do any members have any comments in relation to this instrument? Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? Item four, subordinate legislation. It's considering one more instrument which is not subject to any parliamentary procedure. Act of a general criminal procedure rules amendment number two, European protection orders 2015, SSI 2015-121. This inserts a new chapter 61 into criminal procedure rules 1996 to make provision and consequence of an EU directive on the European protection order. We previously agreed to consider any no procedure instruments. Ah, sorry, it just sounded a bit odd. Where the DPLR committee raises concerns, the DPLR committee has agreed to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament that appears to be defectively drafted. Are members content to endorse the DPLR committee's comments? I think more than endorse what we've already said. We want to write separately with the number of instruments that come before this committee, which appear in increasing numbers to be defectively drafted. Okey dokey, and we now move into private session.