Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
Fatalities (Investigations) (PE1567)
We move on to item 3, which is consideration of five public petitions that remain open. We will go through them in turn.
PE1501 and PE1567 relate to investigations into unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents. The latest response from the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs is provided in annex B of paper 4. The petitioner of PE1501 has responded to the minister’s letter, and that response is provided in annex C of paper 4.
I ask members for their views on what we should do with the petitions.
Are we dealing first with PE1501 and PE1567?
Yes—that is what I said.
Thank you, convener. I note the minister’s comments, and particularly where he states:
“If they are not satisfied with a decision not to prosecute ... they may seek a review ... under section 4 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014.”
He mentions that there is also potential to go to judicial review, and adds that
“The Charter for Bereaved Families will also introduce a process of review in relation to decisions taken on whether to hold a FAI.”
Those are reasonable safeguards. I am not sure that we can realistically take the petitions forward. I am certainly not keen on taking evidence from the petitioners at this stage in the session.
Do you want to close both petitions?
Yes—that is my instinct. If somebody wants to refer them to the next justice committee, I could live with that.
Petitions will continue into the next session of Parliament. They do not fall in the way that legislation does.
I am entirely sympathetic to what Roddy Campbell suggests. The Government has said that it is not minded to change its mind on the matter. The only thing is that we are close to the election, and it might be a wee bit arrogant to assume that the present Government will be re-elected. If possible, we should hold the petitions over to the next session and put a note in our legacy report suggesting that, if the present Government is re-elected, we will have reached the end of the road. As Roddy is, I am satisfied, but I suggest that we hold over the petitions.
That is a fair point. John Finnie looks as though he wants to say something. Do you? You are keeking over your glasses.
We should keep the petitions open. The minister’s response, particularly on the third page, is reminiscent of all the phrases that we heard in the evidence that we took on Patricia Ferguson’s bill. On an additional review process, the response questions
“where the funds to support it would come from.”
That is not a helpful comment. It also states that the time taken would be
“likely to extend the period of distress for bereaved families”.
It would be helpful to keep the petitions open, not least because of the ultimate reference to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. Paper 4 states:
“The petitioner accepts that his individual case was upheld by PIRC but, as highlighted above, he argues that no lessons appear to have been learned as a result.”
There are still significant public frustrations about a number of cases.
I am getting the signal that the committee wants to keep the petitions open.
I was happy to close the petitions, but I am content with what is suggested.
I think that it is appropriate to keep them open and to refer to them in our legacy paper.
I hear what John Finnie says. Is it possible to accommodate his view and say that, if the Government is re-elected—
We cannot put that in our legacy paper. We cannot make presumptions like that. I think that the legacy paper should simply say that the petitions have been kept open—
I am trying my best. Okay.
I think that that is fair enough.
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
We move on to PE1370, on the Megrahi conviction. As I have scolded Police Scotland, I will, in fairness, also scold the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We asked the Lord Advocate on 5 February to respond to Justice for Megrahi’s latest submission.
This morning, at 9.45, when I was sitting here getting ready to chair the committee, a response arrived. That is not good enough. The committee is again being expected to take into consideration a response that we received only minutes before we sit. I hope that the committee members agree that that is not respectful of the committee. The letter is quite short, so it cannot have taken that long to write. Do members agree that it is not satisfactory to have to wait until 23 February for a response from 5 February?
11:15
I agree and I think that you are being excessively generous to the Lord Advocate. In his letter—which he has wrongly addressed to someone who is not even a member of the committee—
I am glad that it was you and not I who pointed that out. It appears that the Deputy Presiding Officer has become deputy convener of the Justice Committee.
Not for the only time.
There is an important point of principle here. We are talking about a significant case and I am disappointed that such simple facts can be presented incorrectly.
The convener talked about a letter of 5 February, but the Lord Advocate says:
“Thank you for your letter of 12 January”
although we cannot discount the possibility that he also got that wrong. We have therefore received a response 42 days later and, although you say we got it at 9.45, I thought that we got it at 9.50. Either way, the message is very clear.
Can I comment on the letter, convener?
I want to read it out first because it is not yet public.
John Finnie is right that the letter was sent on 12 January.
I will read out the Lord Advocate’s letter.
“The allegations made by JFM are being considered by Police Scotland in accordance with due process. An independent senior counsel at the Scottish bar, with no prior involvement in the Lockerbie investigation and associated prosecution, has been appointed to undertake prosecutorial functions in relation to the Police investigation. This role includes providing an independent legal overview of the evidence, conclusions and recommendations and directing the inquiry when required.
I note that JFM suggest that because Mrs Dyer considered, and did not uphold, a complaint by Mr Ashton in her correspondence to him in February 2013 that she cannot be said to be impartial. Mrs Dyer’s correspondence with Mr Ashton was stage 3 of the then COPFS complaints process and related to Mr Ashton’s complaint about what he alleged was a misleading statement issued by COPFS media relations in March 2012 about the Lockerbie investigation. The media release followed the publication of Mr Ashton’s book “Megrahi: You are my Jury”. Mrs Dyer considered the correspondence from Mr Ashton in that context, and in particular Mr Ashton’s interpretation of the COPFS media release, and did not uphold the complaint.
I reject wholeheartedly the suggestion that because she failed to uphold a complaint in this context, she cannot exercise impartiality and independence regarding Operation Sandwood.
I do not agree that the process in place in COPFS requires to be amended to address this sweeping and unfounded assertion that Scotland’s Prosecution Service cannot act independently in the public interest in a criminal investigation.”
I do not know whether Justice for Megrahi has seen that letter. [Interruption.]
I am informed that they have seen it very briefly. I know that some members of the campaign are present today. I have read the letter out so that it is on the record, but it was too late in the day to get it into the public arena prior to this.
I know that there are members of Justice for Megrahi in the gallery. Is it possible to hold the petition back until a meeting next week or the week after?
I would be happy with that, but we need to highlight certain aspects today.
I understand why you might not have read out the first sentence of the letter, convener, but it does contain the important phrase
“in which you seek further information to ensure impartiality when there have been complaints about COPFS handling of the case”
Yes—sorry.
We would have had clarity about that if the Lord Advocate had provided Justice for Megrahi or the committee with specific responses to the eight legitimate questions that we asked. I appeal again for that clarity.
In the second paragraph of his letter, the Lord Advocate says:
“The allegations ... are being considered by Police Scotland in accordance with due process.”
Whether or not Justice for Megrahi is happy with that, there has certainly not been due process because there has been significant deviation, for the better, from the normal process. That deviation was—I quote the Lord Advocate again—
“An independent senior counsel at the Scottish bar, with no prior involvement in the Lockerbie investigation and associated prosecution, has been appointed to undertake prosecutorial functions in relation to the Police investigation.”
That is not the normal process, and we are also advised about an independent overview.
The circumstances are also not normal, in that the Police Service and the Crown Office are being accused of alleged mischief—let us put it like that—with regard to the whole case. I am not disputing what you said; the process is very different.
It is not helpful to concentrate on individuals. I am concerned entirely about process. The process has been confirmed—
I was not concentrating on individuals. I am just angry that the Crown Office has done this to the committee at the last minute, as I was with Police Scotland. Was that your reference?
No—my reference was to the extensive third paragraph of the letter, in which an individual is named. I am not concerned about the individual. What I am concerned about is that we have had confirmation from the Lord Advocate that the individual dealt with a complaint—a complaint that is very pertinent indeed—that the fifth line of the paragraph says was “about the Lockerbie investigation”. In the normal course of things, just as we do in the committee, I would expect individuals to declare an interest of prior involvement.
You and I have not declared interests yet, but perhaps should as members of Justice for Megrahi.
I am not a member of Justice for Megrahi.
I am, and should perhaps have said that. I have done so before, Mr Allard.
There has already been significant deviation in the process and it has gone very well. The process is now hitting a critical point at which if we revert to the standard process, in which an individual who may be deemed to have direct involvement will remain in charge of what will be a very important decision, we will reach an impasse. It would be helpful if we could get early responses to the eight questions that have been legitimately posed, and I concur with Mr Campbell that the committee should keep the petition open.
I did not quite say that we should keep the petition open. We should certainly keep it open for today; I am not suggesting that we close it today. I suggest that more comment needs to be out there before we can take a considered view.
I have a couple of quick points to make. It is worth stressing that Catherine Dyer is not the “independent ... counsel”. Her role is simply to co-ordinate matters and is therefore not involved in providing an overview.
Secondly, on a point of smaller interest, which I need to check and would be happy to withdraw if I am proved to be wrong, I think that I saw in the press that Mrs Dyer had announced her retirement as chief executive of the COPFS.
I agree strongly that the committee should avoid concentrating on personalities. It should be about process.
It is also about independence, real and perceived.
What does the committee want to do?
We should keep the petition open and ask for the eight questions to be answered.
I concur with what Rod Campbell said. We should look at the issue next week and, as has been said, make sure that we talk about process and not about individuals.
It is to do with process. I read the letter out because it is not in the public domain. It will be and the person will be named once it is on the record.
John Finnie referred to eight questions. I was absent at the time: will that be in the Official Report?
There was an earlier paper.
Yes. I do not feel that there is sufficient information before us this morning for the committee to do the issue justice.
We know that there are issues. We have discussed on at least two occasions the legitimate request for information that would inform our future decision making. There should not be anything controversial in that.
We can certainly repeat the questions and we will discuss in private the terms of the letter, which will also be in the public domain once it is drafted. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and we can return to it next week—I am told that there is space.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
We now move on to PE1510 and PE1511 on police and fire control rooms.
In January, we agreed to keep the petitions open to monitor progress on the police and fire control room closures. Since that meeting, Police Scotland has announced a timetable for the transfer of the 101 calls and 999 emergency calls from Dundee, Inverness and Aberdeen.
What does the committee wish to do with the petitions?
On the Ministry of Defence and the fire service, the letter from Chris McGlone, the executive committee member for Scotland of the Fire Brigades Union—
That comes later. You are on the wrong thing.
Sorry.
Keep taking the pills.
It was entirely premature for Police Scotland to take the decision that it took about control rooms. Many people, including me, believed that the interim report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland evidenced a need to retain those control rooms rather than a need to dispose of them. I would like to keep the petitions open.
I concur with that.
The committee would like to keep the petitions open. Do members want to recommend that a future justice committee continue to monitor the issues?
Members indicated agreement.
Air ais
Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006Air adhart
Subordinate Legislation