Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. To facilitate colleagues who are joining us this morning, I will take PE2085 first, which is out of sequence. We are joined by Michael Marra, and Bob Doris has just advised the committee that he has an interest in the petition and is on his way. Tess White is in the public gallery alongside the petitioners.

PE2085, lodged by David Cornock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory definition for fatal accident inquiries into deaths abroad. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 15 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland and relevant legal stakeholders.

The Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Government consider that the definition of “ordinarily resident” in common law is widely recognised and accepted. The First Minister’s submission explains that officials who have been working on the issue with the Crown Office have reached the conclusion that it is not necessary to change the law at the present time. Similarly, the Law Society of Scotland’s response states that it does not consider that it would be necessary or desirable to develop a bespoke legislative definition for the purposes of fatal accident inquiries.

The petitioner’s written submission reiterates his position that the ordinarily resident definition is not understood and is vague, untenable and arbitrarily applied. The committee is aware that the system of coroners’ inquests, which is used in England and Wales, is significantly different to the Scottish system of death investigations. In England and Wales, a coroner’s investigation takes place in circumstances in which the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death was unknown or the deceased died in state detention. The inquest mainly determines how, where and when someone died. Coroners will rarely make wider recommendations but can do so through a prevention of future deaths report.

In Scotland, fatal accident inquiries aim to establish what happened and prevent future deaths from happening in similar circumstances. They take place in limited circumstances at the Lord Advocate’s discretion in circumstances in which a death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained, if it gives rise to a serious public concern or if she considers that it is in the public interest to hold one. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has a role in investigating a wide range of suspicious deaths, but only a small proportion of those are deemed to require the level of public investigation that is delivered by a fatal accident inquiry.

In relation to residency, the UK Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls explains that, in England and Wales, a coroner’s jurisdiction is based solely on the deceased person’s body lying within their coroner area. Therefore, when a person dies outside England and Wales, regardless of whether they were previously resident, the coroner’s jurisdiction is engaged if the body enters the coroner area and the death is reported to the coroner. The UK minister’s response also provides information about the number of inquests that there have been into deaths abroad and the number of such cases for which a prevention of future deaths report was issued.

The petitioner has outlined a number of improvements that are being progressed as a result of his campaigning work. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is working with the death certification review service and Police Scotland to produce new guidance on reporting and investigating deaths abroad. A memorandum of understanding on investigations abroad is being created for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The website has been updated to include contact details for the Scottish fatalities investigation unit.

Before I ask colleagues where we might consider going, I ask, in the first instance, Michael Marra if he would like to speak to the committee.

Would you be willing to support that, Mr Torrance?

Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to close the petition on the basis suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and write to the minister as Mr Torrance suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2135, lodged by Henry Black Ferguson on behalf of wecollect.scot, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights full legal effect in the devolved law making process prior to the next Holyrood parliamentary election.

The SPICe briefing explains that the international covenant was adopted in 1966 and ratified by the UK in 1976. Many of the rights that are set out in the ICCPR are reflected in international agreements and have been incorporated into UK human rights-related legislation.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is committed to a new human rights bill, which will incorporate further international human rights standards into Scots law. The Scottish Government has developed and consulted on proposals to give effect to the recommendations from the national task force for human rights leadership, which comprised a range of experts and stakeholders, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was not among the treaties that the task force recommended for incorporation, although it did recommend that further consideration be given to restating the rights that are contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.

The submission explains that when incorporating international treaties into domestic law, the Scottish Parliament can only give effect to provisions within its powers and responsibilities. That route cannot be used to effectively extend the Parliament’s powers by claiming that the incorporated international treaty provisions now allow the Parliament or Scottish Government to do anything that would previously have been beyond the Parliament’s devolved competence.

The petitioner’s submission questions the Scottish Government’s position and states that the issue of devolved competence is not relevant to the covenant’s full implementation. He believes that the Scottish Government’s submission seeks to restrict and undermine the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will next assemble on 23 April. We will now move into private session to consider agenda items 5 and 6.

Alasdair Graham, this is your debut—we should properly acknowledge your contribution at the start.

You need to ask the cabinet secretary a question, Mr Ewing.

That is the one.

We are also joined by Emma Harper, who has an interest in PE1610, on the A75, and PE1659, on the A77.

Members who join us have no automatic right to ask questions, but I will invite them to follow on and ask questions at the end, if everybody is agreed. It has been my practice to encourage as much active participation and engagement from MSPs on petitions in which they have a constituency interest. I am less interested if they are coming as party spokesmen, but if they are here because of a constituency interest, I am keen to hear from them.

Cabinet secretary, in the light of all that, I understand that you would like to say something to us in advance of our beginning our questions. Rather than the meeting becoming a free-for-all, one colleague will lead a discussion about each of the different petitions, and I know that you will bring in your colleagues as and when you think that would be most helpful.