Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that that is a perfectly reasonable thing for us to do. We will illustrate why the issue is important, again within the context of the review that might take place.

Are colleagues content to keep the petition open and proceed with the investigation on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 17th meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Under agenda item 1, do we agree to take items 5 and 6 in private? Item 6 is consideration of our work programme.

Members indicated agreement.

Welcome back. I highlight to those who are joining us this morning or watching online that—as I said some moments ago, before we heard evidence in relation to the previous petition—Parliament will dissolve in April next year. The final sitting will be in March, and the committee still has a huge number of open petitions before it. Our focus, therefore, is now on trying to identify the areas where we feel we can make progress in the time remaining. Any judgments that we come to about whether we feel that we can keep a petition open are a reflection not of the importance of the subject but of the committee’s ability to make progress in the limited time remaining.

To accommodate colleagues’ diaries, I intend to upset the order of the continued petitions and move to PE2085, which is on introducing a statutory definition of residency for fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of Scots abroad. I understand that the petitioner, David Cornock, is with us today in the public gallery. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 2 April, and we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs.

We are joined by MSP colleagues Michael Marra and Tess White. Michael Marra has spoken to us in relation to the petition on a number of occasions. Good morning to you both.

I have quite a bit to say in relation to the petition. I hope that colleagues will bear with me.

The committee is aware that the system of coroners’ inquests that is used in England and Wales is significantly different from the Scottish system of death investigations. Coroners’ inquests mainly determine how, where and when someone died; they rarely make wider recommendations in relation to the circumstances of the death. In Scotland, fatal accident inquiries aim to establish what happened and to prevent future deaths from happening in similar circumstances. In addition to determining whether someone was ordinarily resident, the Lord Advocate must consider, first, that the death was sudden, suspicious, unexplained or gives rise to serious public concern; secondly, that the circumstances of the death have not been sufficiently established in the course of other investigations, such as by the country in which the death occurred; thirdly, that there is a real prospect that a fatal accident inquiry could sufficiently establish the circumstances of the death—for example, if evidence about the circumstances of the death is available; and, finally, that it is in the public interest to hold a fatal accident inquiry.

There were 43 fatal accident inquiries carried out in Scotland between April 2022 and March 2023. The cabinet secretary’s response states that it has always been anticipated that inquiries under the legislation into deaths abroad will be rare. The response states:

“an investigation into a death abroad faces formidable hurdles without the cooperation of the domestic authorities. Neither Police Scotland nor the Lord Advocate has jurisdiction to conduct investigations overseas”.

The cabinet secretary points out that those challenges are also faced in England and Wales. On that basis, the cabinet secretary has stated, there is

“no intention to change the current system in Scotland.”

On the substantive matter of defining the term “ordinarily resident”, the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Government have all previously advised that they consider the definition of “ordinarily resident” to be widely recognised and accepted in common law. The leading case on the matter put the question:

“has the applicant shown that he has habitually and normally resided in the United Kingdom from choice and for a settled purpose throughout the prescribed period, apart from temporary or occasional absences?”

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs reiterated in her most recent written submission:

“The term ‘ordinarily resident’ that is contained within the legislation is viewed as sufficiently flexible and workable by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service”.

She went on to say that the definition

“is sufficient to allow the Lord Advocate to conduct an assessment into ordinary residence depending on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”

The petitioner has provided two written submissions to the committee. He states that,

“With an estimated 1000 deaths of Scots overseas”

since the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed, he does

“not believe that anyone can justify the effectiveness of the current system.”

He reiterates his view

“that the current process does not work and that the ordinarily resident test is not applied correctly”.

The petitioner’s second submission highlights a recent round-table meeting attended by a number of representatives, including members of Parliament, MSPs, Police Scotland, Victim Support and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The submission includes a contribution from the director of instrumentation and control at Chart Industries, who highlights that employees can undertake assignments for a number of years. He states:

“Given the ... length of these postings, it is essential to have a clear and practical definition of ‘ordinarily resident.’”

Similarly, a written submission from Graham Duncan notes that he is unclear as to whether his colleagues in the oil and gas industry who

“work abroad for months at a time”

would be considered to be ordinarily resident.

Another individual, Julie Love, has provided a written submission in support of the petition, as she had a similar petition considered back in 2009. She shares her view that there does not appear to be a safeguard for families with loved ones abroad.

Finally, Dave Doogan MP has provided a written submission, and I understand that he has been supporting the petitioner with his campaigning work. Dave Doogan MP believes that there is an efficacy gap between the 2016 act as introduced and the impact on bereaved families who have lost loved ones abroad.

Before I invite suggestions from colleagues, I invite our parliamentary colleagues who have joined us to add anything that they wish the committee to consider.

In terms of the specification of gender, is there now a consistent policy for all sexual crimes?

Will that continue to be reviewed as we see the pilots?

Thank you for your positive engagement on the issues.

We have been considering four petitions today. Occasioned by a situation that tragically affected her family, petition PE1989 was lodged by Mary Montague—who happens to be the provost of my local authority, although she lodged the petition prior to that happy event—and it calls for an increase in defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces.

Petition PE2048, which was lodged by the Bundy family, calls for a review of the FAST stroke awareness campaign. The petition was motivated by tragic circumstances that affected the family.

Petition PE2067, which calls for improved data on young people affected by conditions that cause sudden cardiac death, was lodged by Sharon Duncan, the mother of David Hill, because of the personal circumstances that the family endured.

Petition PE2101, on the provision of defibrillators for all primary and secondary schools in Scotland, was lodged by Peter Earl on behalf of Troqueer primary school because of the work that the school has done.

I commend all the petitioners for enabling the committee to thoroughly and properly air the issues, and I thank the minister for her engagement.

Are members happy to consider the evidence that we have heard today at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

As the chief constable and the deputy chief constable have indicated that they do not have anything further to add, I thank them both very much for their attendance this morning.

Members, are we content to consider the evidence that we have heard this morning at a later date?

Members indicated agreement.

Was I? I wondered whether you have any thoughts to contribute.

That is what we will do. I thank Mr Sweeney for attending.