07/12/2015 Scotland 2015

The family of three people who died in the Glasgow bin lorry crash are

starting a private prosecution against the driver.

Was the Crown Office right not to prosecute Harry Clarke and

We'll debate the questions raised by today's fatal accident inquiry

We're in Paris, where the First Minister says she's

"cautiously optimistic" a bold and ambitious deal can be agreed

And an architecture collective which specialises

in regeneration has won this year's Turner Prize - hosted

We'll be speaking to the winners, live, at the Tramway Arts Centre.

The families of three of the six people who died in the Glasgow

bin lorry crash are planning to take legal action against the driver.

A fatal accident inquiry has laid the blame for the crash at

the door of Harry Clarke, who passed out at the wheel of the lorry.

Sheriff Beckett ruled the crash might have been avoided

if Mr Clarke had told the truth about his medical history.

He also said two doctors who saw Mr Clarke could have taken action that

It was just three days before Christmas, the streets busy with

shoppers and workers edition early for the holidays. At around 2:30pm

in the afternoon a 26 tonne bin lorry ran out of control on Queen

Street, crashing into pedestrians and finally the Millennium Hotel.

Six people were killed, all within 19 seconds. There were 18-year-old

student Erin McQuade and her grandparents Lorraine and Jack

Sweeney, Stephanie Tate, Gillian Ewing and Jacqueline Morton. 15

people were also injured. The driver Harry Clarke had collapsed

unconscious at the wheel. At the time he said he could not remember

what had happened but at the fatal accident enquiry earlier this year

it came out he had a history of blackouts. Sheriff Beckett today

said Harry Clarke deliberately misled doctors about his medical

history. He lied to the DVLA, two doctors and his employers to keep

his job and driving licence. There were a precaution is that if taken

may have made the accident affordable. It appears from the

report that the accident could have been avoided. Whereas we had always

been told it could not have been avoided. That is quite shocking. It

is just really shocking. The public are not being

sufficiently protected against the likes of Harry Clarke. They asked

the question again how was it that someone like Harry Clarke was able

to slip through every net with impunity. We're not entirely sure

that what is being recommended here will prevent that. Sheriff Beckett

also made several recommendations. Increasing penalties for people who

fail to disclose information. A consultation on whether doctors

should be given greater freedom or an obligation to report driving

concerns to the DVLA. And recruitment and training changes at

Glasgow City Council where Harry Clarke worked. We will make the

changes we are recommended to make to try to stop this happening in the

future. It highlighted that many of the problems were caused by the

driver not telling the truth. We will make changes to recruitment

processes. During the fatal accident enquiry Harry Clarke did not answer

many questions put to him as this could prejudice further

prosecutions. Tonight the family of Erin McQuade and Jack and Lorraine

Sweeney said they were beginning a private persecution against them.

The Crown says it's banned by the prosecution not to bring charges but

one health and safety expert says it could have been done. The

requirement under legislation is for employers to ensure as far as is

practicable that both their workforce and others, which would

include the public, are protected. If there is a failure in protection

with serious injuries and the talent is as a result it would seem to

indicate there may be feathers in the system. There are criticisms of

other bodies, Glasgow City Council, the DVLA and first Glasgow. All

these organisations are considering recommendations. All along the line

we have had problems occurring from the top in terms of what government

and government agencies do, through to the employer right down to the

employee. I think it would be wrong to say the person at the bottom is

the person where the buck stops. So how likely is it there could be a

law compelling doctors to tell the DVLA if they think that patients are

not fit to drive customer is under health and safety legislation and

will ultimately be up to the UK Government to decide. If Harry

Clarke had not told lies in the deaths of six people could've been

avoided. There are also lessons for other in this report, so the focus

could shift onto making improvements to try to ensure something like this

never happens again. Joining me now in the studio to

discuss the legal implications of today's report is Dr Nick

McKerrell from Glasgow Caledonian University and health journalist

Pennie Taylor is here to talk I start with the legal position. The

Crown Office always said there was not enough evidence to prosecute

Harry Clarke. They say the report today does not undermine that. What

do you think? Well the position of the Crown has been more or less the

same. Initially this thread there was no criminal mind when Harry

Clarke, when the incident happened because he was unconscious. Then

when war was revealed in terms of the paperwork and lack of detail

given, they said there was not enough to express a criminal act.

The Crown issued a statement today said that was justified by the

report, they said that no doctor said the Harry Clarke he was not fit

to drive. And the circumstances, they would not have known he was in

the position that such an incident could have happened. So Harry Clarke

himself was not of a mind to say that he was reckless when he entered

the truck that he knew he could have an incident at the wheel. So the

justification is that the incidence relate to telling untruths on forms

which they made a decision that they would not prosecute in a criminal

way. Can you understand that decision? I think the decision is

probably made partially because this lead of the decision not to

prosecute Mr Clarke. Such a prosecution on the issue of fraud,

telling a lie, that is not a crime of itself. It can be specific

circumstances, perjury is a criminal offence which is prosecuted in the

High Court in Scotland. However if you tell a lie on the phone, that is

fraud. Fraud happens all the time, it is difficult to establish a

criminal action behind that and that is why I think they shied away from

it instead of receiving that to great detail. They said the incident

was a long time ago when he blacked out and the accident, they did not

think it was worthy of criminal investigation. The families are

saying the findings to date support their case, about repeated lying.

They want to take out a private prosecution, is that likely to

succeed? That is a difficult process, you have two get a bill of

criminal letters from the High Court. It has only happened twice in

the last century. Another point about this, it has to be a crime on

and -- crime on indictment. It has to be tried in the highest court in

the land so some kind of fraud on a forum would not necessarily go to

that level. I do not think the families have yet announced what

kind of crime they think he has committed. Ford would not

necessarily be appropriate for Crown prosecution. Sheriff Beckett

criticised two doctors for not passing on information about the

medical history of Harry Clarke. What is the responsibility of a

doctor in this situation? Well as general practitioner if you have

concerns about a patient and their fitness to drive, the guidance is

you would advise them, the patient, to inform the DVLA. Then if you find

out they have not done that, you're meant to ask them to do it again and

if do not, and you believe that they are putting other people at risk,

then you can break the confidentiality agreement you have

without patient and tell the DVLA. But I suppose the question is how

many GPs for instance see the same patient on any kind of regular

basis. I understand why GPs might think that was a difficult process

to follow. Do you think there would be resistance amongst doctors to

that becoming a legal responsibility for them? The General Medical

Council has guidance for doctors that they are meant to follow. The

only way to change this would be to make it legislation, make it

mandatory that if a GP had concerned they would have to tell the DVLA.

The principle of conventionality is really important, underlying the

relationship of trust between doctor and patient. Doctors would fear for

instance that if the patient felt they might get switched on for want

of a better phrase, they might not go to the GP. To deal with the

problem. Say if they were a professional driver. Or they just

would not disclose everything that needed to be disclosed. So it is a

fine balance that doctors have two way. There are a few instances where

GPs are required to break that code. In England and Wales for instance if

they suspect female genital mutilation is about to take place or

has, they are obligated to report that. If for instance someone is

being groomed for terrorism they have to tell and if there are

communicable diseases, they have to tell. But those of the few

categories where there are required to break that potentiality. --

confidentiality. It's the start of the second week

of negotiations at the Nicola Sturgeon says she's

"cautiously optimistic" a bold and David Miller,

our Environment Correspondent is Good evening from Paris, a city

which once again has the eyes of the world upon it following the

terrorist attacks in recent weeks. Blisters have arrived at the start

of this crucial second week of negotiations in an attempt to thrash

out that noble deal which they want to see been delivered. The First

Minister has been here today, she has now departed. Her focus was on

the issue of climate justice. Her visit comes against a continuing

backdrop of criticism at home over the Scottish Government and their

failure to deliver on the annual climate change targets. That

criticism perhaps temperatures instead by the positive messages of

support which have been coming here today for the Scottish Government

International aid agencies, environmental organisations as well.

Let's take a look back the day. Paris dazzles, the French capital is

preparing to celebrate Christmas in its own unique style. An act of

unity and perhaps even defiance after the recent terrorist attacks.

The consumerism of Christmas certainly provided an incongruous

backdrop to the focus today on the need to protect the poor of the

world from the effects of climate change.

Climate change is affecting poor people on the planet. The guys

responsible for the problem, the wealthy of the planet, do not even

want to acknowledge that. So climate injustice is affecting people who

are not responsible for the problem, they're the ones the consequences.

The First Minister called for the most ambitious deal possible. She is

facing criticism at home over the Scottish Government failure to hit

annual climate targets. But her focus was on the issue of climate

justice. We had been the first country in the world to set up a

climate Justice fund and that has invested in clean water and clean

energy projects in different countries. Over the next four years

we will invest ?12 million, effectively doubling that fund. Your

opponent that am accused you of failing to achieve your own target

yet coming to Paris to tell the rest of the world how it should be done.

I am ambitious to do more, Scotland should not rest on our laurels but I

think the attack on the Scottish Government by Labour in particular

they are quick to want to attack the SNP and so we must a significant

success story for Scotland. We have already reduced emissions by 38%

against a target of 42%. Environmental campaigners have been

critical of what they see as the lack of progress. But today on the

issue of climate justice, they were delighted. The impact of climate

change will affect everyone, it is Scotland, South America, East Asia,

it will be felt by us all so it is vital that bridge countries like

Scotland, who developed wealth based on polluting the atmosphere, do our

bit bus by cutting emissions at home and providing finance to help

countries in the developing world to develop cleanly and adapt to the

effects of climate change. So a lot to talk about, Ian Duncan MEP is

with me, and Tom Ballantyne. Good evening. Ian Duncan, we had

criticism there of the First Minister and her record in

delivering on the Scottish Government climate change targets.

Did she come here to Paris with the authority that she needs to claim to

lead by example? The targets themselves are commendable, no

denying that. But the problems are not being met. We hope with each

passing year that we come closer to meeting the targets but that is not

the case. If you are to come here with targets you've got to meet

them. And those targets relate only to electricity, 20% of total energy.

But in terms of carbon emissions and greenhouse gas reductions, the

target is 42% by 2020. The First Minister said that 38% cuts have

already been achieved. We are once again talking about electricity

generation. 50% of energy heating is gas-fired 25% of transport. Over 3.2

million vehicles in Scotland, 1000 run on electricity. We need targets

across the board. Those are the ones we are trying for and globally they

are making a big difference. Transport I know is a concern to

you, you were critical of the Scottish Government position on

cutting Air Passenger Duty. That is a very popular measure. It makes it

more affordable for Scots to see the world, to come to fantastic cities

like Paris. White cut Air Passenger Duty, -- why not cut Leicester Mark

it is a concern because emissions from flying the highest you get in

any form of transport. If you cut the taxes on form of transport then

you will encourage more people to fly, especially domestic flights.

There is no reason to cut that tax and we should look to encourage

people onto trains and away from flying. We would either ask to think

again, or if there is going to be change, we'd like to see another tax

which would... And here is a Scottish journalist, we have to

report what the first Minister is doing, but there is a much bigger

picture emerging. What are your hopes and fears and expectations

even for the rest of this week? And part of the delegation here and

we're alongside the commission are trying to negotiate a settlement.

The reality is that it is China and the US. At the moment, the EU has

its nose pressed up against the glass watching what is going on

inside the room. The challenge is to get back into the room with the

serious commitments to represent to hold those two parties to account.

And, clearly, when the EU is struggling to make its voice heard,

it is difficult for the UK to do so, and certainly that is the case for

Scotland although, as I said, it has won plaudits from aid agencies,

environmental organisations for its environmental justice. You will

welcome this, I presume? Scotland can make its voice heard. A good

example is a good example whether or not it is large or small. It has set

a good example on climate justice. There are things we can celebrate in

these talks. You confident for a deal? I wouldn't say confident.

Certainly not the deal we need. We need an ambitious deal that sets

could targets that provide proper funding for the people in the

developing world who have done the least to cause this problem but are

paying the price. We settle the time but it doesn't make it less true. We

need monitoring and delivering mechanisms to make sure these things

happen. Gentlemen, thank you both very much indeed. I should just add

that one veteran observer told me today if someone is telling you they

know what is happening in these talks, the almost certainly don't.

Wise words, I suspect. The winner of this year's

Turner Prize is... For the first time

the ?25,000 prize has been won by a collective of designers

and architects called Assemble. Their work is, unusually,

a regeneration scheme for derelict And in another first,

the award was presented in Glasgow, I am not sure who to give the cheque

to. Great, thanks very much. While.

Thank you so much. Really, thank you very much. We are incredibly happy.

And our Arts Correspondent Pauline McLean is at the Tramway for us now.

I'm actually inside part of that winning work. This is the workshop

that Assemble made here. It is full of things they've handcrafted. There

is a light, you can buy most of these things on display. The money

goes on to the project you mentioned in Toxteth. Let's talk to two of

Assemble we have here. First of all, congratulations and what does it

mean to you to win? I mean it is an extraordinary surprise. We barely

believed we could be nominated, let alone win the prize. It is wonderful

to be able to share the award with all the people that worked on this

project and all the other projects, including the project in Glasgow.

That has been wonderful. Every year we ask is this art. Is this a

different is it art? You wouldn't perhaps describe assaults as artists

because you do lots of things. We adopt tools that are contests would

use, designers, maybe that community organisers would use. I guess our

work is concerned with people's day-to-day lives, as well as the

experiences you'd normally get at a gallery. A lot of our work is

committed to the idea that everyone is quite creative. And we often try

to make environments were lots of people can do things together. There

was a bit of disappointment there were no Scots after a great run of

Scots. In some ways you make up for it occurs you have a connection to

Glasgow because you've worked on a project all of you together before.

I actually went to primary school in Scotland. Far more importantly,

we've been working here in Glasgow for the last three years, and it has

been a privilege and delight. We've been working in the east end of

Glasgow. And we've had the opportunity to work very closely

with the community for an extended period of time and share in their

lives, so this is probably the best place for us to have been... To get

this. That money will be very useful for your next project. I mean, yes.

It is going to go, hopefully, towards funding the next project,

and its continuing influence. Hopefully making more sustainable

things, and helping to make a significant change in the area in

Liverpool. That is the aim for the entire project. Thank you and

congratulations again. This isn't over because this exhibition will

run until the middle of January. And you will still be able to, long and

see the winner and the three runners-up.

Thank you. And with me in the studio to discuss

some of the main stories from today is the political editor

of the Daily Record, David Clegg. And the Scotland political

reporter for Thank you both for coming in this

evening. Let's go back to the top story tonight, the fatal accident

inquiry. The families and the Crown office have each claimed their

findings back up their view. What did you make of the Crown's position

here? David. The big point about it is that this unfortunate resolution

was inevitable in the way things have played out. The fatal accident

inquiry, that is not the same way the evidence would be handled as it

would do in court. Harry Clark, it has criticised him for lying

repeatedly about his medical condition. They didn't say whether

he was responsible for what is happening. I think it is

understandable that the families of the people who died in the tragedy

feel that is unresolved for them and they want answers. A fatal accident

inquiry was never going to give some answers. That is where we will see

more tension between the Crown and families. Some of the families are

going to have a private prosecution but it isn't going to be easy for

them, is it? Scotland, it is a very rare beast for anyone to bring

forward a private prosecution. There's only been a couple of

incidents where that has been done in the past. There are plenty of

legal experts coming forward saying that is unlikely to be successful.

Harry Clarke bore the brunt of it and not telling the truth for a

number of occasions. Do you think there should be tougher penalties

for not disclosing relevant information might make people poll

think twice? I think this case will almost certainly have the same

impact because one of the questions is did Harry Clark ever believe his

medical condition could lead to this? I suspect that is unlikely. It

is not only tough penalties. I think the DVLA, Glasgow City Council, the

company, they all have questions to answer about their procedures. The

fatal accident inquiry report has drawn out those issues and they will

have to look at it. Certainly, what has been made very, very starkly

clear by these tragic events is that if you're going to get behind the

wheel, especially of a vehicle like that, you have to be certain that

you are physically fit to do so. Now, according to a new report out

today, world views which aren't based on ideals about faith should

be given equal prominence with The Woolf Institute has spent two

years gathering evidence on the Its recommendations include reducing

pupil selection on the grounds of faith, and scrapping compulsory

religious observance. Do you think that is sensible

advice, given that now half the population say they don't identify

with any religion? I think it has to be considered. And I think we have

to look at society at ducting... In Tom Dunne -- adapting in tandem with

people, no faith, whether they are humanist or secular, and that needs

to be taken into account when looking at these things because we

need to reflect the views of everyone in society, and that should

be no different in schools. The report said that while Christianity

is on the way out, other religions are on the rise. Scotland's only

Muslim school, which is currently private, is applying for state

funding and would like to expand to secondary education. Do you think

that is a move in the right direction? I'm not sure. The

difficulty is that there is another case of catholic primary School in

Glasgow or the Glasgow area which is looking at doing something similar

so it is difficult to play favourites with the various

religions. In fact, one of the issues the report throughout is that

is it sustainable in the House of Lords that we have 26 Anglican

bishops and what are the representations of other religions?

If you are going to have faith schools, then all faiths should have

control of taking -- the option of taking control of the school. The

overriding questions about faith schools are unresolved, however. It

is difficult to talk openly about sectarianism, faith schools, and how

those issues interact. It is quite close to discussion.

Looking ahead to tomorrow, the EU Referendum Bill is back in the

Last month, the peers voted 293 to 211 to amend the Bill so that 16

and 17-year-olds could vote in the referendum, but the UK Government

And, tonight, the SNP are out again calling for

So, the Lords is a more radical chamber, is it a surprise? Not

necessarily. This is more bad news for David Cameron. And his EU

referendum process, really. You know, if the Lords choose to block

this, the House of Commons they we want to keep at 18, this will go

back and forth and back and forth and this EU referendum will be

further delayed which is bad news for David Cameron. After the

independence referendum, are there any good arguments against giving 16

and 17-year-olds the vote? Not that I can think of. I'm pretty convinced

by the argument. During the referendum, it was clear that 16 and

17-year-olds were engaged, they had civic benefit, and it made these

youngsters more politically engaged throughout their lives, quite

possibly. David Cameron is going to pull out all the stops to stop it

happening. I think they are even going to maybe suggest this is a

financial mechanism, so therefore the Lords won't be able to have the

ping-pong that would go on. It looks like it is out.

OK, yeah, so, where do you want begin?

I've never been so happy in all my life.