Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1883, which was lodged by Katrina Clark, is on the opening of all toddler and baby activities in tier 3 of Covid-19 and any future pandemic lockdowns. The petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow baby and toddler activities to be considered equally with other indoor activities in tier 3 of future lockdowns, was previously considered by the committee in November.

We wrote to the Scottish Government on a range of issues that are highlighted by the petition. In its response, the Scottish Government states that

“No formal analysis has been carried out in relation to”

baby and toddler groups, but that

“engagement took place with ... member organisations”.

It states that

“Small grant funds were set up ... to support smaller organisations”;

that children’s rights impact assessments and business regulatory impact assessments were undertaken at each stage of the pandemic; and that the Scottish Government and Public Health Scotland are working to understand what impacts from the pandemic there might be on children aged up to three and what actions could be taken to reduce those impacts.

The petitioner has subsequently highlighted that similar risks are associated with baby and toddler groups to those that are assessed for soft play centres, but that soft play centres were allowed to open in tier 3 and baby and toddler groups were not.

Do members have any comments?

Our colleague Collette Stevenson MSP has informed the committee that the petitioner, Mr Allan, has very sadly died since we last considered the petition. We are very sorry to receive that news. I pass on the committee’s sincere condolences to Mr Allan’s family. We thank them for the petition that Mr Allan brought to the committee’s attention, which I hope will receive appropriate consideration when the review is forthcoming.

I am happy for us to do that. For the reasons that Mr Stewart articulated, I think that a public inquiry is unlikely—that is my expectation—because it might prolong the more detailed discussions that are required and might exacerbate things. However, we can do what Mr Torrance suggests. Nothing that we have said diminishes the importance of progressing a solution, because we have been wrestling with the issue for a very long time.

Again, I thank everybody for their contributions.

Our second continued petition is PE1855, which is on pardoning and memorialising those convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1563. The petition has been lodged by Claire Mitchell QC, and at this point I must, on behalf of the committee, apologise to her. There was an oversight, in that appropriate notice was not given about the petition coming back to the committee this morning, and the opportunity to submit further evidence to us was therefore lost. I think that, later in the proceedings, we will be seeking to keep the petition open, and we therefore look forward to receiving that submission.

PE1855 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise those people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the 1563 act. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 1 September 2021, when we decided to seek further information from the Scottish Government and the petitioner on whether the royal prerogative of mercy could be used to achieve a pardon. The petitioner seeks three things—a pardon, an apology and a national memorial for those convicted under the 1563 act—and further detail on all of that has been provided to colleagues in their papers.

In relation to the pardon, the petitioner suggests that the royal prerogative of mercy is not a suitable vehicle for achieving the petition’s aim, stating that

“we are not looking for a pardon in individual cases by the Queen”

as

“The prosecutions were carried out by the Scottish State.”

The petitioner also states that an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to pardon individual people would not be competent as there would be

“no-one that could be considered to have a ‘legitimate interest’ in terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995”,

given the fact that centuries have passed since these events happened.

Instead, the petitioner suggests there is a need for the Scottish Government

“to legislate to provide a pardon for all those convicted.”

The petitioner draws parallels with the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Act 2018, which provided

“a collective and posthumous pardon.”

The petitioner suggests that the committee should ask the Scottish Government

“to provide a public apology to those convicted of witchcraft, making it clear that those convictions ought not to have happened and that these people were not witches.”

In its submission of 4 November 2021, the Scottish Government accepts that

“while the SCCRC can consider posthumous applications made on behalf of a convicted person ... by someone who would have standing to bring an appeal on their behalf, in practice, this will almost certainly not be possible”.

In terms of the royal prerogative of mercy, the Scottish Government advises that

“the First Minister will not generally consider recommending to Her Majesty a free pardon under the RPM process until the person’s appeal against their conviction has been dismissed, or leave to appeal has been refused, and any application to the SCCRC seeking to have the case referred to the Appeal Court has been rejected.”

In a further submission from the petitioner dated 5 December 2021, she suggests that the committee might wish to consider a committee bill on this topic. Since then, we have received a submission from Natalie Don MSP, who has indicated that she intends to bring forward a member’s bill to allow for a pardon to take place. However, she notes that the two other asks of the petition—that is, to seek a public apology and to create a national monument—will not fall within the scope of her bill.

I hope that my microphone has been working for the past several minutes, otherwise there is a lot that I will have to repeat. On the assumption that it has been, I ask members whether they have any comments with regard to the action that might be taken.

I want to be clear. Are you recommending that we close the petition? The issues are sufficiently important that we would very much encourage the petitioner, Katrina Clark, to contribute to that inquiry, which will no doubt encompass related issues when it is convened in due course. Is that correct?

PE1894, which was lodged by Kenneth Robertson, is on permitting a medical certificate of cause of death—or MCCD—to be independently reviewed. The petition was last considered in November 2021, when we agreed to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Healthcare Improvement Scotland for their views.

The petition calls on the Scottish Government to change the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 to permit an MCCD to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service, where the case has already been reviewed by the procurator fiscal but not by a medical professional expert. The Scottish Government’s submission highlights that

“DCRS ... checks the accuracy of approximately 12% of all Medical Certificates of Cause of Death in Scotland”

and also

“carries out Interested Person Reviews in cases where questions or concerns about”

certificates

“remain after an individual has spoken to the certifying doctor”.

The Government suggests:

“Given that COPFS is independent and has the responsibility to investigate these cases, it would not be appropriate for”

the death certification review service

“to review”

medical certificates of cause of death

“in cases already investigated by COPFS.”

In its submission to the committee, Healthcare Improvement Scotland provides further information about the work of the review service, including as part of that its inquiries service to support certifying doctors. It also notes:

“Since the service was established in 2015, the monthly median percentage of cases ... where the certifying doctor has made a clinical or administrative error ... has reduced from 44% to 24.4%.”

The submission also sets out the circumstances in which a referral might be made to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The Lord Advocate states in her submission that, in establishing what should be stated on a medical certificate of cause of death,

“the Procurator Fiscal may seek an independent medical opinion, for example from a pathologist for their view on the appropriate MCCD or whether anything would be gained from conducting a post mortem examination.”

She also suggests that

“it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCS in cases already investigated by Procurators Fiscal.”

In light of the submissions that we have received, I would welcome comments from colleagues.

No other member has indicated that they wish to come in. I thank Mr Robertson for lodging the petition, which raises an important matter. However, given the responses that we have received from the Scottish Government and the various legal bodies, I seek committee members’ support for Mr Stewart’s recommendation that we close the petition. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

No other member has indicated that they wish to comment—unless Mr Sweeney is indicating that he would like to come in.

It was just a loose hand—rather than a family pet or anything—that caught my attention.

We thank Mr Wright for his petition, which we intend to keep open. We will write to the various Government bodies and organisations that Ruth Maguire identified. Does the committee agree to our following that process?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we will be seeing Rhoda Grant again later, so I look forward to that.