Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1888, which is on full legal protection for hedgehogs and moles, was lodged by Joseph Allan. He has tabled a handwritten submission this morning, which I think members should have received. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant full legal protection to hedgehogs and moles.

The Scottish Government has confirmed its commitment to enhancing biodiversity and to protecting vulnerable species in Scotland. Its submission confirms that the hedgehog is listed in appendix III of the Bern convention—the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats—and schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it illegal to kill or capture them using specified methods. The submission states that there are no plans to extend the legal protection for hedgehogs, or to their breeding sites. It highlights steps that are being taken to halt the decline of hedgehogs, although it states that it does not have any information to suggest that the species is in danger of extinction in Scotland.

Similarly, it states that the Scottish Government does not have any definitive data that shows that mole populations are declining, or on the desirability or otherwise of such a decline. It has asked the petitioner to provide further information to explain the exact nature of his concerns, which the petitioner has done this morning, in that he has identified that moles are particularly vulnerable at one point in their breeding season.

The Scottish Government notes that it will carefully consider any recommendations that are made by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for potential changes to the animals and plants that are listed under schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

My anecdotal observation—I speak as an old man—is that, when I was younger, hedgehogs were quite a common sight. They are less so, now, and that is as much as anything because neighbourhood hedgerows—the natural habitats in which hedgehogs used to thrive—have decreased in number over my lifetime, although there is now a conspicuous effort to restore hedgerows, to rewild and to reintroduce more of what I imagine are natural habitats of the hedgehog.

Do colleagues have any comments?

A lot of voluntary groups and societies are certainly concerned with the welfare of the hedgehog, although the mole is slightly new to me as a feature of such a petition.

We have agreed to keep the petition open and to proceed on the basis that has been outlined.

It strikes me that, at some point, there will be an inquiry into the pandemic. We have already been told that the inquiry will be fully comprehensive and will look at the pandemic from every conceivable perspective, so we could keep in reserve the petitioner’s submission and any final conclusions that we come to as a committee to submit to the inquiry at a future date, should the opportunity present itself.

In the meantime, I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government because I take the point—and I imagine that the Scottish Government will accept it—that, in this first effort to address issues arising from the pandemic, there will have been inconsistencies. I would like to think that there will be a review or that the Scottish Government will undertake a review of what those inconsistencies were and whether, in hindsight, they were necessary or well judged.

I have my own reservations about whether the Scottish Government could make formal guarantees that nothing similar would ever be put in place in a future pandemic, but it seems sensible to write to the Government on that basis in the first instance. Does that seem sensible? Does anyone have any other proposals? Bill Kidd is indicating that he wants to speak.

I am happy to include that suggestion as well.

At the moment, we cannot anticipate the range of other petitions about issues that are consequential to the Covid pandemic that we may subsequently be asked to consider. I will just paste to the wall the idea that this might be an appropriate thing for us to consider at some stage under deliberative engagement, which is part of the committee’s new remit. We could bring together various groups so that we could take evidence from them through the new deliberative engagement aspect of our responsibility.

At the same time, however, I imagine that the COVID-19 Recovery Committee might be doing work in relation to that, too, so we should perhaps liaise with it to see what its timetable and agenda are.

Are we content to take the actions that have been outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not rule out, at some stage, the committee taking oral evidence on the petition. In the first instance, we will see what formal responses we get.

We will keep the petition open. Are we agreed on the recommended actions that Bill Kidd set out?

Members indicated agreement.

I notice that Mr Mountain has strongly encouraged us to take evidence after we have received submissions on both petitions.

I think that we are agreed on that.

Sue Webber, do you know which school Callum attends? I do not see that information anywhere.

Okay. Are we content to write to the Government, in the first instance, to gather further information on where it stands on the existing legislation and to ask whether it is contemplating updating it? Should we also write to the British Veterinary Association to seek its views on the issues that the petition raises? The petitioner makes specific reference to the veterinary fees that arise when one dog attacks another. I am not a dog owner, so I do not know how much such costs would typically be. It would be interesting for us to have some idea of that and of the number of occasions in which vets treat animals that have been attacked in that way.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to take those further actions?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1894, on permitting a medical certificate of cause of death to be independently reviewed, was lodged by Mr Kenneth Robertson—as the MSP for Eastwood, I should say that he is a constituent of mine and has previously corresponded with my office on the issue.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 to permit a medical certificate of cause of death to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service when the case has already been reviewed by the procurator fiscal but not by a medical professional expert. It is quite a technical issue.

The petitioner states that the 2011 act does not allow for an application for review of a medical certificate of cause of death by an interested party where the procurator fiscal has investigated the deceased person’s cause of death. He notes that anyone can refer a death to the procurator fiscal but there is no obligation for the PF to investigate. An investigation may also only involve asking the certifying doctor if they are willing to certify the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief. The petitioner believes that that creates a dangerous loophole that could be exploited to cover up sub-standard care.

The SPICe briefing that accompanies the petition notes that the 2011 act was designed to

“introduce a single system of independent, effective scrutiny applicable to deaths that do not require”

procurator fiscal investigation. The death certification review service—DCRS—was established in 2015. That service checks the accuracy of approximately 12 per cent of medical certificates of cause of death in Scotland and also carries out interested person reviews in cases where questions or concerns about the content of an MCCD remain after an individual has spoken to the certifying doctor or if questions or concerns arise at a later stage. That is to check the accuracy of information contained in the MCCD.

The Scottish Government notes in its submission that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is responsible for the investigation of all sudden, unexpected or unexplained deaths in Scotland and that, in many cases, the MCCD will be provided by a pathologist, who is an independent doctor and specialist in causes of death. The Scottish Government also notes that, given the Procurator Fiscal Service’s independence,

“it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCDs in cases already investigated by”

the procurator fiscal and that it does not intend to amend the 2011 act to enable the DCRS to review cases previously investigated by COPFS—I apologise for all the acronyms.

In response, the petitioner reiterates his belief that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is unable to provide the same level of scrutiny as the death certification review service because the procurator fiscal is not medically qualified. He states that

“there are thousands of deaths every year in Scotland which are referred to the Procurator Fiscal but not investigated”

and, as such, are not eligible for medical review by the death certification review service.

It is quite a technical, targeted concern, of which my constituent has personal experience, although he refers to it in general in the petition. Do colleagues have any comments?