Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are very grateful.

PE1858, which was lodged by Alex Wallace, calls on the Scottish Government to provide free face masks for everyone in Scotland during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Scottish Government’s submission highlights that it advocates the use of reusable face coverings and has provided guidance on how to make them using widely available household products. In respect of affordability, it notes that the Scottish Government has committed over £1 billion of additional investment to help local communities and build resilience in public services, some of which has been used by local partners, including in the third sector, to provide face coverings free of charge to people on low incomes and, in particular, vulnerable groups such as homeless people.

The Scottish Government notes that, although it is not providing face coverings centrally to the general public, local authorities and schools consider how to address any equity concerns arising from the use of face coverings. It also advises that many homelessness outreach teams provide disposable face coverings and that, as I think most of us will be aware, a number of supermarkets and other retailers provide free disposable face coverings.

Do colleagues have any comments?

PE1855 was lodged by Claire Mitchell QC and it calls on the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise to and create a national monument to memorialise those people in Scotland who were accused of being, and convicted as, witches under the Witchcraft Act 1563.

In its submission, the Scottish Government explains the process that is involved in granting a free pardon. If such a pardon is granted,

“the conviction is disregarded to the extent that, as far as possible, the person is relieved of all penalties and other consequences of the conviction.”

However, the conviction is not quashed, because only the courts have that power. The responsibility to review and refer alleged miscarriages of justice to the High Court lies with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which

“has the power to consider a case even after the death of the person or persons convicted.”

The Humanist Society Scotland has provided a submission in support of the petition. The organisation urges the committee, when considering those who were historically convicted of witchcraft,

“to also consider how the Scottish Government’s current work in international development—particularly through the Scotland Malawi Partnership—can better challenge witchcraft based violence.”

All colleagues will have received a number of emails that make additional representations in respect of the petition. Again, I ask colleagues to consider how we should proceed in the light of the detailed response from the Scottish Government and the other submissions that we have received.

It is astonishing. The petitioner has suggested that 4,000 people were prosecuted under the 1563 act, 85 per cent of whom were women.

If colleagues agree, I am quite happy that we write to the Scottish Government to ask whether, given the historical nature of the matter and the fact that so many people were affected by the 1563 legislation, it would be possible for Paul Sweeney’s proposal to be progressed. At the same time, we could write to the petitioner, in the absence of that response, asking them whether it would be possible to identify the circumstances of an individual case that could lead to a precedent being set on the issue.

If the committee is happy to pursue both options, I am happy, too. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Tess White has suggested that we write to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Scottish Social Services Council, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland to seek their views. We could also write to the Office of the Public Guardian in Scotland. I think that there is potentially an issue with the lack of regulation and it would be interesting to have responses from those bodies. We will keep the petition open and seek further information.

I think that we can seek that information in any event, without keeping the petition open.

The proposal is that we close the petition and bring the information in the SPICe briefing to the attention of the Scottish Government, so that we can see whether it has given any thought to any of that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The first new petition is PE1850, which was lodged by Les Wallace. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to make the use of natural flood prevention methods a condition of obtaining a grouse moor licence. The Scottish Government submission highlights that it commissioned an independent group to look at the environmental impact of grouse moor management, which was prompted by a NatureScot report in May 2017 and was part of a package of measures that were aimed at tackling the on-going issue of wildlife crime.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s role in examining and mapping areas where natural flood management could be put to best use, in conjunction with responsible authorities, is highlighted as an area of importance in relation to the issues that are raised in the petition. The submission highlights that, following that analysis, plans include a total of 104 actions with a natural flood management element. The submission concludes that the Scottish Government does not believe that it would be appropriate to make the inclusion of natural flood management methods a condition of obtaining a grouse moor licence.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing refers to research that was commissioned by the Government and published in 2018 that sets out that it is difficult to demonstrate the role or potential role of grouse moors in flood risk mitigation due to a lack of studies assessing those areas.

The petitioner’s submission emphasises the importance of flood management from an economic, environmental and human perspective. The issues highlighted include loss of life, damage to homes and businesses, soil washing, chemical pollution and solid waste contamination in rivers.

In the light of all the information that we have received, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

We are minded to keep the petition open. It would be premature to consider referring it to another committee at the moment. We will write to the various stakeholders that have been identified by David Torrance and Oliver Mundell, and we will consider the responses ahead of potentially seeking further oral evidence from the petitioner. We will keep the petition open and consider it afresh when we have those responses.

I thank Oliver Mundell for participating.

That brings us to the end of our consideration of petitions. There being no other business, I thank committee members. We will resume next week to continue our consideration of petitions that stand ready to be reviewed and discussed.