Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I come to Carole Hunter, I refer to your first answer. Do you have an ambition to include in the oversight role that you referred to in your opening response seeking to ensure that those procedures will be effectively embedded? Is that part of the oversight function?

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

Members will recall that the First Minister has provided an apology to the people in Scotland who were accused and convicted as witches under the 1563 act. I seem to remember that we heard in evidence that some 2,200 people were convicted, the vast majority of whom were women. I am not sure that the First Minister apologised to the men who were convicted under the act—I have a recollection that she apologised to the women who were convicted—so I think that 400 people have gone without an apology.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 18 May 2022, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and to Natalie Don MSP. We now have responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Natalie Don MSP and the petitioner.

The cabinet secretary advises that, although it is Scottish Government policy that costs associated with creating and maintaining new memorials

“are not to be met from scarce public funds”,

the Government would be happy to consider helping to publicise any fundraising efforts. The cabinet secretary also indicated that the location of any national memorial would primarily be a matter for local authorities.

Natalie Don MSP has provided a brief update on the progress of her proposed witchcraft convictions (pardons) (Scotland) bill, letting us know that the consultation responses will be published shortly and that she intends to progress to the next stage of the member’s bill process.

The petitioner highlights the considerable work that has been undertaken in pursuing the aims of the petition, including discussions with interested parties about taking forward plans for a national memorial and a museum of witch hunts, and has indicated that, as a consequence, they are reasonably content with the actions that have been taken on all three aspects of the petition that were raised.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I apologise for our slightly late start this morning.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of continued petitions. The first petition that we will consider is PE1900. The petition, which is a very important one that we have previously heard evidence on and considered, is on access to prescribed medication for detainees in police custody. It was lodged by Kevin John Lawson, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

We are joined by David Strang, who is the former chair of the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce, and Carole Hunter, who is a former member of the task force. Carole is joining us remotely. I warmly welcome both of you. Obviously, we are aware that the task force is no longer operational, so we are grateful for your taking the time to discuss the petition with us, even though you have been decommissioned, so to speak.

Members would like to explore a number of questions. I recognise that you have produced a report and have moved on from the task force. We are very keen to understand where you think that that report can assist us.

Do you have a preference as to who will answer? David Strang can indicate to me whether he will lead or invite Carole Hunter to take the flak on each question. We will see how it proceeds.

Carole Hunter?

I very much agree. In some of the evidence that we heard, and in particular the Scottish Government’s initial response, superficially the alternatives looked as if they might have been an effective way of proceeding. However, in the face of the evidence that we heard subsequently, I too have been persuaded that we require a specific charge to be included in the 2018 act.

Wearing a completely different hat—my Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body hat—I am struck by the fact that we have 17 members’ bills already before Parliament in this session, which is a record number. The prospects of any additional members’ bills finding scope to proceed before 2026 are probably nil. We must either take the view that this is just something that we are going to nod at and move along from, having said that it is all very terrible, or we have to be prepared to take more decisive action.

Mr Ewing drew attention to the fact that we discovered that the offence in England and Wales grew out of provisions that were passed at a much earlier time and to meet entirely different circumstances. Until we heard that, maybe we assumed that the offence had been brought in for this purpose. I think that we would like to hear more about that.

I think that the committee’s feeling is that we would like the clerks to prepare an appropriate representation of our consideration to the Scottish Government, subject to that final evidence being heard, which would recommend, on behalf of the committee, the specific offence being included in legislation.

We have actually identified a number of candidates that we think might be suitable for a chamber debate. We will potentially make a specific recommendation in respect of the action that might be appropriate, as we might like to see that added to the matters that we could potentially seek to raise for a chamber debate. We will, I think, be making a fairly consequential recommendation arising from a very sensitive petition. Are we happy to consider that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we content to proceed on that basis? I should note in passing the further representation that we have received from Sue Webber in relation to the petition. We will write to the First Minister to seek an update and to express our disappointment that neither Callum nor the committee has received any response, particularly given the personal engagement that the First Minister had with Callum on the occasion of his giving evidence to the committee.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE1930, which was lodged by George Eckton, on ensuring that, as part of any new ScotRail contract, customers are always given information on the cheapest possible fare.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is for customers to be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering on that aim.

We are joined by Monica Lennon. Good morning, Monica; it is lovely to have you with us again. We will hear from you in a moment.

The committee previously considered the petition at our meeting on 29 June, just before the summer recess, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Transport for London. I am pleased to say we have now received responses from Transport Scotland and TFL, as well as two submissions from the petitioner.

Transport Scotland has indicated that the Scottish Government is considering whether Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd will be covered by the consumer duty legislation. Its response also contained information on the progress and purpose of the fair fares review, which is expected to be concluded in full at some point during 2023, and on the work that is being undertaken to develop and trial smart ticketing options.

The response from Transport for London provides information on how its fare-capping and pay-as-you-go system operates, and on the work that goes into ensuring that customers can trust that they will always be charged the correct fare for their journey.

The petitioner has also been in touch to update the committee on the freedom of information requests that he has made to ScotRail about how the £5 city-to-city advance fares are advertised. Mr Eckton has shared information on how easy it is for passengers to miss out on cheaper fares when using the ScotRail app, and he has set out his view on why ScotRail should be included in the consumer duty.

Before I open it up to wider discussion, I invite Monica Lennon to speak in support of the petition.

You are not a witness, so we cannot ask you questions.

No. That is a fair point, which—as I said—relates to the petition.