Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1877 was lodged by Alex Wallace. We considered the petition in September of last year. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics in Scotland. Members should note that the Public Petitions Committee considered a similar petition from the same petitioner in session 5.

The committee wrote to stakeholders to seek their views. In its submission, the British Medical Association raised concerns about how the use of body cameras might affect confidentiality and patient trust and suggested that, if a patient thought that their remarks were being filmed, that could prevent them from seeking help or being honest about their situation.

The clerk’s note that accompanies the petition sets out data that the Scottish Ambulance Service has provided on reports of physical or verbal abuse against its staff. In its submission, the service notes that it has recently considered and approved a limited trial of the use of body cameras and sets out a number of perceived benefits, including a potential reduction in staff absence due to assault, the provision of better quality footage that would support prosecutions and wider improvements to staff wellbeing.

I invite comments, starting with Paul Sweeney.

Before I close the meeting, I will come back to Mr Sweeney on an issue relating to PE1912, on funding for council venues. When you said that you wanted one of the stakeholders to be contacted on the points that you made, the clerks were not entirely clear which stakeholder you meant. Can you confirm who you want us to contact with the concerns that you highlighted?

Thank you, Rhoda. That was helpful, and quite disappointing in some respects.

PE1878, which has been lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate why there have been so few prosecutions under sections 315 and 318 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 September 2021, when we decided to write to the petitioner, and also to the Scottish mental health law review to ask for an update on its work on compulsory detention and care and treatment under the 2003 act.

The review has responded that, as part of its remit, it is

“considering patients’ experiences of care and treatment whilst subject to compulsion, why there has been an increase in compulsory detention and treatment and the reasons for variation in compulsory orders across Scotland.”

That includes “issues of concern” around accountability, complaints systems and strengthened advocacy rights. A link to the review’s full submission can be found in members’ papers.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Our next continued petition is PE1881, which is on longer sentences for paedophiles and sexual predators. The petition, which was lodged by Carol Burns and was last considered in September 2021, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the length of time that sexual predators serve in jail. At that previous meeting, the committee requested an update from the Scottish Sentencing Council on progress on developing sentencing guidelines in relation to rape, sexual assault and indecent images of children. The committee also sought updates from Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland.

We have now received from the Scottish Sentencing Council a submission that provides information about

“the development ... of three general guidelines ... to create a high-level framework for sentencing ... and .... a ... foundation for the development of offence-specific sentencing guidelines”.

The council also says that

“work on the development of guidelines on rape, sexual assault, and indecent images of children is now at”

stage 2, which focuses on

“engaging with key stakeholders, gathering evidence and developing a first draft for each guideline.”

However, the SSC

“is not yet in a position to set out a definitive timescale”

for the publication of the guidelines.

In its submission, Rape Crisis Scotland shares the petitioner’s concern that some

“sentences ... feel disproportionately short to those affected”

by the crime, and it welcomes the SSC’s review of sentencing guidelines.

Do members have any comments?

I note the recommendation that you have made in addition to your suggestion that we close the petition. Do members agree with the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

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.