Seòmar agus comataidhean

However, our options are limited. If the committee is agreed, that is the course of action that we will follow.

Thank you all very much for your contributions this morning. I thank our colleagues who joined us.

Okay. Thank you. That probably strayed slightly beyond the parameters of the petition, but I can see its relevance to it. Obviously, we are coming to the issues as a new committee, and they are continuing petitions. I do not know whether those issues were previously explored or whether Mr Sweeney has identified issues that we could seek further opinions on from the Scottish Government. However, we can do that.

I should clarify that we will ask the Scottish Government—not the UK Government—for a view on the UK Government’s proposals in relation to the A75.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I also welcome to the meeting Elena Whitham, who is engaging with the committee for the first time. What are your thoughts on the petition?

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.

PE1851, which was lodged by Melanie Collins and William Tait, calls on the Scottish Government to urgently review and reform the Scottish legal system, including through an update of systems and practices to ensure that bodies, authorities and institutions are fit for purpose.

In its written submission, the Scottish Government outlines its on-going work on the reform of legal services regulation, the judicial register of interests, law reform, legal aid reform and mediation. In relation to legal services regulation, it highlights the independent review that it commissioned, which was chaired by Esther Roberton.

Although the review concluded that the current complaints system was not fit for purpose, the Scottish Government explains that it is seeking to build consensus, where possible, on the way forward prior to deciding on a course of action. Although progress has been disrupted by the impact of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic, the Scottish Government anticipates that it will be able to publish a consultation seeking views on a way forward during this session of Parliament.

The submission also highlights work to progress interim improvements to the complaints system ahead of wider reform. The consultation on those changes ended in February this year, and the Scottish Government is currently analysing the responses.

In their submission, the petitioners state that the issues in their petition are important and

“impact on all living in Scotland.”

Does anyone have any thoughts on the course of action that we might take?

I am inclined to agree. Most of us, particularly those with constituencies with fringe boundaries to the green belt, will have had experience of developers making persistent applications, which are routinely declined, in the hope that, eventually, one of them will be successful. That can be quite onerous on local communities, which continually have to mount a fresh campaign. I am aware of certain developers who have a reputation for being persistent because they have found that to be a successful course of action, not only in different parts of Scotland but around the United Kingdom. I can, though, see the particular argument in relation to historical battlefields. There should not have to be a sustained effort to frustrate such applications.

I am minded to close the petition. However, I wonder whether, in closing it, we should write to the Scottish Government, seeking a response to the point about repeated and persistent applications that undermine the campaigns that have been run. I can see that it could become an exhausting commitment for people and that some applications might then make progress when that was not anybody’s desire or intention. I would be interested in seeing what the Scottish Government said about that. That seems to be the petitioner’s essential point. The Government has made it clear that it has no plans to review the processes, but a comment about that aspect would be useful. Does that course of action sound reasonable?

Members indicated agreement.

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.

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

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.

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.