Chamber and committees

PE1887, which was lodged by Nicola Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that has been provided sets out the current legal framework and explores how various criminal offences may apply to instances of domestic abuse during pregnancy. The information is summarised in the clerk’s note, which notes that women are at increased risk of physical abuse, and particularly domestic violence, during pregnancy and early maternity.

The Scottish Government submission provides information on the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, stating that it enables physical, psychological and controlling behaviours to be prosecuted at once, which includes certain forms of psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour that were previously difficult to prosecute.

However, in her submission, the petitioner shares her experience of domestic abuse, which sadly led to the loss of her child. She explains that she was hit by a car and that her injuries caused her to miscarry, which led to her partner taking a plea deal of reckless and culpable conduct with a domestic abuse aggravator. The sentence was a payment of just £300 compensation.

The petitioner explains the impact of the incident, including permanent left-side weakness, difficulty in walking for long periods or distances, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and grief.

In 2018, the petitioner conducted a study with 40 female domestic abuse survivors, the main findings of which are provided in the clerk’s note. Do colleagues wish to speak about this serious petition?

Would anybody like to comment?

We appear to be agreed on that.

It is an odd coupling—sorry, that is probably an unfortunate suggestion. [Laughter.] Combining hedgehogs and moles in the petition struck me as a bit random. Nonetheless, we will consider them together, albeit that there will be representations from different organisations.

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?

I am happy that we do that. It is a technical but nonetheless interesting issue. It would be useful to get that further evidence and, perhaps, to return to the Scottish Government on the back of it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sure that the whole committee congratulates Callum, and I am sure that he will make a very effective presentation when he is there on Friday. Sue Webber said that he is at home this week, which means that he might be watching us just now. If that is the case—congratulations, Callum.

That seems like an admirable suggestion. Do members have any other thoughts or comments?

We can write to the key stakeholder organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—that picks up on Paul Sweeney’s point about the role of swimming lessons as a life-saving measure. With regard to the suggestion about writing to local authorities, it probably makes sense for us to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the first instance, if that would be acceptable. I would also be interested to find out from Scottish Swimming where it is in the discussion about expanding its programme and what action is proposed. I would like to get an understanding of what public information initiatives are under way in relation to encouraging people to swim for the reasons that Mr Sweeney identified.

As there are no further suggestions, are members content to keep the petition open and to proceed to gather further information on the basis that I have outlined?

Members indicated agreement.