Chamber and committees

Mr Golden has made some suggestions. Do colleagues have any other suggestions? Are we content to proceed on the basis that Mr Golden has identified?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. Mr Ruskell has been sitting very patiently with us, so I will go straight to the second of the two new petitions, so that he can be released from the meeting to attend to other business.

As I always do, I say to anyone who might be tuning in to the committee because their petition is being considered for the first time, that, in advance of consideration, the committee invites the Scottish Parliament’s independent research unit, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to give us an understanding of the issues that have been raised. We also invite the Scottish Government to give us a preliminary view on the issues that have been raised, which may or may not influence the committee’s conclusions. We do both those things because, historically, when the committee considered a petition for the first time, those were the two things that we said that we would do and that delayed our consideration. So, for those who are watching, those actions have already taken place.

Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms White.

Are we agreed on the wider set of suggestions, colleagues?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner very much, but, in the light of the Government’s response, we will move to close the petition.

Our next petition is PE2017, which was lodged by Margaret Reid. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to extend maternal health support beyond one year; to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across all health board areas; to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality network standard type 1 across all health board areas; and to establish a mother and baby unit in the north-east of Scotland.

We are joined for our consideration of the petition by our colleague Tess White. Good morning, Tess.

We most recently considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. We requested an update on publication of the options appraisal report, and the minister stated that it would be published in due course. However, we understand that, notwithstanding what the minister said, no report has yet been published.

The minister’s response also highlights that development of a draft service specification for perinatal mental health services has been identified as a priority area. The minister states her intention to provide £85,000 “in this financial year”—the clerks have confirmed that that means the financial year that we are currently in—to support the first phase of work to develop intensive treatment services for perinatal women, their infants and their families in the north of Scotland.

Before I ask colleagues for their comments, I invite Tess White to address the committee.

The last of the new petitions that we are considering this morning is PE2122, lodged by Gemma Clark, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon the predominantly female historical victims of Scotland’s witch trials, who were accused and convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1563.

For Mr Torrance and me, who have sat on the committee for some time, the petition brings us full circle to one of the first petitions that we considered in this parliamentary session. Members will recall that we considered a similar petition, which was closed partly on the basis that Natalie Don MSP was at that time pursuing a member’s bill on the issue of a pardon. However, having now been appointed as a minister, Ms Don-Innes has withdrawn that proposal.

During her time as First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon issued, somewhat unexpectedly, a formal posthumous apology to all those who had been accused, convicted, vilified or executed under the act. It is noted in PE2122’s background notes that those in favour of a pardon believe that it would

“convey a strong message of equality and opposition to misogyny in contemporary society.”

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that a formal pardon would require legislation and that, having set out its legislative programme for the remainder of the parliamentary session, it has no plans for legislation in that area. The response also states that the Government would give careful consideration to any fresh proposal for a member’s bill in that area, although, frankly, given where we are in the current parliamentary session, the chances of a member’s bill being progressed on the subject are zero. Given the backlog of members’ bills that have already been advanced and the advice that has been given to members who might be considering lodging a fresh bill at this stage in the session, it is probably not a viable option.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Ruskell—that is very helpful. Looking at the responses that we received, it was not immediately clear where we could go with the petition, so I am very happy to embrace the suggestion.

That is a thought. We could look at who participated in the exchange in the chamber last week.