Chamber and committees

PE1859, which has been lodged by Barry Blyther, is about retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

This is another petition that we previously considered at our meeting on 1 September. Members might wish to note that we have received 18 submissions in connection with this petition, with two additional late submissions being shared with the committee only yesterday.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing accompanying the petition explains that, following the passage of the 2020 act, mountain hares are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended. That means that it is illegal to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or otherwise take a mountain hare at any time of year, apart from under specific circumstances where a licence can be obtained. That means that mountain hares can no longer be hunted in the course of falconry practices such as game hawking, where birds of prey are flown to hunt small mammals or other birds, unless it is for a licensable purpose such as forestry.

The petitioner references the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals guidance, and states that there is a legal obligation to allow freedoms to trained captive-bred birds of prey, including the freedom to express the natural behaviours of the species. The petitioner believes that the current legislation is taking that freedom away.

That is the area about which the committee is uncertain. How does one demonstrate the freedom to express natural behaviour? The Scottish Government states in its latest submission that it does not believe that the current licensing scheme for the control of mountain hares impacts

“on the ability of falconers to enable their birds to exhibit normal behaviour patterns”

because they can still be used to

“take mountain hares for other purposes where carried out under a licence granted by NatureScot”—

for example, preventing serious timber damage or natural habitat conservation—and legally hunt other species such as grouse and rabbits. The petitioner estimates the number of mountain hares taken through falconry each year at 1,000 and notes that that is less than 4 per cent of the average quoted numbers previously accounted for by shooting.

Other submissions that we received point out that birds of prey will not differentiate between species such as mountain hare and rabbits, and that falconers risk prosecution if their bird takes mountain hare. That is one of the questions that I cannot satisfactorily answer. How is a bird of prey to understand the difference between a mountain hare and a rabbit? This seems circular to me; where do members think we should go next? Does anyone wish to offer a view?

The next petition, PE1863, which was lodged by Michael Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide mandatory annual cancer blood tests to people from the age of 55. When the petition was previously considered on 1 September, we agreed that we would write to various stakeholders to ask for their view on the petition. Those stakeholders included the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which is the independent scientific advisory body that advises ministers on matters of population screening, including any proposal to consider a single blood test to detect cancers. The UK National Screening Committee’s submission notes that it

“has not looked at the evidence to screen for cancers using a single blood test.”

However, its call for topics to consider runs from September to December each year.

Cancer Research UK notes that there are currently no blood tests that can

“reliably detect the early signs of cancer in people without symptoms”,

and it suggests that a “lot more research” would be required before such a test could be used in cancer screening. Cancer Research UK also provides information about a large screening trial on a single blood test, which it believes will be “crucial” in answering whether such a test can find cancer, whether it can do so at an earlier stage and whether it can avoid causing undue levels of harm. Cancer Research UK concludes:

“Regrettably we cannot endorse this petition, but we hope that it will not be too much longer before a general cancer blood test suitable for use in cancer screening becomes available.”

It looks as though the petitioner’s aims might be feasible at a later date, but we cannot find any advisory body that wishes to pursue the matter at the moment. On the basis that there is no such test at this time, I am minded to suggest to colleagues that we close the petition under rule 15.7. In doing so, we could say to the petitioner that there is an expectation and a hope that such a test might be possible in the not-too-distant future. We could also write to those in the national health service who are running the Galleri trial, to see what information they have for us to consider.

The final continued petition is PE1875, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the academic years 2019-20 and 2020-2021.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 September 2021, when we decided to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether the remit of the public inquiry into Covid-19 will include consideration of the SQA’s actions. The Scottish Government has now responded. It states that there was public engagement earlier this year on a draft aims and principles paper for the inquiry. That will help to inform the terms of reference for the inquiry, which will be agreed between ministers and the inquiry’s chair, once they have been appointed. The Scottish Government concludes by saying that

“decisions about the scope of this Scottish public inquiry are yet to be taken”

and that

“this includes matters raised in this petition.”

It therefore makes sense to leave the petition open until we have some clarification of whether the inquiry will take into account SQA review as part of its work. We will keep it open on that basis.

Members indicated agreement.

It is that aspect of the petition that I think we would seek to explore, given that the legal position with regard to the procurator fiscal having to seek permissions and so on is not likely to proceed.

I would like to write to those organisations on the basis that it appears that the anomaly exists. We would be interested in their confirming that that is the case and what they see as the potential risk to justice arising from that. We could add the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Law Commission to the list of organisations that we will write to.

Are there any other comments?

Yes. Although the word “estrangement” sounds quite formal and technical, it is perhaps not legal. Therefore, it could mean different things to different people. It would be useful to obtain evidence on that.

That concludes our consideration of new and continued petitions. Our next meeting is on Wednesday 15 December, and I thank our guest or substitute colleague Marie McNair for attending.

The next petition is PE1907, which has been lodged by Claire Beats. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds and remove eligibility criteria for access to services. The petitioner notes that

“availability of early learning and childcare funding for 2-year-old children depends on certain eligibility criteria, such as their parents being in receipt of benefits or being vulnerable.”

As an early years practitioner, the petitioner suggests that

“lockdown babies”,

in particular,

“have suffered from lack of play experiences, meeting peers, and opportunities that other children have always had.”

She suggests that funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds

“will greatly increase their potential”,

as well as helping parents who may be struggling financially as a result of the pandemic.

As with all new petitions, we sought the views of the Scottish Government. It suggested that current eligibility criteria for funded early learning and childcare is targeted towards those children who would benefit from it most. It also pointed out that local authorities have a discretionary power to offer funded places to a wider range of children, depending on individual need. The Scottish Government concluded by highlighting that, in this year’s programme for government, it has committed to expanding an early learning offer to all one and two-year-olds, starting in this parliamentary session with those from low-income families.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? Are we minded to write to stakeholders to understand their views? Early Years Scotland, the National Day Nurseries Association, Parenting Across Scotland and COSLA are the obvious ones that come to mind. Do we agree to write to them?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1910, which was lodged by Ian Nicol, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an exemption for smaller houses from the requirement to have interlinked smoke and fire alarms fitted, which comes into force in just a few months’ time, in February 2022.

The SPICe briefing that accompanies the petition explains that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2007 sets out a basic standard of house condition called the “tolerable standard”, which will be amended in February 2022 to include ceiling-mounted and interlinked smoke and heat alarms. Carbon monoxide alarms are also included, where appropriate. The legislation does not provide for any exemptions from the requirements, although the guidance acknowledges that

“it may not be practical to fit fire and smoke alarms to this exact standard”,

depending on the layout and design of the building.

The Scottish Government’s rationale for the new requirements is that interlinked systems alert occupiers immediately to fire in their homes. It acknowledges that, during the daytime, an occupier in a small house would hear unlinked alarms. However, it notes that unlinked systems are not sufficient to ensure that an occupier would be woken quickly during the night. It explains that the new requirement will bring all homes to

“the same level of protection”

that is currently mandatory

“in new build homes throughout the UK and in private rented homes in Scotland.”

The petitioner has responded to the Scottish Government’s submission and notes a number of concerns, which are that the requirement is not mandatory throughout the UK and it is unclear what the consequences of non-compliance are; that there are shortcomings with battery-operated alarms; and that there are cost implications for home owners that may be particularly challenging for those on low incomes.

Has any of us not been woken in the middle of the night by a battery that has gone flat in such a device and found it almost impossible to disconnect? I think that the newer models are more efficient.

Do members have any comments?

I am happy to pursue that. I can see us taking evidence with a bird of prey in the room. That would add a bit of novelty to proceedings.