Chamber and committees

PE1812, which was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation giving Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection. The petitioners initially hoped that that would be done before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow last November.

I am delighted to welcome Jackie Baillie. Before I come to Jackie, I will provide a little background. The committee previously considered the petition on 8 September, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on its response to the deer working group. To date, no response has been received from the Scottish Government. However, the petitioners have made a further submission, in which they raise concerns that Scotland’s ancient woodland, Atlantic rainforest, country parks, remote glens, areas of outstanding beauty and farmland are all now being overrun by invasive non-native ecosystem-engineer conifer species.

The submission explains that such species already cover around one sixth of the country and that, where conifers are not being deliberately planted, they are planting themselves. The petitioners understand that Scotland added around 10,500 hectares of new invasive conifer-dominated plantations last year and, by 2024, aims to plant a further 18,000 hectares each year for felling.

The submission explains that, at the first part of the United Nations COP15 biodiversity conference in China, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services stated that invasive species and destructive land use are two of the five biggest threats to the natural world.

The petitioners explain that the UK law on escaped non-native trees is set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which states:

“any person who plants, or otherwise causes to grow, any plant in the wild at a place outwith its native range is guilty of an offence.”

The petitioners are concerned that no one appears to be upholding that law, with the forestry industry being exempt. The petitioners call for the act to change to reflect the growing scientific understanding of the impact of invasive ecosystem engineers, as well as the forestry industry’s inability to manage the risks that are associated with planting invasive conifers across Scotland.

I express disappointment that we have not had a response from the Scottish Government. However, I am happy to invite Jackie Baillie, who is with us this morning, to update us with any comments that she may wish to contribute.

I was worried that that might be the case.

No comment. I thank them very much for that. I wonder whether we would like to have the petitioners involved, too. As a courtesy, it might be nice to have them.

PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

I am delighted to welcome back Liam McArthur and to welcome Alasdair Allan, both online, to speak to the petition. Before I come to our guests, I will provide a little additional background.

We last considered the petition on 1 September 2021. At that meeting, the committee discussed an earlier submission by the Scottish Government, which explained that the requirements for the appointments to a public body board are set out in the public body’s founding legislation. The committee highlighted that there was

“nothing in the Scottish Government’s submission to suggest that it has any plans to amend founding legislation for public bodies on the basis that lifeline services to island communities require community representation on their boards”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 1 September 2021; c 19.]

The committee therefore agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it had any plans to amend founding legislation for such a purpose. As with one of the previous petitions, we have had no response as yet from the Scottish Government ahead of our consideration today. However, I am happy to bring in both of our parliamentary colleagues for further comment. I ask Alasdair Allan to comment first.

As no other member wishes to come in, on the basis of David Torrance’s suggestions and the contribution from Rhoda Grant, I think that we are proposing to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the success in Dundee and to ask when the pause is likely to be removed. We will also ask the Scottish Government whether it intends to provide dedicated funding to ensure that ultrasound scanning can be made available to more patients in Scotland and how it plans to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals.

I would also like us to take on board Rhoda Grant’s suggestion that we write to the two organisations that she mentioned. I am sorry, but I did not actually catch the acronyms, but they will have been noted by the clerks. She mentioned two bodies that she was keen for the committee to write to, so I would like to include them in our further submissions.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree with Mr Torrance’s recommendation that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders?

Members indicated agreement.

In closing the petition, I thank the petitioner, Carol Burns, and very much hope that she engages with the Scottish Sentencing Council on the development of the guidelines that is under way.

Is the committee content to proceed on the basis of Ruth Maguire’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1888, which was lodged by Joseph Allan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant full legal protection to hedgehogs and moles. We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 3 November 2021, when we agreed to write to the hogwatch Scotland project, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Mammal Society.

We have had responses from the hogwatch Scotland project, which is operated by the Conservation Volunteers in Scotland, and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. In its submission, the hogwatch Scotland project reiterates that

“Hedgehog numbers in Britain have fallen from an estimated 30 million in the 1960s to just 1.5 million in recent years”.

It notes with concern that

“the Scottish biodiversity list categorises hedgehogs in the ‘Watching Brief Only’ category. This means hedgehogs are considered of ‘less concern’ and only require monitoring”.

It considers that the declines that have already been shown by current estimates require a more proactive approach, and it believes that

“Increasing the level of protection afforded to hedgehogs in Scotland and raising awareness about their conservation could drive conservation efforts from the public, particularly in urban settings.”

In its submission, the Scottish Wildlife Trust explains that it is

“very concerned about the decline in hedgehog numbers, which is highlighted by the fact that it is currently considered vulnerable to extinction on the Red List for Scottish Mammals. We would like to see concerted action to protect these and other vulnerable species by directly addressing the causes of their decline”

and increasing legal protection. The trust’s view is that there does not seem to be evidence to suggest that moles have experienced a similar decline in numbers to that of hedgehogs. However, it believes that more needs to be done to mitigate the impact of human activity on all biodiversity. The trust believes that that is especially important if we are to achieve the Scottish Government’s ambition to address both the nature and climate crises.

We have been advised by the Scottish Government that it is awaiting the outcome of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee review, which is not due for publication until early spring. It will then require scrutiny before any policy actions can be taken, albeit that there is clearly widespread concern in relation to the issues that the petitioner has raised. I am minded to recommend that we close the petition and look forward to the consideration of the JNCC review. Are colleagues minded to support that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1889, which was lodged by Nikki Peachey, encourages the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide a tailored financial solution for self-employed individuals in the travel industry whose businesses have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic—and, indeed, who have been on the Scottish Parliament campus, lobbying MSPs directly. When we last considered the petition in November 2021, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and industry representatives.

A response has been received from ABTA—the Travel Association. It states in its submission that the summer of 2021 failed to deliver a meaningful restart for the travel sector. It recently conducted a survey on behalf of the save future travel coalition, and businesses reported that the value of new bookings that were taken across the summer and early autumn last year represented, on average, only 31 per cent of the value of new bookings that were taken over the same period in 2019, before the pandemic.

ABTA notes that self-employed travel agents operate a variety of business models and, as such, are able to access only part of the grants that have been made available. In relation to furlough, the submission explains that some staff have been required to issue refunds and manage booking requests on behalf of clients. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that uptake of furlough by travel agencies and tour operators to 30 April 2021 was only 49 per cent, compared with 70 per cent in hospitality.

ABTA believes that many of the grant funding schemes in Scotland have failed to recognise the impact of the unique restrictions that have been placed on travel. Many local authority-administered schemes focused on the physical constraints caused by Covid-19, such as the closure of premises or social distancing measures. The submission explains that schemes such as temporary closure grants were only applicable to retail travel agents when their premises were required to close and that online travel agents, tour operators and travel agent home workers were ineligible for that funding. Travel businesses without rateable premises were not eligible for the one-off travel agent fund payment that the Scottish Government launched in January 2021, or for the restart grant scheme.

Furthermore, ABTA advises that it is aware that many independent agents within its membership have had to remortgage or sell their homes in order to keep their businesses alive.

ABTA highlights support schemes that have been offered by the Northern Ireland Executive, such as the limited company director’s support scheme or LCDSS, which provided an initial one-off taxable grant of £3,500 to eligible company directors in January 2021, and the 2021 Northern Ireland travel agents coronavirus financial assistance scheme, which included a one-off single payment of £3,500 for self-employed travel agents who were working from home. That was clearly a different approach.

I invite Paul Sweeney to comment.