Chamber and committees

Our final petition is PE2140, lodged by James Bruce. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a new parking badge to assist women to be able to get in and out their cars—I do not suppose that the parking badge would do that in itself—when they are pregnant and in the initial months after their pregnancy.

The petition’s background highlights that pregnant women often face difficulty getting in and out of their car when the vehicle next to them has parked too close. The SPICe briefing provides us with information on the blue badge scheme, which supports disabled people to access parking bays that are situated closer to where they want to go. Members will likely be aware that the blue scheme applies to on-street parking and does not generally apply in off-street car parks, such as supermarket car parks. The briefing also includes information about the use of parent-and-child parking bays by pregnant women, and insurance companies and organisations such as Mumsnet and Money Saving Expert have said that if you are heavily pregnant and need to park in a parent and child space then you should do so.

In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland states that the blue badge scheme is designed to allow disabled people who experience severe barriers in their mobility to park closer to their destination, and the eligibility criteria is based on functional mobility rather than diagnosed medical conditions. While pregnancy and postpartum recovery would not automatically qualify under the legislation, individuals may still apply if significant long-term complications arise. The Transport Scotland response goes on to say that there are no plans to create separate concessionary badges or widen the blue badge scheme’s automatic eligibility criteria, and decisions to offer alternative parking concessions for off-street car parks are the relevant authority or landowner’s responsibility.

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

I notice that we have been joined by Paul Sweeney and Jackie Baillie. In order to facilitate what I am sure is a busy morning for them, I will reorder the petitions that we will be considering today.

PE1976 is on backdating council tax discounts for people with dementia to the date of general practitioner certification. The petition, which was lodged by Derek James Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date when a person was certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.

We previously considered the petition on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Scottish Government states that removing the requirement for a person to be entitled to a qualifying benefit in order to be disregarded from council tax would require changes to legislation. The Scottish Government was due to explore the issue further in partnership with local government at what was then to be the next meeting of the joint working group on council tax reform at the end of summer 2024.

I think that we were quite impressed by the petition when we first heard about it, as it raises legitimate issues, and I do not think that we have had an update on the outcome of that conference in 2024. Do colleagues have any suggestions for how we might proceed?

PE2021, which was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals, as contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

We previously considered the petition on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Government states that it

“does not consider there is a need to clarify the definition of protected animals in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and associated guidance.”

It remains the Government’s view that the sheep on St Kilda are

“protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, in the same way as any unowned and unmanaged population of wild deer.”

We had requested a copy of the June 2009 communication between the Scottish Government and the National Trust for Scotland, but the Government has been unable to locate that document, which was likely to have been deleted from its system in 2019, in line with its retention and disposal policy.

We have received two submissions from the petitioners, the first of which comments on submissions from the National Trust for Scotland and the Scottish Government and refers back to the passage of the 2006 act and the provision of detailed guidance to explain exactly which animals are protected under the legislation.

The petitioners make comparisons with similar legislation in England and Wales. There, the United Kingdom chief veterinary officer’s interpretation of animals

“of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Islands”

is such that Soay sheep found in Lundy, an island off the north coast of Devon, are considered to be feral sheep. That means that the sheep are protected under the equivalent legislation in England and Wales and have been subject to humane culling to control the population.

The petitioners’ second submission provides information on the various freedom of information requests that they have made. The responses have revealed that UNESCO has raised concerns that mismanagement of the sheep population on St Kilda could be adversely affecting the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site, which is recognised for its natural and cultural significance.

I would like to hear colleagues’ thoughts on how we might proceed. We can either have another go at this or take the view that we have run out of steam.

The Scottish Government is quite clear about what it intends to do, even though it appears that more is being done elsewhere. Given the Government’s clear view, I am not sure that there is more that the committee can do. Notwithstanding the importance of the issues that the petition has raised, are we of the view that there is nothing more that the committee can do, given the Government’s response?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioners for their work on the issue. The matter could well be the subject of a future petition, but, unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s view limits the committee’s manoeuvrability to come up with further suggestions for action.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first is quite a long-standing petition—PE1859, on retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland. Barry Blyther, who is the progenitor of the petition, is with us in the public gallery, as he has been, I think, on each and every occasion that we have had an opportunity to consider the petition. Good morning, and welcome back. The petition 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.

We previously considered the petition in November 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Land Reform, Police Scotland and NatureScot. We have also agreed to seek a parliamentary debate on the issues that are raised in the petition. We are aware of the pressure on debate slots, but we continue to seek that debate. In addition, in next week’s meeting of the Conveners Group, our six-monthly meeting with the First Minister, I might well have the opportunity to raise the matter directly with the First Minister.

In our letter, we recommended that the Scottish Government produce guidance to clarify how falconers can ensure that they act in accordance with the legislation. We recommended that the guidance should clarify how falconers can participate in licensed activities, the areas in which there is not a high density of mountain hare and what action falconers should take if their bird accidentally takes a mountain hare. I am pleased to say that the then Minister for Energy and Environment accepted that recommendation. The Government’s response to the committee states:

“the Scottish Government will seek to engage with relevant stakeholders to produce the guidance recommended.”

NatureScot’s response to the committee states that it will support the guidance for falconers by providing

“small scale maps indicating upland areas of Scotland with ... no known populations of mountain hares ... sparse populations ... and ... higher population densities”.

To build on the available information on the density of mountain hare populations, NatureScot will ensure that falconers’ reports of mountain hares are recorded.

The guidance for falconers will encourage them to take part in the voluntary mountain hare survey, to help to fill the knowledge gaps about the distribution and numbers of mountain hares.

Police Scotland’s written submission provides an overview of how incidents of mountain hare being taken by a bird of prey would be recorded. The response notes that each incident has to be judged entirely on its own merit in terms of identifying or disproving criminality. The submission also responds to our query about how Police Scotland shares information about such incidents with NatureScot. It states that Police Scotland and NatureScot have well-established lines of communication for sharing various aspects of wildlife and environmental information. Those include pre-arranged recurring meetings and more spontaneous information-sharing meetings.

The petitioner’s written submission highlights a stage 2 amendment to the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, which created an exemption to allow falconers to take red grouse without requiring a licence. The amendment was lodged by the Scottish Government following feedback from stakeholders. The petitioner’s submission points out that part of the rationale for the amendment was that the number of grouse taken by falconers is very small. The submission states that the amendment protecting mountain hares was designed to prevent large-scale culls by shooting. The petitioner believes that falconry is a bycatch that should be exempted, because, as with grouse, the number of hares taken by falconry will represent a tiny fraction of those that were historically taken by shooting. Had the stage 3 amendment been tabled at an appropriate time, there would have been a much more detailed examination of the matter at stage 3, before the bill was passed, with all the consequential actions.

The committee can do a number of things. Given that the Government has said that it accepts the recommendation in relation to guidance, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

I note that Stanley’s female counterpart is 24, so she is nearly as old as the Parliament. Let us see whether we can revive—what was it that you called it, Mr Ewing?—avian amour for Stanley.

PE2028, which was lodged by Pinar Aksu, on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network, and Doaa Abuamer, on behalf of the VOICES network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.

We are joined, as we have been in the past, by our colleague Paul Sweeney, who continues to take a keen interest in the issue. Good morning, Mr Sweeney.

We previously considered the petition on 15 May, when we agreed to write to Transport Scotland. In June 2024, we received a response from Transport Scotland indicating that work was on-going to establish the most appropriate way to deliver free bus travel for people seeking asylum in Scotland. At that stage, Transport Scotland told us that it was using the £2 million budget allocation to develop a national pilot scheme to provide free bus travel for people seeking asylum who were not already covered by existing concessionary travel schemes. It was noted that the funding was allocated for a single year only.

Members will likely be aware that, since Transport Scotland’s response was received, plans to extend free bus travel to people seeking asylum—which was secured in a previous Conveners Group meeting, when the First Minister at the time, Humza Yousaf, agreed to look at the matter and subsequently agreed to the policy—were initially scrapped as part of the Scottish Government’s plans to cut public spending. However, the plans have since been revived, with funding for the scheme included in the 2025-26 budget, which was recently approved by the Parliament.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners, which calls on the committee to seek further information from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government on next steps and a timeframe for taking forward the commitment to providing free bus travel for people seeking asylum in Scotland.

Given that the aims of the petition have been secured, the committee will need to consider whether there is more that we can do. However, before we have that discussion, I invite Paul Sweeney to offer his thoughts.

It definitely is a consideration. Some of our communities are quite disparate, and the planning process seems potentially a bit ham-fisted in some instances, because representation cannot possibly be localised in that way by the time that a majority is taken into account.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?