Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that, Mr Torrance. Do colleagues support that?

Members indicated agreement.

—that has fallen to you this morning, Mr Torrance. I fear that you are going to suggest that we close the petition.

Our next petition, PE1934, which was lodged by Craig Schooler on behalf of Greenfield’s high school rights and equalities committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. The resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help them to create a safer society for women.

We last considered the petition on 22 February, when we agreed to write to COSLA, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. COSLA has provided information on the mentors in violence prevention—MVP—programme, noting that 31 local authorities are at the delivery stage, with the final local authority having planned to undertake professional learning earlier this year. Estimates from the national MVP team indicate that more than 6,000 sessions have been delivered, reaching more than 47,800 younger learners.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has indicated that the gender-based violence in schools working group is expected to publish its national framework, which will help schools to tackle sexual harassment and gender-based violence. Additionally, the gender equality task force in education and learning is establishing what educational resources already exist that cover gender inequality.

Rape Crisis Scotland has highlighted on-going work to address gender-based violence, including its sexual violence prevention workshops in schools. The submission acknowledges the issues that the petitioner raises, and highlights that, although the Government cannot prescribe specific measures in the curriculum, there is a duty to ensure that educational outcomes are met and that the required systems and resources are in place to assure that.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

The objective of our next petition, PE1939, is to amend the date of birth to allow wider accessibility to the human papillomavirus vaccination programme for boys. The petition, which was lodged by Suzanne Thornton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to health equality for young males born between 1 September 1997 and 1 September 2006 by allowing them to access HPV vaccination via the national health service.

The committee last considered the petition on 8 March, when we agreed to seek further clarification from the Scottish Government and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is often referred to as the JCVI.

The Scottish Government response notes that a one-dose schedule for the HPV vaccination programme was introduced at the beginning of this year, and that it intends to increase the number of people completing their vaccination schedule. The response also highlights that the policy for teenage immunisation programmes in Scotland is defined by academic year rather than by date of birth, the result of which is that any boy who was in secondary 1 for the 2019-20 academic year will be offered the HPV vaccination and will remain eligible for it up to his 25th birthday.

The JCVI response provides clarification on the advice that is set out in the green book guidance on “Immunisation against infectious disease”, with HPV vaccination being routinely recommended for all boys and girls of 11 to 14 years of age, with the first and now single dose being offered to young people in S1 in Scotland. It is also noted that it is up to each of the devolved nations to decide how to operationalise the JCVI advice as given.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I hope that the petitioner will also be in a position to submit their views to the consultation on any legislation.

Given that there will be a legislative consultation on the issue, that is probably a sensible suggestion. Are members minded to approve it?

Members indicated agreement

I thank Rebecca Smith for lodging the petition. She raised an important issue, but the Scottish Government’s position is clear and, therefore, there is nothing further that the committee can usefully do to take forward the petition’s aims.

In view of the fact that, as part of its pre-budget scrutiny, one of our sister committees in Parliament is taking forward the issues that are contained in the petition, we will close it. However, I thank the petitioner very much for drawing the issue to the attention of this committee and the Parliament.

That concludes our consideration of new petitions. The committee will next meet on 22 November.

In the first instance, are colleagues content for us to proceed on those lines?

I think that Mr Ewing would like to make a further suggestion.

The first reason why a debate would be useful is the circumstances whereby the ban came into force, which was through a stage 3 amendment on which the petitioner and his fellow falconers had no opportunity whatsoever to be heard. In fact, it seems that nobody thought of them at all, and they did not have the opportunity to state their case. The whole point of the Scottish Parliament is that everybody should be able to state their case in the legislative process at the first stage. Stage 3 is not supposed to be used for the purposes of introducing brand-new material, particularly not legal bans that can result in criminal convictions. Therefore, of itself, that point of principle deserves to be highlighted in Parliament.

However, turning briefly to the arguments on the substance, it seems to me that the effect on hares of allowing the continuance of falconry would be de minimis. NatureScot has admitted that the number of hares that would be affected is minuscule and completely irrelevant to the question of the size of the population. Moreover, I understand from the petitioner, who has kindly given us a great deal of his wisdom and experience, as others have, that it is only certain types of birds of prey—eagles and hawks, I think—that will go for hares. Others will not and cannot. However, eagles and hawks need to prey on hares. Alternative prey do not work, so that suggestion, which has been made by some, is completely irrelevant.

The last thing that I will say—this is really quite sad—is that the petitioner has highlighted that the eagle that he has is now self-harming, because it cannot behave naturally. It is not allowed to, and the petitioner does not want to break the law, as a law-abiding citizen. As a result, that bird is suffering—because of something that happened in Parliament on which his owner and his owner’s peers had no opportunity even to state their case. The really disappointing thing in this is that the Scottish Government has not fessed up to that and said that a mistake was made. It has shrugged off all responsibility.

That is perhaps a bit of a rehearsal for the debate, convener, but it is heartfelt nonetheless and I hope that members might feel that a debate is needed. It would not need to be an extended debate—it would not need to be three hours long—but it would allow the matter to be ventilated. I think that there would be considerable interest among colleagues, because I recall from the debate that there was some disquiet among some of the older hands, if I may say so, that the procedure that was followed for stage 3 of that bill was not appropriate.

It seems a most unfortunate role—