Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1909, on removing the “gender-based crime” domestic abuse narrative and making it gender neutral and equal, was lodged by William Wright. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make domestic abuse policies, guidance, agendas and practices gender neutral; to introduce equal domestic abuse provision and funding for everyone in Scotland, regardless of any protected characteristic; and to ensure that all domestic abuse joint protocol guidance, policies and practice for Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Prosecutor Fiscal Service are gender neutral.

At our previous consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the ManKind Initiative, the Paul Lavelle Foundation and Men’s Aid Ireland. The Minister for Equalities and Older People has advised that the Scottish Government is engaging and consulting on a national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men and boys. She thanks the petitioner for his interest in this area of work, and notes

“the importance of developing this strategy, which will be complementary to the Equally Safe Strategy which addresses violence against women and girls.”

The ManKind Initiative says that a fully gender-informed approach should be taken to domestic abuse, and that framing it as a gender-based crime leads to unequal outcomes for male and LGBT+ victims.

Police Scotland states:

“There is no variance in the current training provided to officers on how to support victims of domestic abuse based on the victims’ specific gender.”

It outlines Abused Men in Scotland’s work on Police Scotland’s domestic abuse forum, which informs the police’s strategic direction in relation to domestic abuse. Police Scotland also reiterates that the definition of domestic abuse does not distinguish victims or perpetrators on the basis of sex or gender.

William Wright has provided us with further information about his experiences as a male victim of domestic abuse. He says that statistics on crimes committed against men contradict the view that men in Scotland have privilege that enables them to oppress others.

In view of everything that we have heard and the response from the Government and agencies that are now seeking to reach out and take the issue seriously, do colleagues have any reflections on how to proceed?

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes—I think that I saw some engagement from the gallery there, so I suspect that the petitioners will be able to assist us on one or two of those issues, if the clerks wish to liaise further with them.

We are interested in taking forward the issues that the petition raises, and we have identified a fairly comprehensive range of agencies and individuals from whom we will seek further evidence that we can consider in due course. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1970, which was lodged by Sharon Fairley on behalf of the Scottish Private Nurseries Association, is on the creation of an online account for parents to manage the 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare funding. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the funding model for the 1,140 hours of early years learning and childcare to allow parents to have direct control of childcare funding via an online account.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights:

“The Funding Follows the Child approach is intended to be ‘provider neutral’”,

which allows

“families ... to choose their preferred ELC setting”.

It notes:

“Submissions to the Education, Children and Young People Committee ... argued that some PVI providers’ funding from local authorities was not meeting the full cost of the place.”

The Scottish Government states in its submission that it consulted on the delivery of ELC and received

“some support for ELC accounts”,

but it notes that the limitations were a

“lack of certainty for private providers and local authorities; and risk of parents using funds for other things.”

The submission also notes that investment and time would be required to deliver a new system.

The National Day Nurseries Association has written to the committee and has stated its support for the action called for in the petition. It highlights discrepancies in funding between local authority ELC and other providers, and it argues that a childcare passport would provide parents with choice, flexibility and affordability. It notes that

“it is difficult for local authorities to be both funder and provider”.

Do colleagues have any comments to make or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with those proposals?

Members indicated agreement.

In making that suggestion, I should declare that I, too, am a supporter of Mr McArthur’s proposed bill in principle.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first builds on the visit to Parliament of Stanley the golden eagle, which we enjoyed a fortnight ago. Therefore, we are discussing petition PE1859, which is entitled, “Retain falconers rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland”. The petition was lodged by Barry Blyther, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament

“to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.”

The committee will recall that we heard directly from Barry Blyther at the meeting on 7 December. Once again, I thank Barry, Stanley and—I think—Roxanne for their contributions and assistance.

This morning, we are joined by Màiri McAllan MSP, who is the Minister for Environment and Land Reform. Welcome. We are also joined by Hugh Dignon, who is the head of the wildlife management unit at the Scottish Government, and Stan Whitaker, who is a wildlife manager for NatureScot. Good morning, and thank you all for being here. We have a lot to get through today so we are making an early start. Members would like to explore a number of questions. Do you want to say anything before we move to questions?

At a previous evidence session, the petitioner clarified that the petition relates to upland falconry, and that there are different practices and different types of falconry. Upland falconry is what is relevant to the committee’s consideration of the petition. What is your understanding of upland falconry, and in what way do you understand it to differ from other falconry practices?

You talked about a distinction that you said we cannot make. The petitioners’ argument is that there are natural behavioural characteristics. There is clearly a difference in behaviour between someone who shoots hares with a gun and a bird that is displaying the natural characteristics that it has exhibited here in Scotland for an estimated 5,000 years, but that have now been made illegal.