Seòmar agus comataidhean

Pregnancy can lead to abuse being introduced into what had been a relationship without abuse.

PE1862 is on introducing community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities. I am almost surprised to say that we do not have Rhoda Grant with us this morning as we consider the petition. If you are watching, Rhoda, I say good morning to you.

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

We considered the petition very recently, at our meeting on 26 October, when we took evidence from the Minister for Transport, Jenny Gilruth MSP, and Fran Pacitti, who is director of aviation, maritime, freight and canals at Transport Scotland. During the evidence session, the minister and director shared information on the progress that is being made to encourage islander representation on boards, such as being more proactive in how the roles are advertised and making it an essential criterion that applicants for the position of non-executive director have a good understanding and knowledge of the issues affecting island communities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions?

Thank you for your responses to that general opening question.

Thank you—that was very helpful. In just a moment, Alexander Stewart will pursue the matter of the scope of the review that you would like to see.

As the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, we are new to this particular case, but I understand that you lodged a petition in the previous session of Parliament. I want to understand what you feel, in your own mind, are the differences between your previous petition and this one.

Yes. Thank you.

Marie McNair would like to ask a question. Unfortunately, we do not have a video link, so it is likely to be an audio-only contribution.

I am not sure whether I heard you, Mr Stewart. Did you include Blood Cancer UK, Immunodeficiency UK and Kidney Research UK as organisations that we might write to? Are you content that the committee approaches them?

PE1812, on protecting Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors, was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, from whom we have previously heard, on behalf of the help trees help us campaign.

The petition called 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 before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—or COP26—in Glasgow in November 2021. Of course, that was the petition’s original aim but, even though we are now in the middle of COP27, the issue remains one of concern.

We last considered the petition on 4 May, when the committee indicated that it would like to visit some of the areas to explore the issues. As a result, on 21 September, we visited Pressmennan Wood in East Lothian, and I want to put on record our thanks to the Woodland Trust for hosting and looking after us that day.

At our last consideration of the petition, we also agreed to write to Scottish Forestry and all local authorities, seeking information on the operation and enforcement of tree preservation orders. We have now received responses from Scottish Forestry, 22 local authorities and the petitioners.

Throughout our consideration of the petition, we have heard that a number of issues are impacting on the effectiveness of current woodland strategies and policies and the protection of our ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors. We also heard evidence on possible areas for improvement, including prioritising the development of the inventory of ancient woodlands; strengthening the legislative framework and language in existing policies such as national planning framework 4; and taking steps to improve compliance and enforcement. We have also heard from the relevant minister in our consideration of those matters.

Having had a visit, and having heard from the petitioners, various representative organisations and the minister, I just wonder where, on the balance of all the evidence that we have received, members would be most comfortable going with regard to the petition.

I will let you respond in a moment, Dr Neal, but I should also say that a members’ bill is often the catalyst that leads to the Government adopting a proposal. It is difficult to quantify the success of members’ bill because, on quite a few occasions, the objective has been achieved because the bill has led to the Government understanding and adopting the issue rather than because the bill itself has passed into law.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. The first is PE1949, which was lodged by Alexander James Dickson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding dual mandate MSPs and to legislate to bring those rules in line with the Senedd and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2026.

The petitioner has reminded us that, since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, MSPs have been allowed to take their place at Holyrood, while retaining a role or having a dual mandate in other local or national levels of Government. He notes that members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not permitted to have a dual mandate and members of the Welsh Parliament have a grace period of eight days to resign if they also hold a seat as an MP. He also states that Welsh Parliament members who are peers would have to take a leave of absence from the House of Lords and that those who hold a role as a regional councillor can remain in post so long as the expected day of the next regional election is within 372 days.

As we do with all new petitions, the committee requested an initial view from the Scottish Government. In responding to the request, it stated:

“the Parliament is responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operation, including the terms for seeking its membership.”

Therefore, the issue is not a matter for the Scottish Government per se.

Are colleagues content for the committee to write to the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to inquire about the deliberative processes that led to the introduction of the legislation that prevents dual mandates in those legislatures, and to ask about any issues that they have encountered in the implementation of that legislation? Are members also content to write to the Electoral Reform Society to seek more information about the issues that have been raised by the petition?

Once we have considered those responses, we would be able to progress the petition to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament that is charged with responsibility for those issues, given that the Scottish Government has said that it is not.

As there are no other suggestions, are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.