Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I welcome everybody to the fifth meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Before we turn to consideration of the petitions that are before us, I note that today is the second anniversary of the first Covid-19 lockdown and is a national day of reflection.

As the Presiding Officer has said, the global pandemic has taken so much from so many. Parliament stands shoulder to shoulder with all those who have suffered, those who are grieving for loved ones, and those whose lives have been changed forever. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen communities respond with care and understanding, which should give us all hope for the future.

Accordingly, we will pause later this morning, at 12 noon, to join in with the minute’s silence. I warn members about that, as we could be at any point in our proceedings, depending on the progress that we have made.

Item 1 is consideration of continued petitions. Petition PE1812, which is on protecting Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors, was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us. We heard from the petitioners in an evidence session a fortnight ago.

The petition 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 before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties. Obviously, the petition was lodged before COP26.

When we considered the petition on 9 March, we took evidence from the petitioners and from a range of interested organisations. Today, we will take evidence from Màiri McAllan, who is the Minister for Environment and Land Reform. Welcome, minister. It is nice to have you with us. The minister is joined by Doug Howieson, who is interim head of operational delivery at Scottish Forestry. He has an honorary season ticket to the committee, having participated in the round-table discussion on the petition a fortnight ago.

Jackie Baillie was sadly unable to join us a fortnight ago, but she is joining us remotely today. I will invite her to comment when we have heard what our witnesses have to say.

We will go straight to questions. The round-table session was fascinating, lots of themes emerged from it, and there was a lot of commonality. There were some areas that the committee had not considered quite so much in our earlier review, and the petitioners submitted a comprehensive portfolio of photographs that particularly illustrated the effect of invasive species in our native woodland.

In the most recent progress report on “Scotland’s Biodiversity—a Route Map to 2020”, the targets for native woodland were identified as areas in which “insufficient progress” has been made. People are wondering what the Scottish Government is doing to enhance efforts in that area.

PE1889, which was lodged by Nikki Peachey, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide tailored financial support to self-employed individuals working in the travel industry whose businesses have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

We have received a submission from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, who explains that on 10 February the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise met the Scottish Passenger Agents Association and the Association of British Travel Agents to hear directly the challenges that the outbound travel sector faces. The cabinet secretary also confirms that she has written to the UK Minister for Business and Industry on the issues that were raised in the petition but has not received a response.

In her submission, the cabinet secretary sets out details of support packages that the Scottish Government has made available to those in the travel sector who are most affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The support includes further funding for tourism businesses that have been impacted most by the omicron public health advice and a top-up scheme to provide additional funding to Scotland inbound tour operators.

We are advised that officials are working with stakeholders to set up a sector-specific scheme to target funds to those who are most impacted, including self-employed individuals who do not have premises. The cabinet secretary’s submission indicates that details of eligibility and of how and when to apply will be published on the Scottish Government website and on the Find Business Support website as soon as they are available.

In the light of that, do members have any options to consider?

I suggest that we schedule that for after the summer recess, by which time the Government ought to have had an opportunity to consider what the reporting information process might look like and should be able to give us some indication as to when it will be in place and operational. That timescale would also allow us to see what progress has been made in relation to some of the other deadlines that are mentioned in the various submissions that we received. Thank you.

I am sorry. Because Mr Sweeney is online, I did not catch him trying to comment on PE1893, on introducing legislation to protect Scotland’s war memorials. Mr Sweeney, do you want to add anything? I am happy to revisit our decision in light of anything that you say.

Yes, some of those themes will emerge. You talked about when the protections operate, and one of the petitioners’ questions was about whether they work and are applied. They see the forthcoming natural environment bill and the Scottish biodiversity strategy as opportunities for further protection through legislative routes. The question is whether that is envisaged at all and whether in preparing for those initiatives, as you have said, regulations could be improved if things are applied and work well in the current framework. Is there an evidence trail to show that what is there is doing the job that it is meant to do, and if not, is the Government contemplating something more?

I thank the minister and Mr Howieson for their time this morning. It has been an incredibly helpful discussion.

Do members agree that we will consider at a subsequent meeting the evidence that we have heard this morning?

Members indicated agreement.

Obviously, personal experience has been the basis of your understanding of these issues and the way in which you have sought to pursue public redress and public action to try to help others, potentially, and to have the issue tackled directly at source.

It has been very brave of you to join us this morning. I am very grateful to you both. I know that it was a long journey to get here and it will probably be a long journey back.

We take the petition seriously and I know that members will want to consider in further detail the evidence that we have heard. As you will be aware, we have gone back to the Scottish Government on the inquiry and, having heard your evidence this morning, we will consider the points afresh.

I thank you very much for the time that you have taken and for your courage in speaking with us today.

I suspend the meeting.

I very much take your point about calls for specific things to be taught. What is important is that what is taught is thought to be useful by those at whom it is ultimately aimed, and I think that that is where part of the issue lies. At the moment, the young people at whom what is taught in this area is aimed do not think that that is the case.

I have just had an answer to my earlier question: there are 87,000 people living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic, so if the central belt represents 30 per cent of them, that would be 26,100 people across a significant number of local authorities.

We have a recommendation before us to close the petition. Are we content to proceed on the basis of the recommendation made by Ruth Maguire and supported by David Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

The committee thanks Mr Capon for his petition. Given the Government’s commitment to Gaelic education we are unable to take the petition forward and will close it.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting is on 20 April, after the Easter recess.

We have a couple of new petitions to consider. PE1918, by Kate Freedman, is a petition to improve sex education in schools. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform sex education by updating guidance and implementing clear teaching rules, focusing on topics such as menstruation and related illnesses; puberty; LGBT sex, including asexuality; fertility; pornography and any other aspects that are deemed useful.

The petitioner conducted a survey of 150 students in their school and found that most people rated their period education at one to three out of 10. The petitioner references a general lack of knowledge by many young people surrounding sex and shares their own experience as a student. They felt that school sex education was lacking and subsequently sought more detailed information on YouTube.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition outlines the existing resources for relationships, sexual health and parenthood learning. Those resources are hosted on a central website, which was developed and published by a collaborative partnership of health boards and local authorities. The resources include learning activities and information on the topics raised by the petitioner.

The Scottish Government states that the curriculum is not mandatory and that it is up to teachers to decide which resources they deliver. It also indicates that it is committed to updating the current RSHP teaching guidance and to issuing that for public consultation in the new year.

The SPICe briefing provides background information on the current statutory guidance and indicates that the Scottish Government has been reviewing that over recent years. At the time of writing, neither the new guidance, nor the draft guidance, had been published.

It is some years since I was at school. No information was offered to us. That is not contemporary. I have drawn the petition to the attention of a number of younger people, who have all been in school more recently and should have benefited from the current information and practice. They universally said that it was absolutely rubbish. That very much supports the petitioner’s view of the quality of the education, although the young people were not terribly sure that they would have wanted it to be better either, so that is slightly at odds.

I think we would want to take further action to clarify the submissions that we have received. Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments?