Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1889, which was lodged by Nikki Peachey, encourages the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide a tailored financial solution for self-employed individuals in the travel industry whose businesses have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic—and, indeed, who have been on the Scottish Parliament campus, lobbying MSPs directly. When we last considered the petition in November 2021, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and industry representatives.

A response has been received from ABTA—the Travel Association. It states in its submission that the summer of 2021 failed to deliver a meaningful restart for the travel sector. It recently conducted a survey on behalf of the save future travel coalition, and businesses reported that the value of new bookings that were taken across the summer and early autumn last year represented, on average, only 31 per cent of the value of new bookings that were taken over the same period in 2019, before the pandemic.

ABTA notes that self-employed travel agents operate a variety of business models and, as such, are able to access only part of the grants that have been made available. In relation to furlough, the submission explains that some staff have been required to issue refunds and manage booking requests on behalf of clients. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that uptake of furlough by travel agencies and tour operators to 30 April 2021 was only 49 per cent, compared with 70 per cent in hospitality.

ABTA believes that many of the grant funding schemes in Scotland have failed to recognise the impact of the unique restrictions that have been placed on travel. Many local authority-administered schemes focused on the physical constraints caused by Covid-19, such as the closure of premises or social distancing measures. The submission explains that schemes such as temporary closure grants were only applicable to retail travel agents when their premises were required to close and that online travel agents, tour operators and travel agent home workers were ineligible for that funding. Travel businesses without rateable premises were not eligible for the one-off travel agent fund payment that the Scottish Government launched in January 2021, or for the restart grant scheme.

Furthermore, ABTA advises that it is aware that many independent agents within its membership have had to remortgage or sell their homes in order to keep their businesses alive.

ABTA highlights support schemes that have been offered by the Northern Ireland Executive, such as the limited company director’s support scheme or LCDSS, which provided an initial one-off taxable grant of £3,500 to eligible company directors in January 2021, and the 2021 Northern Ireland travel agents coronavirus financial assistance scheme, which included a one-off single payment of £3,500 for self-employed travel agents who were working from home. That was clearly a different approach.

I invite Paul Sweeney to comment.

Thank you, Mr Sweeney. That was quite comprehensive.

As no other colleague wishes to comment, we will keep the petition open and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy on the basis that Mr Sweeney has suggested. In particular, we will draw to her attention the package of support measures that were implemented in Northern Ireland, which perhaps seemed to have responded more directly to the aims of the petitioner. Do colleagues agree with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Choudhury, you raised a number of important issues, and I thank you again for contributing to our consideration of your constituent’s petition this morning.

We turn to questions from committee members, and the first is from David Torrance.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. I say to anybody who is tuning in to see their petition being considered for the first time that we seek the views of the Scottish Government on all new petitions before we formally consider them. The responses that we receive in advance form the notes that members get in their papers ahead of consideration of the petitions at the committee.

The first new petition, PE1909, which was lodged by William Wright, calls for the removal of the so-called gender-based domestic abuse narrative and for it to be made gender neutral and equal. 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 Procurator Fiscal Service are gender neutral.

In her submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government outlines a number of key statistics as evidence that domestic abuse is predominantly perpetrated by men against women. For example, women are nearly three times more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner, and 95 per cent of charges that were reported by the police to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2020-21 involved a male alleged perpetrator. However, it is acknowledged that the statistics do not mean that

“men and boys cannot be the victims of domestic abuse”.

The cabinet secretary’s submission points out that the provisions in criminal law that are used to prosecute domestic abuse are gender neutral and apply equally to all perpetrators. The submission also highlights several funded services for male victims and notes that the 2021-22 programme for government included a commitment to establishing a national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men and boys.

The petitioner suggests that the Scottish Government’s equally safe work, which describes women and girls as being higher risk, as well as the Police Scotland and COPFS guidance on domestic abuse, risk creating a bias against violence against men and boys.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

It is a difficult situation. I understand the underpinning motivations of those who have lodged the petition, and I sense that they want the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee to keep the issue alive in the mind of Parliament, notwithstanding the intractable issues that sit around it. The Scottish Government indicated that there would be a substantial A83 project update in early course. I note Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to find out when that update might be and what is said in relation to that, and to keep the petition open meanwhile.

We cannot keep the petition open for a further six years in the way that the previous committee did with the earlier petition, because I am not sure what that would achieve. However, we are in a new parliamentary session and it would useful for us to at least see what the position is and whether we can shed any further light on the situation. I sympathise with Mr Stewart’s view that a public inquiry may not ultimately be a suitable way forward.

The suggestion of a public inquiry is the principal difference between the petition and, as David Torrance mentioned, the previous petition on which the committee heard extensive evidence over a number of years. Notwithstanding Mr Torrance’s recommendation, I am minded to hold the petition open while we clarify when Transport Scotland will give its strategic update and hear what it has to say.

I indicate to the petitioners, who might be watching, that, on the basis of the submissions that we have heard and the engagement that is already in place, I do not know whether the committee is altogether persuaded by the public inquiry route.

Does that approach have the support of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

I associate myself with those remarks.

A course of action has been recommended to the committee. Are members content with Ruth Maguire’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that comprehensive contribution. As no other member wishes to come in, I think that we want to thank Wendy Dunsmore for her petition, which we are going to keep open. Mr Sweeney identified a series of stakeholders from whom we will seek views on the issues that are raised in the petition. Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Our penultimate new petition is PE1914, lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms in secondary schools. The petitioner sets out several reasons why he believes that that should happen, including the fact that uniforms are uncomfortable and costly and that they interfere with students’ ability to express their individuality.

The Scottish Government’s submission makes it clear that

“there is no legislative requirement in place in Scotland which legally requires the wearing of school uniform”,

and that, instead, school uniform policy is a matter for local authorities and individual schools. The Scottish Government states that it

“would not support a proposal to ban school uniforms at any school within Scotland.”

The submission sets out a number of perceived advantages to wearing school uniform, which include reducing competition between pupils in respect of expensive clothing brands; reducing bullying; creating a positive image of a school in a local community; and improving school security by allowing staff to easily identify anyone who does not belong to the school.

The Scottish Government acknowledges the petitioner’s concerns about buying school uniforms and recognises that

“this can be one of the most significant ... costs for families”

and

“can be a source of anxiety for low income families.”

The submission explains that the Scottish Government recently increased the amounts that are paid for school clothing grants.

The submission also states that the Scottish Government has

“committed to introducing statutory guidance on uniforms for schools and local authorities during the lifetime of this parliamentary session”,

which will cover the affordability of school uniforms, the consideration of equalities issues when deciding school uniform policies and considerations for physical education classes. The Scottish Government concludes by highlighting a public consultation on proposed school uniform guidance, which is due to be launched in the new year.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I want to be clear. Are you recommending that we close the petition? The issues are sufficiently important that we would very much encourage the petitioner, Katrina Clark, to contribute to that inquiry, which will no doubt encompass related issues when it is convened in due course. Is that correct?

Our second continued petition is PE1855, which is on pardoning and memorialising those convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1563. The petition has been lodged by Claire Mitchell QC, and at this point I must, on behalf of the committee, apologise to her. There was an oversight, in that appropriate notice was not given about the petition coming back to the committee this morning, and the opportunity to submit further evidence to us was therefore lost. I think that, later in the proceedings, we will be seeking to keep the petition open, and we therefore look forward to receiving that submission.

PE1855 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise those people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the 1563 act. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 1 September 2021, when we decided to seek further information from the Scottish Government and the petitioner on whether the royal prerogative of mercy could be used to achieve a pardon. The petitioner seeks three things—a pardon, an apology and a national memorial for those convicted under the 1563 act—and further detail on all of that has been provided to colleagues in their papers.

In relation to the pardon, the petitioner suggests that the royal prerogative of mercy is not a suitable vehicle for achieving the petition’s aim, stating that

“we are not looking for a pardon in individual cases by the Queen”

as

“The prosecutions were carried out by the Scottish State.”

The petitioner also states that an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to pardon individual people would not be competent as there would be

“no-one that could be considered to have a ‘legitimate interest’ in terms of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995”,

given the fact that centuries have passed since these events happened.

Instead, the petitioner suggests there is a need for the Scottish Government

“to legislate to provide a pardon for all those convicted.”

The petitioner draws parallels with the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Act 2018, which provided

“a collective and posthumous pardon.”

The petitioner suggests that the committee should ask the Scottish Government

“to provide a public apology to those convicted of witchcraft, making it clear that those convictions ought not to have happened and that these people were not witches.”

In its submission of 4 November 2021, the Scottish Government accepts that

“while the SCCRC can consider posthumous applications made on behalf of a convicted person ... by someone who would have standing to bring an appeal on their behalf, in practice, this will almost certainly not be possible”.

In terms of the royal prerogative of mercy, the Scottish Government advises that

“the First Minister will not generally consider recommending to Her Majesty a free pardon under the RPM process until the person’s appeal against their conviction has been dismissed, or leave to appeal has been refused, and any application to the SCCRC seeking to have the case referred to the Appeal Court has been rejected.”

In a further submission from the petitioner dated 5 December 2021, she suggests that the committee might wish to consider a committee bill on this topic. Since then, we have received a submission from Natalie Don MSP, who has indicated that she intends to bring forward a member’s bill to allow for a pardon to take place. However, she notes that the two other asks of the petition—that is, to seek a public apology and to create a national monument—will not fall within the scope of her bill.

I hope that my microphone has been working for the past several minutes, otherwise there is a lot that I will have to repeat. On the assumption that it has been, I ask members whether they have any comments with regard to the action that might be taken.