Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2021 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I have received apologies from our deputy convener, David Torrance, who is unwell. If you are watching, David, we wish you a speedy recovery, because we need you back. However, I am delighted to welcome in his place Marie McNair. As this is her first meeting as substitute, I have to ask whether she has any relevant interests to declare.

Does that meet with colleagues’ approval?

Members indicated agreement.

That is reasonable. We could ask that question and raise the issue of the circumstances in which those falconers might be likely to face prosecution. It would be reasonable to try to understand that issue. It is not the principle that is the issue but the practice of asking the bird to differentiate. I do not know whether the response would be that the falconer should be able to differentiate, but a bird of prey in the air sighting prey on the ground is not necessarily under the control of the falconer—it is hunting.

We will invite the petitioner to give evidence. I wonder whether there is any information that we might obtain from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales on how it has determined the scope of its inquiry and is going about exercising its powers, as well as what additional complications have arisen for it in the light of that. We could notify the Scottish Government that we are inviting the petitioner to give evidence and let it know when that takes place, so that it is aware, and we could indicate that we might be minded to invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence subsequent to the petitioner.

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the petitioners to thank them for the petition, to detail the actions that have been outlined and to indicate that we will be closing the petition.

PE1859, which has been lodged by Barry Blyther, is about retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

This is another petition that we previously considered at our meeting on 1 September. Members might wish to note that we have received 18 submissions in connection with this petition, with two additional late submissions being shared with the committee only yesterday.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing accompanying the petition explains that, following the passage of the 2020 act, mountain hares are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended. That means that it is illegal to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or otherwise take a mountain hare at any time of year, apart from under specific circumstances where a licence can be obtained. That means that mountain hares can no longer be hunted in the course of falconry practices such as game hawking, where birds of prey are flown to hunt small mammals or other birds, unless it is for a licensable purpose such as forestry.

The petitioner references the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals guidance, and states that there is a legal obligation to allow freedoms to trained captive-bred birds of prey, including the freedom to express the natural behaviours of the species. The petitioner believes that the current legislation is taking that freedom away.

That is the area about which the committee is uncertain. How does one demonstrate the freedom to express natural behaviour? The Scottish Government states in its latest submission that it does not believe that the current licensing scheme for the control of mountain hares impacts

“on the ability of falconers to enable their birds to exhibit normal behaviour patterns”

because they can still be used to

“take mountain hares for other purposes where carried out under a licence granted by NatureScot”—

for example, preventing serious timber damage or natural habitat conservation—and legally hunt other species such as grouse and rabbits. The petitioner estimates the number of mountain hares taken through falconry each year at 1,000 and notes that that is less than 4 per cent of the average quoted numbers previously accounted for by shooting.

Other submissions that we received point out that birds of prey will not differentiate between species such as mountain hare and rabbits, and that falconers risk prosecution if their bird takes mountain hare. That is one of the questions that I cannot satisfactorily answer. How is a bird of prey to understand the difference between a mountain hare and a rabbit? This seems circular to me; where do members think we should go next? Does anyone wish to offer a view?

The next petition, PE1863, which was lodged by Michael Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide mandatory annual cancer blood tests to people from the age of 55. When the petition was previously considered on 1 September, we agreed that we would write to various stakeholders to ask for their view on the petition. Those stakeholders included the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which is the independent scientific advisory body that advises ministers on matters of population screening, including any proposal to consider a single blood test to detect cancers. The UK National Screening Committee’s submission notes that it

“has not looked at the evidence to screen for cancers using a single blood test.”

However, its call for topics to consider runs from September to December each year.

Cancer Research UK notes that there are currently no blood tests that can

“reliably detect the early signs of cancer in people without symptoms”,

and it suggests that a “lot more research” would be required before such a test could be used in cancer screening. Cancer Research UK also provides information about a large screening trial on a single blood test, which it believes will be “crucial” in answering whether such a test can find cancer, whether it can do so at an earlier stage and whether it can avoid causing undue levels of harm. Cancer Research UK concludes:

“Regrettably we cannot endorse this petition, but we hope that it will not be too much longer before a general cancer blood test suitable for use in cancer screening becomes available.”

It looks as though the petitioner’s aims might be feasible at a later date, but we cannot find any advisory body that wishes to pursue the matter at the moment. On the basis that there is no such test at this time, I am minded to suggest to colleagues that we close the petition under rule 15.7. In doing so, we could say to the petitioner that there is an expectation and a hope that such a test might be possible in the not-too-distant future. We could also write to those in the national health service who are running the Galleri trial, to see what information they have for us to consider.

The final continued petition is PE1875, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the academic years 2019-20 and 2020-2021.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 September 2021, when we decided to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether the remit of the public inquiry into Covid-19 will include consideration of the SQA’s actions. The Scottish Government has now responded. It states that there was public engagement earlier this year on a draft aims and principles paper for the inquiry. That will help to inform the terms of reference for the inquiry, which will be agreed between ministers and the inquiry’s chair, once they have been appointed. The Scottish Government concludes by saying that

“decisions about the scope of this Scottish public inquiry are yet to be taken”

and that

“this includes matters raised in this petition.”

It therefore makes sense to leave the petition open until we have some clarification of whether the inquiry will take into account SQA review as part of its work. We will keep it open on that basis.

Members indicated agreement.

It is that aspect of the petition that I think we would seek to explore, given that the legal position with regard to the procurator fiscal having to seek permissions and so on is not likely to proceed.

I would like to write to those organisations on the basis that it appears that the anomaly exists. We would be interested in their confirming that that is the case and what they see as the potential risk to justice arising from that. We could add the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Law Commission to the list of organisations that we will write to.

Are there any other comments?