³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I think that it does. However, as I said, the key ask was about using the Scottish statutory instruments that recently extended the concessionary travel scheme for bus travel to young people to extend free bus travel to all people who are subject to immigration control under NRPF.

One of the key issues that pertains to Ukrainians, which was raised by the previous panel, was that those who are here on the seasonal workers visa scheme are subject to NRPF restrictions. That is quite a significant population, although we do not know specifically how many of them are in Scotland. I believe that there are up to 6,000 across the UK. The other problem that was identified was that we do not know where in Scotland they are located, so that is a bit of work that needs to be done.

Perhaps there could be a quick-fire mechanism to extend the current well-established concessionary travel scheme to include that relatively small cohort. It would have a relatively low cost but a high impact by giving people that extra ability to move around their communities once they are located in their final place of residence.

Mr Sirel mentioned the Ukraine advice Scotland service that has been set up, which is great. However, he said that it is a passive system—an email inbox that is monitored and a telephone helpline—and that there were issues with access to data for locating people in Scotland who are have seasonal worker visas. The Scottish Refugee Council tried to access that information, not through the Home Office, which was being quite unco-operative, but through the four employment agencies that tend to deploy seasonal workers around Scotland.

Mr Ruskell asked about the farming community. Is there a way to advertise that advice line and promote it on social media through the farming community in Scotland? Could we ask people who have Ukrainian workers on their farms to introduce them to that advice service so that they can get extra access to support? That could be a mechanism to drive greater uptake of that service.

One of the key issues around the seasonal workers scheme is that of people having no recourse to public funds—that is a major menace in many immigration and asylum cases. Are there mechanisms and opportunities for the Scottish Government to enhance provisions to support people who have no recourse to public funds? There are potential ways around the restrictions; do you have particular or specific proposals?

I was particularly struck by the description of the plight of people on the seasonal workers scheme and the implications of the current situation for them, given that the vast majority of them are Ukrainian. Mr Sirel, it is great that the Ukraine advice Scotland service has been set up, but how easy has it been to reach people on the farms and other locations in which they are physically restricted? Has that been relatively straightforward? Has the Home Office been co-operative with regard to providing relevant information about where people are located?

I really appreciate the tone, particularly in relation to the bus pass; there is a real spirit of collaboration. Certainly, conversations that colleagues have had with ministers have been very positive. The modelling that has been produced shows that the policy could be very cost effective and has been shared with the Minister for Transport as well as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government.

I note that you say that you are hopeful of progress. Could greater pace be projected into that work with leadership from you and others in a cross-party group to pull it together and drive it forward? There are time constraints around people’s welfare.

There was an interesting intervention from Mr Sirel on the previous panel, who mentioned NRPF restrictions and benefits that are not specified in the schedule. The schedule itemises 26 benefits, but access to other funds that are not specified is not restricted. The key theme that came out of the discussion with the previous panel was that there are ways to circumvent the NRPF restrictions. We can be creative with that, which is potentially a route for getting money into people’s pockets who are way below even the minimum level at which the social security system would provide support to British citizens. Is there an opportunity for us to work together on a cross-party basis to drive that forward?

I have a quick point about something that was raised in the previous evidence-taking session. Since 1999, 270 woodlands have been lost or damaged by development, which is significantly more than in other parts of the UK—although, obviously, Scotland has more forestry coverage per hectare. Has a lessons-learned exercise been undertaken to understand why those 270 woodlands were lost and what can be done to arrest the cause?

I understand that one of the biggest threats is coniferous seeding and contamination that leads to conifers impinging on the ancient woodland sites. However, the forestry industry is exempt from the UK forestry standard on monitoring and addressing contamination. Do we need to put obligations on the forestry industry to do more to prevent contamination from conifer plantations?

No—but I could elaborate.

That is very helpful. You are calling for mandatory reporting. You described the way that you were treated, which was appalling. It was almost gaslighting. Will you describe what you think mandatory reporting should look like? How would it play out? What would it be like in your ideal scenario?

I suggest that we also write to each of the local authorities to get an assessment of what their current provision is. It might be helpful to get an understanding of how each local authority manages the provision of sex education in their schools. Some schools will have teachers who are specially trained, while in some areas, there might be a team that goes round different schools. It would be interesting to find out what each local authority is doing, and that might help to inform the petitioner.

Thanks. I should clarify that the Woodland Trust has identified that most pockets of ancient woodland each cover fewer than 5 hectares; they are isolated fragments and do not cumulatively provide coverage across Scotland.

Our two petitioners talked about enforcement of tree preservation orders, citing a case in Argyll that was particularly problematic. There are penalties for tree felling—I think that they said that the penalty is £5,000 per tree—but in this instance, enforcement was delayed. Argyll and Bute Council did not enforce the tree preservation order in a timely manner, which permitted the landowner to clear the area for grazing. The petitioners have heard that the national authority—I think that it is Scottish Forestry; sorry, I am just trying to find the right page of the Official Report—will not enforce the order and basically just came to a gentlemen’s agreement with the landowner.

That raises a concern about the extent to which there is enforcement when ancient woodland is vandalised, even when protections are in place. Do you agree that such issues need further investigation?