Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Official Report 542KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Legal Control of Generalist Predators (PE2035)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to anybody who might be following our proceedings that, before we consider a petition, the Parliament’s independent research unit, SPICe, is given an opportunity to brief colleagues, and we write to the Scottish Government to get its initial thoughts on the petition, so that we are considering it with some understanding of the underpinning issues and the Government’s likely view.
The first of the new petitions is PE2035, which has been lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to officially recognise legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground-nesting birds in Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition recognises that predator control is an important component of species conservation alongside other techniques such as habitat management and translocation. In response, the petitioner has asked how the Scottish Government’s response might be published for wider parliamentary record, stating that a bigger recognition would provide clarity to professionals carrying out legal control of generalist predators.
The petitioner highlights a relevant example to demonstrate a lack of clarity for professionals. The submission explains that NatureScot had recommended predator control as the number 1 measure to save capercaillie. However, a ministerial statement on the issue focused on habitat improvement and did not mention predator control.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I read Alex Hogg’s response to the Scottish Government’s response, which, although positive, was somewhat skeletal—it said that control of general predators was just a component alongside other things. In the petitioner’s submission, he has pointed out that the minister has contradicted what the Government has said, in that she says that the main elements are not predator control but well-managed restoration and expansion of the pine forest. That is not what NatureScot’s scientific advisory committee said—it said that predator control is essential. That is not happening in Strathspey, and the capercaillie is under threat of extinction. Journalists such as Magnus Linklater have championed the cause for a long time.
Without labouring the point and going on for ever, my recommendation is that, given the expertise and knowledge that is possessed within the ranks of the SGA, and Alex Hogg’s seniority as its president, it would be useful to have a short evidence session where we give him the opportunity to say what he thinks should be done. Plainly, he has a huge amount to offer, all in the cause of preventing the capercaillie from going into extinction. For the past 25 years, every land manager and farmer in my constituency has said that that will happen unless they start controlling the predators.
Are we content to have evidence from Mr Hogg? It could take a little time. I am happy to do that, so let us set that in place.
Might we also write to the minister who delivered the statement, drawing attention to the contradiction between what we understood to be NatureScot’s advice and the statement, and then allying that to the Government’s response, in which it said that it valued the control of generalist predators as a way forward? In practice, the response from the minister undermined awareness of or confidence in that route. Let us see what response we get, because it would be helpful to have that, even as we hear from Mr Hogg.
Are members happy to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Literacy Attainment (PE2037)
PE2037, which has been lodged by Anne Glennie, is on improving literacy standards in schools through research-informed reading instruction. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide national guidance, support and professional learning for teachers in research-informed reading instruction, specifically systematic synthetic phonics; and to ensure that teacher training institutions train new teachers in research-informed reading instruction, specifically systematic synthetic phonics.
Members will have noted that the petitioner submitted a similar petition in the previous session of Parliament, which was discussed by our predecessor committee. That petition was referred to the Education and Skills Committee and was subsequently closed by the current Education, Children and Young People Committee on the basis that it had no plans to scrutinise initial training education. Additional details of the previous consideration are included in the SPICe briefing.
The cabinet secretary’s response indicates that work is under way by Education Scotland to develop a range of new resources relating to early reading, with part of that work outlining how systemic phonics approaches form one aspect of the overall pedagogy for early reading. The response goes on to state that it is the responsibility of the General Teaching Council for Scotland to ensure that initial teacher education programmes expose student teachers to a range of pedagogies to teach literacy and reading instruction and that it is important that Scottish ministers respect the independence of institutions that provide initial teacher education by not prescribing the detailed content of courses. The cabinet secretary has, however, written to the Scottish Council of Deans of Education requesting an update on the current provision of initial teacher education in relation to teacher skills and confidence to support children’s reading in primary schools.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner that welcomes the news that Education Scotland is working on new early reading materials but expresses concern that decoding skills, and specifically information on systematic synthetic phonics, remain absent from current teacher training programmes. The petitioner has also shared details of studies indicating that newly qualified teachers lack confidence and working knowledge to teach reading and phonics.
There are a few tongue twisters in there. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Would the committee consider writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to ask whether the update from the Scottish Council of Deans of Education has been received and for its contents to be shared with the committee? Could we also write to the General Teaching Council for Scotland to seek its views on the actions called for in the petition, specifically whether it has any plans to update the requirements for initial teacher education programmes?
Unless colleagues have any other comments or suggestions, are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and seek further information as requested. I thank the petitioner for bringing the petition back to us, which is one of the routes that we, of course, offer to petitioners after due time and consideration.
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Funding) (PE2040)
The last of our new petitions for consideration this morning is PE2040, which is on increasing funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to prevent serious cuts to the service provided to the public. There was a session on that in Parliament yesterday that members could attend.
The petition, which has been lodged by Anthony McManus, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the annual budget provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and to take action to prevent job losses and the removal of front-line fire appliances from fire stations across Scotland. The petitioner tells us that he is a serving firefighter at one of the fire stations that is due to lose its dedicated height appliance. In the petitioner’s view, the decision by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to remove 10 front-line fire appliances from fire stations across Scotland could lead to potentially disastrous consequences for the communities affected.
The Scottish Government responded to the petition to state that it has supported the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service with year-on-year increases, including an increase of £14.4 million in this year’s budget. The response goes on to note that operational decisions on the number and location of appliances are entirely a matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board and the chief officer. It is, however, stated that the decision to withdraw appliances is not all about cost savings and is intended to ensure that full crews are available for the remaining operational appliances more of the time.
The Scottish Government also indicated that it has received assurances from the SFRS that the decision to temporarily remove the appliances has not been taken quickly or lightly and that a rigorous assessment of the impact of the changes, along with a full public consultation on the package of changes, will take place before any permanent changes to service provision are made.
Members may be aware that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provided written and oral evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee on this issue as part of that committee’s pre-budget scrutiny process.
Do colleagues have any comments?
I wonder whether we should inquire—maybe the clerks can inform us about this now—whether the Criminal Justice Committee reached any conclusion. Plainly, it heard detailed evidence, and we have not. That is narrated clearly in the material before us, but it is not clear what the Criminal Justice Committee will do about it. It may be that it will make recommendations in its budget report.
Would it be prudent for us to make informal inquiries to see where matters stand with the Criminal Justice Committee? It has started to look at the issue in detail, so it does not seem appropriate that we duplicate that work. On the other hand, our duty to the petitioners is to make sure that we do not prematurely close the petition when we do not quite know where its fate lies.
Yes. My hesitation in opening up the discussion was because I was struck by a similar point: I do not want us to embark on a duplicatory chain of investigation. On the other hand, I am not clear that the investigation to date has worked in quite the way that the petitioner seeks.
I understand that we are likely to see the Criminal Justice Committee’s submission in November, which is next month. It might be right to ask the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union to give their views to this committee on the aims of the petition. We can then take those into account when we next consider the petition, along with that submission, and decide whether there is further work that this committee could do in advancing the aims of the petition.
I agree. Yesterday, I was at the event held in Parliament. Every MSP was sent a briefing at the end of it—it is in their inboxes, and it is very comprehensive. The chief officer of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has a lot to do with this. If we are writing to that service and the Fire Brigades Union, I wonder whether you could get his views on the matter directly from him, because he has been advising the Government.
We could ask specifically for the views of the chief officer. I know that it is an issue of huge public interest. Since the petition was lodged, there has been a very high-profile major fire in Ayr. As I recall, Ayr’s height appliance was no longer in service, and one had to be provided from Glasgow. Issues were raised about all of that, and that is very much one of the issues that is raised in the petition.
I had a few meetings with some of the firefighters as well. The chief officer, however, has been put in a situation where, if the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service does not have enough funding, it has to make decisions. Sometimes, it depends on the funding. It is important that we find out about the issue.
We will potentially get an indication of whether that has been incorporated into the evidence heard by the Criminal Justice Committee. When we next consider it, we will be in a better-informed position, if colleagues are content with that.
With that, we conclude our public session, and we now move into private session. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 8 November.
10:23 Meeting continued in private until 10:45.Air ais
Continued Petitions