Seòmar agus comataidhean

Of course.

Has the Scottish Youth Parliament made that request itself?

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.

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?

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?

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Before we begin our proceedings, I welcome our new clerk, Jyoti Chandola, and, in so doing, very much thank Andrew Mylne, who acted as clerk to the committee during the past year. He stepped in for Lynn Tullis, whom we still hope to see back with us in early course. Andrew did a fantastic job, and I place on the record my thanks and the thanks of the committee for everything that he did, particularly in supporting us through our recently completed inquiry, which will be the subject of a debate in the chamber later this week.

Under our first agenda item, we must decide whether to take in private agenda items 5, 6 and 7. In addition to the consideration of petitions today, a number of related issues require our attention. Agenda item 5 relates to budget scrutiny, agenda item 6 relates to the policy on the publication of previous actions in relation to information in petitions, and agenda item 7 relates to the A9 dualling project inquiry and will give us an opportunity to consider where we go next and the evidence that we heard from Alex Neil, our former colleague, at the previous meeting. Are members content to conduct items 5, 6 and 7 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

We have received a response from the Scottish National Investment Bank, which states that it has been working with the Scottish Government and Local Energy Scotland while engaging with communities and developers on shared ownership. Local Energy Scotland conducted research on developer and funder appetite for shared ownership models and ways in which barriers can be overcome.

The Minister for Energy and the Environment’s submission to the committee highlights that the Scottish Government would be interested in exploring the possibilities of utilising tax powers as a lever to support wider policy objectives. In response to the minister, the petitioner notes that there is no indication of how discussions on the Scottish Government’s work will take place or how she and others might engage.

The Government has shown some interest in the issue. Members, do you have you comments and suggestions?

Could we write to the corporate body to draw its attention to the petition? We could say that the committee would be interested to know whether the corporate body has had any engagement with the Scottish Youth Parliament as to whether it might be possible to facilitate more regular sessions of the SYP in Holyrood. Are members content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

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?

Obviously, 2023 is fast disappearing and nothing has materialised yet. Are we content to close the petition?