Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1986 is on providing testing kits for drugs in public spaces. It was lodged by Andy Paterson on behalf of the help not harm campaign. It was last considered on 23 October.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces, such as local pharmacies, libraries and university buildings. The Scottish Government’s response to our correspondence reiterates that self-testing drug-checking kits do not offer the same in-depth analysis and harm-reduction advice that is offered by drug-checking facilities.

The submission also details the progress that is now being made towards piloting drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow. The Scottish Government received more information from the Home Office about controlled drug licence applications for each area and anticipated that applications would soon be made. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

In the light of the Scottish Government’s responses, and Mr Golden’s recommendation, which summarised them, are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition and hope very much that the progress that the Scottish Government has identified is realised in the months ahead.

Following the various discussions that we have had, we are persuaded by the important considerations that underlie the petition. Notwithstanding the evidence that we have heard from ministers, the committee will make a unanimous, clear and direct recommendation that the Government act in accordance with our recommendations.

Let us hope that that makes progress. It is quite unusual for the committee to issue very specific recommendations in that way. Given the evidence that we have heard, the Government really ought to pay some attention to our recommendations. I hope that we are accordingly able to make progress on the petition on behalf of the petitioners.

We plan to highlight those in the letter that we draft. Obviously, we will draft a comprehensive letter that will draw from those particular sources. I think that that is important in how we manage matters.

PE2037, which was lodged by Anne Glennie, is on improving literacy attainment through research-informed reading instruction. It 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 such instruction.

We previously considered the petition on 25 October. At that time, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and to the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

In her response, the cabinet secretary notes that student teachers are taught about systematic—or is it “systemic”? No—it is “systematic”. There are too many Ss. Student teachers are taught about systematic synthetic phonics as part of the process of gaining a broader understanding of the development and teaching of reading.

In its response, the General Teaching Council for Scotland notes that, although it sets the required design, expected component parts and other features of initial teacher education, such programmes do not aim to cover every teaching approach in detail. It also provides detail on the standards that are expected of teachers in order for them to maintain full registration, as well as on on-going efforts to develop a more effective career-long teacher education model.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. The first of those asks for more detail on what exactly is being taught to pre-service teachers and notes that research is being undertaken by academics in Glasgow and Dundee to evaluate current literary teaching practices. In her most recent submission, the petitioner draws our attention to international examples in Australia and New Zealand, with systematic synthetic phonics being recommended as the most effective method of teaching children to read. The petitioner has also drawn our attention to a report that explores the variability in literacy rates and policy in both the UK and Ireland.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Torrance, can you get your head around the tongue twister?

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again after the summer recess.

We now move into private session.

Our second continued petition is PE1933, on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, some of whom are with us in the gallery today. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June 2024, when we heard evidence from the chair and chief executive of Redress Scotland about the processes for considering redress applications. We subsequently received further submissions from the petitioner, sharing their reflections on the evidence from Redress Scotland and commenting on recent submissions from Thompsons Solicitors, the Law Society of Scotland and the First Minister.

The petitioner’s second submission provides further detail to support their view that Fornethy house operated as a residential school, and includes reference material about bursaries for Fornethy house from the Glasgow education department.

We have heard a lot of evidence and the committee is clear about its direction of travel. Do members have any comments or suggestions about how we might proceed???

I am content to agree to that, too.

Obviously, we are about to go into the summer recess, so we will confirm the wording of the final draft of our letter by correspondence. In view of that, are colleagues content that any correspondence, once agreed, should be published on the petitions web page and to delegate to me, as convener, arrangements for publication to ensure that we not only send a letter to the Government, but that we make a public statement on the conclusions that the committee has reached and the firm recommended direction that the committee is urging the Government to follow?

Members indicated agreement.

We will close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Ambulance Service has paused its work due to the reluctance of its staff to support the roll-out. We place a greater premium on that than on the financial implications that were identified. To satisfy Mr Ewing, if the petitioner felt that the situation warranted the pause being re-examined, it would be open to him to submit a further petition at that time.