Chamber and committees

PE1812 seeks to protect Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors. This is a long-standing petition with which the committee has been engaged for quite some time. It was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, on behalf of Help Trees Help Us, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation to give Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands, and woodland floors full legal protection before the United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow, in November 2021. Members will therefore understand that it is a petition of some standing.

The petition’s ask demonstrates how long it has been in progress, and we have heard from many different parties, including ministers, along the way. That includes a fresh response from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, which indicates that while

“Scottish Government officials are progressing plans”

for a new register of ancient woodlands, it

“will be a significant and long-term undertaking.”

That follows our site visit. I am not sure which members of the committee were on that—perhaps it is only David Torrance and I who survive from our walking tour of the ancient woodlands. It is certainly a long-standing petition.

The cabinet secretary’s response also indicates that,

“The Scottish Government, Scottish Forestry and NatureScot are in agreement that protections in place for ancient woodlands against tree felling are adequate”,

with protections having been “further strengthened” by policies that are included in the fourth national planning framework.

In preparation for the introduction of the natural environment bill, which we expect will be forthcoming during the current session of Parliament, the Scottish Government ran a consultation on aspects of the Scottish biodiversity strategy and proposed natural environment bill between 7 September and 14 December last year.

We have also received three submissions from the petitioners, who continue to share research on the impact of invasive non-native species on Scotland’s ancient and native woodlands, as committee members saw on site and through illustration. The petitioners have also expressed concern at the lack of urgency to develop an ancient woodlands register, and about international investors buying land for carbon offsetting and then planting non-native conifer. They also call for the creation of an environmental court to address concerns about the lack of enforcement of protections, including those that national planning framework 4 provides.

The petitioner’s most recent submission draws our attention to the impacts of further tree felling in the local area, despite tree protection orders being in place, and encourages us to invite further evidence from the Confederation of Forest Industries on the action that the industry is taking to protect ancient woodland and remove invasive species. Members might remember that a representative from Confor attended a round table that we held two years ago, in March 2022.

Before I ask members for suggestions, I am pleased to say that we have been joined by Jackie Baillie MSP, who, I think, has been pursuing the petition longer than some of the members of the committee, because she has been with us when we have heard about the petition at its various stages. Jackie Baillie, is there anything that you would like to say to the committee?

I certainly think that, in our committee visit, those conflicts were not evident. There was physical evidence of the invasive nature of the issue and the lack of urgency in relation to producing the register of ancient woodland, which obviously exists, because otherwise we would not have a register that is capable of being updated.

Are members content to proceed with those suggested actions?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1933, on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme, has been lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy survivors group and 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.

It is obvious that a considerable number of the survivors have joined us for today’s contributions, and I welcome them all to the meeting. We have also been joined by parliamentary colleagues Colin Smyth and Alex Cole-Hamilton, who have an interest in the petition, and we have received statements of support from Martin Whitfield, who I believe was present at the previous discussion of the petition, and Brian Whittle. Both are unable to join us in person this morning.

The committee last considered the petition at our meeting on 20 March, when we heard evidence from the Deputy First Minister. I again offer my apologies, as I was at a funeral that morning, but I very much congratulate my colleagues, particularly our substitute member Oliver Mundell, for the tenacious way in which they put the relevant issues to the Deputy First Minister. Having heard that evidence, we now have an opportunity to consider what we might do further.

Following the evidence session, we received a written submission from the petitioner in response to the Deputy First Minister’s evidence. Evident in that submission is the concern that the change of Deputy First Minister from John Swinney to Shona Robison appears to have led to a shifting of the goalposts by the Scottish Government, with the lack of official records from Fornethy preventing survivors from pursuing applications to the redress scheme, despite Mr Mundell’s points on why that was not an obstacle that, he thought, could not be overcome. The petitioner also draws our attention to potential inconsistencies between the findings of Dr Fossey’s report and the findings of Professor McAdie’s research on how Fornethy house operated.

We are not taking evidence this morning but, as is my custom, I seek to hear from colleagues with an interest in the issues that have been raised. First of all, I invite Colin Smyth, who has been quite closely involved with the petition for some time, to offer some thoughts to the committee.

Thank you, Mr Smyth. I know that those in the public gallery will be keen to join in and show support, but let us say that, as a committee, we understand that that is implicit.

I call Alex Cole-Hamilton. Is this your debut at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, Mr Cole-Hamilton?

Welcome. I invite you to address the committee.

I was not able to be present but, ahead of the funeral that I had to attend, I was able to watch the proceedings live and I have had an opportunity to consider the Official Report. Therefore, before I invite colleagues to make any proposals, I have two that I would like to make.

First, I would like the committee to agree to write to John Swinney MSP to draw his attention to the suggestion that was made, as a result of the evidence, about the potential shift in opinion that has happened between his period as Deputy First Minister and the current Deputy First Minister, and to ask whether he recognises, supports or understands the position that the current Deputy First Minister is taking.

Secondly, I propose that we invite Redress Scotland to come before the committee to explain its position so that, under interrogation, we can come to understand further what we believe might be done. Are members content with those two proposals? Are there any other suggestions?

Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2017 is on extending the period that specialist perinatal mental health support is made available beyond one year. The petition, which has been lodged by Margaret Reid, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to extend maternal mental health support beyond one year; to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across all health boards; to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality network standard type 1 across all health boards; and to establish a mother and baby unit in the north-east of Scotland.

We are joined this morning by Tess White, who, we understand, has been supporting the petitioner’s pursuit of her petition. Good morning, and welcome back to the committee that you were once a member of.

The Scottish Government provided the committee with information back in August of last year. In that submission, the Government noted its intent to publish an initial plan on options for changes to the 2003 act by the end of 2023. Moreover, last November, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee followed up on the recommendations from its inquiry into perinatal mental health services.

The Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport provided an update in January in which she noted that a draft service specification for perinatal mental health services was being developed and that the NHS National Services Scotland’s report on mother and baby unit provision was with the Scottish Government for consideration. The update also noted that the Scottish Government was continuing to collaborate with mother and baby units to conduct a review of the mother and baby unit family fund.

Before I ask committee members to say how they think we might proceed, I invite Tess White to address the committee.

Are we content with those suggestions? Are there any other complementary suggestions from members of the committee?

Ordinarily I would not invite suggestions from non-committee members, but if you have a suggestion for some further action, Ms White, I am sure that the committee would be happy to hear it.