Chamber and committees

Are members content with Mr Ewing’s suggestion?

Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. Given the reasons set out by Mr Ewing, we feel that we will have to close the petition at this point, but I hope the petitioner has also taken note of Mr Golden’s comments.

I add that we note the additional measures that the SLAB is trying to implement to facilitate access. Are colleagues content to close the petition at this point?

Members indicated agreement.

Again, we thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. There seems to be some movement from the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Of course, it is open to any petitioner in the light of subsequent experience to bring a fresh petition if that does not make the hoped-for difference.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to people who might be joining us to hear their petition being considered for the first time that, ahead of our first consideration, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—and the Scottish Government to offer a preliminary view or to offer us any guidance. We take this action because, previously, that would be the first action that we as a committee agreed to take, which only delayed proper consideration of the petition.

Our first new petition is PE2050, which was lodged by Lee Watson on behalf of Ythan seal watch. This interesting petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the current guidance on flying recreational drones on national nature reserves so that use is prohibited without a permit; that permits include a flight time, date and agreed flight path; that operation is in accordance with the drone code; and that advice on the legal status of the wildlife and habitats is provided.

The petitioner raises concerns that drones can be used both intentionally and unintentionally to cause disturbance to wildlife and can have a significant impact on the wellbeing of many species on national nature reserves, particularly on nesting birds and seal colonies.

Aviation matters—to which drones are subject—are reserved. As such, aviation legislation, including drone-specific legislation, is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. However, NatureScot has powers to make and enforce byelaws for national nature reserves under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

In 2018, NatureScot and the partnership for action against wildlife crime in Scotland—PAWS—raised concerns about wildlife disturbance by drones. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition notes that existing law requires that licences are obtained where wildlife photography may disturb a protected species. The submission also states that the Scottish Government will ask PAWS to consider whether its guidance on drones and wildlife needs to be updated and republished.

Given the increasing prevalence of drones, and the potential consequences of that for wildlife—both well intentioned and ill intentioned—this is an interesting petition. What do colleagues think?

PE2051, on improving the processes for protecting children and young people from traumatic incidents, was lodged by Dianne Youngson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a consistent and transparent reporting mechanism for incidents that affect the health of pupils in schools; to review and improve the existing guidelines for schools in dealing with at-risk pupils; to place in law the monitoring of reporting mechanisms, with ultimate responsibility being placed with the Scottish ministers and local authorities; and to reform the exclusions procedure to include consideration of whether exclusions may cause further harm.

On reporting and monitoring, the SPICe briefing notes that all schools and local authorities are expected to use the bullying and equalities module in the SEEMiS information system to record and monitor bullying incidents. However, Education Scotland’s review found that the module is challenging to use and that national guidance is not being fully implemented, which leads to inconsistencies.

The submission from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills highlights the getting it right for every child approach and, in particular, the role of a child’s named person. She has also highlighted the counselling services that are in place throughout secondary schools, which are available for children who are 10 years old and over.

On exclusions, the 2017 national guidance is noted. That guidance states that exclusion should be used as a last resort and should be a proportionate response where there is no appropriate alternative, with the wellbeing of the individual being a key consideration.

Last year, the Scottish Government held a series of summits on relationships and behaviour in schools. The cabinet secretary provided an update on that work to Parliament in November and announced that a joint action plan will be developed to address the issues that had been raised. In that statement, the cabinet secretary also encouraged more accurate recording of all incidents of inappropriate, abusive or violent behaviour in schools.

In view of the information that is before us, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We will therefore keep the petition open and seek the information as set out by Mr Torrance.

That is also a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make. We will take forward the petition, mindful of all the suggestions that colleagues have made.

I wonder who we should write to. What relevant dog agency might we take views from?

No. Okay. We can do that, too.