Chamber and committees

Next is consideration of PE1812, on protecting Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors, which was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker. We have already taken considerable evidence on the petition, which calls on

“the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation giving Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection”.

We last considered the petition on 23 March, when we took evidence from the Minister for Environment and Land Reform, Màiri McAllan, and Doug Howieson from Scottish Forestry. That session followed evidence that, as members will recall, we heard from the petitioners on 9 March, and from the round table with NatureScot, the Woodland Trust Scotland, Scottish Forestry, the Confederation of Forest Industries and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

At the meeting with the minister, she indicated that work would be under way this summer to develop the register of ancient woodlands. The minister remains open minded on how existing protections and enforcement measures could be improved.

During that meeting and at the round table, we heard about the importance of ancient woodlands for biodiversity and carbon capture. We also explored how forestry standards are currently enforced and what needs to happen to ensure continuing protection of ancient and native woodlands.

We agreed to reflect on the evidence that we had heard and to consider our next steps this morning. I wonder, colleagues, what we might do next.

Thank you.

I highlight that our consideration of PE1867 is available to watch on the Scottish Parliament’s BSL channel. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2.

When we last considered the petition on 2 February, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the SQA, Deaf Action, Enquire, the National Deaf Children’s Society Scotland and the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition. We have now received detailed responses from the SQA and the Scottish Government that clarify their processes.

The SQA’s response notes that assessment of demand is based on the number of learners who have been entered by schools for the existing range of qualifications. The SQA and the Scottish Government hold joint responsibility for the development of new and/or revised national qualifications. The response from the Scottish Government notes that schools have broad discretion in determining which additional languages to offer and that, although there is currently no national qualification for BSL, there is nothing in policy to prevent schools from teaching it from as early as primary 1.

Members may wish to note that we have also received submissions from Children in Scotland and Deaf Action.

I note from the response from the SQA that it is often the case that support for a qualification among those who are lobbying for it is not always reflective of demand or matched by the demand that is secured, which is a reasonable point.

Do members have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

We should also write to the petitioner, in particular, given that the national strategy will be established with a view to considerations being taken from September this year. It would be very useful for the petitioner to contribute to that. Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content for me to invite the clerks to come back to me on where we might obtain further information about body scanners? That seems relevant to our consideration and, although they have been alluded to, we might benefit from a proper briefing on their availability, the costings and their use. That would allow us to pursue with the Crown Office and others why we are not deploying scanners in the way that we might do in Scotland.

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I am very happy to add those points to our list of considerations. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1845 was lodged by Gordon Baird on behalf of Galloway community hospital action group. Rhoda Grant again joins us to discuss the petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an agency to ensure that health boards offer fair and reasonable management of rural and remote healthcare issues.

When we last discussed the petition on 8 September, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the remote and rural general practice short-life working group, as well as to rural health boards. We have received various submissions from stakeholders and a late submission from Finlay Carson MSP, all of which have been shared with members.

The chair of the remote and rural general practice short-life working group highlights its recent report and its recommendation that a national centre of excellence for remote and rural health and social care be established. Work on implementing the recommendation is under way, including work to explore the potential role of a rural health commissioner, which is a position that has been successfully established in Australia.

The responses from NHS Shetland and NHS Orkney and from NHS Grampian provide information on their respective approaches to public engagement. We have also received a further submission from the petitioner, which is included in full in members’ papers, and a submission from Claire Fleming in support of the petition.

Before the committee comes to a view on what to do next, I ask Rhoda Grant whether she wants to say anything.

Thank you very much. I hope that that was useful. The issue was in relation to referendums; the lady at my baker’s that I mentioned did not want to have to be consulted in referendums, because she felt that she was being required to become much more knowledgeable about a subject than she felt comfortable about. That was the context of her saying that she elected people to take decisions for her.

The next petition is PE1916, which was lodged by Councillors Douglas Philand and Donald Kelly. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry into the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which aims to provide a permanent solution for the route.

We previously considered the petition in January, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it intends to carry out a public inquiry into the management of the project. We have received an update from Transport Scotland, which makes the point that a public inquiry not only would be protracted but would review only all that has been discussed to date and not necessarily identify any solutions.

David Torrance will know, and I can recall, that the committee has been involved in discussions on the issue for a long time. Although a public inquiry might look only at everything that has happened to date, Transport Scotland, in not seeking to pursue that route, implies that carrying out such an inquiry would delay it in taking forward a viable project. However, taking forward a viable project—or even the identification of one—is the big overhanging issue.

I am unwilling to close the petition at this point. It is not necessarily the case that I reject some of Transport Scotland’s arguments, but I would not want to rule out a public inquiry if Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government are unable to move the project forward in some way.

I suggest that we go back to Transport Scotland and make it clear that it is implicit in its submission that it intends to do something. We can consider afresh whether a public inquiry is necessary, which will be contingent on whether any progress has been made on the issue. Are members content with that approach?