Chamber and committees

Do you have a final point, Liam?

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.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer but, according to the Scottish Government’s most recent annual statistical publication for schools, there was at the last count an increase in the proportion of temporary teachers. There are thousands of temporary and supply teachers in Scotland; many would like nothing more than a guarantee that their job is permanent and secure, but they are continuously being let down by what appears to be a fairly ancient and utterly inflexible recruitment system.

Several of my constituents who are affected by the situation contact me regularly, and the uncertainty and worry that it causes them are considerable. The annual battle just to keep their job is completely demoralising and, sadly and even more worryingly, I know that the situation is contributing to a number of teachers leaving the profession for good. Will the Scottish Government offer a plan that would fundamentally address and update the process and, in so doing, secure the continued availability and commitment of many of those teachers and their futures?

I do so after a moment of some consternation, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its progress in increasing the number of permanent teaching roles available. (S6O-00981)