Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Learning Difficulties and Disability Qualifications (PE1789)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition for consideration is PE1789, on learning difficulties and disability qualifications, which was lodged by James A Mackie on behalf of the 1673 network. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to increase the number of professionals such as speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, physiotherapists, psychiatrists and occupational therapists who are qualified to assess children and parents with learning disabilities and difficulties and behavioural problems in order to reduce the number of children who are taken into care.
As our note for the petition outlines, the clerks have requested the Scottish Government’s views on the petition on a number of occasions, but the information has not been forthcoming. I make the general point that, because of Covid, we have been asking the Scottish Government for its views at the initial stage when we are considering a petition. That has proved to be helpful, because it has given us an early insight into the Scottish Government’s thinking and has perhaps reduced the amount of time between a petition being lodged and our getting views on it. That has been productive, so it is disappointing that we have not had a response on this petition, although we appreciate that education in particular is under a lot of pressure at the moment.
I can see the general case for the petition. There are issues with support services for young people and the assessment of need. We know that a lot of people in the autism community, for example, talk about getting a late diagnosis. Teachers need to speak to educational psychologists, but fewer of them are available. I am never clear whether that is to do with policy or just the scale of the financial challenges for local authorities.
I think that we would want to get further thinking from the Scottish Government through the Minister for Children and Young People on the issues that are flagged up in the petition.
I ask for members’ views.
Every MSP will have had concerns raised with them about assessment. I am happy for the committee to write to the Minister for Children and Young People to seek her views on the action that is called for in the petition. I would also like to write to the trade unions to find out their views.
I suggest that we write in the first instance to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, because a range of professions are involved. It might be better to write to the STUC and ask it to seek information, or should we write to specific unions directly?
I agree that we should write to the STUC and get a general view from it first.
We certainly need a bit of information to take forward the petition. We should write to the Government and certainly to representatives of professional bodies to seek their views. We do not necessarily need information from all the professional bodies, but we should ask some of the leading ones in order to get guidance on where we are going on the issue and ensure that we have the framework right. We can then fill in the gaps next time round.
Would it be acceptable to leave it to the clerks to think about what the appropriate bodies might be?
Yes.
I understand why we have not had a response from the Scottish Government, although the responses that we have received in advance have certainly been extremely helpful in our deliberations. The subject of the petition is quite detailed, so I agree that we should write to the minister, and I am happy for the committee to write to any other relevant organisation that is suggested.
I agree with all that has been said. We should write to the Minister for Children and Young People and the STUC, as you said, convener. I sit on the cross-party group on dyslexia and I have done a lot of work on and spent time dealing with learning support needs at first hand, so I certainly support that.
The issue is coming up in the Covid emergency. The other day, I received a case from a constituent whose child, who is in further education, was a bit worried because he was not able to complete some of his work. He could not get support from lecturers, because they are now working online and cannot meet students one to one, which is important.
I fully support keeping the petition open and seeing what we can do to get it sorted.
There is consensus on the work that is to be done. We will write to the Minister for Children and Young People to seek views on the action that is called for in the petition, and we will ask clerks to look at the best way to identify the views of trade unions and professionals.
European Union Flag (PE1810)
The second new petition for consideration today is PE1810, lodged by Philip Smith, on replacing the European Union flag with the Commonwealth flag. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to fly the Commonwealth flag in place of the EU flag at Scottish Government buildings.
In its written submission, the Scottish Government explains that the decision was made to continue flying the European flag from the main Scottish Government buildings to send an
“unequivocal signal of the commitment to the values that underpin the EU and of solidarity with EU nationals resident in Scotland”.
I am content that the Commonwealth flag is flown once a year, because the Commonwealth is an important body with an important role to play. In the recent past, the Scottish Parliament has taken a view and made a decision on the flying of the European flag.
This is a matter of consistency. Technically, flying a flag to represent Europe will, in due course, mean the Council of Europe flag, as opposed to the European Union flag. If we fly the Council of Europe flag, we should also fly the Commonwealth flag, the NATO flag and a whole load of other flags. Therefore, putting up the Commonwealth flag would be inconsistent.
I would take the EU flag down permanently, but we will not make any progress on that with the Scottish Government, because it is adamant about what it wants to do. We will have to close the petition in response to what the Government has said.
The submission from the Scottish Government is clear about the policy that is in place. I disagree with Tom Mason: I do not think that it is the Scottish Government that is adamant, as it was a decision that the Scottish Parliament made. Under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, I would close the petition.
I will correct Gail Ross on that point. The decision was taken by the Scottish Parliament in regard to the flags at the Parliament building, but the decision about flags at Scottish Government buildings was taken at Government level. There is a distinct difference.
The issue rages through councils, and I have been through it many times. The Scottish Government’s policy is clear—the Scottish Parliament also set a policy—whether we agree or disagree with it.
I agree with the convener that it is important that the Commonwealth flag flies, which it does on Commonwealth day, as should the armed forces day flag on armed forces day and the red ensign on merchant navy day. As long as we can keep that going, that is fine. Flags will always be contentious; I have seen that over the years.
I vote to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders. It is clear that the Scottish Government has no plans to make any changes to its flag-flying policy.
I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
There is a consensus that, regardless of members’ views on the flying of various flags at particular times, the Scottish Government has made it clear that it has no plans to change its policy. In the recent past, as I said, the Scottish Parliament has also taken a view on the issue. I think that we are therefore agreeing to close the petition.
As did others, we emphasise the importance of the appropriate flags, including the Commonwealth flag, being flown at appropriate times.
I thank the petitioner for engaging with the Public Petitions Committee, and for highlighting the issues as they did. After a year, they have the opportunity to return on the same issue, if they feel that that is appropriate.
Ancient, Native and Semi-native Woodlands (Protection) (PE1812)
The last new petition for consideration is PE1812, on protecting Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands, and woodland floors. It has been lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, on behalf of Help Trees Help Us. The petition 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—takes place in Glasgow in November 2021.
I welcome Jackie Baillie, who is in attendance for this petition.
The Scottish Government’s response describes the possible protections which are available for woodlands. It acknowledges that there is no specific legislation to protect ancient woodlands.
The petitioners’ written submission was received after our papers were circulated; the clerks have therefore sent that information to us separately. The submission highlights the various threats to Scottish woodlands, such as the fact that tree preservation orders are onerous and offer little protection, and other legislation is outdated. The submission also states that the Scottish Government has not addressed the specific issues in the petition, including the lack of protection for woodlands in private ownership that have no statutory designation or formal protection, unlike the measures for commercial forestry that have been mentioned by the Scottish Government.
Since our meeting papers were published, a late submission from the Woodland Trust has been circulated to members.
In order to facilitate our discussion of the petition, I ask Jackie Baillie to make an initial contribution. I will of course allow her to come back in later, but she may have initial comments on the petition.
Thank you, convener. I will not test your patience and the committee’s by wanting to come in too often. I thank you for the time this morning.
I will make a couple of fundamental points about the petition, because it is important. Ancient and native woodland that currently has no statutory designation and is in private ownership has no effective legal protection at all. Despite the Government’s codes, guidelines, strategies, plans and documents, we have a confusing landscape that does not provide protection. The petition is urging the Government to grasp the opportunity to show clear leadership on the world stage by fully protecting our ancient woodlands, before it hosts COP26 next year.
Secondly, the value of ancient and native woodland floors is completely unrecognised, and outdated legislation does not offer the protection that we would all want to see.
Thirdly, only 1 per cent of Scotland’s ancient woodland, and 3 per cent of its native and semi-native woodland, is left; and the Woodland Trust has registered 274 ancient woods in Scotland that are currently threatened by development. Whether that involves illegal felling or development that falls through the cracks, the reality is that our national woodland resources are being eaten away.
Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable. Fines are too little, too late; they do not save the woodland. Fewer than half of Scotland’s woodlands are in good condition. Often, that is in part down to landowners, with problems of poor management, neglect, overgrazing or undergrazing, invasive species—the list is endless.
We need to do something. National planning framework 4 includes six high-level outcomes. Granting full legal protection to our ancient and native woodlands would meet three of those. The petitioners aspire, as I think we all do, to a future Scotland that respects and protects precious, life-giving trees.
Thank you for your time, convener. I hope that the committee will take action before it is too late.
Thank you.
It felt to me that something significant in the direct experience of the petitioners had raised their concerns. I do not pretend in any way to be an expert, but it would be worrying that these very precious historic resources would be lost to modern development that was simply being unthinking.
I read the petition and then the response from the Scottish Government with its lists of protections, including biodiversity strategies, forestry strategies and site of special scientific interest designations. If it had been left there, I probably would have thought that plenty of protections were in place. However, given the petitioners’ response to that submission, the response from the Woodland Trust and the evidence that Jackie Baillie has just given us, I now believe that not enough protections are in place for these very important ancient woodlands, which are probably being cut down without our knowledge, unfortunately.
Jackie Baillie is also absolutely right about fines; it had struck me as well that punishing people is too late. Protections need to be in place to stop the harm happening in the first place. I agree that something has to be done.
Forest floors were mentioned as well and, like you, convener, I was struck by the petitioners’ personal experience of what had happened in a woodland. There were no planning restrictions, or what was needed was not there, so someone was allowed to just go ahead and make that bike track without any comeback at all.
I think that we need to pursue this. We should write to NatureScot—previously Scottish Natural Heritage—to seek its views. Given what Jackie Baillie said about national planning framework 4, I would also want to follow that up and write to strategic development planning authorities to seek their views on the actions that are called for in the petition. I would also thank the petitioners for their interest in this very important matter.
I thank Jackie Baillie for her interesting comments and input on the petition. I also thank the two ladies, Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, who are residents in my region and whom I know well.
It is a very interesting petition, on something that we need to preserve. I am minded to write to NatureScot, as Gail Ross said, and to the various strategic planning authorities to call for action.
Jackie Baillie made a very interesting point about where the legislation lies with regard to privately owned lands. I would want to write to Scottish Land & Estates, which is the association that covers that issue, because we need to get that sorted out as well. We do not want to take that off the radar; I absolutely appreciate that point that Jackie made, because there is a lot of that around.
I think that it is important. Maybe we need to write to COSLA for information on planning at its level for protection of our ancient woodlands. I support that we carry out those procedures, and that we certainly do not close the petition.
It is not often that I agree with Jackie Baillie, but in this instance I agree with everything that she says. I back up what committee members have said about who we need to write to try to protect ancient woodlands.
Jackie Baillie said just what I wanted to say, but she is far more articulate than I am on the subject. This is a very important area to get right. The petitioners were confronted by their experience of the cycle track, but that is just what has prompted us to look at the issue. We need to take it much more widely than that, to include the whole process that we have for ancient forests and woodlands in the context of a total strategy for the countryside. Planting, and the extension of tree planting generally, is important. There are initiatives for that and it corresponds with keeping the ancient woodlands as well.
Collecting information from NatureScot and getting into the planning framework are vital. We could keep the petition open for the moment and get that information to see whether we can get a direction sorted out to prompt the various authorities to get the process going so that we get woodlands and tree planting in the planning framework and there is a positive outcome for everybody. That is very important not only for the countryside but for people in the cities to enjoy the countryside. The ancient forests are part of that. We should keep the petition open, collect information and progress.
I am slightly troubled by Jackie Baillie being the consensus builder. I suppose that there is a first time for everything. [Laughter.]
We are saying that we want to write to NatureScot, the strategic development planning authorities and Scottish Land & Estates. I am not sure that we need to write to COSLA if we are going to write to the planning authorities. However, if people feel strongly about that, we might come back to it. I am a wee bit concerned about simply sending correspondence that will not get an effective return.
I will bring in Jackie Baillie before we come to a final view.
Thank you very much, convener. I will always try to build consensus.
I thank the committee for its positive comments and its support for the petition. Once we lose our ancient woodlands, that is it. I know that anything that we can do to protect them will be appreciated not just by the petitioners but by people across Scotland who value ancient woodlands. I thank the committee very much for its time.
I see from the chat box that people are content that we write to NatureScot, the strategic planning authorities and Scottish Land & Estates. I think that we agree that it is not necessary to write to COSLA at this stage.
We recognise that the issue is important. I thank Jackie Baillie for her time and the petitioners for the work that they have done to bring the petition, which has a compelling argument, to the committee’s attention.
I thank the broadcasting staff for their support again today—we have managed to get through the meeting without too many glitches—and the clerks and members, who have made my job relatively straightforward, for once.
Meeting closed at 11:27.Previous
Continued Petitions