 Fy enw i, rydyn ni i ddweud y cwmaint ymgyrchafol a'r Cymru i ddweud yma yn 2022. Fy enw i'n fwy o'r ddweud yma yma yn y cystafell. Mae'n eu gwaith i'n ddesgrifennu ym Mhwyaf yng nghymru o'r rhai COVID-19 lockdown. A mae'n gwneud eich hunain. Fy yw'r ysgrifennu yma, mae'n ddyfodig ar y gorfod arnau gwahanol. Parlymon yn ymrydau, cyfnoddau, cyfnoddau a chyfnoddau, cyfnoddau a chyfnoddau, ac mae hynny yn cael ei ffordd i gael. Rwyf wedi gweithio cymaint, rydyn ni wedi gwneud cymunedau, byddwch ei gŵr, byddwch yn ymryddiol, ac mae hyn yn ei gael i gydag. Rydyn ni wedi gwneud ymlaen i gael ar y sylwyr, os yw 12 yma yn y clywbeth yn cymrydau. Rydyn ni wedi cael ei gael i gael i gael y pryd. pan ni'n gwleidio i'r pryddill gynlluniaeth gennym wedi eu hyd yn gyda'r pryd薏au. Er rhefn i wneud postigio'r adegau, fydd y nodi'r cymhwyrio, heddiw i'w cwperio'r cymhwyrio ar yr adegau sefydlu Cymru, y teimlo yn rhaid o'r newid a ddweud o ddyleglook i bod leolau a dododol. Felly, y pwysigaf oddo eu cyfaint o'r adegau, a ddweud i'r cymhwyrio, fe oedd mewn dweudio'r adegau – oherwydd yma, yn cyfodd y trath. The first of the petition 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 before COP26, as the petition was then lodged. Our last consideration was on 9 March, when we took evidence, as I say, from the petitioners and from a list of range of interested organisations, and today we will be taking evidence from Mary McCallan, who's the Minister for Environment and Land Reform. Welcome, nice to have you with us. The minister has joined. I very often give you one of our honorary season tickets by Doug Howison, the interim head of operation of delivery at Scottish Forestry, who, of course, participated in the round table a fortnight ago. Also joining us remotely this morning, sadly unable to join us at the round table a fortnight ago, but with us today is Jackie Bailey. Jackie, I will invite you to come in to give some comment later when we have heard what the witnesses have had to say. Can we just go straight into questions then? The round table was fascinating. Lots of themes came forward. There was a lot of commonality. I think that there were some areas that the committee had not considered quite so much in our earlier review, because the petitioners had, at that stage, submitted quite a comprehensive portfolio of photographs that particularly illustrated the effective invasive species in our native woodland. In the most recent progress report in Scotland's route map to 2020, the targets for native woodland were identified as areas where insufficient progress has been made. I think that this was the sort of area that people wondered what the Scottish Government was now doing to enhance those efforts in that particular area. Thank you very much, convener. It is good to be with you all today on what is a really important topic reflected in the signatures to the petition, but I share the importance of what is viewed. On your question, I would probably split that into two parts. First, as regards our efforts on new woodland creation and the native component of that. Secondly, the actions that we are taking to try and protect, restore and grow the remaining ancient natural, semi-natural woodlands. First of all, on woodland creation, our objective in the Scottish Government is to manage our woodlands for the number of co-benefits that they can provide for the country. That spans across economic opportunities, environmental opportunities, obviously, but also social opportunities. Our challenge is to manage the creation in a way that reflects all those things. We have targets for creation, which are very ambitious and reflect our ambitious climate change targets, but we have targets within that. For example, we have a target that 3,000 hectares as a minimum of all woodland planted in Scotland should be native broadleaved. We have been meeting and exceeding that target and therefore have taken action to increase it. We have moved that floor from a minimum of 3,000 to a minimum of 4,000. We have also committed in our biodiversity strategy, which is currently being worked on to look again at that target and to take an evidence-based look at it to see whether it could be more ambitious still. We also do other activities to try and protect those efforts. For example, the forestry grant scheme has supported 12,000 hectares of native planting in the past three years. That is about new efforts to create. Obviously, one of the things that the petitioners were concerned about was the new forest planting and the native content. It is interesting to hear the Government seeking to increase the percentage of that within it. What is the balancing act in all of that? For people to understand, why is it not all native? What is the calculation that is made in trying to determine the percentage of that that can be native species as opposed to not? It is a really excellent question and something that my officials grapple with all the time. The basis of it is that we are in a very fortunate position that woodland can deliver across many objectives. It can deliver on carbon sequestration, it can deliver on biodiversity growth and it can deliver on socioeconomic outcomes, such as good job creation in rural areas. The types of woodlands that we create have to be balanced across that. For example, we need to plant fast-growing commercial species because they have the greatest opportunity for carbon sequestration. They also allow us to prop up a really successful timber industry, which we will all know supports a lot of jobs in rural Scotland. Then there are types of trees that support our biodiversity objectives, native broadleaf trees that will help us to reverse a decline in biodiversity in Scotland. There are other objectives that we build into that picture. For example, there is a requirement of 10 per cent open space in new woodland creation. That is about serving a socioeconomic objective of supporting wellbeing, so that people can spend time in forests enjoying the health and wellbeing aspects that come with that. It is almost like starting from a position where woodland can deliver and we have to take a judgment on how best to match those objectives with the types of trees that we grow, with the types of forests that we develop. All of that is underpinned by the UK forestry standard, which is about managing forests for their multiple value. I interrupted you, but that was helpful clarification. No, that is fine. Do you want me to talk a little bit about— Yes, please do. That was very much on new woodland creation. If we think about those that are already existing, I have thought very hard about that before and even more so before coming in today. The way that I see it is that there is a complex set of rules and regulations that determine the protection of native woodlands. For example, we have a system of triple SIs where native woodlands of a particular size or antiquity will be protected by environmental designations. If something, for example, were to be applied to be failed within a triple SIs, it would have to come to a failing permission or a triple SIs consent. The Forestry and Land Management Act, which we strengthened in 2018, also provides for the potential management failing of those woodlands. Again, it means that anything between 0.1 and 0.5 hectares would have to go to a failing permission. Both of those routes take us to that failing permission, and you might ask yourself then, well, in what circumstances would a failing be allowed with our ancient woodlands? Well, ultimately, there are very few circumstances in which failing of any ancient woodland would be approved. It is almost the strongest possible terms that the regulations can provide that without a total ban. You can understand why there is not a total ban when you see what are the exceptional circumstances where it might be approved. That might be, for example—Doug, you can correct me if I am wrong here—but something that would be about breaking up the canopy of the forest, allowing light in to support the woodland floor and to support the growth of the ancient woodlands might also be about removing invasive non-native species. As I see it, a robust, albeit complex web of protections that, when they are operating correctly, should absolutely protect our ancient woodlands. Of course, there are threats. There are threats—I will come on to this, I am sure—but in overgrazing invasive non-native species, climate change generally is a threat. I will pause there, but I think that we can come on to how the Government is trying to rise to some of those challenges later on. Some of those themes will emerge. You said when they are working, and I suppose that one of the questions of the petitioners was do they and are they applied. They saw very much the forthcoming natural environment bill, also the Scottish biodiversity strategy, as opportunities for there to be more or further protection through legislative routes. I suppose that the question really is whether that is envisaged at all or whether in preparing for these initiatives, as you have said, there are regulations and opportunities, if things are applied and work well within the current framework, that could be improved so that they do. The question is, is there an evidence trail to show that what is there has been doing the job that it was meant to do? If not, is there something more that might be contemplated or that the Government might be considering contemplating? Yes. I think that whilst I remain open minded to all and any suggestions as to how we strengthen, improve, rise to emerging challenges as regards the protection of our ancient woodlands, I think that the system as it stands, that environmental designation that I mentioned, the forestry and land management route, we are operating correctly, they ought to be sufficient. Now, there are a whole series of things that we are not complacent with. The Government is trying to identify all threats, frankly, to these incredibly precious trees and woodlands, and we are taking action across the board. One of the things that I am particularly pleased to see, and if I can just find the quote on this, is the development of MPF4 and some of the provisions within that for protecting our woodlands, because this is some of the very explicit planning laws that will determine what happens throughout Scotland. The draft, as it currently is being consulted on, says that development proposals should not be supported where they would result in any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition, or adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value. My overriding feeling is that when it comes to the potential felling or removal, that there are a suite of rules in place that ought to protect them. We have enforcement powers where Scottish Forestry has enforcement powers, where that is not occurring. They were strengthened in 2018 to mean that, for example, we would not need a successful prosecution in order to move to restocking, and that Scottish Forestry can step in and undertake that restocking. Where that is operating, it ought to protect them, but we are always looking for new ways to do that through MPF4 and, again, through deer work and invasive non-native species, which, again, we can come on to. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. In evidence session two weeks ago, I asked a question about MPF4 and how it would help to protect ancient woodlands. Can I just quote from one of the answers that I was given from one of the witnesses? National planning framework 4 is a tremendous opportunity that we must not lose. We cannot afford to take risks to have weak legislation to create loopholes. In the evidence session that we were given, it did not think that the language was strong enough in MPF4 to allow planners to make recommendations that the law would be able to back them. Do you think that that is the case? If it is the case, will you change that? That is a really good question. I am taking an active role in development of MPF4 so far as I can within the Government to ensure that a whole range of objectives in the environment portfolio are going to be facilitated through it. The protection of our woodlands is, of course, one of them. I said previously that the legal landscape is complicated, but I do not think that it is vague, and I do not think that it is ineffective. I think that it is complicated. There are good reasons why, for example, you will not find currently in law a ban on the removal of certain trees in woodlands because of those examples that I mentioned, where you might need to do works in order to support the woodlands conservation as a whole. When it comes to planning documents, I think that we need them to be direct and explicit, but we also need them to be able to be applied across the country. The narrower you get in your language, the more difficult it becomes to be a planning document. Having said that, I read what MPF4 has been consulted on. I will repeat it. Development proposals should not be supported where they would result in any loss of ancient woodland, which I think is very pointed for a planning document. I am pleased to see it, but I am working with stakeholders on where they think that language needs to be strengthened. I am going to be an advocate for that, but MPF4, as it stands, is clear and pretty unequivocal. With that, we now need to look at all the other pressures that are bearing down on our antique woodlands, including deer, including invasive non-native species, including climate change and wildfires. I am happy and comfortable that, across the piece, we are trying to rise to those challenges. However, MPF4 is still in draft and is still a bit of a moving document. In the evidence session two weeks ago, it was a lack of data on where ancient woodlands were. The Scottish Government has committed to a national register of ancient woodlands. Can you update us where that is and can that be used? I am talking about local forties here and planners. If they do not know where an ancient woodland is, how can they protect it? Will that document be created fast so that local forties and planners can register where ancient woodlands are and be able to protect them? You are absolutely right. One of the first points in anything is identifying the location, the conservation status and the threats on it. That is in our programme for government to develop the register of ancient woodlands. We are taking forward the development of that through the summer, and it will be a parallel exercise with the biodiversity strategy. There are a number of existing registers or archives of where the ancient woodlands and the native and natural and semi-natural woodlands are, but I think that bringing them together is a really important exercise for the reasons that you say, so that local authorities and all those who have a responsibility for looking after them know exactly where they are, but I think also for landowners so that we can know where ancient woodlands exist. I would like to see that down to really very small pockets, because everything requires to be conserved. We can use that to support and encourage and incentivise landowners even more than we already do to support them. In the summer, I hope to see that being developed. We are very happy to hear from you again, because you contributed to our discussion of Fortnighticle. Would you like to come in on any of the points that we have touched on so far? I just wanted to help to provide some evidence for that answer. The planning act in 2019 placed the requirement on local authorities to create a forest woodland strategy. National MPF4 emphasised the need through local development plans for local authorities to develop forest woodland strategies. Now, in those forest woodland strategies, they also identify ancient, semi-natural and native woodland, and NatureScot and Scottish Forestry are consulted on the establishment of forest woodland strategies. That process, which the minister has been encouraging us to do, helps to drill further into the identification of those nativeings and semi-natural woodlands and to ensure that, therefore, they get additional protection through the creation of forest woodland strategies that connect to their local development plans, where they do not already exist. I think that there are some good things that have been taken forward through MPF4 that will help with that. David Torrance, are local authorities up-to-date on that? If they have not done what you have just said, planners are just going to say, yes or no, as you know in the decision. How does the Government check that they have managed to do that? We have very close relationships with all local authorities in Scotland, and they are statutory consultees for Scottish Forestry and NatureScot for all developments of the type that we have been discussing. We are fairly certain that that requirement that local authorities are aware of the need for that. The sixth thing to say is that the native woodlands survey of Scotland is available on the Scottish Forestry map browser, and local authority colleagues, who generally employ forage specialists, are aware of the need for that and are aware of the need to drive that forward. I think that there are only about two or three local authorities remaining in Scotland who have not prepared a forest woodland strategy, and they are undertaking that task now. One of our committee, Paul Sweeney, is joining us remotely this morning. Interesting introduction. The woodlands trust that was identified in the previous evidence session that the woodland trust had already done an exercise to investigate the extent of ancient woodland in Scotland, and I had identified that it amounts to about five hectares in total. Could the Government give a commitment to undertake that all of that is protected under a SSI as quickly as possible? Well, thanks for the question. I am not going to make a commitment like that in this forum because I am not an ecologist who would be tasked with considering the characteristics of woodlands throughout Scotland and determining whether they ought to be protected under SSI or a special area of conservation. As a Government minister, I am not going to pre-empt the views of scientists and ecologists in that regard, but what I can commit to doing is ensuring and being open-minded to all suggestions as to how we can strengthen the protection of them as they stand, and also how we can rise to all of the challenges that are bearing down on them as they are just now. I would quite like to go into a little bit more detail on that, because, for example, dear pressure is roundly and across the piece accepted as being one of the single greatest threats to the ancient woodlands, and it has been described really well to me as, for example, if you look across the piece, we have ancient antique trees, but because of activity on the ground over tens, decades and centuries where grazing has increased, the saplings that that tree has tried to produce have been consumed and it is described as that leaves the grand parent tree and all the rest of the family have not managed to establish because of the over-browsing by deer. That is critical for us in trying to protect and grow them, but so is invasive non-native species clearance. We are investing heavily in that. We are combating wildfire, which is a threat to our woodlands. I am going to be taking a separate piece of legislation through the Parliament on grousemure licensing, in which I will consider the licensing of mureburn because you can imagine that a wildfire ripping through our countryside, particularly as we are due to have warmer summers, is an immediate threat. Mr Sweeney, I will not commit to the triple SI point just now. It would not be appropriate for me to do so, but I will commit to doing everything that I can to protect those precious trees and woodlands. I should just clarify. I was interested in investigating that most ancient woodland pockets are less than five hectares in size, so they are quite isolated fragments, rather than being a cumulative coverage of Scotland. I was in particular a case about enforcement of tree protection orders that was raised by two of the witnesses or the petitioners in the site of the case in Argyll that was particularly problematic, where there are penalties for a tree felling that is £5,000 per tree. However, what happened was, in this instance, the enforcement of it has been delayed. Argyll and Butte Council have not enforced the tree protection order in a timely manner, therefore permitting the landlord to clear it for grazing without any adequate enforcement. I also understand that the National Authority of Scottish Forestry, I am just trying to find the right section of the transcription. Bear with me a second. They have said that they have heard that there will not be any enforcement at a national level by the forestry officer. They have basically came to a gentleman's agreement on the issue. That raises a concern about the extent to which vandalism of ancient woodland effectively is enforced, even where there are protections. Would you agree that there are issues there that need further investigation? Very briefly, to pick up again on the last point about the hectare age, it is a good point that you and the woodland trust make about 0.5 hectares. However, the Forestry and Land Management Act 2018 was strengthened to cover woodlands of less than 0.5 hectares, so I think that Dougle correct me if I'm wrong, but 0.1 hectares up to 0.5 now require a felling permission. As I say, there are very few circumstances in which ancient woodlands would be felled or would be afforded a felling permission. Just on the point about enforcement, which is really important. I know from this role, but also in constituency capacity that there are frequent concerns. I would say that felling is undertaken without regard to the rules and occasionally without concern for the enforcement actions that might be taken as a result of that. For our part, we have rules in which it is a criminal offence. It can result in a fine of up to £5,000. We strengthened the rules in 2018 to allow Scottish Forestry to not require a successful prosecution in order to install a restocking directive. Forestry Scotland can have a step-in responsibility where it can undertake it where it is not being undertaken by the landowner. However, despite all that, I understand the frustration where people might see things going on not in line with the rules. Dougle and I and our teams try to respond proactively to those cases when they are raised with us. We will investigate the circumstances. I remain open minded to any ways that we can make sure that they are being complied with across the board. An interesting theme arose in the discussion with the petitioners at the last session when we discussed potential comparators of what they would like to see as a framework for protections for ancient woodland. A comparator arose about the listed building programme and also for scheduled ancient monuments. As a basis for considering how a new scheme of protection could be brought in, it is simply being a SSI, which might require a significant burden of evidence about particular horticultural or scientifically and biologically significant characteristics. Effectively, it could be simply that the immunity of this forestry is important to the community. It is known as an ancient woodland that is a native species that would merit protection on that basis, rather than any further requirements. Is it potentially an opportunity to consider something that is akin to the scheduled ancient monuments programme or the listed buildings programme? Communities can nominate areas of woodland that they want protected to be considered. Obviously, when the listing system and the protections for a built heritage were introduced in the 1960s, it required a total of national survey done by the Royal Commission to identify the national list of protected sites. Perhaps a similar basis could be undertaken for woodlands in this instance, given the scale of the national pressure that has been faced. Perhaps that could be an interesting benchmark to look at in how we approach that going forward. I will give a technical overview of the existing rules and the extent to which they might already be akin to what Mr Sweeney is asking for. First of all, you mentioned the community point and almost the ability to nominate woodlands that folks would like to see protected. I am very enthusiastic about community involvement in the ownership, management and co-development of woodlands, not least because I believe that any kind of development happening on people's doorsteps ought to involve them and they ought to benefit from it. I think that as we move in the next 20-25 years towards our net zero targets, Scotland's land, the way that we use it, is going to change and I want to see communities benefit from that. I am always mindful of how I can build in, working with officials, greater community engagement, greater ownership and greater development. On the point about to what extent what we have already is akin to something like schedule of ancient monuments, I might hand over to Doug because I suspect that it might be similar but dealt with differently through some of the schemes that we have been talking about already. There are a couple of things there. The minister has said that there is a commitment to a new register of ancient woodland that will be taken forward or start to develop later in the summer. The last survey of ancient woodland dates back to the 70s by the Joint Nature Conservancy Council. It is a good opportunity to revisit with improved technology the distribution of ancient woodland specifically as opposed to native woodland in Scotland and to be able, therefore, to provide a benchmark for further protection going forth from that point. That is the first thing. The second thing is that sites that are designated as either a SSI or an SAC, a special area of conservation or a special protection area are afforded control or protection from NatureScot. Their consent is required for operations in those woodlands that could cause damage to or develop or protect those woodlands. That is very much akin to some of the protections that come from scheduled ancient monuments and so on. There are existing parallels within the regulatory system that affords similar protections. I am quite happy that that is afforded. Where sites are not designated, they require a fel and permission. As the minister has said, it is very rarely that a fel and permission that we provided on an ancient woodland is safe for specific requirements to protect in hands and develop that ancient woodland. We are, of the opinion that the protection that we got in place currently provides for what you are asking for, sir. I am keen to bring in other committee members. Ruth Maguire. I want to welcome the comments that you made about community ownership and development. That is really important. It came across from the petitioners that they felt pretty disenfranchised by some of what had gone on. I think that it is really good to hear you champion that community involvement. I wonder if I can go back a bit and ask a little bit more about the threats that we have heard from yourself and stakeholders that the biggest threats are on the issues. Non-native species, can you say a little bit more about what progress the Government is making in terms of modernising the deer management legislation and what the Scottish Government is doing working with landowners to prevent the spread of the non-native species into woodland? Yes, of course. I would say that the two greatest threats that are currently facing are woodlands in Scotland. First, as regards deer, I will come back to that analogy about the grandparent standing alone in the forest, which brings it to life. We need to do something to allow that natural process of regeneration, which our ancient woodlands are so well placed to deliver, to flourish. We have received the recommendations of the Deer Working Group, and we responded to that last year. We were able to commit to implementing the vast majority of the recommendations that saved one, which was about the closed season for female deer, which we will not support on the basis of welfare concerns, but we intend to take forward the non-legislative actions that we can take and the actions that will require primary legislation. We will take forward the non-legislative ones now through the biodiversity strategy, and we will have the natural environment bill later in this term, which I expect—although I am not leading on that bill—that will contain any of the legislative actions that we need, that we need primary legislation. However, it is very much a focus for this parliamentary term. As regards invasive non-native species, it is, like deer, one of those things that is laborious and requires boots on the ground for really quite hard work in order to clear rhododendron, which, if you travel—I was in West Highland recently and I just saw it consuming the forest floor—our forestry grant scheme already supports landowners with funds to help to clear rhododendron. We are working with the Atlantic Rainforest Alliance, which is part of our commitment to protecting and restoring Scotland's rainforest. We are backing that up with some of the funds from our £500 million investment in the natural economy. Indeed, we have opened a nature restoration fund, which I cannot remember the figure. It is a 60 million multi-annual fund, and I think that there is 12.5 million available this year. There are bids in for that, which are currently being considered by nature of Scotland just now. I would expect some of that to rise to the challenges of invasive non-native species, but they will be confirmed in the spring. Minister, you have talked about the management and the protection, and I think that they are vital. In some of the answers that you have given this morning, you have gone into some of the detail. Can I talk about the implementation that we have when a number of policies fall into place? The whole idea about protecting these woodlands is to ensure that they are sustainable and that they continue. Resources were touched on when we had the round table about what was being spent and how it was being managed. That has an implication as to what can be achieved, but there is also a knowledge and reinforcement. You have touched on some of the enforcement issues today, but resource has a massive impact as to what you can achieve in the short to medium term. Can I ask what the Scottish Government is doing to enhance some of that and how you are tackling that situation? Without the financial resource to manage it, it becomes unsustainable. It is an interesting point. It applies here, as it does across the piece, on so many of the actions that we need to take when faced with a climate and nature emergency. If the magnitude of the task for us over the next generation and more is enormous, be it in the natural environment and the funds that it takes here to do what we need to do, but be it in homes and buildings, decarbonisation, transport, the cost of eye watering, and the public sector cannot support it ourselves. We need to find ways of leveraging responsible private investment. That is a big factor of the resourcing question, because, as I say, we cannot do it ourselves. I am keen to bring back to that point about community empowerment and community benefit. I am keen to make sure that that private investment is responsible, but, nonetheless, it has to be leveraged. We can do that through carbon markets. That applies to woodlands, as it does to peatland restoration, which is a really important action, but it is also very expensive. We are trying in the Government to provide funding—for example, if I can move to a different subject, peatland restoration—we are trying to provide funding, which will bring confidence into the market, which will allow others to come in and support it. That applies across the piece. The existing policies that the Government has already advanced, are many of those now at the stage that they need to be reassessed, because the time that is taken and, as I say, you have talked about resource, so, to make things happen, there needs to be a refresh as to what can be achieved, because the situation year on year becomes worse, and the amount that is required, the resource, the staffing, the implementation and some of the policies that you put in place are just not fit for purpose in today's society and in today's market when we are looking at how we can manage woodland, because it has seen an erosion of that, and those policies might have had an impact on that. Yes, I think that you are quite right, and it is another aspect of the fact that we are dealing with an emergency here, that we can never stop and just pat ourselves on the back and say, okay, well, that was good a year ago, so it is acceptable now that that will not be the case right up to 2045 and it will not be the case beyond 2045. So we do need to keep reviewing what we are doing, and I think that a good example of that might be what I talked about at the beginning of the session, which was our targets for the percentage of our planting, which must be native. I mentioned that we had the 3,000 hectare minimum, we were meeting and exceeding that, so we have raised the minimum, and now, as part of our biodiversity strategy, we will do an evidence-based assessment of that and see if it needs to be upped again. Always trying to challenge ourselves to make sure that what we are doing is up to speed, and if we are not sufficiently challenging ourselves, then the stakeholders that we work with, Parliament will challenge us as well, and I think that all the better, because we do not have time to mess about. The partnership working that is already taking place in some areas has been quite pioneering, but that is not the case across the piece. Scotland does not have that opportunity at the moment, as I said. Some locations are working well, but others have a long way to go to catch up. Do you feel that some communities are being left behind? Yes, I think that they probably are, and I think that we probably all have experience in our MSP capacities of feeling that, across the areas that we represent, there are communities that are exceptionally active and able to advocate on their own behalf and get organised, and there are others who are not. I think that disparity is something that we all need to try to address. Last week, I visited Lochar Cague with the Woodland Trust for Scotland and with the local community development group, which has undertaken a joint venture for the restoration of Lochar Cague. It was a prime example of what you talked about there, which is the communities that are really organised and doing exceptionally well, but you are also right to say that there are others who are less well organised, not for the want of trying, I suspect. I think that I mentioned that I am really keen to make sure that communities are supported. It is something that I take very seriously. There probably is a lesson here for us in how accessible a lot of this is. I talked about that complex network of rules, which I am comfortable to protect the Woodlands, but are they accessible? That is a different question. The work that we are trying to do and the registered etc should help to open that up and make it something that everyone can be involved with. A minister, you made reference to all the things that you would potentially like to do and the enormous resource on the public purse that that represents. One of the things that the petitioners looked at or were seeking to encourage was incentives to be provided to landowners to protect natural Woodlands on their land. Is that one of those things that falls into the desirable but maybe hard to achieve categories, or is it something that there is potentially room to accommodate? We are already accommodating it through our forestry grant scheme, which Doug will have more of the details of at his fingertips, but it already supports landowners with funding to undertake management of their Woodlands for conservation purposes as well as for other purposes. We have opportunities coming down the track to look again at how well we are doing this. For example, we have the design of post-EU exit agricultural policy and I will be taking a land reform bill through the Parliament this term, I hope to anyway. In all of those ways, we can be assessing both the incentives and the requirements that are available to landowners. Speaking of the land reform portfolio, a big part of that is the land rights and responsibility statement, which makes it clear that with rights comes responsibilities. In an emergency, landowners and their rights and responsibilities, perhaps we could do more to make clear our expectations about how land is managed. I invite Jackie Baillie to make a statement to the committee based on the consideration that we have heard this morning. It was just a quick one on a point that we raised in the last evidence session about that, since 1979, 270 Woodlands have been lost or damaged by development, which is significantly higher than other parts of the UK. Obviously, Scotland has perhaps more forestry coverage in per hectare, but what I would like to understand is that, as our lessons learned, exercise has been undertaken to understand why those 270 Woodlands were lost and what can be done to arrest the cause of that. I also understand that it was raised that the last session of one of the biggest threats is coniferous seeding and contamination that leads to impinging on ancient woodland sites. However, the forestry industry is exempt from the UK forestry standard on monitoring and addressing contamination, so we need to do more to put obligations on the forestry industry to prevent that contamination from conifer plantations. Thank you, miss Sweeney. Two important technical questions, which I will try to give an answer to, although I would prefer to be able to go away and get you a fuller answer, but I will also ask my colleague Doug if there is anything that he should like to add, but we will seek to come back to you with a response to those that are detailed enough to reflect the detail of the question. However, if I can pick up quickly on the point about the contamination of almost different species of trees and the extent to which that is a threat to our ancient woodlands, for our part, Forestry and Land Scotland, who managed the public forests and estates on behalf of the Scottish ministers, to the extent to which there has been historic planting on any ancient woodland sites that they manage, they are undertaking restoration in 60 per cent of those sites. What that often means is removing the non-native or non-natural species that are planted in and around the ancient woodland site to prevent that cross-contamination of species and to allow the ancient woodlands to develop as they naturally would. However, having said that, I will pass over to Doug and we will both come back to you separately with some more detail on your questions. Okay, thank you minister. So Mr Sweeney, I think that the loss that you referred to as a result of deer-invasive non-native species and the seeding in of corn for trees was also invasive non-native species. That is how we understand and articulate the loss of those as opposed to the built environment that is being placed upon ancient woodlands. That is the first thing. In terms of lessons learned, I think that some of the things that are being proposed in MPF4 as a direct result of that in policy number 34 for ancient woodland is a good example of that. Secondly, I think that as the biodiversity strategy is released later in the year, there would be some evidence from that as those lessons learned. There is a statement of intent within the biodiversity strategy to bring that forward. Thirdly, Scottish Forestry, Forest and Land Scotland and Nature Scotland are working with the lines for Scotland's rainforests in order to pull the resources, as best we can, to reverse some of the decline that you have eloquently referred to in your question, Mr Sweeney. I think that there are things that we are doing to understand that decline and to learn from that and to start to reverse it. To that convener, I would just add that in the natural environment bill that we will be hoping to bring through Parliament, we will expect to bring forward statutory targets for nature recovery and nature growth akin to the climate targets, which I think we would all agree have been a turning point for action on emissions reduction. Within that, we are also committed to protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030. In both of those pieces of work, albeit I am not leading on them, that will be my colleague, Ms Slater, I will be arguing very strongly for the inclusion of the greatest possible protection for our ancient woodlands within those projects. Listing two proceedings with us this morning has been Jackie Baillie, who has supported the petitioners in the development of this petition. Jackie Baillie, would you like to offer a further statement to the committee that we can consider along with the evidence that we have heard this morning? Indeed, convener, and thank you very much for the time afforded to me at the committee and my apologies that I couldn't be with you when you last considered the petition. I wonder whether I might also ask some questions of the minister because, to be frank, I don't doubt the minister's good intentions, but I think the issue here is that they are at odds with the petitioner's direct experience. Let me acknowledge that the minister's language was very careful because I think that she herself recognises that there is scope for improvement. I believe that at the heart of this is the difference between what existing legislation and guidance may say and the reality of its implementation on the ground. Let me be candid. People are not seeking permission to fell ancient woodland, they are just doing it. Reports are made to Scottish forestry and enforcement action is not taken. Reports are made to councils, they are asked to put in place TROs. That has not yet been done a year on. Does the minister perhaps accept—and perhaps I will answer all my questions at the end—that all of this demonstrates that the existing framework is insufficient in terms of its practical implementation? There is a sense of urgency here. I hear what the minister and her official have been saying about what is coming, the NPF4, the biodiversity strategy, the work that is on-going, but there is a sense of urgency here that I am not sure is fully appreciated because we are losing ancient woodland. There is very little of it left to start with and we are losing it at pace. I am genuinely concerned about the timescale for this and I would therefore urge immediate action that can be taken now, while we are waiting for all the things coming down the track. I very much welcome the register of ancient woodlands. I think that nobody would dispute that. I hear it starting in the summer, but I did not hear from the minister when it is going to be completed, which of course is the key issue. The committee was shown and I am sure that the minister has seen the images of non-native species, such as conifers, invading and effectively destroying ancient woodlands. You spoke about investing in removal. Just yesterday, the Scottish Wild Land Group reported of their concerns about the highlands, in particular, and modern commercial forestry practice, and that is what they had to say. There is also the ever-increasing problem of non-native conifers, particularly Sitka spruce, seeding out of those plantations and beginning a takeover of the wider landscape. If no action is taken in 100 years or so, the hills will no longer be open moorland but transformed into spruce forest. We have heard about New Zealand removing non-native conifers where they have seeded in ancient woodlands and elsewhere. You spoke about investing in removal. What is the scale and pace of that, because my fear is that there is simply insufficient being done. Finally, but perhaps most importantly for me, is the impact on local communities. Those are tax haven companies, such as Gresham House, who are taking advantage of the tree planting programmes encouraged by the Government in Scotland. They are about tax avoidance funds for wealthy clients, and they are not about preserving the environment. Those companies outbid local communities for land. Farmers are concerned about the loss of productive land, haulage lorries thundering through small roads in tiny villages. Their concerns are simply swept aside. I was really encouraged to hear the minister's comments about ownership, management and co-development. Those are absolutely the right sentiments, but I need to know what practically is going to happen. There was no mention of that in any legislation. Will you give communities the right to buy as a first-off before any of those companies come in? Those are the practical things that potentially would make a difference. Let me conclude by saying that everybody, without fail, agrees that ancient woodlands are particularly important for Scotland. They contribute to our biodiversity, and nobody disagrees with any of that. What is clear to me is that there is a need for much more robust action to match the ministers and the Government's good intentions, so that we actually see that on the ground. That is not just legislation and guidance, that is also about enforcement action. I am grateful to the committee for considering that petition and indeed for the minister for taking the time to respond today. I do not think that it would be quite right for the Parliament to are not members of the committee to cross-examine the minister as such, but I will, in asking the minister if there is anything she would finally like to say to the committee just before we draw the session to a conclusion, we would be very pleased to hear what that was. Of course, convener. I will use that opportunity, if you do not mind, to respond to Ms Bailey's points, all of which I note and I think are helpful. First of all, she asked about some specifics. I will start with the community engagement point. I have been in post now for approaching a year, which I can scarcely believe. In that time, I have tried to take the portfolio and stress the community element of it. Officials and I have been working with the Scottish Land Commission to understand exactly how best we can embed community engagement development management ownership within our ambitions for Woodlands. Of course, I am hoping to take forward a land reform bill in this term. As well as continuing Scotland's land reform journey, I will be trying to rise specifically to the challenge of what is colloquially termed green lairds, which is an issue that we are all conscious of as the value of Scotland's natural capital rises in the climate emergency. Ms Bailey asked about what action is currently being taken on clearing the ancient woodlands that are potentially planted with other species. I am not sure if I said that before, but let me confirm that FLS, who managed land on behalf of the Scottish ministers, are currently undertaking restoration of 60 per cent of what we call the pause sites, which are the plantations on ancient woodland sites. I expect that to increase as we can. The point that you made about the forestry grant scheme and the extent to which it is supporting those who could readily afford to undertake work. In any case, the forestry grant scheme has, in recent years, 60 per cent, although I will correct that if I am wrong, 60 per cent of all grants have been for projects of less than 20 hectares. We have a real focus on working with farmers, for example, to help them to stitch woodland into their farming business. There is a focus on the smaller players as well, although right tree, right place for the right reason is our mantra in the support that we offer. Finally, on the point about the extent to which everything that we have discussed today and what the Government is doing feels at odds with what communities are experiencing, I understand that point because, as I said, I have experienced in my constituency capacity of that occasionally being the case. What I see in this role is the national picture. When looking at the national picture, I am comfortable that the rules as they are are robust. However, as with anything, there are circumstances in which people will not comply with the rules. Very frequently, when that happens, people will get in touch with me, they will get in touch with Forestry Scotland and we try to actively get involved, often visiting sites to see what is happening and what we can do to help. Doug and I discussed this before coming today, and we would like to offer Doug or NatureScot officials or indeed a local Conservancy officer to visit with Jackie Baillie and constituents to any sites that they would like us to come and see what has potentially gone wrong in that circumstance. Thank you very much minister. Thank you very much both to you and to Mr Howson for your time this morning. That has been an incredibly helpful discussion. Will the committee members agree that we will consider the evidence that we have heard this morning at a subsequent meeting? You are content with that, thank you. In which case, I will have a short suspension to allow everyone to regroup. Thank you very much. Welcome back to further consideration of continued petitions. Our next petition is petition number 1905, a public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sex abuse since 1950, lodged by Angela Cusins on behalf of the UK XJW support. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sex abuse allegations since 1950. Today, we will be taking evidence from our petitioner, Angela Rosina Cusins. I would like to extend a warm welcome to Angela Cusins on behalf of the committee. I would like to thank her for coming to speak to us about something that is obviously very personal to her. I imagine that it is difficult to talk about and we very much appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to come and speak with us this morning. I know from the consideration of the petition that we have had before that the Scottish Government's view has been that to extend the public inquiry would in some way undermine the ability for it to make progress in the short term when other parts of the country are perhaps taking a different point of view. However, I am going to move straight into questions and I think just by way of a kind of understanding for our discussion, to explain a bit about your own background, what led to the petition and the issues that you have been raising in relation to child abuse and religious organisations. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness from very early ages, being that I was a baby when my parents were recruited at the doorstep from a couple of doorstep callers and that went on for 19 years. I suffered abuse from my father and one of the elders within our congregation and nothing was done about it. It is my firm belief that this organisation is a pedophile paradise because they do not do anything about allegations of child abuse. They do not phone the police and that is why I am bringing my petition here today. And what do you think the benefits of a public inquiry which extended the scope to those who had suffered abuse by religious organisations in Scotland? What do you think the benefits of the public inquiry would be to the pursuit of the injustice that you feel you have suffered? I think that the main benefit is for the children because the children, particularly within the Jehovah's Witness community, are silenced. They are not allowed to speak up and this little lamb here that I have got represents the little lambs of the community and because they do not have a voice they are silent and that should not be the case. Someone should speak up for them and that is what I am here to do today. And in the endeavours that you made to have the situation that you were facing addressed, what was the response that you received? The response that I received was a judicial committee within the Jehovah's Witness organisation where three elders had my father and myself in a room with them and they asked me very provocative questions about what had happened and then sent me and my younger sister home with my parents. And as far as they were concerned, as much as they were prepared to consider or pursue in relation to the matter? That was pretty much all they did. They did not do anything else apart from giving my father a mild reproof which was he was allowed to continue to come into the congregation, mixing with youngsters, mixing with other people and not allowed to hold the microphone. That was one of the things he wasn't allowed to do. And what age were you when you had sought to pursue these matters through the congregational process? I was 16 years old. Okay, thank you. Henry Rlaid to David Torrance. Thank you, convener, and thank you, Angela, for attending the committee today. It must be extremely difficult for you. What's your opinion on the Scottish Government views an argument that expanding the remit of the inquiry would only delay the time it would take actually to fulfil its commitments to other sexual abuse survivors? I empathise with other abuse survivors who have been in care. My view is that there are children out there who are hidden in plain sight and they need to be heard as well. Whether that extending inquiry or a separate inquiry is brought forward for this, then something needs to be done. Could I ask you just on that point, would it be acceptable, because you've brought a petition forward if a separate inquiry was actually brought forward? I think so, because there's a difference between being in care and being out here with everybody else, watching us and still being hidden. Thank you, convener. I note for the record that Angela Cousins is my constituent, and we met in 2018 to discuss it. Angela, thank you for being with us this morning. I'm sorry that that happened to you and thank you for being so brave in speaking up for other people. I wonder if I can ask you about the suggestion that the Scottish Government has made that it will consider and address any future recommendations made by the current inquiry to improve legislation policy and practice. Do you think that recommendations that come from the current inquiry will be able to address the concerns that you have about what happened to you in the religious organisation? Unless there's mandatory reporting involved for religious leaders, then I don't think that that will be the case. The Scottish Government has put across the named persons, which is absolutely fantastic in my view. However, as always, when a child won't speak to a named person, they are required to remain silent. Unless there is a religious leader mandated to speak to police and child protection services in instances where allegations like that come forward, then those children will forever remain silent. Can I ask you a little bit more about that, about the mandatory reporting? That's something that we explored before. If I'll just—this is the Scottish Government's word at the moment, not mine—they say that there's not a compelling case for the introduction of mandatory reporting in Scotland. As previous evidence suggested, there could be some significant unintended consequences for wider child protection issues. You've stated there the example of a child within your previous religious organisation. Can you expand a little bit more on that and why that would be helpful for a child in that situation? Just yesterday in America, in the state of Illinois, they have mandatory reporting and the elders who didn't report the child abuse of a six-year-old right up until the age of 18 were sentenced yesterday for a year each. You're saying that children within that organisation wouldn't talk to anyone out with the organisation. Is that why you feel the mandatory reporting? Yes, that's exactly why I feel that the mandatory reporting should be put in place, because children within the organisation feel or are taught that everybody outside the organisation are part of the devil's world. They're all controlled by the devil, the government's controlled by the devil, the police are controlled by the devil. It's very nerve-racking for a child to even say anything to anybody out with their own organisation. They're pretty much insular in a way, isolated from pretty much normal everyday life. Alexander Stewart Thank you, convener, and thank you for your testimony and the questions so far. How disappointed are you that the Scottish Government is not prepared to extend the inquiry? The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made comments in the chamber. How do you feel about that situation that they don't see the need to progress any further? I think that the First Minister is unaware of what has been going on underneath her own nose, what's been going on under everybody's nosies. Of course I'm disappointed, but at the same time I think that education for the First Minister and other Government officials is key here, where they are aware of my story and not just my story, but the story of a number of children who are now adults across the world. There has been 30 documentaries in 15 different countries on this issue for the past 20 years. I think it's time the First Minister and other Government officials were educated on that. You touched on other authorities that are perceived as not being supportive. You mentioned the devil there. That is how people are brought up within that regime to believe in that. Do you feel that you have been listened to by other authorities and other organisations and individuals? After I came out, I met my partner, and it was him who told me that this is what I should do. I should go and speak to the police about what had happened to me. I have been supported by authorities, by social workers in our area, and supported by health therapists as well, and education, as I'm a student at college at the moment. As we know, the child sex abuse inquiry in England and Wales is going to look more broadly than the one here in Scotland, which is focusing care homes. They are going to look at religious organisations as well. You made reference to 30 documentaries in 15 countries. Have you been able to meet with or speak with others who may potentially find that their own circumstances are going to be addressed in that public inquiry in England and Wales, or is that a difficult kind of exchange to have? I have, because our group is mainly online to help survivors of abuse, to help people who come out of the organisation and feel very fragile. We have more than 1,000 UK members in our Facebook group, and there's lots of support going forward every day. That's interesting. Is it possible if the Scottish Government won't expand the remit of their inquiry or, as has been suggested, a separate inquiry were not to take place? Is it possible that some of the themes, lessons and recommendations that will emerge through that separate inquiry could crystallise into actions that campaigners could pursue more directly with the Scottish Government here? In other words, is it possible that inquiry will lead to recommendations of which Scotland should be taking note too? The Exit Inquiry has concluded its inquiry, and it put forward its report. I could bring that information to you if you don't already have that. Paul Sweeney, you have been listening quite well. Do you have any questions that you would like to put? Thank you, convener. I've just been quite taken aback by the testimony today, I think that we all have, and I just wanted to add on that, obviously, disappointing to hear the Government's position on this, but whether you think that the suggestion by the Scottish Government to consider and address any future recommendations made by the inquiry to improve legislation, policy and practice would address or be sufficient to address any of the concerns raised in your petition, or do you feel that that would come close to dealing with it? Do you think that there's at least some element of what the Government is saying that might be helpful, or do you think that there's not adequate at all? I don't think so. If mandatory reporting is not there for religious leaders, then there's no way forward. There has obviously been cases in America, for instance, just yesterday, where they haven't reported, but it's about bringing that accountability for people to report this sort of abuse to authorities, because they're the people that know how to deal with this in a kind and empathic manner, and not ask provocative questions of children. That's very helpful, thanks. Obviously, mandatory reporting, you described that the way in which you were treated and was gaslighted, was appalling. Can you describe what you think mandatory reporting would look like? How would that play out? What would it be like in your ideal scenario? In my ideal scenario, it would be just like what teachers currently have to do. Currently, teachers have to report any allegation of child abuse to the police and social work. I think that if religious leaders have to be mandated to report as well, that would go a long way in bringing that voice out for the little lambs. You met Ruth McGuire a few years ago. I know that you've met many politicians in the period since, and obviously, you will have raised your concerns directly with Scottish Government ministers. Everybody will have been very sympathetic, but, of course, you are looking for outcomes as much as anything. Am I right to say, then, that the key outcome that we can take from the discussion that we have had this morning is around the issue of mandatory reporting? Does that sit above or on the same level as I desire to see the current Scottish Government inquiry expand the scope of the work that it is doing, or are those equally parallel and important to you? I think that they are equally parallel and important because it will help the Scottish Government to have that education on what not just my former religious organisation but other religious organisations, as my former religious organisation, is a very high-control group. I suppose that there will be others as well that are hidden in plain sight. Your life has been rebuilt or has been rebuilt with the support of your partner Ian, who we are very grateful to have with us here this morning. Obviously, that has been hugely important to you. In concluding, I would like to give you the opportunity to say anything further or to make any additional remarks that you would like to us as a committee, which will then help us going forward. If you have anything that you would like to read to us by way of a statement, that is equally valuable to us as well. I am going to speak about a quote that I learned whilst learning at college. Experience is for me the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person's ideas and none of my own ideas are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must turn again and again to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming me. That is by Carl Rogers, the psychologist. Obviously, personal experience has very much been the basis of your understanding of these issues and the way in which you sought to pursue public redress and public action to try and help others potentially and to have it tackled directly at source. It has been very, very brave of you to join us this morning. I am very grateful to you both. I know that it was a long journey to get here and probably be a long journey back. We take this petition very seriously. I know that members will want to consider the evidence that we have heard in further detail. As you will be aware, we have gone back to the Scottish Government in relation to the inquiry and, I think, on further reflection, having heard your evidence again this morning, we will consider those points of fresh. I want to thank you very much for the time that you have taken and for your courage in speaking with us today. I will now suspend the meeting of the committee. Consideration of further continued petitions, petition number PE1876, to accurately record the sex that people charged are convicted of rape or attempted rape, lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa McKenzie and Cath Murray. Forgive me, there have been some developments here, so I have slightly a long introduction before we consider potential ways forward. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Court Service to accurately record the sex that people charged are convicted of rape or attempted rape. At our last consideration, the committee agreed to write to a number of bodies when we have now received responses from Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. We also have an additional submission from Leslie Warunder and a further response from the petitioner. Since issuing our papers, we have received a further submission from Michelle Thomson MSP that was published and circulated to members yesterday. Unfortunately, Michelle cannot join us as she is participating elsewhere in Parliament this morning. In our submission, Michelle Thomson highlights concerns about the failure to consider the experience of victims in the responses received so far by the committee. She also highlights an evidence gap in qualitative research on the impact of the approach to recording the sex of perpetrators on those who have suffered from rape or sexual abuse of islands. Police Scotland states that, under current operational recording practice, sex and gender are used interchangeably and identification is recorded based on how individuals present. However, they indicate that there are circumstances where the issue of biological sex may require to be explored for a legitimate policing purpose, for example sexual offences. Their submission also states that, in considering a crime, it is relevant if the perpetrator is legally defined as or self-identifies as male or female. It is only relevant that they have a penis, including a surgically constructed penis, which has penetrated one of the defined bodily orifices. Their submission sets out specific circumstances where a woman may be recorded on police systems as having committed contraventions of sections 1 and 18 of the sexual offences Scotland Act 2009. In concluding, Police Scotland states that their data governance board has been instructed to review their internal policies and recording procedures. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service advises that information used in criminal proceedings originates from Police Scotland. Therefore, it is a matter for Police Scotland to record the data. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service indicates that information relating to sex is not displayed in court papers. The Equality and Human Rights Commission states that any public body collecting data, including Police Scotland, should have a clear and transparent policy relating to the data that they collect and the use that they put it to and that policies should be equality impact assessed. Collection of data must be necessary and proportionate. That means that where a body carries out a number of functions, the data collected and the way that it is collected will vary depending on the intended purpose. For example, Police Scotland may collect information on the protected characteristics of those to whom they are providing a service or who are the victims of crime differently from those charged with serious offences. The Commission also states that how best to record data on the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape will depend on how this data is to be used and it is important that this is clearly defined and stated. The Commission considers that the chief statistician's recently produced guidance on data collection and publication provides helpful information on an appropriate balance to be struck in relation to the recording of data of those charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape. The petitioners responded to Police Scotland's submission and highlights two recent rulings in the inner house of the Court of Session. The petitioner considers these rulings place a duty on Police Scotland to collect data on biological sex in relation to people charged of rape or attempted rape. The issues of messaging to victims of sexual offending, the experience of those victims and the need to put them at the centre of consideration is also highlighted by the petitioner and included in the submission by Leslie Warander. The petitioner has also submitted a further response and this was circulated to members yesterday and it references the submission from the commission and the guidance of the chief statistician. Apologies, that is quite a comprehensive package of updates that we have received and I wonder on reflection having read these responses whether members have any thoughts. Ruth Maguire Thank you convener and hopefully I think what you have informed the committee of there actually covers probably the main points that I was going to make so if I just in summary think there are two aspects to this that are important and two reasons why we should keep the petition open. The first is around data, obviously public bodies have a duty to collect and use data appropriately, but the second I think is highlighted in Leslie Warander's submission and the submission from our colleague Michelle Thompson MSP and that is about the centering of victims. I think sometimes when we talk about data in these matters it can all be a bit cold at the centre of this issue are women who have been raped and the consequences of some of the practices that are being spoken about here are frankly devastating for the victims of that particular crime. Can I suggest that the committee asks the Scottish Government for its considerations of the recent rulings of the Inner House of the Court's session what implications they have for the recording practice of Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Court Service in relation to people charged or convicted of rape and attempted rape? The petitioner considers that the recent rulings of the Inner House of the Court's session place a duty on Police Scotland to collect data on biological sex in relation to the people charged of rape or attempted rape. Can we ask the Scottish Government for their position on that? Also, if the draft guidance on collecting data on sex and gender has been updated or finalised since it was published in December 2020 and if there are plans to consider the potential need for further revision of the guidance following the recent rulings, I would like us to contact Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Court Service. As you stated in your opening, we need to be clear if they have a clear and transparent policy relating to the data that they collect and the use that they put it to. Importantly, has that policy been a quality impact assessed and is the quality impact assessment a public document? If they have a defined and clear statement of how data is collected in relation to the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape and how it is used? Thank you very much, Ruth Maguire. That is a very comprehensive series of recommendations. I am certainly happy to endorse it. Is there any other member of the committee who would like to comment or add any further recommendations? No, so we can tend to proceed on that basis. We keep the petition open and we write as suggested there by Ruth Maguire to the various bodies concerned. Thank you very much. Let's make sure that I'm on the right place. Petition number 1884 to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or alternative funding put in place lodged by Steve Gillan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help. When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to seek information about the progress of clinical trials and further information on his discussions with the UK Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Response states that he thinks that the lack of evidence on the quality, safety and efficacy of CBPMs is the main barrier to them being prescribed by NHS clinicians and he stresses the importance of the development of the trials. He outlines plans to undertake two randomised and controlled trials into early onset epilepsy. The trials will compare medicines that contain CBD only and CBD and THC with placebo. That is to help to answer the question of whether adding THC to the CBD improves anti-epileptic properties. He also indicates that commercial discussions about the supply of products of the trial are under way and further details of the trials, including the timetable, will be dependent on the conclusion of those discussions. He stated that a meeting was scheduled in early February with the UK Minister for Patient Safety and Primary Care, Maria Caulfield MP. That was to include a suggestion, a consideration of ways in which the trials can be expedited. The committee also requested information on existing evidence in other countries from SPICE. The review is included in your papers packet on XD and provides information and current guidelines from Australia, America, Ireland and from Canada. It highlights that a review on medicinal cannabis in Australia was examined by the UK Government. The UK Government stated that the review showed limited but high-quality evidence for the use of medicinal cannabis products to treat epilepsy. The use and efficacy of THC treatments is addressed in the guidance for Australia, Ireland and Canada. It indicates that the evidence base for THC is complex in that it may have either pro or anti-epileptic properties. Much of the guidance in other jurisdictions acknowledges that there is limited evidence for the use of cannabis-based products from medicinal use and frequently advises that products should be prescribed as an add-on treatment with existing anti-epileptic drugs. The petitioner points to three existing prescriptions across the UK and reiterates that he does not accept that there is a lack of evidence for prescribing. He explains that the prescriptions have been in place for three years and he considers this an example of reliable evidence for the NHS. Again, sorry, quite a long introduction and I wonder if colleagues have any comments that they might wish to add. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. In light of the meeting with patient safety and primary care, Marie Coffield MP in February, I wonder if we could write to the Government, the Cabinet Secretary, asking for an update on how that went. When commercial discussions about the supply of products to trials are likely to conclude, and if the trials will include patients including children with severe epileptic conditions, patients in Scotland will be recruited for trials and for further information on potential timescales of trials and how those can be expedited and depending on the outcome of the potential timescales and seeking the achievement of authorisation. Thank you. Again, that is quite a comprehensive series of recommendations. Would anyone like to add to that? Are the committee content to support Paul Sweeney? I think that it is also important to raise that people are self-medicating using THC's already from unofficial sources that they have taught supply from. I think that it might also be worth engaging with the Minister for Drugs, Angela Constance, regarding the pattern of illicit access, if you like, to substances that are cannabis-derived products. That might illustrate where health and social care partnerships have introduced programmes such as heroin-assisted treatment, where it is actually seen as a public health benefit, where people are medicating themselves. It is much more satisfactory to be doing that in a controlled environment, perhaps as an angle where it is not simply about prescribing through a general practitioner or from a clinician in that context. It can also be where instances where people are already self-medicating. There is a public health interest in ensuring that harms are reduced there. I am content to add those recommendations to our actions. Petition number 1889, financial support for self-employed people in the travel industry. This is a continuing petition again lodged by Nicky Peachey and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide tailored financial support to self-employed individuals working in the travel industry whose businesses have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. We have received a submission from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, which explains that, on 10 February, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise met with the Scottish Passenger Agency's Association and ABTA to hear directly the challenges facing the outbound travel sector. The Cabinet Secretary also confirms that she has written to the UK Minister for Business and Industry on the issues raised in the petition but has not received a response. In her submission, the Cabinet Secretary sets out details of support packages that have been made available by the Scottish Government to those affected by the Covid-19 pandemic in the travel sector. That includes further funding for tourism businesses impacted most by the Omicron Public Health advice and a top-up scheme to provide additional funding to the Scotland inbound tour operators. We are advised that officials are working with stakeholders to set up a sector-specific scheme to target funds to those most impacted, including self-employed individuals who do not have premises. The submission indicates that details of eligibility and how and when to apply will be published on the Scottish Government website and on the Find Business Support website as soon as they are available. In the light of that, do members have any options considered by Alexander Stewart? In all of that, it is probably time to close the petition at this stage, because a lot of work has already been done by the Scottish Government but it would be useful in closing the petition under rule 15.7 that we do write to the Scottish Government to ask for the timescales of when the expected new sector-specific scheme will become available, when details of that do become available, how to apply will be published and how the scheme will be publicised to ensure that individuals in that sector who are self-employed will have the opportunity to ensure that they are supported and that they will be given the means that they have been requesting for some time. Thank you. Any other members of the committee wish to add anything, or are we content to proceed on the recommendation of Alexander Stewart? We will close the petition. We thank the petitioners for raising it with us. We will, as I say, in doing so write to the Scottish Government just to get the timeline in relation to the items that they have agreed to pursue. Petition number 1893 to introduce legislation to prec Scotland's war memorials lodged by James Watson on behalf of Friends of Deniston war memorial, calling on the Scottish Parliament to our Scottish Government to introduce legislation that recognises desecration or vandalism of war memorials as a specific criminal offence. When we last considered this, the committee agreed to write to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and we have received a submission from them. However, in their detailed submission, they eventually make clear that they do not believe that they have the authority to consider action in respect of the petition as it falls outside of the scope of the war memorials directly within their responsibility. Members may recall the Scottish Government's previous submission stating that, as legislation is currently in place to deal with vandalism, desecration of statues and memorials, including war memorials, the Scottish Government believed that, because that legislation is already in place, they are content and have no current plans to introduce additional legislation for that specific purpose. Given what we have heard from the Commonwealth War Graves Association and the Scottish Government, do colleagues have any recommended route that we might pursue? David Torrance, I consider that the Scottish Government has no plans to bring in new legislation and the few that the legislation is near to deal with any vandalism decoration of war memorials is sufficient. I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. I would like to thank Mr Watson and the Friends of Deniston War Memorial. I wonder whether, in closing the petition, we could draw their attention to the specific legislation that the Government believes is appropriate so that they know that they have recourse in that. Petition number 1900 to access to prescribed medication for detainees in police custody lodged by Kevin John Lawson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. At the last consideration, we agreed to write to relevant drug treatment charities and a co-ordinated response has in fact now been received from the new chair of the Scottish Drugs Task Force. Before I come to that submission, I would also like to highlight additional correspondence received from the Scottish Government this week. This relates to earlier questions from the committee on our registered prescribed medicines in police custody. Colleagues will recall that, as part of our own investigation and consideration, it was being identified to us that the information was not being collected and that, in the absence of the information being collected, we were not terribly sure or persuaded that it was possible to accurately assert that there were no issues therefore arising. The Scottish Government confirmed again that there is no central monitoring of the provision of prescribed medication in custody and that that is therefore not something that it is currently able to collade. As a consequence of our pursuit of this matter, the Government has confirmed that there is in fact an evidence gap. As a result, the Scottish Government will consult with stakeholders in justice and health to establish the best method of addressing this gap. The Scottish Government will then report to the committee when an appropriate information gathering process has been put in place. The clerks have brought the fact of this development to the petitioner. Turning now to the DDT submission, it confirms that its position is that all relevant individuals, including the 18Es in police custody, should have access to prescribed medication. This includes opiate substitution therapy such as methadones contained in the guidance for Police Scotland and healthcare professionals. Their submission references police standard operating procedures, which make provision for providing access to methadone in custody. Only NHS healthcare staff could administer methadone, but police staff can administer other medications. The DDT suggests that the committee may find it helpful to learn more about the availability of healthcare staff to administer methadone in police custody. They explained that there may be some areas where healthcare staff have a significant geographical area to cover, which could impact their availability to administer methadone, resulting in some people going through withdrawal and custody. The submission also explains that the implementation of medication-assisted standards MAT in Scotland will enable consistent delivery of safe, accessible, high-quality drug treatment across Scotland. That includes all 18Es in police custody who are accessing their prescribed medication, including methadone. The Scottish Drugs Death Task Force notes that the Minister for Drugs Policy made a commitment in the Scottish Parliament to embed these evidence-based medication-assisted standards by April 22. They consider active participation from people with experience of problematic drug use will be central to that. The DDT states that a demonstrable commitment from senior leaders and NHS boards, local authorities and health and social care partnerships will be critical to successful implementation, and they consider that this needs to be supported by a sustained funding workforce development system change and culture change. The submission also states that the key way to measure success will be the experiences of people and families that use services. The negative impacts of the Covid pandemic and service delivery and initiatives to improve referrals and early access to treatment and support for those on the justice system are also highlighted. The submission states that some rural areas have raised concerns about their ability to meet same-day treatment standards. In his submission, the petitioner continues to highlight concerns, particularly with NHS Grampiam, that 18Es are being prescribed an unlicensed drug, dihydrocodin, rather than prescribed methadone. The petitioner wants recognition that 18Es in police custody have the right to inform consent, should be seen by an advanced nurse practitioner or doctor and should have access to phone advice and visits as required and as per previous agreements. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Government to recognise the Mandela rules as a mandatory requirement for the treatment of detainees and ends his submission with the following quote from Mr Mandela. It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones. I thank again the petitioner for all that he has done in highlighting and bringing this issue to the committee and, again, seek the advice of colleagues on actions that we might consider taking. I think that this is a really important matter. I think that we definitely need to take some more evidence on it. I think that the issue about availability of healthcare practitioners is important. We also probably want an update on the commitment to embed medication-assisted standards. I wonder if colleagues would wish to hear from the chair of the Scottish Drugs death task force. I agree with the petitioner that the rights of those detained by the state are important. In terms of healthcare, it seems like there is a bit of a gap here that we need to explore. Members are content with those suggestions? David Torrance. I am just going to agree with my colleague Ruth McGuire. I really like to hear from the chair of the Scottish Drugs death task force and the cabinet secretary for justice and veterans. Can I suggest that, in doing so, we schedule that for after the summer recess, by which time the Government ought, by then, to have had an opportunity to consider what the reporting information process might look like and give us some indication as to when that would be in place and operational. It will also allow us to see what progress has been made in relation to some of the other deadlines that were referred to in the various submissions that we received. I am sorry, because Mr Sweeney is online, I unfortunately did not notice him trying to catch my eye on petition 1893, which was introducing legislation to protect Scotland's war memorials. Sorry, Mr Sweeney. Is there anything that you would like to add? I am quite happy to revisit our decision in the light of anything that you might want to say. I am not particularly bothered about maintaining it open. Another angle that might be worth considering is writing to Historic Environment Scotland to ask them to study and potentially consider war memorials for listing as a statutory listing. That would give them a degree of protection and planning law. That was the only angle that I thought might be worth considering. I think that we could combine that recommendation with the closure of the petition, but we could, in doing so, write with that suggestion if you are content with that. Yes, that is fine, no problem. We are content with that, colleagues. Potition number 1901 to replace the voting system for the Scottish Parliament with a more proportional alternative. The next continued petition is PE 1901. It is lodged by Richard Wood. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the broadly proportional additional member system used for electing MSPs with a more proportional alternative. Our last meeting, we agreed to write to the Electoral Commission. It holds no views in their response. By way of a reminder, the petition states that the additional member system is not fully proportional. The Scottish Government, I think, has indicated that they have got no ambition to review the system at the present time. Given that those are the positioned, Alexander Stewart? As you have indicated, the Scottish Government has come back and said that it is not their intention to change the voting system for MSPs within the Scottish Parliament. I am not aware that we can take any of further action on that. In reality, we thank the petitioner under a rule 15 points understanding orders. We would have to close the petition at this stage because there is no further action that we can take. Mr Sweeney, are you trying to come in? I am curious as the gift of the Government to change the electoral system. Surely it is a parliamentary decision. Is it not something that is a matter for the parliamentary bureau to consider a review of the Parliament's electoral system rather than being the Government? I am not sure that it is. It would be for the Government to initiate an inquiry if it so chose into any change to the electoral system for any form of representation to which this parliamentary… for local government, for example. It would then be on the basis of any consultation, convention or whatever. It would be for the Government of the day to bring forward any proposals to change the system, so it would require Government legislation. Ruth Maguire? On Paul's point, a member could bring forward legislation, but it would need to be legislation that is brought forward. Given that it is not in anyone's manifesto and the current Government is not intending to change it, I think that it should close. I am not certainly aware of any committee that is considering bringing forward a parliamentary bill or anything like that. I am not quite sure. I am sympathetic for the petitioner's request to think that the additional member system is rubbish, but there we go. I do not think that it assists us with the cogent summation of the merits of the current system. I am not sure that it advances the committee this morning in terms of recourse open to us so far as the petition itself is concerned. I am minded to accept Alexander Stewart's suggestion that we closed the petition at this time. We are agreed, yes, by petition 1907, to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds in Scotland, lodged by Clare Beats. The petition calls the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds, removing the eligibility criteria for access to services. Submissions have now been received from COSLA, the National Day Nurseries Association and the petitioner. The COSLA submission references the delay in the implementation of additional funded early learning hours, resulting from the pandemic and the work to increase capacity in early learning centre settings. They welcome the increased uptake of places for two-year-olds but recognise further work that is needed to fully engage with the families of eligible children. COSLA stressed the importance of taking a planned and considered approach to the creation of additional capacity. The MDNA submission explains that, as the national charity representing private voluntary and independent children's nurses across the UK, they state that expanded funding for all two-year-olds would benefit children and families and they referenced recent survey findings showing significant impacts on babies born during the lockdowns. The MDNA referenced the role of early learning in providing wide-ranging opportunities for children to develop their skills and knowledge through activities and interactions. However, they also highlight concerns over the implications for the PVI sector of increasing the funding offered to all two-year-olds. They referenced recent recruitment difficulties and the impact of underfunding on the sustainability of nurseries and the viability of children's places and state that any universal funded provision for two-year-olds must be sufficiently funded at rates that reflect the cost of delivery. That is very much something that local nurseries have raised with me. In her submission, the petitioner states that, as a nursery practitioner and a mother to a baby born in 2020, she sees the challenges arising from babies born in lockdown having little to no socialisation outside of their home as groups were closed. The petitioner believes babies born during lockdown should have the same access to funded learning and childcare regardless of their parents' financial situation, adding that research suggests that lockdown babies are not at the same developmental levels as non-lockdown babies. Colleagues, considering the representations that we have received, there are a number of potential actions that we might want to consider taking forward. I think that we should keep the petition open and right to the Scottish Government to ask when it intends to implement its commitment to expand its early learning offer to all one-and-two-year-olds for its views on the recent submissions that it has received for its petition, and particularly for its views on concerns regarding the impact that the pandemic has had on the development of babies born during lockdown and what plans it takes to address it. Are we all happy with that? We will take forward the basis of what we have heard the suggestions as detailed there by David Torrance, so the petition remains open and we will see what further responses we receive. That was the last of our continuing petitions. We have a couple of new petitions to consider, a petition number 1918 to improve sex education in schools. This is a petition lodged by Kate Friedman. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform sex education by updating guidance and implementing clear teaching rules focusing on topics such as menstruation and related illnesses, puberty, LGBT sex, including asexuality, fertility, pornography and any other things that are deemed useful. The petitioner conducted a survey of 150 students in their school and found that most people rated their period education at one to three out of 10. The petitioner references a general lack of knowledge of many young people surrounding sex and shares their own experience as a student. They felt that school sex education was lacking and subsequently sought more detailed information on YouTube. The Scottish Government responds to the petition outlines the existing resources for relationship sexual health and parenthood learning hosted by an essential website that was developed and published by a collaborative partnership of health boards and local authorities. The resource includes learning activities and information on the topics raised by the petitioner. The Scottish Government states that the curriculum is not mandatory and it is up to teachers to decide which resources they deliver. It also indicates that it is committed to updating the current RSHP teaching guidance and issuing this for public consultation in the new year. The spice briefing provides background on the current statutory guidance and indicates that the Scottish Government has been reviewing this over recent years. At the time of writing, neither the new guidance nor draft guidance had been published. I can only say that some years since I was at school and there was nothing very much offered to us, but that of course is not contemporary. I have actually just drawn this petition to the attention of a number of younger people who have all more recently supposedly been there to benefit from current information and practice, and they all universally said that it was absolutely rubbish. I have to say that I very much supported the view of the petitioner relations and the quality of the education, although I was not terribly sure that they would have wanted it to be any better either, so I could have slightly at odds. Clearly, at this stage, I think that we would want to take some further actions in terms of clarification of the submissions that we have received. Any suggestions from the committee or comments that colleagues would like to make? Ruth Maguire? I suppose that one reflection that I would have is that this is from being on the education committee that quite often there are calls for very specific things to be taught and that is not how our system works. On that topic, it is on relationships and sexual health, that is not something for teachers to tell children about—that is for a whole community job, if you like, or families, not community, perhaps family. I suggest that we write to Education Scotland and ask them how they are monitoring the implementation of the current teaching resources and perhaps we want to hear from the Scottish Government on how the views of children and young people are included and how they will influence policy in that regard. We probably want to know when the public consultation will be open and how that will be promoted to children and young people and when it anticipates the revised guidance to be in place. I seem to recall the education committee doing something on that quite recently. It might not be that recently, but perhaps we can find out. I know that colleagues might wish to reach out to stakeholders as well, but I would be keen to not double work, so we should check what has been happening in other areas as well. I am happy to be content to pursue that basis. I very much take your point in relation to calls for specific areas. What is important is that that would be thought to be useful by those to whom it would ultimately be aimed at. That is perhaps where part of the issue rests that it does not. I suggest writing to each of the local authorities to get an assessment of what their current provision is. It might be helpful to get an understanding of how each local authority manages in their schools. It might be helpful in terms of sex education provision. Some schools will have teachers that are specially trained, others might have a team that goes around different schools. It might be interesting to see what each local authority is doing, and it might help to inform the petitioner. Ruth Maguire? That is not in any way disagreeing with my colleague Paul Sweeney, but can we be thoughtful about how we do that? I am conscious that we do not just want to generate lots and lots of correspondence. Perhaps we can do a bit of desktop research to see what the differences might be in terms of guidance. Ruth Maguire suggests that we just check with the Education Committee to see whether and when that might most recently have been considered useful. There might be some further information already available that we can obtain in relation to local authorities. I can remember that coming up at Hustings and Schools as well. I cannot remember what the acronym is. It is not this one, it is something else. Can we reserve the opportunity to do that if we find that we have not got the further information required? Petition 1922, cancel all local authority expenditure on Gaelic expansion, which is the final new petition today from Douglas Capon, and it urges the Scottish Government to abandon the expansion of Gaelic. Ruth Maguire, you said Gaelic. Gaelic, yes. In Gaelic week, or something like that? Shaach in the Gaelic, I have. Gaelic week. The petitioner considers that there is no demand for Gaelic in the central belt, funds are limited and should be spent wisely, and there is no evidence of Gaelic being the national language in Scotland, national and inverted commas there. The petitioner considers that money should not be spent on dual language road and rail signs, documents and website translations and local authority employee language education, as there is no economic benefit in this. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills responds to the committee's states that the Gaelic language has been spoken throughout Scotland for many centuries. The Scottish Government submissions states that Gaelic Scotland Act 2005 to encourage and enable more people to use Gaelic was passed in the Parliament with unanimous cross-party support in addressing the petitioner's concerns regarding signage. The cabinet secretary states that the Education Scotland Act 2016 places a duty in all local authorities across Scotland to promote Gaelic education, and there is growth in demand for Gaelic medium education in the central belt. The Scottish Government advises that standard practice is that Gaelic signage is created as part of a replacement or renewal process to keep these costs to a minimum. There is an implementation fund, which is open to bids from any public authority to help meet any project costs or development associated with their Gaelic language plan, including activities such as signage or staff training. The petitioner's response to the Scottish Government submission suggests that in his view there is confusion between demand for Gaelic and demand for smaller class sizes. He also points out that figures and how much is being spent have not been provided. Bordna Gaeli also submits a response to the petition outlining the demand for Gaelic medium education. It highlights 2011 census data illustrating that central belt local authorities accounted for 30 per cent of those living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic. The submission also details examples of economic benefits and research to support that position. The Scottish Government's budget 2022-23 sets out its funding to support Gaelic and the Scottish Government has stated that it is committed to increasing the numbers using the learning Gaelic. It will maintain its support for Gaelic education, arts and broadcasting. It plans to introduce a languages bill in the current parliamentary session. One point that occurs to me in that is that I do not know what 30 per cent of those living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic actually means, because it does not tell me what, how many people that represents the central belt local authorities say. However, colleagues, do we have a series of recommendations that we would like to consider? I am very happy to hear from Ruth Maguire. I think that we have given clear evidence here on Gaelic and its use in Scotland. The Gaelic language has been spoken throughout Scotland for many, many, many centuries. It is not the only language of Scotland, but it is one of Scotland's languages that deserves and should command equal respect to the other languages of our nation. There are a number of economic benefits, as has been stated. I think that the petitioners claim that there is no evidence for a desire for support for the Gaelic language throughout Scotland. It is not backed up by evidence. In my constituency in Ayrshire, there is a Gaelic medium primary school now. Those calls for education are parent-led. They do not come from the Government, they come from parents. Every party in the Parliament is committed to Gaelic and supports education, arts and broadcasting. As she said, in opening there, there are plans for a languages bill in the coming session. For all those reasons, I would propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Minority groups are cultures under languages that should be protected in Scotland, and it is not only Gaelic that is spoken. You could look at Doric in other languages that are spoken across Scotland. It should be encouraged and given the resources to thrive. As somebody who comes from a central belt constituency, I know a number of my constituents go to Gaelic classes, so I am fully supportive of closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. I have just had an answer to my earlier question. There are 87,000 people living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic, so if a central belt represents 30 per cent of them, that would be 26,100 people across the central belt of Scotland, which I think is said between a significant number of local authorities. However, we have a recommendation before us. Are we content to proceed on the basis of the recommendation by Ruth Maguire and supported by David Torrance? We are, so we thank Mr Keven for his petition, but given the Government's commitment to Gaelic education, we are unable to take the petition further forward and will close it. That concludes our meeting in public this morning. We next meet on 20 April, after the Easter recess, and we move into private session.