 Good morning and welcome to the 16th meeting of the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. Our first agenda item this morning is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is petition number 1958 to extend after care for previously looked after young people and remove the continuing care age gap. This petition was lodged by Jasmine Casaiopilling on behalf of Who Cares Scotland. I'm delighted to see Jasmine who gave evidence at a previous session of the committee as with us in the gallery today. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend after care provision in Scotland to previously looked after young people who left care before their 16th birthday on the basis of individual need, to extend continuing care throughout care experience people's lives on the basis of individual need and to ensure care experience people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care experience people. This includes ensuring that the UN convention on the rights of the child and the findings of the promise are fully implemented in Scotland. It was back in May when we did last consider the petition and so this morning, following that earlier session, I'm delighted to be able to welcome Natalie Dodden MSP, the Scottish Government's Care Experience Policy Manager, Sarah Corbett, and the unit head for a good childhood, Kara Cooper. Welcome to you all. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. As I said earlier, we have the petitioner with us in the gallery too. Minister, I understand that you'd just like to say a few words in opening before we move to questions, so I'm delighted to do that. Over to you. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning all. I'm very grateful to the committee for inviting me along to give evidence this morning and I really welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposals in petition PE1958 to extend aftercare for previously looked after young people and to remove the continuing care age gap. I understand that the committee first discussed the petition on 31 May this year and that members listened in particular to the importance of ensuring that individuals are aware of their rights. I believe that the commencement of the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law gives us all across the chamber a golden opportunity to continue to promote public awareness and understanding of the rights of the child and the entitlements of those leaving care to the right help and support. Listening to the challenges experienced by our young people moving on from care must and will continue to inform our approach to reducing the variation in the support that they receive. Two weeks ago it was care experience week appropriately given the focus of what the committee heard last time. No doubt some of what we will discuss today, the theme for this year's events was lifelong rights for care experienced people. The First Minister and I both attended different events where we met with young people with lived experience and some of the practitioners who are working alongside them. I have been really really moved by many of the meetings and discussions that I have had so far with our care experience community and equally wholly impressed with their passion and their dedication to help to ensure that their experiences can influence positive change for others. During care experience week the Scottish Thuracare and Aftercare Forum or otherwise known as staff launched its 100 days of listening consultation to understand what those with experience of care and the workforce that support them need and want to happen for the promise to be kept. I am pleased to say that my officials are working in close partnership with staff to take this work forward and we are actively listening to people with lived experience to understand what it will take to remove the stigma and the barriers faced by our care experience community so that they can achieve equality with their non-care experienced peers. In our programme for government this year we committed to launching a public consultation on what the broad package of support for care experienced young people should include to support them into adulthood and this consultation will be launched in spring 2024 and will build on what we hear through that 100 days of listening. I really want to reassure the committee today that we are determined to review and to co-design the policies and supports for people with experience of care alongside those with lived experience so that we get it right for all of our young people and that they feel loved, cared for, respected and can flourish into independent adults. We do however also recognise the particular financial challenges faced by our care experienced young people at a point where they are moving on to independent adult living so that is why on 26 October the First Minister announced our plans to consult on a care leaver payment of £2,000 to help young people transitioning from care to independent living. Now I am acutely aware that our work across government to keep the promise requires a cohesive and a co-ordinated approach across all of our care services, our health services, our education services, our justice services and I am extremely grateful to the carers, the workforce, the agencies and the stakeholders who work hard to provide the best environment for our children and young people in care. I also just want to put on the record my admiration and appreciation for the young people themselves, many of whom I have met throughout my time in this role, who continue to share their experiences of care and champion the rights of those with care experience. Finally, I would really just say that I very much welcome the committee's interest in this petition and I am happy to answer questions that members may have. Thank you very much for that minister. Yes, we last considered the petition on the 31st of May when we were reflecting on the evidence that we had heard in April from the petitioner, also from who cares Scotland, Celsus, the Children and Young People's Commissioner and the Promise Scotland. It was, I think, quite a striking round table discussion that we all participated in or members of the committee at the time participated in. I think that one of which certainly persuaded us as a committee of the fundamental decency and drive of Jasmine's petition. So I just think that you have answered this question, but I would just like to open up by asking you for a very clear assertion of where, in its sense of priority, the Government sits the extending of the eligibility for continuing care and aftercare through legislation. As I said in my opening remarks, I think that the care that we receive is inconsistent and that we need to work on that. I think that what is really, really important is that, as I say, we are listening to what young people and care-experienced people need. In terms of aftercare, I just want to be very clear that that refers to the advice, the guidance and the assistance that is provided to care leavers. That can include but is not restricted to securing accommodation, education, employment opportunities and financial support. As I said, we understand that there are inconsistencies there. For example, when young people leave care before their 16th birthday, they do not always benefit from smooth and well-supported transitions, which can leave them less well-prepared for adulthood than their peers. It also means that they have no legal entitlement to that aftercare support that would be available to them if they had left care after their 16th birthday. As I said, the promise is made clear that lifelong advocacy is required for people with care experience to realise their rights and to thrive in life and have a well-supported transition into adulthood. As I said, we have heard loud and clear. I have heard loud and clear throughout my time in this role that care experience stays with you for life and that support needs to be available for people to tap into at key points in their life. It is absolutely a priority to get it right for care experience people, as I have referred to the staff hundreds of days of listening and the consultation that we will be embarking on in 2024. We will take the working from that and look to expand that further. I should of course say that if Cara Coop or Sarah Cobb had wished to come in to let me know, or if the minister wants to invite them to come in, that would be helpful too. I think that I follow what you are saying. Through the listening and the consultation, you are exploring ways in which this priority could be realised or delivered. That may or may not be through legislation. Is that where we are at? I am just trying to understand if you see a legislative role in all of that, or if you feel that through the work that you are doing, there may be another route to achieve the outcome? I might bring officials in on the point as to whether it would have to be a legislative route. I can see other options, because we already provide that guidance anyway, or we already expect that for care experience people anyway of that certain age group. In terms of any legislative changes, there will be opportunity to put within our promise bill that we have agreed will be going through Parliament within this parliamentary session. We expect to introduce that next year towards the end of next year, given plenty of time for a lot of different various pieces of work that are going on to see what would be included in that bill. However, as I say, in terms of that specific ask, whether that would have to be legislative or not, I will perhaps hand over to officials. As the minister explained, we are currently exploring what avenues we need to take forward to improve the broadest package of support that we provide for our young people with experience of care. In terms of your question, particularly around legislation and our commitment to keep the promise, we have the forthcoming promise bill, which is slated for 2025. That is where we would be able to take forward any necessary legislative changes that are required. Through the work that the minister has already referenced in terms of our partnership with staff, the 100 days of listening, which is just one part of how we are engaging with the broadest, all of our stakeholders, and for us to triangulate between the voices of our young people with lived experience, as well as the workforce that delivers that and with our partners. When we work towards the public consultation, which will be launched in spring, which will encompass a broad-ranging consultation to make it sure that we are opening up as widely as possible on what does the current landscape look like and what changes do we need to make in order to effect the transformational change in for us to keep the promise. The promise bill would be our most appropriate legislative vehicle. If we need to make legislative changes, if there is policy that needs to be updated or we need a statutory footing, that is where we would be able to consider that and take that forward. David Shawrns Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and good morning to panel members. Minister, around 66 of his children and young people's act 2014 is the Scottish Government concerned to amend it to remove the need for a young person to still be in care on their 16th birthday to access support and remove the age limit of 26 for accessing aftercare. I apologise. The aim of continuing care is to provide young people with a more graduated transition out of care, reducing the risk of multiple simultaneous disruptions occurring within their lives while trying to maintain supportive relationships around them. I am just trying to make that distinction here. Aftercare refers to the advice, the guidance and the assistance that is provided to care leavers, as I have alluded to in my previous question. As I said, we do understand that there are inconsistencies there. The promise has made very clear that lifelong advocacy is required for people with that care experience. We have heard loud and clear the calls from the care experience community. I feel like I am repeating myself here, but I want to make it clear that we are absolutely determined to review and co-design the policies and supports and, if necessary, legislate for people with experience of care alongside those with lived experience and with the practitioners who work alongside them. Again, that is just released so that we can ensure that we get it absolutely right for those people. Yes, in response to your question, we would absolutely consider that, but that is something that, as I said, will be worked through once we have the further information from that 100 days of listening and the further information from the consultation. As I said, those measures will be considered if we think that that is right for children and young people. I want to emphasise that we are listening to the voices of the care experienced and those organisations who are leading that work. I will probably get the same answer for this question. Will the Scottish Government consider amending regulations to increase the eligibility for continued care beyond 21 years of age? Again, I gave the distinction of continuing care in response to my previous answer. It is certainly something that can be considered. There might be difficulties with that in terms of somebody being placed in their place of care past that age of 21, because obviously they are getting into adulthood at that point. It is certainly something that would be considered, but I think that the focus at the moment is on providing that after care and continuing support through care experience people's lives. I am going to go to Maurice Golden next, who has got a question that I think I have heard two answers to already. I am going to see if he can drill down and get the definitive one. Maurice Golden. Thanks. Just to recap, we have a consultation on the promise bill by the end of 24 with the bill set to be introduced in 25. Please clarify if that is not the case. If it is, can you tell us about the key themes that you plan on consulting on as part of the promise bill? In terms of the consultation, I will hand over to officials in a wee second, because we have not finished designing that consultation yet. Keeping the promise bill slightly separate to that is wholly focused on keeping the promise implementation plan. Obviously, that sets out visions for 2030, when we will have delivered the promise. There are 14 top-level actions within that and around 80 recommendations or actions on top of that as well, which cut across all parts of Government. What I would say is that there has been a much higher focus certainly within my role anyway. My time in this role of managing that cross portfolio work with the promise. We are very switched on that that cuts across various different ministerial portfolios. Obviously, we have our cabinet sub-committee on the promise. There is real evidence of us working together to try and achieve those aims. Actions within the promise implementation plan, which aim to reduce those poor outcomes, are circled around poverty, homelessness, poor health, which often includes mental health, offending, school exclusion, educational attainment and low employability. As I said, there are so many different aspects to that. Many of those will be considered in relation to the consultation and then depending on what requires legislative change will be put forward within the promise bill. I will perhaps hand over to Carol. Just to clarify, the consultation that we are discussing this morning is our PFG commitment and that is on the support that is available for young people as they transition out of care into adulthood. It is very closely linked to how we keep the promise. I hope that is a helpful clarification. In terms of that consultation, we are still in the process of designing that and it will be informed by our on-going engagement with all of our stakeholders, particularly our young people with experience of care, the workforce and, indeed, our other stakeholders as well. That will look at the broadest package of support that is in place for young people with experience of care. What we are doing is looking at what the current landscape is, both on a policy and a legislative basis, and really listening and doing that analysis of what is working well and what is not working well. For us to look carefully at what the tangible changes need and must be to improve the consistency of care for our young people as well as to improve life chances and outcomes. We hear loud and clear that things are not working well. The promise tells us that and the independent care review tells us that. That is about us dilling down into a much more granular level and to affect the real change that we need to take and make. Within that, we will likely be considering the definition of care experience as well, so committee members may be aware that we currently have a legal definition of care leaver, but we do not have a consistently used definition of care experience across the country and we recognise that that is a challenge and something that we need to address. In the promise at the moment that it uses what we call the St Andrew's definition of care experience, but for us it is really important that we get that right, that we have a universally understood and used definition in order that young people realise their fullest rights and that they have that opportunity to access the right support at the right time to improve outcomes and life chances. As the minister has already touched on as well, there is work on going with the promise Scotland just now around lifelong advocacy, which is very much the theme of the petition. From our perspective, it is about getting the right support at the right time for right people, regardless of whether you left care before your 16th birthday or that you might need some kind of support beyond 26th, which is roughly the age limit—not age limits, but the parameters that sit around continuing care and after care just now, so we will be considering all that within the consultation in the spring. It will also be informed by information that we get from the current consultation that we have live, which is for the care leaver payment, which the minister referred to in her opening remarks, and that was the payment that First Minister announced during Care Experience week. It is a PFG commitment as well, and that is about one part of the broadest package of support that we have in place to support young people as they leave care and move into independent adult living. That consultation is due to close in January, so we will be able to use the information that we synthesise from there to help us inform and design the consultation. As the minister has already said, we are absolutely committed to working alongside our young people as well as our broadest range of stakeholders to make sure that we will get the questions right in the consultation, so it will not just be a case of my team designing the consultation and that it goes out. It will go through rigorous conversations, robust dialogue with a range of stakeholders to ensure that we are framing the questions in the right way so that we get the best possible sources of information that tell us how we design the policy and improve the landscape. You answered another question on updating definition, so that was very helpful. However, the minister mentioned educational attainment, and I wonder whether the minister is comfortable with current educational attendance. I do not have those figures in front of me, but there is a lot of good work going on on the ground to improve things. I have been to several visits where we have had virtual schools and different setups for learning to try to encourage or assist care-experienced people who might be finding it difficult to attend school for whatever reason. As I said, there is some really good evidence of really good things happening on the ground through the promise in terms of improving that. As I said, I would hope that that would have made an impact on those figures going forward. Again, all with the kind of main aim of improving lives for care-experienced young people. On expanding on the figures, I would bring officials in for that. In terms of the educational outcomes that we saw in 2021, we see that there is a narrowing of the gap on overall educational outcomes for our children and young people with experience of care, but we understand that there is more work to be done there. As the minister mentioned, there are the virtual school headteacher networks, which is where we bring headteachers together to look deeply at where there are challenges in terms of attendance and attainment for young people at school. We also have things in place such as the Care Experience Children and Young People Fund, which is money that goes directly to local authorities to help them to target support and resources that they feel are best used and most needed to support young people with experience of care. That covers young people right through until they are 26. We recognise that, although the gap is closing in terms of educational outcomes, there is work to do. We also recognise that the work to be done and there is some good work going on to support young people with care experience to remain in school and to avoid exclusions where possible for care experience young people. It would be useful to share with the committee the data around that you hold, ideally broken down by local authority, if that is possible. Minister, are you confident that local authorities have both the facilities and the staffing resources to provide that enhanced care package? Absolutely. I have already referred to some of the visits that I have been on and there is some really fantastic work going on across local authorities. I would say that local authorities are best placed to understand what is needed in their area. As I have already alluded to, the promise covers so many different aspects, so many different policy areas. Local authorities have been very good at understanding what is needed in their area and taking action on that. I have seen a lot of really positive work going on, and it is perhaps just about expanding that across. Obviously, there are capacity issues around that. In terms of social work, I appreciate that there has been a real increase in the demand and complexity of work undertaken by the workforce. I appreciate the recruitment and retention challenges that are on-going with social work at the moment. Although local authorities are responsible for planning their workforce and ensuring that they have the appropriate levels of staff, we understand the issues that are facing the sector and the increase in demand. There are a number of different things that are being actioned to try to improve things in those ways. A joint working group has been established with COSLA to address the immediate issues that affect the workforce. You will be aware of the proposals for the national care service and the establishment of a national social work agency that would support and invest in the profession. However, I appreciate that that is not going to help immediately. That is more a longer term issue. We have a joint working group that is set up with COSLA and a national approach to workforce planning, which will help to achieve the optimal future workforce capacity. The short-life working group has been created to oversee the development of that and to produce up-to-date data on social work vacancies and the demand for the services. That will hopefully allow us to facilitate planning and resource allocation at a national level to meet that increase in expected demand. As well as that, a workforce improvement plan has also been developed to address the recruitment and retention challenges. That includes workforce planning and workforce vacancy data. Throughout all that, we are working collaboratively with COSLA, with social work and with the various different agencies that are involved in this, because, as I say, we know that that sector is hugely valued, especially in terms of a lot of the Government's aims and priorities, and that is something that we are absolutely switched on to and absolutely trying to improve. I would be useful for that data on staff retention and recruitment, if, again, broken down by local authority, it could be shared. I appreciate the measures that you are seeking to deploy. The petition was lodged on 6 September 2022, which is 14 months ago. At the moment, we do not minister have any written response from you or your predecessor as to the specific asks that the petitioner has made. The asks are obviously to extend after-care provision in Scotland to previously look after children who left care before their 16th birthday and extend continuing care throughout the care experience people's lives on the basis of individual needs. The crux of the petition is that care should be based on need, not the arbitrary occurrence of dates of birth or attaining the age. If, as I understand it, your plan is to introduce the bill in 24-25, it will not become law until 25. It might not come into force until sometime after that, typically in 226 or later. That would mean that about four years have elapsed between the time when the petitioner raised her plea to this Parliament, which our duty is to interrogate. The occurrence of any potential response. Given that obvious problem, what the Scottish Government can do now to end the practice of young people being taken off compulsory supervision orders ahead of their 16th birthday? That is a problem that who cares Scotland has given us some worrying examples of in practice. With respect, although your good intentions are admirable and absolutely clear, what the petitioner wants is concrete actions. I completely appreciate that. I have already talked about those discrepancies that the member has mentioned. I think that the petition is very good for highlighting that and highlighting the need for further support. Again, it is not clear whether that would have to be down a legislative route. Obviously, if it was, as the member has referred to, that would be at a later date. However, there could be opportunities to improve guidance around that and change some of the structures around it prior to that. That is going to be defined by the work that I have already referred to in terms of the consultation and the listening. There are actions that we are taking at the moment. We are updating guidance to simplify language and improve the practice in continuing and after-care services and provision. We are working very closely with stakeholders, including young people with lived experience providers and the workforce, to better understand the barriers and what might need to be done to remove them. That moving on change programme that I have referred to is actively seeking and facilitating opportunities to further take on board the views of people with experience of care. As I say, as much as I understand that you want us to move quickly, we need to get it right. We need to ensure that there is capacity and we need to ensure that it works for our children and young people. I believe that that might answer your question, but I am going to bring officials in just in case there is anything that I have not touched on. In terms of young people being taken off their compulsory supervision orders before their 16th birthday, our guidance is very clear that, when young people are coming to that point, our whole approach to improving outcomes for children and young people in Scotland is underpinned by the Gyrchwick approach, so getting it right for every child, which should place the child or young person at the centre of all decisions that are taken and made for that young person. Our guidance is very clear that what is best for the child or young person should be placed at the centre when those conversations are being had, when care placements are being reviewed, when we are actually looking towards how that young person will transfer into independent adult living and how we actually support that young person as they grow and develop. We have very clear guidance in place at the moment that, when those decisions are being taken, that the child's interests should be at the heart of all those decisions that are taken. I do not think that anyone doubts the good intentions of the Minister of the Scottish Government, but the trouble is that the question that I asked has not really been answered. The question is what will be done now to deal with this anomaly. The answer that you gave Minister was that you have not yet been able to answer clearly the question of whether or not this change can be made without legislation. It does seem to me that this is a sort of yes or no question. Either legislation is required to make this change or it is not. If it is not and you have suggested that that is something that you are considering, then surely it is your duty to give us clarity on that specific question. If the answer is that you do not need to make legal changes—a change in the law—then the petitioners will say, well, get on with it, do it now. In response to Mr Golden, who quite rightly asked if there was a capacity issue, your first answer was no. There isn't. If there is the capacity of local authority to provide the care, then by not acting now, we are allowing this anomaly to remain in place possibly for another three or four or five years. With respect, Minister, I appreciate that you have not been in post a particularly long period of time and things take time in government, as I well remember. Nonetheless, your predecessor and yourself have had 14 months now to give an answer to this question. The lack of clarity on the specific question is unfortunate. I would be most grateful, convener, if we could get in writing a specific reply. If legislation is not required, the petitioners will say, well, just get on with it, do it now. What is the problem? I think that you have admitted in effect that this is an anomaly. I think that inconsistency was the word you used. It seems to me completely anomalous. We have clear evidence that many young people do not know their rights. They do not know that, by being taken off as a CSO, they will lose their rights. How can they be expected to know? They certainly do not know that the incorporation of the United Nations rights of the child. Why would a 15-year-old have any knowledge about that? The idea that that has happened in the Scottish Parliament makes a blind bit of difference to young people knowing their rights seems to me to be completely fallacious. I think that the petitioner is our job to press for answers for the petitioner. You have had 14 months. We have not got anything in writing. We have not got clarity of that question. With respect, Minister, if you are not able to give that clarity today, I would be most grateful if you could write to the committee as soon as possible to answer that simple question. To me, that then determines whether or not we might want to take this further in various ways, such as having a debate in the Scottish Parliament about it. There are a number of points, if I could address, please. In terms of young people not knowing their rights, in my previous response, I referred to updating the guidance. That is all around trying to ensure that it is more accessible for young people to access. In terms of young people knowing or being aware of their rights under UNCRC, what I would say is that I have visited a lot of schools. This is something that is on the agenda. Children are talking about their rights. They are aware of their rights. I am not generalising that there may be schools or areas where that is not always the case, but at least for those that I have visited, for the young people that I have talked to, they are very switched on to this. That is facilitated by a number of fantastic youth groups and organisations who are working to promote those rights to young people. Currently, outwith the Government support or aftercare, there are a number of advocacy schemes currently in operation. There is a national helpline operated by Who Cares Scotland that is funded by the Scottish Government, the national children's hearings advocacy scheme, which was enacted in November 2020. There are ways for care-experienced young people to access support. However, as I have said, what petition and what work I have heard so far is that, as we have said, there are inconsistencies. Change would be required. It is likely that it would require legislative change, but, again, that will be decided by the consultation and the work that is under way just now. I am more than happy to write back to the committee with further information on that. Mr Ewing, that was concluded. Mr Torrance, is there anything that you would like to come back on? Minister, at the present and now, what is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the provision where children and young people of Scotland Act 2014 are fully implemented in practice as well as in law? The guidance for this is absolutely explicit—excuse me—in our expectation that corporate parents work collaboratively with young people to deliver the integrated support that is required. The emphasis of that legislation, the regulations and the guidance is on ensuring that the young person is supported to develop in all aspects of their life. As I have said, the guidance is absolutely explicit that the principles of getting it right for every child should be at the core of that pathway assessment, including everyone working together in local areas and across Scotland to improve those outcomes for children. The Children's Services Planning Strategic Leads Network is co-chaired with the Scottish Government. That is a national forum that promotes collaboration, shared learning and improvement activity at national and local level between and across children's services planning partnerships, the Scottish Government and key stakeholders. That is all with the aim of strengthening the development, delivery and accountability of the children's services planning partnerships in line with that act. On behalf of ministers, the Scottish Government undertakes a review of children's services plans every three years against criteria set out in statutory guidance. That is all to support improvements at local and the national level. We then publish a report that summarises areas of strength and development. I think that the most recent published report was in July 2022. Again, we believe that lived experience should be absolutely core to this. We have involved care experience to young people directly in co-designing and co-producing services so that they can support care leavers effectively. There is a lot of work under way, scrutiny and regular checks to ensure that that is being implemented in practice. Listening carefully, a number of questions have been answered without us having to put them in the comprehensive responses that you have given. That brings us to the end of the questions that we want to put. Is there anything else that you feel we might not have touched on that you would want to add just before we conclude? I do not think so. I would just say thank you very much for the opportunity to come along. As I have said, the petition has done a really good job in highlighting some of the inconsistencies. I look forward to working on that and working towards our shared goals. Thank you all of you for being with us this morning. Members, are you content for us to reflect on the evidence and any further submissions that we are getting considered at a fresh and subsequent meeting? I agree. You are. On that basis, thank you all and we will suspend just briefly to allow the witnesses to leave. We are back. This is now to hear petition number 1859 to retain Faulkner's rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland, which was lodged by Barry Blyther, who I see is with us again in the gallery, a faithful attendee when his petitions have been considered. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. We last considered the petition on 18 January. Most of the committee—some of the committee because some of our colleagues have changed hands as we have gone along, but the committee will know that we took evidence from both the petitioner and the minister for energy and the environment. Following those evidence sessions, we had some questions for the minister for Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service and our friends from NatureScot. A summary of the issues raised, replies received and additional submissions from the petitioner has been provided by SPICE and is available in the meeting pack. The petition asks for legislation to be changed to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. We have received representations from the petitioner to reiterate that he is asking that falconers be exempt from any risk of prosecution for actively hunting mountain hares. As members will see from the minister's disappointing response and recall from the evidence session that we held, the Government does not or is not minded, or in fact, no, it does not intend to make such a change. I think that that is a disappointing position for us to be at at this stage and, colleagues, do we have any suggestions as to how we respond and proceed? Mr Torrance and Mr Ewing, after that. Thank you, convener. I consider the responses that we have had from the Government. I wonder if the committee would be inclined to write to the minister for environmental land reform, recommending that the guidance is produced to clarify how falconers can practice in licensed activities, the areas in which they are not a high density of mountain hare, and what action to take if a bird accidentally takes a mountain hare. I wonder if we could write to Police Scotland as well to ask how reports of mountain hare being taken in areas of low density will be recorded and how this information will be shared with NatureScot and falconers. I wonder if the committee would also consider writing to NatureScot to ask how it will monitor reports from Police Scotland and whether it will work to produce maps for falconers to indicate which areas are considered suitable for birds of prey to fly within. If NatureScot intends to produce maps, the committee could ask how it intends to evaluate and update the information in light of reports from Police Scotland. The first instance can I ask if colleagues are content for us to proceed on those lines, but, even as we do, I think that Mr Ewing you feel you would like to make a further suggestion. Yes, thank you convener. I do agree with the recommendations that Sir Torrance has just made, but, in addition to that, I do think that we should, in the light of the response that you say is disappointing, the ministerial response, that we should seek to press this by seeking a parliamentary debate in order to pursue the petition call, which is to urge the Parliament to amend the 2020 Animals and Wildlife Act to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. I think that a debate in Parliament would allow consideration of what, in many ways, is a very serious matter. The first reason I think why a debate would be useful is the circumstances whereby this ban came into force, which was in the stage 3 amendment, where the petitioner and indeed his fellow falconers had no opportunity to be heard whatsoever. In fact, it seems that nobody thought of them at all, and they did not have the opportunity to state their case. The whole point of this Scottish Parliament is that everybody should be able to state their case in the legislative process at the first stage, and that stage 3 is not supposed to be used for the purposes of introducing brand new material, particularly not legal bans, which result in criminal behaviour. That point of principle is one that deserves to be highlighted in Parliament of itself, but turning briefly to the arguments and the substance, it seems to me that the effect on hares of allowing the continuance of falconry will be dominumies. NatureScot has admitted that the number of hares that would be affected would be minuscule and completely irrelevant to the question of the size of the population. Moreover, I understand from the petitioner who has kindly given us a great deal of his wisdom and experience, as have others, that it is only certain types of birds of prey, eagles and hawks, I think, that will go for hares. Others won't and can't, but eagles and hawks do need to go for hares, and alternative prey doesn't work, so that suggestion that's been made by some is completely irrelevant. The last thing I would say, and this is really quite sad, that the petitioner has highlighted that the eagle that he has is now self-harming, because the eagle can't behave naturally. It's not allowed to, and the petitioner doesn't want to break the law as a law-abiding citizen. As a result, this bird is suffering because of something that happened in Parliament where his owner and his owner's peers had no opportunity to even state their case. The very last thing that I would say is that the disappointing thing is that the Scottish Government hasn't pressed up to this and said that a mistake was made. It has shrugged off all responsibility whatsoever. That's perhaps a bit of a rehearsal for the debate, convener, but, nonetheless, it is heartfelt. I do hope that members might feel that the debate wouldn't need to be an extended debate. I don't think that it would need to be three hours or anything, but it would allow this matter to be ventilated. I think that there would be considerable interest in colleagues because I do recall from the debate that there was some disquiet from some of, if I may say so, the older hands that felt that the procedure followed in the stage 3 of this particular bill was not appropriate. I agree. I think that there is broader interest in the Parliament. Indeed, there was considerable interest when Stanley visited the precincts of the Parliament. I do think that we were disappointed by the evidence under pinning that decision that was made and the digging in that we heard in the round table evidence that we took and hoped that the logic and evidence that we had heard might have led the Government to take a different position, but that is not the case. Our colleagues minded that when we approached the parliamentary authorities in relation to committee debating time that we seek to have a debate on this issue in the chamber. We will seek to do that and to highlight the issue more generally as a result and see what progress can be made in that way. We will take forward the actions meantime. I am not sure when we had a very well informed debate on mesh not so long ago and then we obviously had our committee debate on our report, but I would expect us to have an opportunity to debate again in the chamber in the new year and we will see if we can seek to have this as possibly one of two short debates that we would take to the chamber on that occasion. We move then to petition number 1867 to establish a new qualification for British Sign Language lodged by Scott McMillan, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the SQA, to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language, BSL, at SCQF level 2. As we have done with previous considerations, a BSL interpretation of our discussion will be available on the Parliament's BSL channel following today's meeting. We last considered this position on 8 March, where we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and we have received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, which provides details of the engagement and consultation that has taken place to inform the development of the BSL national plan for 2023 to 2029. Members will have noted in our papers that the Scottish Government consultation on the new BSL national plan ran over the summer and closed on 3 September 2023. Given the progress that we have made and the responses that we have received, do colleagues have any suggestions? David Torrance. I consider the responses that we have received and, as you mentioned, the progress that we have made. I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition and the rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis of that. That take of BSL awards at SCQF level 3 to 6 is increasing. The number of primary schools providing BSL as an L3 language is also increasing. The Scottish Government does not believe the steps that have been sought by the petition are required at this time. I have now consulted on the British Sign Language national plan 2023 to 2029. Colleagues, have we agreed? We thank the petitioner for bringing the petition forward. It is open to the petitioner to come back to us again with a fresh petition if they feel that the actions being taken forward by the Scottish Government do not respond or fail to adequately address the issues that have been raised. At this point, thank them and close the petition. The next petition is petition number 1913, fast-tracking of future adult disability applications for people undergoing cancer treatment. That has been lodged by Wendy Swain calling in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department within Social Security Scotland that will fast-track future adult disability payments, that is ADPs, for people with a cancer diagnosis whilst they are undergoing treatment. We considered that last on 23 February and agreed to write to Social Security Scotland. The response from Social Security Scotland really reiterates that the Scottish Government provides a person-centred service and does not prioritise a single condition or type of disability above another. It states therefore that the Scottish Government does not support an additional fast-track procedure specifically for people with cancer and that there is a fast-track process for people with a terminal illness. In response to questions about processing times, Social Security Scotland has said that there are no targets as no two applications are the same. However, it indicates that the majority of people will receive a decision within four months and that payments are calculated from, then calculated from, the date of the application. I should have said that that, within the fast-track process for people with a terminal illness, the Scottish Government believes that that would accommodate a very significant number of those people with a cancer diagnosis. In the light of the Scottish Government's view that it won't be taking the aim of the petition forward, do colleagues have any suggestions? David Torrance? On the evidence before us, we have no option but to close the petition under real 15.7 of standard orders. On the basis of that, the Scottish Government has stated that it does not support an additional fast-track route specifically for people with cancer because its approach will not prioritise any single condition over another. I would support that and just add that my understanding from information that the clerks have provided to me this morning that the Scottish Government pointed out that we are an applicant for disability benefit is suffering from a terminal illness that there is a current process that allows that to be taken into account fast-track. Therefore, I hope that it is of some comfort to the petitioners that, in fact, what they are asking for is something that the Scottish Government has assured us or says already exists, not only for those who sadly suffer from cancer but also from other terminal illnesses. I hope that that is of some comfort to the petitioner. The point that the petitioner has raised is that it is a valid one and has already been recognised as valid and is put in place with a procedure that has used sympathetic regard to people in this desperate situation. I would say to the petitioners that we should keep an eye on them and that they can come back to us again. I am conscious of the fact that not all cancers are terminal illnesses. Therefore, there will be a number of people who are excluded but who, nonetheless, may benefit from the payment at an earlier point in their treatment. That is something that can come back to us at a later date, but given the Scottish Government's position, there is nothing further, I am afraid. I feel that we, as a committee, can do to take forward the aims of the position. Therefore, our colleagues are content to close on that basis. We are, and I thank the petitioner very much for bringing it to us. Petition number 1918 is to improve sex education in schools, which has been lodged by Kate Friedman. It 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 other things that are deemed useful. We will consider this petition again at our meeting on 18 January this year, where we agreed to write to Education Scotland. The committee has now received a response to its request for information from Education Scotland. Education Scotland does not monitor or evaluate the implementation of RSHP's teaching resources, noting that it is for local authority officers and schools to monitor and evaluate learning and teaching through their internal policies. However, Education Scotland has delivered webinars for practitioners to guide them in using the website where the teaching resource is held. In view of the response that we have received from Education Scotland in respect of Scottish Government position, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? I wonder in the light of the evidence that we have, if we can consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders. On the basis of rshp.scot resource that can be support relationships, sexual health and parenthood lessons, was called, issued and peer reviewed by partners of educators, health professions and third sector organisations. It was informed by feedback over 2018-19 academic year. It was tested in draft format with educators, parents and carers before the final content was published in September 2019. It was informed by over 1,000 primary and secondary teachers and piloted in 38 schools in Scotland. Again, thank you for that, Mr Torrance. Do colleagues support that? We do. Again, I thank the petitioner, but given the direction of Education Scotland, I think there is nothing more that the committee can do can take forward the aims of the petition, but we thank you very much for bringing it to the Parliament. Our next petition is petition number 1934 to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all-year groups in high school. This has been lodged by Craig Schuller on behalf of Greenfold's High School Rights and Equalities Committee. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all-year groups in high school. That resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help to create a safer society for women. We last considered the petition on 22 February this year and we agreed to write to COSLA, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. COSLA has provided information on the Mentors and Violence Prevention programme, noting that 31 local authorities are at the delivery stage with the final local authority, having planned to undertake professional learning earlier this year. Estimates from the national MPV team indicate that over 6,000 sessions have delivered reaching over 47,800 younger learners. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has indicated that the gender-based violence in schools working group is expected to publish its national framework for schools to help tackle sexual harassment and gender-based violence. Additionally, the gender equality task force in education and learning is working to establish what educational resources already exist that cover gender inequality. The submission from Rape Crisis Scotland has highlighted on-going work to address gender-based violence, including its sexual violence prevention workshops in schools. The submission acknowledges the issues raised by the petitioner and also highlights that, while the Government cannot prescribe specific measures in the curriculum, there is a duty to ensure that educational outcomes are met and that the required systems and resources are in place to assure that. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I wonder if the committee would consider writing to the University of Glasgow seeking further information about the evaluation of equality safe at school as noted in Rape Crisis submission, including details about the scope, evaluation and timescale of when it expects to report. We could also write to Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to ask for an update on the work of the gender equality task force in education and learning to establish what educational resources already exist that cover gender inequality, and then writing the committee could ask for an indication of what the task force's next steps will be when it completes its work. Are members content with those suggestions? Are there any other suggestions? No? We will keep the petition open and return to it on receipt of responses to the points that Mr Torrance has proposed. Petition number 1939, which is to amend the date of birth to allow wider accessibility to the HPV vaccination programme for boys. This was lodged by Susanne Thornton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to healthy quality for young males born between 1 September 1997 and 1 September 2006 by allowing them to access the HPV vaccination via the NHS. It was considered last by the committee on 8 March, when we agreed to seek further clarification from the Scottish Government and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which is often referred to as the JCVI. The Scottish Government response notes that a one-dose schedule for the HPV vaccination programme was introduced at the beginning of this year, which is intended to increase the number of people completing their vaccination schedule. The response also highlights the policy for teenage immunisation programmes in Scotland is defined by academic year rather than date of birth. The result of that being that any boy that was an S1 for the 2019-20 academic year will be offered the HPV vaccination and will remain eligible up to his 25th birthday. The JCVI response provides clarification on the advice set out in the Green Book guidance on immunisation against infectious disease. With HPV vaccination routinely recommended for all boys and girls at 11 to 14 years of age, with the first and now this being a single dose being offered to young people in S1 in Scotland, it is also noted that there is up to each of the devolved nations to decide how to operationalise the JCVI advice as given. Do members have any comments or suggestions? In light of evidence before us, I wonder if a committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 standing orders on the basis that the JCVI has no plans to review the need for and the value of an HPV vaccination catch-up programme for boys due to indirect protection offered through herd immunity and Scottish Government policies aligned with the JCVI advice, with the Government having opted to define eligible for teenage vaccinations by academic year in Scotland rather than by date of birth. In essence, the response that we have received is suggesting that the particular cohort that was not vaccinated will receive a general protection through herd immunity. Mr Torrans' suggestion that our colleagues are content to proceed on that basis. We will close the petition and thank the petition for bringing the issue forward. Clearly, we are closing it on the basis of the response that we have received from the JCVI and the Scottish Government. The next petition is petition number 1969 to amend the law to fully decriminalise abortion in Scotland lodged by Jenna Clarke. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to fully decriminalise abortion services in Scotland and make provisions to ensure that abortion services are available up to the 24th week of pregnancy across all parts of Scotland. We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 22 February, when we agreed to seek the views of a number of stakeholder organisations. Following that discussion, we have received responses from the Humanist Society Scotland, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Scotland, the Christian Education and Research Organisation Care for Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, the British Medical Association and the petitioner. We have also received a submission from Monica Lennon MSP, who is unable to join us in person today, as well as an update from the Scottish Government that highlights the commitment in this year's programme for government to review the law on abortion. Requests to provide written evidence have also been received from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics and the Evangelical Alliance. Those in support of the petition suggest that abortion should be treated as a medical rather than criminal matter and that decriminalisation would bring Scotland in line with international human rights standards. In contrast with those concerns about moves to decriminalise abortion, I argue that keeping abortion within criminal law is essential for wind safety, as there must be a way of prosecuting abusive partners who seek to pressure or coer some of women to abort a pregnancy. Responses also argued that the majority of abortions are carried out not on medical grounds but because the pregnancy is unwanted and raised concerns that reforms could introduce the possibility of sex-selective terminations. We have the requests from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics and the Evangelical Alliance to provide written evidence, but that of course depends on the suggestions that there might be from within the committee in relation to how we might take forward the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions? David Torrance Thank you, convener. I wonder, in light of the evidence that we have, if a committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has committed to reviewing the law on abortion to ensure that it is first and foremost a healthcare matter rather than focused on criminal law with the intention of publishing potential proposals for reform before the end of the current Parliament session in 2026. Can you remind the petitioner that, if the Scottish Government does not do this, it is entitled to bring the petition back to the petitioner's committee? David Torrance I hope that I will also be in a position to submit any views to the consultation on any legislation, but given that there is a legislative consultation coming forward in relation to that area, that probably is a sensible suggestion for the committee at this time. Are committee members minded to approve Mr Torrance's suggestion? David Torrance We are. Thank you. That brings us to petition number 1991 to develop an educational resource on abortion. This is the last of our continued petitions today and it was lodged also by Gemma Clarke. It calls in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop a health-focused and stigma-challenging educational resource on abortion and to make it available to all secondary schools in Scotland. We last considered this as well on 22 February, when we agreed to write to stakeholder organisations from whom the Association of Directors of Education Scotland, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, COSLA, the Scottish Catholic Education Service and the Petitioner have submitted responses and copies of those responses were submitted and circulated with our meeting papers this morning. I draw members' attention to the responses from the COSLA and Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, which note that materials linked to the ask of the petition are in fact already available with work already taking place in schools to deal with the issues raised by the petition. COSLA also states that curriculum for excellence allows teachers, schools and local authorities to design a curriculum that fits their own local context. The result of that being that there is no mechanism where all schools will be compelled to use any specific materials. Similarly, the response from the Scottish Catholic Education Service notes the availability of resources and advice for young people, also highlighting that schools are not the sole providers of education and the close partnership between schools, and the wider school community serves young people well in ensuring that they have access to qualified expertise relating to the health, social, physical, spiritual and mental wellbeing. In view of the responses that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions? Thank you. In the light of evidence that the committee has received, if we consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that education material linked to the ask of the petition already exists, including a relationship sexual health and parenthood resource, which was developed by a partnership of local authorities and health boards with advice from Education Scotland and the Scottish Government. Also, a flexible affordable biocurriculum of excellence means that there is no mechanism where all schools will be compelled to use any specific material. I thank Gemma Clack for both the petitions, but in view of the response that we have received, I think that the committee feels that appropriate work is being taken forward and there is no further role that the committee can usefully perform. Agenda item 2 today is the consideration of new petitions. The first of those new petitions is petition number 2036 to write off student loan debts for paramedic students. I am happy to say to Rebecca Smith, who has lodged this petition, as I do to all those who might be tuning in to hear consideration of their petition, that ahead of the committee first considering the petition, we do seek the review of the Scottish Government and also the Scottish Parliament's independent research service SPICE in order that we can have an initially informed discussion, rather than just postponing a discussion while we seek thereafter to get that information. As I said, the petition has been lodged by Rebecca Smith, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to write off Scottish loan debts incurred by paramedic science students before the current bursary was introduced. The SPICE briefing notes that student loan repayment conditions are set out in the repayment of student loan's Scotland regulations 2000 and the education student loan's repayment regulations 2009, as they are after amended. It explains that, under current legislation, student loan debt can only be cancelled 30 years after the loan holder became eligible to repay or if the loan holder dies or becomes permanently unfit for work. The Scottish Government's current position is that students who commenced their paramedic science degree before the introduction of the bursary will still need to pay back any student loans they have received. The response states that there are no plans to write off previous student loans for this cohort of students. That seems a fairly clear direction to colleagues of any suggestions to make. I feel you have followed to you this morning, Mr Tarns. I fear that you are going to suggest we close the petition. Considering the stance that is being taken by the Scottish Government, I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis of that, the Scottish Government has no plans to write off previous student loans for those who commenced their paramedic science degree before the introduction of the bursary in 2021. It is a fairly clear direction for the Scottish Government that it is not going to do it, so our colleagues are minded to close the petition. I thank Rebecca for bringing the petition forward. It is an important issue that you raised, but the Scottish Government's position is clear. Therefore, there is nothing further that the committee can usefully do to take forward the aims of your petition. The second and final petition this morning is petition number 2044 to recommit the £26 million pledged to colleges in the £23.24 budget. That has been lodged by Gillian Geddes, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reinstate the £26 million pledged to colleges in the current year budget. The clerks note provides an overview of the education children and young people's work on the issue as part of its pre-budget scrutiny. The committee raised further and higher education funding as a key theme in its pre-budget scrutiny letter and continued to pursue the issues in subsequent evidence sessions. Last week, the committee issued its pre-budget scrutiny letter for the £24.25, which included college funding as one of its three main strands. The Minister for Higher Education, Further Education and Veterans' response to the petition states that he understands the disappointment on the need to take the £26 million saving, but that the college's sector's core teaching funding allocation has been maintained. The submission states that the Scottish Government is committed to developing a new funding model for post-school education. In the light of the minister's response, do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Torrance, I wonder in the light of evidence before us and with another committee in the Parliament looking into the scrutiny of it. I wonder if we could consider closing the petition on the real 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Education Children and Young People's Committee has undertaken scrutiny on the issue recently. Can you continue to do so as part of its pre-budget scrutiny for 2021-24-25? We are members inclined to support. Thank you very much to the petitioner. In view of the fact that one of our sister committees in Parliament is, in fact, taking forward the issues contained within the petition, within its pre-budget scrutiny, we will close the petition, but thank you very much for drawing it to this committee and to Parliament's attention. That concludes our consideration of petitions today, and we will next meet on 22 November, so I now close the meeting.