 Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting of the Citizens' Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. Before we begin our proceedings this morning, I would like to welcome our new clerk, Jotie Chandola, who is joining us. In so doing, I would like to thank very much Andrew Milne, who has acted as clerk to the committee during the course of the last year. Obviously stepping in for Lynn Tullis, who we still hope to see back with us in early course, but Andrew did a fantastic job, and I don't want to place on record by thanks and the thanks to the committee for everything he did, particularly supporting us through the recently completed inquiry, which will, of course, be the subject of a debate in the chamber later this week. Colleagues, the first item in the agenda is to agree to take decisions in private. In consideration to petitions today, there are a number of related issues that require our attention. Agenda item 5 relates to budget scrutiny. Agenda item 6 relates to the policy and the publication of previous actions in relation to information and petitions. The final item, item 7, refers to the A9 dualling project inquiry, and it will give us an opportunity to consider where we go next and also of the evidence that we heard from Alec Neill, our former colleague at the last meeting. Are members content that we conduct these items in private? Agree. Thank you. Item 2 this morning is the consideration of continued petitions. We will be joined, I'm delighted to say, by our very good supporters and petition champions, Rhoda Grant, MSP and Monica Lennon MSP. Rhoda Grant is here to join us in relation to the first of the continued petitions. Petitions number 1723 essential tremor treatment in Scotland. This was lodged by Mary Ramsey and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focus ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have this condition. In her written submission, the petitioner states that the current treatment for essential tremor deep brain stimulation costs a minimum of £30,000, while MRG-FUS costs £10,000. Twenty patients were treated in and in D with MRG-FUS over 18 months, with 14 of those patients being eligible for DBS but facing a two-and-a-half year waiting list. The national services division has shared that it received an updated application from the lead consultant neurologist working within NHS Tayside for a new MRI-focused ultrasound functional neurosurgery service to treat patients with essential tremor. The NHS Tayside executive leadership team advised that they were supportive and principle of the application, but a paper outlining the proposal in detail had not yet been submitted for executive approval and so could not be progressed. NSD advised that an application should be resubmitted for consideration in 24-25. I have to say that I am quite sympathetic to the petitioner's most recent submission, in which she thinks that, as has been the case, although she does not put it this way, with other health-related issues, those affected are able to present evidence to the committee. It can sometimes be quite a powerful additional stimulant in us seeking to progress the aims of the petition, but Rhoda Overtu. Mary Ramsey and others stand ready to present to the committee. I think that it would be powerful. Mary has had deep brain stimulation and is not eligible for the new treatment because of that, but there are others who are willing to give evidence so that you would see the contrast and hear the difference of experience that both have faced. It would be very powerful for the committee to hear that. The petition has been running for some time, so those who gave evidence previously, it was a previous Parliament and a previous committee, so it would be good for members of the committee to see that. I would very much back Mary's proposal. I also wonder if the committee was really frustrating, because we thought that we were there. We have the machine in Scotland. There are individual patient applications to get the treatment, but we are still stalled at the coming treatment that is available to all as power for the course. I do not totally understand what happened within the NHST site. The stage 1 application was put in, but something delayed or prevented the stage 2 application going in. I do not understand that, given that the equipment and the staff are there already. I wonder if the committee would also write to the chief executive of NHST site to find out what happened and whether they stand ready to put in a substantial application at the next round, which I understand is next year. It might also be helpful if the committee could write again to the national services division just to clarify the timescale for applications and when they would need it and what they require. We are all clear as to what is required to get this as an NHS treatment in Scotland, like the rest of the UK. Those are two things that I would recommend, but I would back Mary Ramsey's offer for herself and others to give evidence to the committee, because I think that that would be really helpful. I think that the actions that we were considering taking are the ones that you have just proposed, so thank you very much for that suggestion. Are we happy to incorporate Rhoda Grant's suggestions in relation to NHST site? I think that we will hear what NHST site has to do, but do that on the presumption that, having heard what they have to say, that we may very well seek to have some of the petitioner or others who have been affected by the condition potentially give evidence to the committee so that we have that on record. It is there for everyone else to see as well just what the condition has led to and the difficulties that they have had in trying to find a way forward. Are we content to proceed on that basis, colleagues? David Torrance agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. Thank you. You came, you asked, you got. There we go. I hope that the rest of the bill is like that. Only Government ministers will like that. The second of our petitions this morning is petition number 1871, a full review of mental health services. This petition was lodged by Karen McEwen on behalf of Shining Lights for Change and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a full review of mental health services in Scotland to include the referral process, crisis support, risk assessments, safe plans, integrated services working together, first response support and the support available to our families affected by suicide. Following our evidence session with the then cabinet secretary for health and social care, the committee has received additional details in relation to the suicide prevention strategy, such as information about the outcomes framework and the reporting cycle. Information about the mental health assessment units is provided in the submission. NHS Forth Valley, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, NHS Lothian and NHS Highland have dedicated units, whereas the remaining health boards have repurposed existing services or resources to provide 24-7 access to a senior clinical decision maker. It is noted that the redesign of urgent care programme will work on improving the unplanned access to urgent assessment and care to provide support quickly at the first time, reaching out and where possible, close to home. The Minister for Social Care Mental Wellbeing and Sports' recent submission indicates that the first annual report on the suicide prevention strategy outcomes will be published in July 2024. The petitioner has provided a written submission, which once again urges the committee to call for a review of mental health services. She feels that this is the only way to determine what is and is not working. She shares concerns over mental health support falling to the third sector, expressing that this is not appropriate in all cases, particularly for people in crisis. There has been some reaction from the Government in terms of how they have moved forward with the aims of the petition. We are joined by Monica Lennon, who has followed the petition with us through its various iterations. Monica, is there anything that you would like to say to the committee before we consider our next move? Thank you for your on-going work. It has been helpful to see the recent responses from the Scottish Government. Unfortunately, Karen McHeown is not able to be here in person today, but her plea is to keep this open and not to close the petition, because, in her view, many of my constituents feel the same way that the situation out there on the front line and in communities is getting worse, not better. We all would welcome the Scottish Government's on-going interest and commitment, but the strategies and frameworks are often at a very high level and are fuelled by good intentions. I am afraid that we are seeing an on-going disconnect because the resources that we need in our communities for our health services and for local government as well as a role to play and indeed the third sector, the capacity is not there, the training is not being kept up today and we have a workforce that is burnt out also. I am struck by some of Karen's words in one of her submissions when she talks about the time when her partner Luke was in crisis before he died by suicide and she talks about the really hard time that she had trying to keep him safe. It is the impact on family, friends and colleagues. Given that we were being looked at in the past few years at the end of 2017, but since then we have had the pandemic and the impact of that on our citizens in Scotland. People have then had to deal with the cost of living crisis and our public services are on their knees like never before. What really needs to happen is a real deep dive into mental health services to understand why so many people are getting to crisis point and why all the good intentions around prevention and why that is not working well enough. I think that some of the voices that could help inform that, of course people with direct experience who have been in crisis themselves or have lost loved ones to suicide. To hear more directly from those who are on the front line, I do not mean with respect, I do not mean to achieve executives and senior people at board level. Those people in teams who have caseloads that simply make your eyes water. The police I think that Police Scotland has a big story to tell here because often when our constituents are in crisis it is the police who are called as police officers in uniform who come to the door and they provide a really important service as well, but I think that that is another sign that the services are not working. Just to bring it back to a human level and I am sure that that is familiar to all the members on the committee. In one life loss of suicide, there is, of course, one too many, but we just hear too many tragic cases in our own areas where people have lost their lives. Increasingly every time I go on to my local Facebook groups I am seeing neighbours in my community crowdfunding to cover funeral costs for people who have lost their lives and have left families behind. I worry about the impact on those children and those loved ones who are left behind. There is so much trauma being stored up. I want to pay tribute to Karen McEwen. I know from the Government's submissions that they are grateful to Karen for bringing this petition. I know that when the former Cabinet Secretary, who is now our First Minister, was here and I have had discussions with him. He was very moved by Karen's not just her experience but her commitment to ensure that we can prevent suicides and that we can prevent other families from going through this pain and suffering. I think that there is more work to be done and I am pleased that the Government is committed to do further monitoring and to do what it can, but those problems in the health service and in society started before the pandemic. We need to be having quite often difficult to hear conversations with people who are on the front line working on every part of the NHS. I have mentioned Pilly Scotland, but social work also has important stories to share, not just stories but solutions. This is about trying to find solutions because we know that for people experiencing poor mental health, there is still a lot of stigma out there. We know that that interfaces with substance use issues as well and these are issues that parliamentarians care a lot about. I will bring my remarks to a close. I really do appreciate that. I know that this has been on your books for quite some time, but I know that Karen and the many people and groups that she is in contact with appreciate it. As we have seen, the experience can differ across the country. We have different models of care, which is appropriate if it is meeting local needs, but too often people feel like they have fallen through the cracks of a broken system that can vary based on a postcode lottery across Scotland. I thank you again for allowing me to say a few words on behalf of Karen and my other constituents who have a deep interest in this. Thank you very much, Monica. I thank you too to Karen McEwen and our best wishes to her. This is a petition that we have been looking at since 2021. Colleagues, I do not know what thoughts and comments colleagues have. David Torrance? I wonder if the committee would consider writing to the minister for social care, mental wellbeing and sport to ask how the mental health assessment units in NHS Forth Valley, NHS Greater Graspwon Clyde, NHS Lloven and NHS Highland have been evaluated and have lessons learned have been implemented across the health boards. I wonder if we could also ask the minister to set out in detail the journeys for individuals seeking support during mental health and crisis in areas with mental health assessment units and in areas with repurposed existing services for compared persons, in particular providing information about each step in the process for seeking support to receiving appropriate care under both approaches. Are we content? I think that, colleagues, there may come a point where in order to advance the aims of the petition it might be that we ask the health committee to look at where the petition might go after a certain point, but I think that we write as suggested in the first instance, keep the petition open right as suggested in the first instance, see what that response is and then consider what we think the best way forward to try and secure the aims of the petition would be after that. Thank you all very much and thank you very much Monica. That brings us to petition number 1885, make offering community shared ownership mandatory for all wind farm development planning processes. This has been lodged by Karen Murphy who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development. We have now received a response from the Scottish National Investment Bank, which states that it has been working with the Scottish Government and local energy Scotland while engaging with communities and developers on shared ownership. Local energy Scotland conducted research in relation to developer and funder appetite for shared ownership models and ways in which barriers can be overcome. The Minister for Energy's submission to the committee highlights that the Scottish Government would be interested in exploring the possibilities of utilising tax powers as a lever to support wider policy objectives. In response to the minister, the petitioner notes that there is no indication on how discussions on the Scottish Government's work will take place or how she and others might engage. So, some interest from the Government in relation to all of this. Members for comments and suggestions. Fergus Ewing. Just a few suggestions, if I may, as the clerks have helpfully suggested, that perhaps we could write to the Minister for Energy and the Environment to ask whether the Scottish Government has the power to mandate community shared ownership for new wind farms by A using the devolved power under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to lower the threshold for when an application to build a wind farm requires ministers consent and be withholding consent from any application that did not agree to community shared ownership model. That is the first suggestion. I wanted to make another suggestion or extended comment, if I may convener. Just rereading the submissions that we have got, the Scottish National Investment Bank submission was dated 13 March, which is a long time ago now, and the minister gave a submission of 6 April. Both were quite helpful. Both referred to the work that local energy Scotland is doing to which you have alluded, and both said that they expected to hear from local energy in the coming weeks, was the phrase, which was obviously used by both minister and SNIV. Well, weeks have come, months have elapsed since then. If I could just take one example, I spoke to a wind farm developer who is proposing to develop a fairly large wind farm in the Dava area of my constituency, which is already covered with wind farms and where there is a mixed view amongst the populace, but initially they wanted 50 turbines and they are now down to 18, mainly because the park has negotiated it down to that. I have long thought that a way in which community ownership can be made to work, without it being seen as a penalty on commercial companies, is that instead of 18, they go for 20 or 22 and the additional two or four be community owned. In other words, the company gets what it was planning to get anyway, but as in exchange for getting planning permission, it is required to enable the development to be expanded so that the communities can add two or four. In those distant days of Europe, when I was the minister, there was funding available for this to be facilitated. Treadaws, Close Brothers, The Co-op and some others funded it that should have 90, 95 per cent and the Scottish Government funded the remaining 5% to 10 per cent. That allowed communities to have a real stake of ownership. My worry is that time is passing by. Those applications are going on all the time. Everyone that is granted is a lost opportunity. The petitioner, Karen Murphy, has pointed that out. There are lots of applications for on-shore going on all the time. I really wonder if we could not ask the minister and SNIB to show a little bit more urgency to tell us what local energy Scotland has said, as they promised to do within a few weeks of their submissions, which they have not done, and generally to knock them out of this somewhat complacent approach when the real opportunities to Scotland, as everybody sees, I do not think as political convener, are being passed by. We are losing them. We used to grab them. There is a long history to this and I have probably gone for long enough, so I will not even go to chapter 1 of that long history. You will be relieved to hear. That was just a prologue. Well, indeed, yes, the preface to the prologue. I do feel very strongly that this could transform rural Scotland by providing not just £5,000 per megawatt, which is looking a bit jaded and out of date now itself, but also a real ownership stake. That is when the real opportunities to transform rural Scotland would arise and particularly to invest in young people's training and education in the future, using the fund for that purpose. I just thought that make these remarks might help the minister to see that opportunity knocks, but then the postman goes on to the next house and that is in danger of what is happening here. Well, with that metaphor, ringing the postman never knocks twice, is that the… Which case? With that very entertaining polemic, might we… Are we content to embrace the suggestions of… I think… I actually quite like the idea that we encapsulate in the further inquiries that we are making the point about missed opportunity, because this petition has been with us now since… When was it first lodged? August 21. We have gone two years. I think that Mr Ewing's point about applications being granted but there has been nothing happening means that that is two years of lost opportunity and so we should… There we go. Yes, there were a few other things, you know. Everybody has any other suggestions that we are content to agree with that? Petition number 1968 restrict perpetrators of domestic abuse from using family court proceedings to continue tormenting their victims. This was lodged by Angela Evans and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review existing legislation and family law and seek to stop perpetrators of domestic abuse causing further abuse and distress to partners and children by removing their ability to apply for contact orders under section 11 of the Children's Scotland Act 2020. We previously considered this petition at our meeting on 8 February and at that time we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Women's Aids, Shared Parenting Scotland and the Children and Young People's Commissioner and copies of the responses that we've received are in our meeting papers. The Minister for Community Safety's response, which was submitted in March, provides details on the work under way to commence the various provisions of the Children's Scotland Act 2020 with measures to regulate the provision of child contact centres expected to be introduced later in 2023. The then minister also highlighted budgetary pressures in taking forward this work, noting that establishing a register of child welfare reporters may cost around £5 million a year. The responses from Shared Parenting Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and the Children and Young People's Commissioner all noted concern about the slow progress being made to implement the 2020 act. With the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland calling in the Government to make funding available to progress implementation, Shared Parenting Scotland suggested that more detailed statistical information and child contact cases should be recorded by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in order to establish information about what happens in those cases. Scottish Women's Aid also shared concerns that no routine data is available on courts practices and outcomes in relation to disputed child contact cases in Scotland, emphasising that it's not possible to monitor the implementation of children's rights without this data. We have also received a submission from the Law Society of Scotland and it notes that appropriate and sensitive procedural rules should address concerns that family courts can be traumatising experience for victims of domestic abuse. With judicial training a vital component in ensuring practitioners and the court can respond to the particular circumstances of each case. This response also notes the view of the Child and Family Law Sub-Committee that there is already a solid framework in law that regard must be given in circumstances where there has been domestic abuse and a full suite of powers is available to judges to deal with these matters. Colleagues, do we have any thoughts? David Torrance? Thank you, convener. I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition on the rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis that the Children's Scotland Act 2020 contains measures designed to improve the position of families affected by domestic abuse, with measures to regulate the provision of child contact centres expected to be introduced in 2023. The Law Society of Scotland considers that there is already a solid framework in the law that regard must be given to us in the circumstances where there has been domestic abuse, with a full suite of powers available to judges to deal with these matters and early on in the proceedings. Obviously, 2023 is fast to disappearing and nothing is yet materialised, but are we content to close the petition? We could highlight two petitioners, but if they are not happy, they could bring the petition in years time. I think that that would be sensible. A number of things are being suggested as entrain. Sometimes we leave petitions open just to see whether they materialise. If we close the petition in this account, we make it clear that it would be possible to bring it back if they do not. I thank the petitioner very much for bringing this petition to our attention. Action has been promised that we will have to see whether that action is forthcoming. The petition number 1981 to ensure perpetrators of domestic abuse who have been excluded from the matrimonial home cannot force the sale of the property. This is obviously continuing a theme that we have just been discussing. It is a petition that has been lodged by Carolyn Gurley. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to strengthen legislation to stop perpetrators of domestic abuse who have been excluded from the matrimonial home by a court order, being able to cause further trauma and distress to their victims by trying to force the sale of the property. We last considered that also in February. Members will note from our papers that we have received responses from the Scottish Law Commission, which indicates that this issue is one of the topics being considered as it determines the scope of review of civil remedies available for domestic abuse, and from the shared parenting Scotland, who suggests that the Scottish Government could provide better public information on what communications are covered by exclusion orders. The response goes on to note that, in the case of child contact arrangements, third-party contact is likely to be in the interests of the child, so long as the personal agency issuing the communication is doing it in a professional and non-threatening manner. The Law Society of Scotland response notes that interdicts can last for lengthy periods of time, and there is a difficult balance to strike between the rights of a property owner and the rights of a victim of domestic abuse to be protected from their abuser. The Society therefore considers that a blanket position would not be appropriate and again stress the importance of training for lawyers handling cases involving domestic abuse. Link to its view on petition 1968, the Society's child and family law sub-committee view is that there is already a solid framework in the law that regard must be given in circumstances where there has been domestic abuse and a full suite of powers is available to judges to deal with these matters. I feel that we are in a similar position. Do colleagues have any suggestions? David Torrance I wonder if the committee would also consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plans to reform marital money on home family protection, Scotland Act 1981, and the Scottish Law Commission are currently focusing on a review of a lot of civil remedies for domestic abuse with consultation document expected in the first half of 2024. The Law Society of Scotland considers that there is already a solid framework in the law that regard must be given in the circumstances where there has been domestic abuse with a full suite of powers available to judges to deal with these matters early on in the proceedings. I wonder if we could also write to the Scottish Government recommending better public information to be provided for what is covered by exclusion orders and other related legal communications. David Torrance Even while we close the petition, we are doing that. Colleagues, do we agree? Are you agreeing with Fergus Ewing? David Torrance I was just going to make an additional suggestion. David Torrance Of course. I can see the logic of the replies from the commission on the Law Society that this is a very difficult area and a blanket solution. It does not necessarily present itself. I do note, and this is a suggestion that I have, that the Law Commission says that in its 11th programme, which has not yet been published, it expects that aspects of family law, including issues relating to how family law intersects with domestic abuse and violence and so on, should be covered between 2023 and 27. I wonder if it would not be indecorous or impolite for us to recommend to the commission that they perhaps try and focus that early on in their consideration. On the face of it, a man who carries out violence and who has a sole title to the matrimonial home is in a position of benefiting from his crimes to the extent of being able to sell property in certain circumstances anyway, as interdicts may apply. I wonder whether a member felt that we could urge the commission to bring forward consideration to the early part of January 23. I do think that this is an area where the Law Commission's advice is really going to be pretty essential because they have provided family law in Scotland with a very solid base from the Family Law Scotland Act 1985 onward, which I think has served Scotland well. However, there are still loopholes to be filled, and I am just making this plea directly to them. If we were to write to them, I do not see them do any harm, and it might give the petitioner some comfort that we are not just kicking into the long grass. I think that we could do that in closing the petition. It has made that suggestion, as Mr Ewing has recommended. Together with Mr Torrance's suggestions, we are content to close the petition. Again, it is an important matter that has been highlighted, but given that the Scottish Government has no plans to amend legislation, I think that this is probably the most effective route that we can recommend. We will close the petition on that basis. We agree. That brings us to petition number 1990 to introduce a Scottish Parliament question session for young people introduced by Jordan Anderson, calling on the Scottish Parliament to request the introduction of a monthly chamber session to allow young people to put questions to the First Minister and the Cabinet. Previous consideration, we agreed to write to key stakeholders and delegated authority to the convener to agree who those stakeholders might be. SPICE has provided a list of possible stakeholders that are noted in the clerks note. However, since the petition was last considered, the committee has published its report embedding citizens participation into the work of the Parliament, which includes a response to the recommendations made by the citizens panel. Colleagues, of course, will recall that there was one very similar to that of the petition. Recommendation 14 was to schedule specific time in the debating chamber for individual public questions to be asked. As members will recall, we concluded, and I am quoting from our own report, that we do not support recommendation for a question time, which is part of formal parliamentary business, as we think it raises too many difficulties, both of practice and principle. Having said all that, we would be willing to see the idea of further explored if there is cross-party support for doing so. The petition has provided a written support, which shares its view that young people are becoming increasingly engaged in politics and need greater representation in politics. So, having delegated authority to me previously, you now, because I wanted to bring it back, given our own inquiry into the subject matter, there are a number of people and stakeholders that we could write to, as identified by the clerks, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children's Parliament and the National Union of Students who care Scotland, the Scottish Commissioner for Youth People with Learning Disabilities, the Intercultural Youth Scotland, Children in Scotland and YouthLink Scotland. Are we content to see what their view is of all of this? Ahead of what I understand will be a session of the Scottish Youth Parliament here at Holyrood potentially next year, and it may well be that that might be a route that we think, if there was sufficient interest in this, that we could potentially subsequently recommend as a way forward for the petition. So, we are content to continue on that basis. David Torrance. Considering the recommendations in the report, I wonder if we could write to these stakeholders specifically asking about alternative ways that they can engage with the Scottish Government outside parliamentary business? Yes, I think that that would make sense too. Faisel Shoudry. Just to say that my daughter is a member of the Youth Parliament, but the question that I was going to say is, can we increase the frequency that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament hold joint sessions? I do not think that we have ever held a joint session. I think that it is simply that the Scottish Parliament has provided the campus of the Scottish Parliament for the Scottish Youth Parliament to meet within the campus, and I think that that policy has been once a Parliament. Are you suggesting that we write to the corporate body to see whether they would… Yes, I consider a joint… Has the Scottish Youth Parliament made that request itself? Well, talking to the youth parliamentarians, I had a few meetings with them, and they did suggest that they want to have more engagement with the MSPs. Could we write to the corporate body then just drawing their attention to this petition and saying that the committee would be interested if they had any engagement with the Scottish Youth Parliament as to whether it might be possible to facilitate more regular sessions of the Parliament in Hollywood? Are you content with that? That brings us to agenda item 3, consideration of new petitions. As always, before considering the new petitions, I say to anybody who might be following our proceedings that, before we consider a petition, the Parliament's independent research unit SPICE is given an opportunity to brief colleagues, and we also write to the Scottish Government to get their initial thoughts on the petitions, so that we are considering it with some understanding of the issues underpinning and the Government's likely view. The first of the new petitions is petition number 2035, to recognise legal control of generalist predators as a conservation act. This has been lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Game Peepers Association, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to officially recognise legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground-nesting birds in Scotland. The Scottish Government's response to the petition recognises that predator control is an important component of species conservation, alongside other techniques such as habitat management and translocation. In response, the petitioner has asked how the Scottish Government's response might be published for wider parliamentary record, stating that a bigger recognition would provide clarity to professionals carrying out legal control of generalist predators, and highlights a relevant example to demonstrate a lack of clarity for professionals. The submission explains that NatureScot had recommended predator control as a number one measure to save Cape Caleigh. However, a ministerial statement on the issue focused on habitat improvement and did not then mention predator control. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Ewing? Yes, I have read Alex Hogg's response to the Scottish Government response, which although positive, was somewhat skeletal and said that predator control—general predators—was just a component alongside other things. The petitioner has, in his submission to us, pointed out that the minister actually has kind of contradicted what the Government has said in that she says the main elements are not predator control, they are well-managed restoration and expansion of the pine forest, which is not what NatureScot's Scientific Advisory Committee said. It said that predator control is essential, and it is not happening in Mr Spay, and the capper is under threat of extinction. Journalists such as Magnus Linklater have championed this cause for a long time. My recommendation, without laboring the point and going on forever, is that, given the expertise and knowledge that is possessed within the ranks of the SGA, and Alex Hogg's seniority as the president, it would be useful to have a short evidence session where we give him the opportunity to say what he thinks should be done, because plainly he has got a huge amount to offer, all in the cause of preventing this capper from going to extinction, which every land manager, every farmer in my constituency for the last 25 years says is going to happen unless they start controlling the predators. We are content to have Mr Hogg. It could take a little time. I wonder in the first instance, I am happy to do that, so let's set that in place. Might we also just write to the minister who delivered the statement, just drawing the contradiction in what we understood to be NatureScot's advice and the statement itself, and then allying that to the Government's response in which they said that they value generalist predators as a way forward, because in practice the statement or the response from the minister undermined awareness or confidence in that as a root, and just see what response we get, because I think that it would be helpful to have that even as we hear from Mr Hogg. Petition number 2037, improving literacy standards in schools through research and formed reading instruction lodged by Anne Gleny, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide national guidance, support and professional learning for teachers in research and formed reading instruction, such as a specifically systematic synthetic phonics, to ensure that teacher training institutions train new teachers in research and formed reading instruction, specifically systematic synthetic phonics. Members will have noted that the petitioner submitted a similar petition, which was discussed by our predecessor committee last session, and it was then that petition referred to the education skills committee. The petitioner was subsequently closed by the current education children and young people committee on the basis that it had no plans to scrutinise initial training education. Additional details of the previous consideration including are in the spice briefing. The cabinet secretary's response indicates that work is under way by Education Scotland to develop a range of new resources relating to early reading. With part of that work outlining how systemic phonics approaches form one aspect of the overall pedagogy of for early reading, the response goes on to state that it is the responsibility of the general teaching council for Scotland to ensure that initial teacher education programmes expose student teachers to a range of pedagogies to teach literacy and reading instruction. It is important that Scottish ministers respect the independence of institutions providing initial teacher education by not prescribing the detailed content of courses. The cabinet secretary has however written to the Scottish Council of Deans of Education requesting an update on the current position of the initial teacher education in relation to teacher skills and confidence to support children's reading in primary schools. We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which welcomes the news that Education Scotland are working in new early reading materials, but expresses concern that decoding skills and specifically information on systematic synthetic phonics remain absent from current teacher training programmes. The petitioner has also shared details of studies indicating that newly qualified teachers lack confidence and working knowledge to teach reading and phonics. A few tongue twisters in there. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? David Torrance, I wonder if a committee would consider writing to a cabinet secretary for education and skills to ask whether the update from the Scottish Council of Deans of Education has been received and for its contents to be shared with the committee. I wonder if we could also write to a general teaching council of Scotland seeking its views on the actions called for in the petition, specifically whether it has any plans to update the requirements for initial teacher education programmes. Do colleagues have any other comments or suggestions? Are colleagues content to proceed? We will keep the petitioner open, thank our petitioner, and seek further information as requested. I thank the petitioner for bringing the petition back to us, which is one of the routes that we offer to petitioners after due time and consideration. Petition number 2040 is the last of our new petitions to consider this morning, which is to increase funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to prevent serious cuts to the service provided to the public. I think something of which there was a session in Parliament yesterday that members could attend. This has been lodged by Anthony McManus. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the annual budget provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and take action to prevent job losses and the removal of front-line fire appliances from fire stations across Scotland. The petitioner tells us that he is a serving firefighter at one of the fire stations due to lose its dedicated height appliance. In the petitioner's view, the decision by Scottish Fire and Rescue to remove 10 front-line fire appliances from fire stations across Scotland could lead to potentially disastrous consequences for the communities affected. The Scottish Government responded to the petition to state that it has supported the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service with year-on-year increases, including an increase of £14.4 million in this year's budget. The Scottish Government's response goes on to note that operational decisions on the number and location of appliances are entirely a matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board and the chief officer. It is, however, stating that the decision to withdraw appliances is not all about cost savings and is intended to ensure that full crews are available for the remaining operational appliances more of the time. The Scottish Government also indicated that it has received assurances from SFRS that the decision to temporarily remove these appliances has not been taken quickly or lightly and that a rigorous assessment of the impact of those changes along with a full public consultation on the package of changes will take place before any permanent changes to service provision are made. Members may be aware that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board has provided written and oral evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee on the issue as part of their pre-budget scrutiny process. I wonder whether we should inquire or whether the clerks can inform us now if the Criminal Justice Committee reached any conclusion. Plainly, it has heard detailed evidence and we have not. That is narrated clearly in the material that is before us, but it is not clear what the Criminal Justice Committee will do about it. It may be that in its budget report, convener, it will make recommendations. Would it be prudent for us to make informal inquiries to see where matters stand with the Criminal Justice Committee? It has started to look at that in detail, so it does not seem appropriate that we duplicate that work. However, on the other hand, a duty to the petitioners is to make sure that we do not prematurely close the petition when we do not quite know where its fate lies. My hesitation in opening it up is that I was similarly struck that I did not want us to embark on a duplicatory chain of investigation, but, on the other hand, I was not clear that the investigation to date was going to work in quite the way that the aims of the petitioner would be seeking. I understand that we are likely to see that in November next month. The Criminal Justice Committee's submission might be right to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on the Far Brigades Union just to allow them to give their views on the aims of the petition to the committee, which we can then take into account when we consider it along with that submission and decide whether we think that there is further work that the committee could do in advancing the aims of the petition. David Torrance? I agree with you, convener, because yesterday I was at the event held in Parliament and every MSP was giving a briefing at the end of it. It is in the round box, which is very comprehensive. If we are also writing to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on the Far Brigades Union, the chief officer has a lot to do with this. I wonder if he could get direct from him his views on it, because he has been advised in the Government. I think that we could ask specifically too for the views of the chief officer. I know that this is an issue of huge public interest. Since the petition was lodged, there has been a very high profile major fire in air. As I recall, their high-height appliance was no longer in service and one had to be provided from Glasgow, and issues were raised about all that. One of the issues that was raised within the petition itself. Mr Choudry? I had a few meetings with some of the firefighters as well. The chief officer has been put into a situation where, if they do not have enough funding, they have to make some decisions as well. Some of the time, it depends on the funding as well, so I think that it is important that we need to find out. We will get some indication, potentially, of whether the scope of that has been incorporated into the evidence heard by the Criminal Justice Committee as well. I think that when we next consider it, we will be in a better informed position, if colleagues are content. With that, we conclude our public session and we now move into private session and our next meeting will therefore be on Wednesday the 8th of November.