Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our first new petition, PE2119, which was lodged by Calum Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the operation of the woodland creation scheme.

The petition has four particular asks: to make it mandatory for all new deer fencing to be marked, where necessary, with wooden droppers as it is erected to help prevent bird strike; to require all work on these schemes to be stopped or paused by the end of March to protect ground-nesting birds; to require NatureScot to carry out initial and annual environmental impact assessments to consider the effects of woodland creation on resident wildlife; and to ensure that any recipient of a forestry grant who then puts the forest up for sale must return the grant in full when sold.

In the background to the petition, Mr Campbell raises concerns about bamboo canes being used to mark deer fences in a section of the Cairngorms national park. He suggests that they are cheaper and less effective than wooden droppers, and they have led to black grouse flying into the fence and being killed. The SPICe briefing provides information on the use of netting and other measures, such as sawn wooden droppers, which are intended to help reduce the risk of birds colliding with fences. It also notes that bamboo should be used only as a last resort to mark fencing on extremely high-exposure sites.

In its response to the petition, Scottish Forestry notes that the choice of marking material and position of deer fences will require consideration of the visibility of the marker, the proximity of the fence to grouse activity and the durability of the material, with particular focus on the exposure of the site and what that means for the longevity of the material.

The response goes on to detail Scottish Forestry’s processes for considering woodland creation applications and its statutory duties to assess and determine whether a project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner in which he raises concerns that the target of planting new trees might not achieve the expected carbon capture, particularly where planting takes place on heather moorland. Mr Campbell also highlights on-going concerns about the specific site in the Cairngorms. Scottish Forestry had instructed the forestry agents to undertake remedial work to address the impact on the black grouse population, but, by the beginning of November, that remedial work had not yet taken place.

The petition raises quite a specific issue, and we have received what I thought was quite a comprehensive response to it. Do members have any suggestions?

Our final new petition, PE2120, which was lodged by Tam Wilson on behalf of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permanently abolish peak fare pricing on all ScotRail-operated rail routes.

Members will be aware that a pilot for the removal of peak-time fares ran between October 2023 and September 2024. Transport Scotland’s analysis of the pilot showed that, although there was a limited increase in the number of passengers, the pilot did not achieve its aims of encouraging significant modal shift from car to rail.

The evaluation also said that the pilot produced benefits of between £1 and £1.25 for every £1 spent, which compares favourably with some major transport investment projects that are being pursued by the Scottish Government.

In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland stated that the rail system relies heavily on the revenue generated during peak hours, and that abolishing peak fares would require diverting a significant amount of public funds—something between £25 million and £40 million annually—which the Scottish Government says is simply unaffordable in the current fiscal climate.

The response goes on to highlight the discounts that ScotRail has introduced to its season and flexipass tickets, and includes Scottish Government commitments to develop proposals for a new rail fare offering and investment in Scotland’s railway.

The petition touches on an area of current party-political and public debate. In that context, we have received a submission from the petitioner in which he acknowledges the fiscal challenges faced by the Scottish Government but says that he believes that the cost of inaction on the matter might be higher in terms of exacerbating environmental issues and social inequalities. He urges the Government to reassess the permanent removal of peak fares as part of its broader efforts to reduce the cost of living, combat climate change and improve public transport access for all.

It is perhaps worth noting, for the benefit of anyone who might be following the progress of the petition, that the Parliament agreed to a non-binding motion that called on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to reintroduce peak fares on Scotland’s railway, and agreed that making public transport more accessible, affordable and reliable is key to supporting more people to use it.

In so far as the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to do something, the Scottish Parliament has, through the non-binding motion, progressed, in its own way, that very request for action. In the light of everything that we are hearing and the on-going debate, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

We will keep the petition open and progress on that basis.

So you and I are the only two who are left from that time. If you are happy to support it, I am quite happy to propose that, in the first instance, we write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to ask what actions the Scottish Government will take following the summit on youth violence in January 2025; to seek an update on the development of a collaborative plan for harm reduction and violence prevention; and to ask how victims are made aware of the “Standards of Service for Victims and Witnesses” document when reporting a crime.

More particularly, having taken evidence, gone on site visits and heard from a number of people, we are at the point at which it is time to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and the Lord Advocate to give evidence. From experience, I know that, if we take one or the other, one will say that it is the other’s responsibility. Having them all here might facilitate the discussion. Anyway, we will ask them to come and give evidence on this and other petitions relating to serious crime committed by young people, although I think that we will want to get the update first, to inform that discussion.

PE2051, which was lodged by Dianne Youngson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a consistent and transparent reporting mechanism for incidents affecting the health of pupils in schools; review and improve on the existing guidelines for schools in dealing with at-risk pupils; place in law monitoring of reporting mechanisms, with ultimate responsibility being placed with Scottish ministers and local authorities; and reform the exclusions procedure to include consideration of whether exclusions may cause further harm.

We last considered the petition on 21 February and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. We were keen to receive a timeline for the development and publication of the joint action plan on relationships and behaviour in schools, and information about how the Scottish Government expects its call for accurate recording of incidents in schools to be achieved.

The joint action plan on relationships and behaviour in schools has now been published and covers the period from 2024 until 2027. The cabinet secretary highlighted the Government’s review of the national anti-bullying guidance. She noted in particular that a sub-group was established to identify and consider changes to the supplementary guidance on recording and monitoring.

The submission notes that Education Scotland plans to publish a toolkit of good practice on recording and responding to bullying incidents.

In the light of the cabinet secretary’s response following the publication of the plan for 2024 to 2027, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Good morning and welcome to the 19th and final meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Agenda item 1 is to agree to take in private agenda items 4 and 5, which are to look at our petition signature process and the forthcoming work programme for the new year. Are colleagues content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We have two petitions for which we would seek to bring together our respective ministers and the Lord Advocate. Are members content with that proposal, on the back of seeking further information in the first instance in both cases?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition will be kept open, along with the petition in the name of Alex O’Kane, and we will speak to the minister in respect of both.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of two new petitions. As I always do, I say to anybody who might be tuning in because they know that their petition is being considered for the first time that, in advance of the consideration, we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to provide the committee with a briefing on the issues raised. We also seek a preliminary view from the Scottish Government on the issues raised. We do both those things in order to expedite the progress of our consideration of the petition.

Mr Torrance has produced a list of suggestions as to what we might do. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.