Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

We will take evidence for the first item on the agenda, which is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1804, which was lodged by Alasdair MacEachen, John Doig and Peter Henderson on behalf of Benbecula community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd’s air traffic management strategy project and to conduct an independent assessment of the decisions and decision-making process of the ATMS project. We last considered the petition on 2 February, when we agreed to write to the Civil Aviation Authority and to hear evidence from the petitioners and Prospect at this meeting, and from HIAL at our meeting on 18 May.

I am delighted that we are joined by the two representative MSPs—Rhoda Grant and Liam McArthur—who have been following the petition at its various torturous stages of progress through our proceedings. I welcome Peter Henderson, who is joining us virtually and is one of our petitioners who will give evidence.

I will ask members whether they have questions that they would like to explore with Peter. Peter, is there anything that you would like to say before we launch into our questions?

Are we happy to say that, in principle, we would like to hear from the petitioner, but we will first establish whether there is a work programme issue involving our partner committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Avery, we explored with the previous witness what has brought about the change of view in HIAL. He was sceptical that it was our investigation into the matters, our representations or your representations, and he thought that it was all down to a realisation that the costs involved in the project were no longer sustainable. What do you think the cornerstone of HIAL’s change of approach is?

That is one gift horse that you are prepared to look in the mouth. Thank you very much. That has been extremely useful and helpful.

Colleagues, I think that we will probably consider the evidence afresh after we have met HIAL. Liam McArthur made general comments in addition to the points that we put to Mr Avery. Rhoda Grant asked a specific question. Do you have general comments to add for us to bear in mind before I draw the discussion to an end?

Do you have a final point, Liam?

Next is consideration of PE1812, on protecting Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors, which was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker. We have already taken considerable evidence on the petition, which calls on

“the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation giving Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection”.

We last considered the petition on 23 March, when we took evidence from the Minister for Environment and Land Reform, Màiri McAllan, and Doug Howieson from Scottish Forestry. That session followed evidence that, as members will recall, we heard from the petitioners on 9 March, and from the round table with NatureScot, the Woodland Trust Scotland, Scottish Forestry, the Confederation of Forest Industries and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

At the meeting with the minister, she indicated that work would be under way this summer to develop the register of ancient woodlands. The minister remains open minded on how existing protections and enforcement measures could be improved.

During that meeting and at the round table, we heard about the importance of ancient woodlands for biodiversity and carbon capture. We also explored how forestry standards are currently enforced and what needs to happen to ensure continuing protection of ancient and native woodlands.

We agreed to reflect on the evidence that we had heard and to consider our next steps this morning. I wonder, colleagues, what we might do next.

Thank you.

I highlight that our consideration of PE1867 is available to watch on the Scottish Parliament’s BSL channel. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2.

When we last considered the petition on 2 February, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the SQA, Deaf Action, Enquire, the National Deaf Children’s Society Scotland and the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition. We have now received detailed responses from the SQA and the Scottish Government that clarify their processes.

The SQA’s response notes that assessment of demand is based on the number of learners who have been entered by schools for the existing range of qualifications. The SQA and the Scottish Government hold joint responsibility for the development of new and/or revised national qualifications. The response from the Scottish Government notes that schools have broad discretion in determining which additional languages to offer and that, although there is currently no national qualification for BSL, there is nothing in policy to prevent schools from teaching it from as early as primary 1.

Members may wish to note that we have also received submissions from Children in Scotland and Deaf Action.

I note from the response from the SQA that it is often the case that support for a qualification among those who are lobbying for it is not always reflective of demand or matched by the demand that is secured, which is a reasonable point.

Do members have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

We should also write to the petitioner, in particular, given that the national strategy will be established with a view to considerations being taken from September this year. It would be very useful for the petitioner to contribute to that. Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content for me to invite the clerks to come back to me on where we might obtain further information about body scanners? That seems relevant to our consideration and, although they have been alluded to, we might benefit from a proper briefing on their availability, the costings and their use. That would allow us to pursue with the Crown Office and others why we are not deploying scanners in the way that we might do in Scotland.

Members indicated agreement.