���˿���

The next continued petition, PE1993, which was lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Challoner, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate financial support during their studies by providing bursaries to all third and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements, and to reform the assessment criteria and adequately fund the bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements.

We last considered the petition on 20 December, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Social Services Council and the Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans. The minister’s response to the committee highlights that, from this academic year,

“postgraduate students who are not eligible to receive bursary support from the Scottish Social Services Council ... will be able to apply for the postgraduate funding package administered by the Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS).”

The response also highlights the Scottish Social Services Council’s new model and schedule of rates for the financial support that it provides to postgraduate students. It has also worked to increase clarity for students on the funding that they will receive if they are eligible for a bursary; to reduce the complexity of assessments; and to streamline the administrative processes.

The Social Work Education Partnership commissioned a review of practice learning funding, which reported in September 2023. The minister’s written submission states that the “recommendations are being considered” by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Social Services Council’s written submission states that an action plan is

“being drafted by the SWEP Programme Office”.

The petitioners are concerned that the minister is not taking ownership of the issue. Their submission states that

“it is unfair to try and palm off decision making onto others”,

and that

“the Government will need to make funding available to enable this policy to happen”.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

You make an interesting point about whether national parks themselves are the catalyst for additional tourism. There are other factors, too; for instance, you could point to American television series such as “Outlander” and the tourism that comes from people visiting those destinations. However, when it comes to the whole idea of creating a national park, is it not implicit that such a park will, in the public mind, be somewhere that we should all go to? It might not depend on this, but, by making somewhere a national park, do we not almost self-promote the concept that this is somewhere that tourists should consider upping themselves off to?

Given that the national parks have been in place for a couple of decades now, is a review not a perfectly reasonable proposition?

You will have heard the evidence from the previous witnesses, some of whom felt that there needs to be an independent review of the national parks, over and above any review that is being conducted by NatureScot. One of the witnesses referred to Mr Ewing’s contribution when we first considered the petition, when he spoke about people marking their own homework and about the fact that NatureScot is a proponent of what is now being advocated in relation to an additional national park, such that there is not public confidence that there has been an independently generated and proper understanding of the benefits and lessons in creating any future national park. What is your attitude to the petitioner’s calls for such an independent review to be established?

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Carson, we are quite tight for time, but I can allow you a question if you can pull your thoughts together concisely.

Does anyone want to come in on that point?

Therefore, it is a presumptive approach. It is presumed that the park will exist and then you can make contributions on that.

Before we move on, I welcome Finlay Carson, who has joined us while we consider the petition. Finlay, it is not normally the case that colleagues can participate in the questioning of witnesses, but should you wish to ask something, I am happy for you to indicate that to me and we will seek to bring you in, if that would be helpful.

We can note that, rather than pursue it. I was already struck by the fierce note of controversy that Mr Mayhew introduced by suggesting that Governments should do what they say that they are going to do.

With that, I thank Mr Lucas and Mr Mayhew for their evidence this morning. It is very much appreciated, and it will help us as we consider and develop the petition.

After all that I have said, we will be hearing from our friends at NatureScot at our next meeting, so I hope that they have been listening carefully to our deliberations today. Following that, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and the Islands. Members, are you content to consider the petition at a future meeting after we have had the opportunity to hear from NatureScot and the cabinet secretary?

Members indicated agreement.

As we are slightly behind time, I will suspend very briefly. I therefore ask those who are departing to do so quietly and that we change the scenery and personnel very quickly so that we can proceed without much delay.