���˿���

We plan to highlight those in the letter that we draft. Obviously, we will draft a comprehensive letter that will draw from those particular sources. I think that that is important in how we manage matters.

PE2037, which was lodged by Anne Glennie, is on improving literacy attainment through research-informed reading instruction. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide national guidance, support and professional learning for teachers in research-informed reading instruction—specifically, systematic synthetic phonics—and to ensure that teacher training institutions train new teachers in such instruction.

We previously considered the petition on 25 October. At that time, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and to the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

In her response, the cabinet secretary notes that student teachers are taught about systematic—or is it “systemic”? No—it is “systematic”. There are too many Ss. Student teachers are taught about systematic synthetic phonics as part of the process of gaining a broader understanding of the development and teaching of reading.

In its response, the General Teaching Council for Scotland notes that, although it sets the required design, expected component parts and other features of initial teacher education, such programmes do not aim to cover every teaching approach in detail. It also provides detail on the standards that are expected of teachers in order for them to maintain full registration, as well as on on-going efforts to develop a more effective career-long teacher education model.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. The first of those asks for more detail on what exactly is being taught to pre-service teachers and notes that research is being undertaken by academics in Glasgow and Dundee to evaluate current literary teaching practices. In her most recent submission, the petitioner draws our attention to international examples in Australia and New Zealand, with systematic synthetic phonics being recommended as the most effective method of teaching children to read. The petitioner has also drawn our attention to a report that explores the variability in literacy rates and policy in both the UK and Ireland.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Torrance, can you get your head around the tongue twister?

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again after the summer recess.

We now move into private session.

Our second continued petition is PE1933, on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, some of whom are with us in the gallery today. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June 2024, when we heard evidence from the chair and chief executive of Redress Scotland about the processes for considering redress applications. We subsequently received further submissions from the petitioner, sharing their reflections on the evidence from Redress Scotland and commenting on recent submissions from Thompsons Solicitors, the Law Society of Scotland and the First Minister.

The petitioner’s second submission provides further detail to support their view that Fornethy house operated as a residential school, and includes reference material about bursaries for Fornethy house from the Glasgow education department.

We have heard a lot of evidence and the committee is clear about its direction of travel. Do members have any comments or suggestions about how we might proceed???

I am content to agree to that, too.

Obviously, we are about to go into the summer recess, so we will confirm the wording of the final draft of our letter by correspondence. In view of that, are colleagues content that any correspondence, once agreed, should be published on the petitions web page and to delegate to me, as convener, arrangements for publication to ensure that we not only send a letter to the Government, but that we make a public statement on the conclusions that the committee has reached and the firm recommended direction that the committee is urging the Government to follow?

Members indicated agreement.

That is why I am genuinely confused. If there is a presumption of truth and no evidence to suggest that there was parental consent, and they are saying that there was no parental consent, then why are they not believed, since that criterion would have made them eligible?

Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on the second-last day of the parliamentary term—Wednesday 26 June.

Notwithstanding everything that we have heard, I will try to encapsulate the issue in my mind. If I was a Fornethy survivor and I believed that the circumstances that had placed me there were not freely determined by my parents, is that the basis for me to make a claim?

I have two quick final questions. Given the attendant publicity that is associated with the scandal at Fornethy, and given your independent status, has the Scottish Government endeavoured to engage with you directly on the issues that have arisen in relation to Fornethy? You have talked about what I would call formal reporting mechanisms. Is that the chain of communication that has existed, or has any other communication taken place as a consequence of the attendant concern and publicity that are attached to Fornethy?

That is the case.