Official Report 517KB pdf
Local Authority Safeguarding and Equality Compliance Frameworks (Review) (PE2212)
10:45
Item 4 is consideration of six new petitions. Our first new petition is PE2212, which was lodged by Steven Fawcett and published on 17 June 2026, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission a national review of the misapplication of unacceptable actions policies across local authorities and their impact on safeguarding and equality compliance.
The petitioner would like such a review to consider whether there is a need to develop statutory guidance clarifying the interface between the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and local authority complaints or behavioural policies; strengthen enforcement powers for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and/or create an independent safeguarding and equality oversight body to ensure compliance with the 2007 act and the Equality Act 2010; and mandate uniform training and reporting standards across all councils to ensure that equality and safeguarding are treated as statutory, rather than discretionary, obligations.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing sets out that local authorities’ responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 include the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and provides links to examples of how some authorities refer to equality and the reasonable adjustment duty.
The SPICe briefing also sets out the statutory functions of the SPSO. It notes that, although the SPSO has the power to investigate complaints and make recommendations, it does not have the power to enforce any of its recommendations or to initiate its own investigations. The SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee raised that issue in session 6.
In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to require the development of statutory guidance to clarify any interface between the 2007 act and local authority complaints or behavioural policies. In response, the petitioner refers to a freedom of information response that he obtained from his local authority, which he considers provides evidence in contrast to the Government’s position.
The Scottish Government acknowledges that the strengthening of the SPSO enforcement powers or the creation of a new oversight body could be achieved through primary or secondary legislation. It notes, however, that that
“would come with significant time and resource implications and would require careful consideration to avoid duplicating current work with”
adult support and protection partners.
The Government does not consider that there is evidence or a need to support the creation of a new oversight body or to strengthen the SPSO’s powers. The petitioner notes the Government’s acknowledgement that any strengthening of the SPSO’s powers or the creation of a new oversight body would require legislative action. He also notes how that issue was raised by the session 6 SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee and asks why that recommendation has not yet been progressed.
The Scottish Government refers to its adult support and protection learning and development framework, which was published. It does not consider there to be evidence or a need to mandate statutory uniform training and reporting standards. The petitioner refers to the freedom of information response and argues that that shows that a framework addressing ASP duties in general terms does not, in practice, extend to training staff on how to operate a policy.
Do members have any views on the petition?
We should keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman asking for their views on the proposed action in the petition.
Is there any disagreement? No.
Given that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee recommended strengthening the office of the SPSO by enabling it to investigate without complaint, we should seek further information on how that could best be put into practice, as also expressed by our colleague Ms McKee.
Are members happy with that action?
Members indicated agreement.
Small Animal Road Signs (PE2213)
PE2213, which was lodged by Burntisland Hedgehog Haven and published on 17 June, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce small animal road warning signage, as has been done in England. The petitioner would like the sign displayed in areas with high hedgehog populations to help to save a species that is already on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list as near threatened.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition explains that, although the regulation of traffic signs in Scotland was devolved to the Scottish ministers in 2016, the design, size, location and illumination of traffic signs that are used on roads across Great Britain are defined in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The briefing goes on to explain that the UK Government created a standardised small animal sign for use on English roads in 2019 but that the directions were not amended to include the small animal road sign, meaning that it is not a prescribed sign.
The Scottish Government’s response on the petition sets out that Transport Scotland does not support the use of small wild animal signs in Scotland. It states that such signs could confuse or distract drivers, create road safety risks and have an unnecessary visual impact on the landscape. The response explains that, currently, a standard hazard warning sign can be used where there is strong evidence of the need to warn drivers of a specific wildlife risk. That sign might be supplemented by text providing more information about the specific hazard and, where appropriate, the distance over which the risk applies. The response further notes that Transport Scotland is preparing a sectoral biodiversity strategy, which is due to be published later this year and which will set out objectives that are aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss.
The petitioner’s written submission suggests that any potential confusion for drivers that is caused by the introduction of a new road sign could be mitigated by introducing one standardised sign for small animals rather than having different signs for different species. The submission further notes that hedgehogs are now more likely to live in urban areas than in rural ones and that placing small animal signs in specific places—for example, where people do not necessarily expect small animals to be present—could reduce the number of deaths of such animals.
Do members have a view?
The petitioner is a constituent of mine, and I have worked with them closely, so I will have to declare an interest and take a back seat.
Do other members have a view?
I have been involved with the group in my capacity as a local councillor, but I am happy to give my opinion.
Please do.
I think that we should leave the petition open and do a bit more investigation into the issue.
That sounds reasonable.
As a huge animal lover, I think that more needs to be done to protect our wildlife, particularly our hedgehogs, which are declining in number. I want to see change on that, so I am happy to keep the petition open. We should write to the key organisations. I would like to visit the Burntisland Hedgehog Haven.
I second that.
I third it.
There is a general consensus that this is a matter of interest, both to the public and to members of the committee and other parliamentarians. We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition, which has raised an interesting issue and certainly merits further investigation.
The suggested action is to keep the petition open and write to key organisations, as set out in the briefing notes. We will also seek to arrange a visit to the Burntisland Hedgehog Haven or another appropriate venue to obtain more information on the subject matter—that would be a good next step. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
School Bullying Policy (PE2215)
PE2215, which was published on 18 June 2026 and lodged by Kirsty Solman, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create and enforce a national anti-bullying policy that all schools and local authorities must follow, with mandatory reporting procedures and stronger consequences to ensure the safety and protection of children who are affected by bullying.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that, in order to deliver a consistent and mandatory policy across all schools, one option would be to create a power for the Scottish Government to issue statutory guidance. The briefing identifies a range of measures that are designed to support positive behaviour in schools, including a joint action plan between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and “Respect for All: The National Approach to Anti-Bullying for Scotland’s Children and Young People”, which includes non-statutory guidance on implementing anti-bullying policies.
The Scottish Government submission refers to “Respect for All” and states that it was revised in 2024 following extensive engagement with a range of key stakeholders, including Education Scotland, teaching unions, parent representatives and children’s organisations. The Scottish Government explains that it does not currently have the power to introduce statutory national anti-bullying guidance or mandatory reporting requirements. It considers that having that power would not necessarily improve outcomes for children and young people, and it observes that evidence does not demonstrate that legislating in the area leads to a reduction in bullying or an improvement in recording practices.
The Government further sets out in detail the range of work that it is undertaking alongside the “Respect for All” approach, including separate guidance on fostering a positive, inclusive and safe school environment and new guidance on risk assessments for violent, aggressive and dangerous behaviour. Both were published in June 2025 as part of the joint action plan. The next update of respect for all is due to be published in 2029. Do members of the committee have a view?
I wonder whether the committee would consider keeping the petition open and writing to the petitioner to seek their views in response to the written submission from the Scottish Government. I also wonder whether we could seek the views of key stakeholders such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland, the teaching unions, Connect, the Scottish Youth Parliament and respectme, Scotland’s anti-bullying service.
I completely agree with that. We need to be going further. It is a serious issue in our schools and we are letting our young people down. We should 100 per cent keep it open.
I agree.
I think that there is agreement from members of the committee. Cara McKee has written that she was minded to close the petition, but it seems that there is a majority in favour of retaining it open at this stage and seeking further views from the stakeholders that were suggested by Mr Torrance.
If we are in agreement, we will note those actions and carry on.
Members indicated agreement.
Free Bus Travel Scheme (Extension) (PE2216)
Our next petition is PE2216, which was lodged by James Bond and published on 18 June 2026, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend eligibility for the young persons free bus travel scheme to include everyone aged 22 to 25 inclusive, using powers under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. The petitioner states that the current age limit of 21 creates an unfair cliff edge for young people entering work apprenticeships or higher education and that extending the scheme would reduce socioeconomic disadvantage, boost workforce participation and aid net zero targets.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition states that two national concessionary travel schemes currently operate in Scotland: one offers free travel to Scottish residents over the age of 60 or disabled residents of any age; the other, which was launched in 2022, offers free travel within Scotland for Scottish residents who are aged five to 21. The briefing notes that, as part of those schemes, bus operators are paid a proportion of the full adult fare for each concessionary traveller that is carried.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it has no plans to change the age eligibility for free bus travel. It cites concerns over affordability, estimating that extending eligibility up to the age of 26 would carry additional costs of between £95 million and £113 million per year. It further notes the Government’s commitment to introducing a nationwide £2 fare cap across Scotland by the end of the current parliamentary session, building on the current pilot scheme.
Do members have any views?
I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis of the response from the Scottish Government that it does not intend to change the age of eligibility for free bus travel and has confirmed plans to introduce a roll-out of a nationwide £2 bus fare cap by the end of the parliamentary session.
I would be happy to close the petition, on the grounds that I do not agree that we should be giving free bus travel to adults of that age. I agree that we should close the petition.
I have no dissent to that.
Cara McKee was minded to keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to ask for information on £2 roll-out and perhaps also franchising, as well as engaging with the organisations in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing. It seems that a majority is in favour of closure. I note that there are other relevant petitions, such as on bus franchising, that might be more appropriate vehicles to explore these issues.
With that, I am at an agreement to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to change the age of eligibility for free bus travel and has confirmed plans to introduce a roll-out of a nationwide £2 bus fare cap by the end of the parliamentary session.
Firearms Offences (Sentencing) (PE2219)
Our next petition is PE2219, which was published on 24 June 2026 and lodged by Sharon Wilson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review whether the mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence for the possession of prohibited firearms under the Firearms Act 1968 continues to deliver proportionate justice and effective public safety outcomes in all circumstances.
11:00
The petitioner clarifies that her petition calls for a review of whether the current legislation remains the most effective and proportionate approach in all circumstances, rather than calling for the removal of serious penalties altogether.
The petitioner has noted that firearms legislation is reserved to the UK Parliament but argues that the Scottish Parliament still has an important role in considering the impact of sentencing policy on Scotland’s justice system and in making representations where concerns about proportionality and fairness arise.
The SPICe briefing for the petition explains that changes to the provisions in the Firearms Act 1968, which provides for a minimum sentence for certain firearms offences, can be made only by the UK Parliament. It notes that that would not prevent relevant Scottish bodies from looking at the implications of the mandatory sentence—for example, the Scottish Sentencing Council commissioned a review in 2025 to examine sentencing for firearms offences more generally. However, the SPICe briefing noted that the Scottish Sentencing Council has not produced guidelines for firearms offences and has confirmed that it has no plans to do so.
The Scottish Government response to the petition also notes that, in its view, the subject matter of the petition is reserved and the asks of the petitioner are therefore not achievable. However, it states that it respects the committee’s role in examining the issues that the petition raises.
The petitioner’s written submission acknowledges that the Firearms Act 1968 is reserved to the UK Parliament but asks the committee to seek the views of relevant organisations on how mandatory minimum sentencing in relation to firearms offences operates in Scotland and to consider making representations to the UK Government if the evidence that is gathered identifies concerns about its proportionality or effectiveness.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
As we have said, convener, it is a reserved matter, so it needs to be referred to Westminster. However, we could write to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on the matter.
That makes sense. Do members want to raise any further points?
I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, because it relates to a reserved matter.
I think that the matter more appropriately sits with the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. In closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, we take cognisance that the Scottish Government’s response states that the subject of the petition is reserved to the UK Parliament and therefore not achievable through this legislature. Nonetheless, we could make the relevant committee in the UK Parliament aware of the petitioner’s concerns. I think that that is a reasonable step.
Just Transition (Retrofit Training) (PE2220)
Our final petition for consideration today is PE2220, lodged by the Scottish Ecological Design Association, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to fund and expand retrofit skills training; work with education providers, local authorities and industry; widen access for underrepresented groups; and align training with area-based programmes.
The SPICe briefing sets out the four key policy drivers of Scotland’s climate change plan and identifies steps that the Scottish Government has taken to upskill heating installers from fossil fuel systems to heat pumps, which include a heat pump skills fund and the green heat installer engagement programme. The briefing also notes the Scottish Government’s indication that it will publish a heat in buildings strategy and delivery plan in 2026.
In its submission, the Scottish Government recognises that
“upskilling the current workforce and attracting new entrants to the sector will be necessary to achieve the target set out in the Climate Change Plan (March 2026) to decarbonise heat by 2045”.
It adds that it will continue to work with the industry, trade bodies and training providers to deliver that upskilling, and notes that the green heat installer engagement programme has been in place for several years to support it. The Scottish Government also refers to capital investment schemes, such as area-based schemes and the warmer homes scheme, which it states has
“helped create 153 modern apprentices, upskilled 817 of the supply chain and delivered 1,491 scheme-related opportunities”.
The joint submission from the petitioner and Common Weal highlights how the petition complements an open letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Housing, which was supported by leading industry bodies. The submission refers to the Scottish house condition survey of 2025, which identified that almost half of Scotland’s 2.8 million dwellings and an unknown number of its 220,000 to 230,000 non-domestic buildings had critical elements of disrepair. The submission acknowledges that that is being addressed as part of the heat and energy efficiency technical suitability assessment and the planning and discovery report, which is not yet published.
The petitioner’s submission argues that
“the retrofit industry needs to be restructured almost from scratch”.
It notes a range of challenges and barriers that people will face in accessing the required training and upskilling, including not being able to take time out from other employment, caring responsibilities, and ability to pay. It considers that delivering training and upskilling will require a concerted effort from all training providers, supported by the Scottish Government.
Do members of the committee have views on the petition?
I suggest that we keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government for more info on heat in buildings and heat networks and write to other stakeholders as suggested in the SPICe briefing.
I have a constituency interest in the issue, given that there is a district heating system in Clydebank that is generating heat and using water from the River Clyde; some retrofitting has already happened there to connect some of the old tenements to the system. Would it be helpful for the committee to visit Clydebank to understand the issue and to learn a bit more about its importance?
I thank you for that suggestion, which I think is entirely reasonable. Is it the cabinet secretary that you would like us to write to?
Yes, please.
We will note that as a referral. I am familiar with the Queen’s Quay heat network, and I think that the visit is a great suggestion.
I was minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has committed to introducing legislation on the issue in the coming year. I am happy to take views, however.
I am happy to keep the petition open and go with my colleague’s suggestion.
Given that it is a new petition, I think that it is reasonable to give it some time. The suggested actions are interesting—a visit to Clydebank is not a bad idea. It might be worth seeking the opinion of the several stakeholders who the SPICe briefing suggested we write to.
Tradespeople in my constituency raised several issues around cost of training and building up their skills, which they said was challenging for them, and small businesses and others might have an interest in the reforms that could be achieved. It is interesting to note some of the challenges around scaling the Queen's Quay district heat network, such as planning reforms and the question of how we get those pipes to houses and so on. We could unpack a lot of interesting aspects and there is some interest in the issue.
Are we agreed to keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of the meeting.
11:07
Meeting continued in private until 11:41.
Previous
Guga Hunt (PE2202)