Official Report 760KB pdf
That brings us to item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. As always, in advance of this item, because people might be joining us to see how their petitions are being considered, I say that we do two things before we bring a petition to the committee for consideration. One is that we seek information from the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe—and the other is that we ask the Scottish Government for an initial view. People ask us why we do those two things and we do them because, when the committee considered a petition in the past, they were the first two things that we decided to do and all that it did was delay our consideration of the petition. What we do now allows us to expedite our process.
Schools (Commencement and Deferred Entry) (PE2142)
Our first new petition is PE2142, lodged by Andrew Stuart, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the policy on school commencement and deferred school entry in Scotland and seek to reverse the potential harms that are caused by existing processes that have resulted in 19-month school year groups.
In additional written submissions, the petitioner details his personal experience. He also highlights the potential negative effects on children’s performance of the “relative age effect”—a phenomenon that has primarily been studied in sport—according to which the date of birth could be linked to the degree of success. In the petitioner’s view, some groups of children might be disadvantaged, as their parents are less likely to know about, or indeed to choose, the deferment option.
The SPICe briefing notes that, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, it is local authorities that determine a school commencement date. Although, in principle, local authorities have flexibility in when to set those dates, there seems to be a high level of consistency across Scotland. The act also stipulates that parents have a duty to ensure that their child receives education that is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. Parents can choose not to send their child to school if they are not five years old at the commencement date—in other words, they are able to defer entry.
In the Scottish Government’s response to the petition, the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise defends the legal right of parents to defer entry as
“a longstanding feature of the Scottish education system”
and argues that it offers a choice to many parents who might feel that more time in an early years and childcare setting is more appropriate for their child’s needs. In the minister’s view, the quality of the teacher and the organisation of the class to meet a range of learning needs are more important in the success of children than the actual composition of classes. Furthermore, the curriculum for excellence framework gives teachers flexibility in how they choose to work with children of differing needs and abilities. The minister is open to revisit the issue in the future if evidence of significant harm to pupils were to emerge.
In the light of the minister’s fairly comprehensive response on this occasion, do colleagues have any suggestions as to what we might do?
As someone who started school at four and got accepted to the University of Dundee at 16, I am a big fan of flexibility. However, given the explanations that we have heard and on the basis that, as you have highlighted, local authorities have the flexibility to determine school commencement dates, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Parents are key to the matter and have a long-standing legal right to defer the school’s starting date for their child, particularly when they feel that more time in early years and childcare settings would be more appropriate. Finally, meeting the needs of different learners in the single-class cohort is already built into the principles and practices of curriculum design under the curriculum for excellence framework.
I am encouraged to know that you are a high achiever, Mr Golden. I must say that my mother maintains that she thought she would have to get nappies in school colours for me, but that is another matter. Am I correct in saying that Mr Ewing and I attended the same primary school?
We did, but not at the same time. I think that you are considerably younger than me.
I hope that I am younger—no, I would not make any such claim. [Laughter.] I do not know whether they did nappies in school colours, Mr Ewing.
I must have missed them. [Laughter.]
On a serious point, I think that the petitioner has raised an interesting point. He uses the phrase “fresh eyes” and talks about his own family circumstances and the fact that children who are perhaps slighter in build and who end up in a class where some children are older by perhaps more than a year can feel disadvantaged and left out in sport. That was quite an interesting point—indeed, I think that the petitioner has struck on something. However, the responses of both Jenny Gilruth and Natalie Don-Innes were sympathetic in many ways.
There should be an element of parental choice as well as to whether the child is ready to go to school or would benefit from an additional pre-school period for various reasons, so I would certainly not recommend removing that parental realm of discretion and decision making. The responses might enable the petitioner to decide whether the matter could be pursued further during the next parliamentary session. The point has some merit and I do not think that it has been particularly studied, as far as the petitioner says—from the responses, I cannot really see that any analysis of the matter has taken place.
As often is the case, the petition raises novel points that we do not normally come across, so I am grateful to the petitioner for that.
11:15
I very much agree, and the element of parental choice is important, but, as you say, the point that has been raised in relation to sport is also interesting and not one that had been thought of in this context. The minister says that the Government is open to revisiting the issue in the future, if evidence of significant harm to pupils were to emerge. However, the question is who is going to collate any such evidence on which a decision might be based. I am happy that, in closing the petition, we write to the Government to say that, although we have closed the petition, we note the fact that the Government thinks that it might be worth revisiting the matter in the event that evidence were to emerge and to ask and encourage it to consider how such evidence might be gathered.
It would also be to help younger kids if needs be. However, to be fair to Jenny Gilruth, she was keen to stress that this is something that teachers would ordinarily deal with in looking after every child in their class. Therefore, if there were to be research done, primary school teachers for primary years 1, 2 and 3 would probably be best placed to talk about whether the issue needs to be looked at more thoroughly.
I agree. Is the committee content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Damp and Mould (Remedial Work by Landlords) (PE2143)
PE2143 was lodged by Sean Clerkin, who was the architect of another petition that we considered earlier. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to require all private and registered social landlords to investigate and remediate damp and mould within specified timeframes and to high-quality standards. As the SPICe briefing on the petition reminds us, the problem of damp and mould has gained more public attention following the death in 2020 of two-year-old Awaab Ishak from a severe respiratory condition that was due to prolonged exposure to mould in his home. That led to the UK Government introducing Awaab’s law for England, which aims to put an obligation on social landlords to investigate and fix dangerous damp and mould within a set amount of time as well as to repair all emergency hazards within 24 hours.
In a written submission to the committee, the petitioner advocates for a Scottish version of Awaab’s law for social and private landlords. In addition to the requirement for a set timeframe for repairs, the petitioner believes that any statutory intervention must also specify that all work in relation to damp and mould has to be done to defined high standards and must focus on removing all mould from tenants’ homes.
In the Scottish Government’s response to the petition, the Minister for Housing indicates that one of the amendments that he has lodged to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the Parliament, aims to transplant the provisions of Awaab’s law into Scottish legislation. The amendment would create a new power for the Scottish ministers to set out timescales for investigating and commencing repairs in the social rented sector. In the response, the Scottish Government also states its commitment to implementing Awaab’s law for private tenants, using existing powers, after engagement with housing professionals, private landlords and tenants across the private rented sector.
In support of the petition, the committee received a submission from our colleague Mark Griffin, who also advocates for replicating the provisions of Awaab’s law for social and private rented housing in Scotland. Mr Griffin indicates that he will work with the Government during the bill process and that he is keen to ensure that his proposals are reflected in amendments to the bill at stage 3. This is an important issue.
I think that we also had a members’ business debate on the matter. I would write to the Scottish Government to ask what engagement it has had with the private rented sector, what specific steps it will take to implement similar provisions to Awaab’s law for private tenants in Scotland using existing powers and what plans it has for statutory intervention to require all remedial work in relation to damp and mould to be done to defined high standards. I would keep the petition open.
I agree. Members of the public would think that it is outrageous that people are living in damp or mouldy conditions. It is a sad reflection of things that a petition needed to be lodged for this committee’s consideration. I am loth to close the petition until stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill is complete and we have seen what provisions acquiesce to the petition’s aims.
Yes. This is all fairly fresh, because the UK Government’s announcement was at the beginning of February and the Scottish Government’s announcement was in the middle of March. Given that the bill is going through the Parliament just now, we would, as suggested, want to see the provisions of the petition incorporated into the bill.
I should declare an interest because I have a property, which used to be my home, that has been rented out since my wife passed away. As a matter of principle, all private landlords should maintain their properties. Plainly that is the case, and I suspect that most of them do. However, those who do not do that create an extremely difficult problem for tenants. As I know from my constituency work, the situation can be extremely difficult where landlords are recalcitrant and very often just refuse to do anything at all. Therefore, some powers of compulsion are necessary, and the question is whether the existing quality standards meet that need. As Mr Golden said, the answer from the Scottish Government is that it is lodging an amendment to the housing bill. The matter is very live and it will be debated further by the Parliament.
The approach that has been taken in England seems to be logical, although I do not think that it has yet been implemented. The ministerial response that the committee received on 8 May said that the approach in England would start to be implemented from October this year, starting with damp and mould. This is a serious problem that requires to be dealt with. It is just not acceptable that tenants are sitting powerless in properties and suffering the effects of damp while landlords refuse to do anything. We have all seen photographs of what this is like, often for children and people with diseases and conditions such as asthma, who are inhaling mould spores. We have all seen this in our constituency work and, from time to time, we see heart-rending cases. I am absolutely satisfied that the law needs to be tightened up in this area, so it is just a question of getting it right by working together across the parties.
I think that we are all agreed. We will keep the petition open and we will progress on the basis that has been suggested. We thank Mr Clerkin for lodging the petition; it remains open, and we hope to advance its aims. Thank you for joining us in the gallery for the discussion of both your petitions, Mr Clerkin.
Speed Cameras Near Schools (PE2149)
The last of the new petitions, PE2149, lodged by Andreas Heinzl, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legally require speed cameras in front of all schools next to major roads. The SPICe briefing explains that there are a number of key criteria for the installation of a safety camera at a specific site. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition notes that the enforcement of speed limits is an operational matter for Police Scotland. The submission states that the Scottish Government provides grant funding for the Scottish safety camera programme, which supports targeted enforcement. The Scottish Government also highlights the annual site prioritisation process, which determines new safety camera sites across the road network.
The petitioner’s submission expresses concern about speeding in their area. The Scottish Government published “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030: Together, making Scotland’s roads safer”. The framework highlights a three-year study by the Department for Transport into the effectiveness of sign-only 20mph limits, which found that lack of enforcement and lack of concern about the consequences of speeding were the primary reasons for non-compliance. Do committee members have any suggestions for action?
I wonder whether the committee would like to write to the Scottish Government to request the annual grant funding figures for the Scottish safety camera programme since 2021 and to ask for its view on whether the requirement for a minimum number of collisions could be reviewed to consider alternative risk assessments for the siting of safety cameras, such as historical collision data from similar roads. The committee could also ask the Government to clarify what action is being taken to support Police Scotland’s enforcement of 20mph speed limits, given the importance of enforcement as set out in “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030”, and to provide an update on the framework’s key performance indicators on enforcement for 2024-25.
Thank you. Are colleagues content to support those proposals?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of our formal business. We will next convene on Wednesday 18 June. We will now move into private session.
11:24 Meeting continued in private until 11:27.Previous
Continued Petitions