Chamber and committees

Yes, we can group them, and we can have them all tied up in one set of correspondence.

Yes, it relates to the accountability issue. It is an important point.

I appreciate your taking the time to come to the committee today, David. Thank you very much.

Our next petition is PE2225, from Mandy Mcgurk, which was published on 2 July. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an urgent, independent safeguarding review of relationships, sexual health and parenthood education in Scottish schools, and to introduce a temporary suspension of delivery of RSHP education while that review is carried out.

The petition suggests that the review should examine whether RSHP content is consistently age appropriate and suitable for children’s developmental stages across all year groups. The SPICe briefing on the petition notes that the content of the curriculum and the way in which the curriculum is taught are largely a matter for teachers and schools. It also notes, however, that there is statutory guidance on RSHP education, and that Scottish Government-funded resources are available to teachers, and that Education Scotland is undertaking a wider review of the curriculum for excellence.

The Scottish Government does not consider that there is a case for an independent review of safeguarding in respect of RSHP education. In its written submission, it notes that updated guidance on RSHP education was published in February this year and will be kept under review.

The petitioner’s submission argues that statutory guidance does not by itself demonstrate that the policy is safe in practice, consistently implemented, or that adults delivering sensitive material are adequately trained. It further states that an independent review would examine policy, implementation, training materials, safeguarding procedures, complaints, children’s experiences and evidence of safety or harm.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Do members have other views?

The points that have been highlighted are entirely reasonable and worth further investigation. Certainly, from my own interactions with business improvement districts, I know that there have been teething issues in relation to how they operate and a sense of unfairness in some quarters, so it is reasonable to look into the detail of how they are governed. We will undertake that correspondence. I thank the petitioner for taking the time to attend.

Okay, that sounds good.

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2026 of the Public Petitions Committee. Ahead of today’s meeting, we received apologies from David Torrance. On behalf of all committee members, I welcome Cara McKee back to the committee and wish her well in her recovery.

Ahead of each meeting, we notify members who are not members of the committee of petitions that they have expressed an interest in. We have been advised that we will be joined by David Green for our discussion of petition PE2224 and Kim Schmulian for our discussion of PE2231. I welcome Helen McDade for our discussion of PE2226 and PE2227, on business improvement districts.

I also welcome those who are attending in the public gallery. I remind everyone that only members sitting at the table can participate in the committee’s formal proceedings, so no heckling, please.

I remind all members and visitors to ensure that their mobile phones, laptops and so on are on silent and that all notifications are turned off to avoid any disruption.

PE2223 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow parents of children with additional support needs to use their local authority education funding to access alternative education, including private schools, forest schools and other alternative provision. The petition was submitted by Karmen Boyd and published on 2 July 2026. The petitioner points to the use of the model in Scandinavian countries.

The Scottish Parliament information centre’s briefing sets out that it is a matter for local authorities to determine how they spend their education budget to best meet local needs. Although education provision at primary and secondary school level is normally fulfilled through local authority-run schools, local authorities can secure the provision of education through other means, such as a private special school to meet the needs of a child with complex additional support needs.

The Scottish Government’s response indicates that decisions about educational placements should continue to be based on the assessed needs of the child or young person and made within the existing framework that is established in legislation. It does not currently support the introduction of a system that would automatically transfer local authority education funding directly to parents for alternative educational provision. It recognises the importance of ensuring that the full range of educational options that are available to meet individual needs is considered where appropriate. It further highlights its commitment to improving outcomes for children and young people with additional support needs through ongoing work with local authorities, education providers, parents, carers and third sector organisations.

The petitioner’s submission notes that there is no national training programme for educators on neurodiversity and disability, nor is there any form of grading and marking of how friendly a school is for additional support needs. The petitioner also points to other funding models. For example, she states that, in Denmark, 80 per cent of private schooling is paid by the Government and 20 per cent is paid by the parents. Do members have any comments?

I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition, and I hope that we will hear from them in due course.