Chamber and committees

I am not sure whether one of the petitioners is with us today—I wondered whether I recognised him. Yes, he is in the gallery. Forgive my eyesight—you are as far away from me as it is possible to be, but I thought that you might be here. I hope that you are pleased that we have decided to keep the petition open. In the light of your responses, we will pursue the actions that you have suggested.

PE2074, which was lodged by Iona Stoddart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the funding that it provides to local councils, enabling them to deliver the best possible health and social care, and help to protect the vulnerable, frail and elderly population from the closure of residential and nursing care homes.

Ms Stoddart draws our attention to research that suggests that as many as one care home a week is closing, in part due to cuts to health and social care budgets. The petition has also been prompted by proposals to close two local authority-run care homes in South Lanarkshire.

It is perhaps worth noting that, since the petition was lodged, South Lanarkshire integration joint board has passed plans to close both care homes. However, it has also written to the Scottish Government in an attempt to secure funding that would enable the closures to be reconsidered.

The SPICe briefing notes that it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to allocate funding provided by the Scottish Government based on local needs and priorities. The briefing also notes the Accounts Commission publication, “Local government in Scotland: Overview 2023”, which includes reference to a UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers that found that 44 per cent of respondents identified adult social care as a service at risk of cuts. I think that any MSP would be aware of the pressures on all health and social care partnerships in their constituencies and the particular cuts that are being imposed unless care is defined as critical or essential.

The Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has responded to the petition, stating that this is

“not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in”,

and that it is up to each democratically elected council how it manages the spending of discretionary budget allocations. In doing so, the minister notes

“record funding of over £13.9 billion”

being delivered as part of the latest local government settlement.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am minded to say that I am inclined to write to the Minister for Local Government, Empowerment and Planning to seek his reflections on the UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, which found that 44 per cent of council chief executives and senior managers had identified adult social care as a service that was at risk of cuts due to very large gaps in local government budgets. I am not prepared to sweep the issues that are raised by this new petition under the carpet on the back of what we have heard from the Government so far. I suspect that the position has deteriorated even since the petition was lodged. Do colleagues have any views?

Thank you, Ms Baillie. We have a suggestion to write to the Royal Town Planning Institute. Do colleagues have any other suggestions to make?

Given the technical nature of the issue, the responses that we have received and, as has been said, the quite helpful summary of procedure from the Government—which partly addresses the aims of the petition and the question of the petitioner—Mr Ewing has proposed that we close the petition on that basis. Are members content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2077, which was lodged by Thomas Ross, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove personal and social education—often referred to as PSE—PSE from the curriculum for excellence and for it to stop being taught in secondary schools. The petitioner notes that, in their view, PSE is “a useless subject” that takes up secondary school pupils’ learning time.

The SPICe briefing notes that health and wellbeing is a key area of curriculum for excellence and that PSE is one of the ways in which schools support the health and wellbeing curriculum. The briefing also notes that PSE lessons can cover aspects of planning for choices and changes, substance misuse, relationships, sexual health and parenthood and financial literacy, as well as aspects of physical activity, sport and health.

In her response to the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills notes that

“PSE offers us an opportunity to ensure children and young people are prepared for the issues and challenges that life may bring”,

and makes the key point that

“The Scottish Government has no plans to remove PSE from the national curriculum.”

The cabinet secretary also highlights the Education and Skills Committee 2017 report, which noted

“how valuable good PSE is to young people”,

and says that the Scottish Government continues to take forward the recommendations of that report.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. We will, unusually, meet next Wednesday, when we will hear evidence from the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, about the A9 dualling project.

We have had no suggestion that that session will not take place.

On a point of order, Presenting Officer. It is a minor point, but I seek your guidance, because I am slightly confused.

At the start of each session of the Parliament, the political parties are furnished with a seating plan in relation to the disposition of our seating arrangements in the chamber, which we have always sought to observe. I am keen to know whether that plan is in fact just advisory or whether members are expected to observe it. If it is just advisory, that leaves open to question the possibility of political parties seeking to occupy different parts of the chamber. I would be grateful if you would confirm what the actual policy is.

Although we cannot talk about live cases, colleagues who were members of the Scottish Parliament in the previous parliamentary session will remember the case of our former colleague Andy Wightman, who was very much involved in and affected by such litigation.

I have a final question about the issue that you have just touched on. Are legal claims that relate to journalists and campaigners the type most commonly associated with SLAPPs? Is that what they are generally deployed in respect of?

I will assume that none of the witnesses disagrees with Mr Ewing, but I wonder whether anyone would like to expand on anything that he said that they think would help the committee.