Chamber and committees

Were there a route to pursue, I think that it would be to amend the 2021 act to include private hire and taxi drivers, which Unite has suggested that it would support. [Interruption.] Sorry?

That has also been very much at the heart of the debate in Parliament.

Given the express direction that we have received that the Scottish Government has no plans to revisit the 12-month threshold, I propose that, under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, we close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Government’s position remains that

“it is neither appropriate, nor necessary to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, to enfranchise all prisoners, but that the correct balance is found in extending voting rights to those prisoners serving shorter sentences.”

Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much, Mr Whittle.

Colleagues, I am interested to know what suggestions you have. It is encouraging that the minister has accepted two of our recommendations, but our continued concern might involve deliberation on the potential vagueness in the Government’s response in respect of the separate recommendation. Does anybody wish to comment?

Have we taken evidence on that? I cannot recall. No, I do not think that we have taken evidence on it.

PE1906, which was lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of Replace the M8, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow cathedral, including, specifically, complete removal and repurposing of the land.

Like the ghost of Christmas past, we are joined by our former colleague Paul Sweeney, who spoke in support of the petition when he was a member of the committee. Welcome back, Paul—it is nice to see you. We have missed your independent analysis in our considerations. I have been following with interest your public campaign in relation to the matters raised in the petition, about which we will, no doubt, hear more in a moment.

We previously considered the petition on 23 November and, since then, we have received a response from the Scottish Government stating that Transport Scotland is “happy to work” with Glasgow City Council to ensure that “all the necessary stakeholders” are included in any assessment. The submission states that no funding has been allocated by the Scottish Government towards an assessment and that, as discussions on the scope of any work have not taken place,

“it would not be appropriate to discuss funding at this time.”

On that note, I am happy to ask Mr Sweeney whether he has any comments or suggestions as to how the committee might advance the interests of the petition.

I suppose that that would be of some reassurance if you were driving over it.

There are a number of questions that we could put to the minister in advance or in an evidence session. Does the committee have a preference? Should we ask for more detailed information in advance?

I take Mr Sweeney’s point that, in some ways, the petition is there to provoke some sort of wider progress. Some of the issues that it raises are quite intriguing. From small seeds, big outcomes can follow, if we show an interest and a commitment.

I suggest that we write to Glasgow City Council saying that we are interested in the aims of the petition and are minded at some stage to facilitate a wider discussion but that it would be useful at this first phase if it fleshed out its ideas as to what might follow. I suggest that we indicate that we do not necessarily require an immediate timescale, because we recognise that the council might have to do a little bit of thinking before it comes back to us. That would allow us to have a better idea of how we might advance the aims of the petition. Does the committee agree?

Members indicated agreement.

That is great. We will keep the petition open on that basis. Thank you very much for joining us, Mr Sweeney.

PE1953, which was lodged by Roisin Taylor-Young, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support staff roles in order to consider urgently raising wages for education support staff across the primary and secondary sectors to £26,000 per annum; to increase the hours of the working week for education support staff from 27.5 hours to 35 hours; to allow education support staff to work on personal learning plans, with teachers taking part in multi-agency meetings; to require education support staff to register with the Scottish Social Services Council; and to pay education support staff monthly.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 9 November 2022. The submission from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities states that there are no national rates for non-teaching staff and that pay levels are determined through job evaluation. The submission notes that a separate salary increase for one group would have a wider impact on other roles and raise affordability concerns. Similarly, the submission explains that pupil support assistants work varying hours that are based on pupil needs and that changing that would have financial implications for various roles in councils. It notes that involvement in personal learning plans and multi-agency meetings varies locally and is determined by school and teacher discretion. Lastly, COSLA notes that the issue of pay periods and its impact on universal credit falls under the responsibility of United Kingdom benefits.

The committee also received a response from the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills that indicates that the Bute house agreement exploration group will share its recommendations on a qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants by the autumn of this year.

We have received a late written submission from the petitioner, which has been shared with the committee this morning. Unfortunately, a technical issue caused the submission to be received late; it was through no fault of the petitioner. I thank her for working with the clerks to get the submission to us in time for us to consider it this morning.

The petitioner’s submission raises a number of points in response to the submissions that we have received, to which I have just referred. She asks that the Bute house agreement exploration group consider recommending national, rather than local, agreements for the registration and accreditation of education support staff in schools. The petitioner highlights the “School Support Staff—The Way Forward” agreement, which was produced by the National Education Union in England, which considered similar issues to those of the exploration group.

In response to COSLA’s submission, the petitioner highlights that the single status agreement is almost two and a half decades old and that pay disparity exists between areas such as Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Harpur Trust v Brazel case from 2022 is highlighted and put into the context of the petition, with cautionary points about the potential implications of backdated unfair pay claims. The petitioner concludes by suggesting a number of options for the committee to pursue.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?