Chamber and committees

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.

I agree. Is the committee content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

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?

How many listed buildings were demolished in Scotland, and what proportion of them were demolished under the dangerous building powers, as opposed to the other, consensual, reasons for demolition?

Does that mean that we do not know?

As long as it is not another question on behalf of the Inverness tourist board.

Do our other two witnesses have anything by way of a final thought?

We continue with PE1934, which was lodged by Craig Scoular on behalf of Greenfaulds high school rights and equalities committee and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. The resource should include education on the causes of gender-based violence to ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help create a safer society for women.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 9 October 2024 and, at the time, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. The cabinet secretary’s response states that the Scottish Government is committed to the commissioning of an independent review on the gender-based violence in schools framework before the end of this parliamentary session, with the aim of establishing positive practice and further areas for improvement. The submission notes, however, that schools will require time to implement the framework before the review takes place.

The cabinet secretary’s response also highlights the relationships and behaviour in schools action plan, published in August 2024, which includes an action to

“Empower staff through provision of ... professional learning to support relationships and behaviour approaches and practice and to respond to emerging trends in behaviour.”

As part of that work, Education Scotland ran an information session on the framework for school staff last September, and it will use the feedback from that session to determine whether there are any areas where more bespoke training might be helpful.

In light of the cabinet secretary’s response and the aims of the petition being progressed, I wonder whether colleagues have any suggestions for action.

As Mr Torrance has said, the issues could be brought back in the next parliamentary session if progress fails to be made.

Mr Torrance has made a proposal. Is the committee content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1946, which was lodged by Sean Clerkin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for homeless temporary accommodation, including writing off the £33.3 million debt owed by homeless people for temporary accommodation to local authorities.

We last considered the petition on 13 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers and to the Scottish Government. We asked the Scottish Government for an update on the work undertaken by the housing affordability working group, and its submission states:

“the group has explored the underlying meaning of affordability and its different uses within housing debates, policy and practice. The group has not been asked to find solutions to housing affordability problems, nor has it been asked to focus specifically on homeless households. Rather, members have worked together to agree a shared understanding of what housing affordability is and how it should be measured, in order to support a range of policy and sector requirements across relevant areas.”

That might not have been everybody’s expectation, but there we are.

That report’s recommendations were expected before the summer recess in 2024. However, the Scottish Government's submission states that reaching consensus between stakeholders has—and I quote—“taken time”.

In response, the petitioner states that

“The ... exercise is yet another working group going nowhere”,

and, in his submission, he reiterates the increasing numbers of people in temporary accommodation and states:

“General Taxation should be used to pay for the costs of temporary accommodation”.

In its response to the committee, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers shares its view that it does

“not think that there is any case for the Scottish Government to take on the cost of funding temporary accommodation or to write off existing arrears.”

However, the submission highlights a number of areas where there is a lack of clear data to inform any work that could be undertaken in that area, and it explains that

“Most of those in temporary accommodation are eligible for housing benefit”,

which

“In most cases ... will cover the full cost to the resident with a deduction for heating or ‘board’ where this is included in the rent charge.”

Finally, the submission notes that

“Councils ... take a proportionate approach to collecting any arrears that do arise”,

including debt write-off, when that is the most appropriate approach. The association also suggests

“targeted funding to support the acquisition of additional ... temporary accommodation to support councils to meet their statutory obligations and provide the quality of temporary accommodation that homeless applicants are entitled to expect”,

and calls for

“a more consistent approach to accounting for the cost of temporary accommodation to improve transparency around charges and value for money.”

Do we have any suggestions as to how we might proceed? Mr Torrance, do you want to comment? There is a case for writing to the Minister for Housing, I think.