Chamber and committees

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 to enable 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.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning. We have received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, in which she argues that the spring budget and autumn statement of the previous UK Government

“failed to deliver the funding Scotland needs for public services.”

She goes on to state that, despite financial challenges,

“the Scottish Government have increased the Local Government Settlement to over £14 billion in 2024-25”,

and members will be aware that that figure has increased to more than £15 billion as part of the recently approved 2025-26 budget.

The response goes on to note the commitment of local and national Government to respect

“each other’s democratic mandates as part of the Verity House agreement”,

highlighting that

“it is up to each democratically elected council how it manages its day-to-day business and decision making processes.”

Do colleagues have any thoughts on where we go next with this petition?

PE2134, which was lodged by Cally Smith on behalf of Huntly Swift Group-NES Swifts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help reverse the decline in swift populations by introducing legislation that would make swift nesting bricks a requirement for all new-build developments in Scotland and make it mandatory to include swifts in all ecological building surveys.

As the petition background tells us, swifts were added to the UK red list for conservation in 2021, and nest site loss is considered to be one of the factors that has contributed to a 62 per cent decline in the swift population since 1998. The SPICe briefing that we have received notes other possible causes for the decline, such as poor summer weather and a decline in the number of insects, which are swifts’ main food source.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights that improving biodiversity is listed as a cross-cutting outcome in the national planning framework 4, also referred to as NPF4, with policy 3 noted as playing a

“critical role in ensuring that development will secure positive effects for biodiversity.”

The response goes on to note the Scottish Government’s work with NatureScot in finalising its “Developing with Nature” guidance, published in 2023, which describes a number of measures that development can incorporate to conserve, restore and enhance nature. In the light of the polices that are contained in NPF4 and supporting guidance, the Scottish Government does not consider it necessary to mandate the use of swift bricks or other individual measures, although it does acknowledge that they may be an important and helpful intervention in some developments.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which adds further clarity to petition’s ask for a requirement to include swift bricks in “all suitable new developments”—I emphasise the word “suitable” there—and includes information on how that can be achieved in most new buildings. The petitioner’s second submission responds to the Scottish Government’s submission and makes clear that swift bricks are a universal provision that could be used to serve other cavity-nesting bird species, such as the sparrow, house martin and starling.

While the petitioner appreciates the “Developing with Nature” guidance, she argues that the enhancements that are suggested in the guidance are rarely being made. The submission also highlights that ecological surveys rarely include swifts, and when they are, the survey’s timing—outwith the peak breeding season of June and July—means that a “nil” or “poor” record of swift activity is often given.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Moreover, the Government has indicated that it intends to review the building standard on sustainable development, so there are further opportunities for such requirements to be incorporated at that point.

I understand. On that basis, colleagues, are we minded, in view of the responses received and Mr Ewing’s analysis, to close the petition on this occasion? Mr Choudhury, are you content with that?

I am minded to seek clarity on that point in particular, given that the parliamentary session now has only 14 months left to run. It is important that we try to provide some momentum behind anything that is being considered or justified, in relation to what might be being done or not done, in order to progress the aims of the petition.

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

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 20 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and request an update on the Bute house agreement commitment to explore options for the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants. The final proposals on that were due to be brought forward by autumn 2023.

The cabinet secretary’s written response of May 2024 stated that she was considering the outcome of that work. We have since received an update from officials that states that a draft report has been considered by the cabinet secretary but that it has taken longer than anticipated, due to the required engagement with a range of stakeholders. The submission states that the intention is to publish a final report this month or next month.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, which highlights the increasing number of children with additional support needs and states that teachers and support staff are not adequately equipped to handle that.

The petitioner highlights a particular case in which a staff member in an additional support for learning school had been employed with no induction, training or risk assessments. The staff member was not provided with de-escalation training, British Sign Language certification or Makaton certification, and they did not have specialist knowledge of complex disabilities. The staff member went on to suffer serious workplace injuries that prevented them from working.

The petitioner’s submission states:

“Education Support Staff in ASL schools often carry out medical duties including oxygen tanks, insertion of catheters, administration of medications and hoisting or lifting for intimate care.”

The petitioner concludes her submission by stating:

“It is time to put all these policies and action plans into place. Councils are crying out for support staff in schools and are unable to recruit or retain these staff due to workplace violence, lack of training, low pay and no career pathways.”

In the light of all that, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I do not know whether we have written hand signals into the record before, but we will acknowledge Mr Ewing’s belief that suitable hand signals were conveyed to the committee in relation to that.

We will keep the petition open and take forward the suggestions that Mr Ewing and others have made. Is the committee content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2075, on prioritising local participation in planning decisions, was lodged by Stuart Noble on behalf of Helensburgh community council, the members of which are with us again in the gallery this morning.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prioritise local participation and planning decisions affecting their area by providing a clear and unambiguous definition of the word “local” in so far as it applies to planning decisions, giving decision-making powers to community councils for planning applications in their local areas and ensuring that how decisions on planning applications are taken is compatible with the provisions and ethos of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

We are joined once again for our consideration of the petition by our colleague Jackie Baillie. Good morning, Ms Baillie. We have missed you on a couple of occasions when we very much hoped that you were going to be with us, but other parliamentary business intervened. It is nice to have you back with us.

Thank you, Mr Golden. Is the committee content with that suggestion? Do you seek to contribute, Mr Ewing?

I take Mr Golden’s point. In some urban areas, I imagine that a cemetery is the nearest thing there is to a green space in the local community. It is about the way in which such things are managed or handled. It would be useful for us to find out what local authorities’ view of all this is and whether any enforcement is taking place. Mr Choudhury, do you have any thoughts?