Once again, I think that this petition has probably come to its conclusion and that we need to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders. As you have identified, the feedback from local authorities to the Scottish Government suggests that the vast majority of idling drivers switch off their engines when requested to do so. The SPICe briefing indicated that fixed penalty notices are rarely issued. The Scottish Government has stated that it considers the current approach to enforcement to be fit for purpose and appropriate.

As you indicated, convener, COSLA said that local authorities do not have the resources to manage a statutory duty to enforce the engine idling ban and that, because of the additional resources and staff capacity that would be required, local authorities would not be able to manage that process.

For all those reasons, rule 15.7 of standing orders should come into effect and the petition should be closed.

I concur with my colleagues that more information is required. We have already discussed data collection. Police Scotland talks about “operational” procedure, but it would be interesting to get more clarity and to seek further information from Police Scotland on the process of updating and recording the policy, including whether there has been a wider consultation on the policy change and how such work is progressing. I acknowledge that the police see it as one thing, but I think that we and the petitioners see it as something else. Clarification is required, and we need to ensure that we get the full information, so I add that to what my colleagues have recommended.

Once again, I think that the petition has probably gone as far as we can take it in the process. It would be appropriate to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Recovery Network is continuing to develop a peer support training resource, Peer2Peer, about which we have had information from the Scottish Government and others, and it can be adapted to support the needs of different organisations. Given that, I propose that we close the petition.

I agree with that. In the past, Audit Scotland published its “Maintaining Scotland’s roads” report. It would be useful to follow up on any recommendations in the report and to get an indication as to what action is planned in future to try to tackle the issue.

I agree, convener. There is definitely a gap in the bursary provision. Trying to encourage someone to go into that sector is, in reality, tough enough, but putting extra obstacles in front of individuals will make it much more challenging for them to fulfil the course. As Carol Mochan suggested, it would be useful to get some of that information so that we can identify much more clearly what happens with bursaries for placements in the third and fourth year of social work practice. The petition requires more information to be captured. The minister may have captured that, but we need to capture some information as well to make sure that we are fulfilling our role and getting the full information that is required.

There is no doubt that there is an opportunity to deal with the petition and seek some clarity as to what is taking place. You touched on the consultation that is anticipated. It would be useful for the committee to write to Food Standards Scotland to ask it to update us on its plans for the consultation that is to take place with reference to the labelling of food products that are sold in Scotland having mandatory Braille labelling, and the timescale for that consultation to be carried out.

We should also write to the Food and Drink Federation Scotland to seek its views on the issues that the petitioners have raised, and specifically on the anticipated additional costs of adding Braille to labelling on food products. That will also give us an indication as to where this is going. In addition, it would be useful to find out from the Scottish Government what its views and feelings are on the process, because it has a role to play as well.

Some work has been done on that already. We note that Police Scotland has had support. Universities have done a lot of work themselves to support any student in that situation. I note from the report that the Scottish Government has had round-table discussions. Those are all good. It would, however, be useful to get a summary from SPICe about what happened at the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s evidence session on drink and needle spiking, because it has done a lot of work on that already. We could capture some of that information and use it to our benefit, because what Carol Mochan and Fergus Ewing have said is very valid, but we could maybe—I am going to use the word again—capture some more clarity.

I thank Jackie Baillie for bringing the motion to the chamber ahead of international long Covid day, which will take place tomorrow, 15 March.

For far too long, long Covid has not been viewed with the significance that it should be. In the past, the perception has sometimes been that Covid can be a debilitating disease for up to several weeks, but we know that many people have suffered continually from the condition.

Every time that long Covid is raised in the Parliament, we hear of even higher statistics that highlight how many Scots are currently suffering from the condition. Indeed, Jackie Baillie’s motion mentions the estimated 187,000 people living with long Covid in Scotland. We all know that Covid has not gone away, so the issue will continue, and that number will continue to rise.

We have seen that long Covid can take different forms in different people. The condition affects different organs and different systems, so many different parts of someone’s life can be affected.

The nature of the condition means that long Covid is inevitably more difficult to diagnose and even more difficult to define. Symptoms that individuals suffer from include chronic fatigue, painful joints, dizziness and decreasing mental health. The issue of decreasing mental health is particularly acute. Long Covid sufferers might find life much more stressful, and they might have much more anxiety. In some cases, they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. There are also countless examples of fit, young and healthy individuals who have found themselves no longer able to live normal lives for months—or even years—after getting Covid.

As part of international long Covid day, people with the condition have been encouraged to share an image of something that they can no longer do because of long Covid. That is perhaps one of the best ways to demonstrate how the condition reaches into every corner of people’s lives.

Today’s debate provides an opportunity to reflect on what is undoubtedly one of the pandemic’s worst legacies. It should also provide an opportunity to reflect on how we tackle the issue.

For the past 18 months, my colleague Dr Sandesh Gulhane has been raising the plight of long Covid sufferers and highlighting the need for dedicated long Covid clinics to be established. Despite promises of additional funding, we have not seen those clinics materialise. Dr Gulhane has pointed out that long Covid was always going to be an issue that needed to be dealt with. There were always going to be consequences, and those consequences are still here. Despite now being nearly three years down the line, we are still waiting for dedicated, specialist services. That is a crying shame for people who are suffering on a day-to-day basis.

Action must be taken; it is long overdue. The voices of people who are suffering should and must be heard. With initiatives such as international long Covid day now becoming recognised, I am at least hopeful that we will not have to wait too long for further action. The Government must act now to provide assistance and support for people with long Covid so that they are respected and looked after.

I am delighted to contribute to the debate, which highlights the vital role that local government can and must play in the journey to net zero. As the level of government that is the closest to our communities, councils are best placed to deliver the local flexibility that will be required in order to achieve the Scottish Government’s net zero targets. We know that many councils are aware of the challenges that face them in this area, and COSLA has set out clearly that local government is committed to meeting the 2030 and 2045 climate targets.

However, COSLA is also clear that, despite that commitment, local government’s ability to contribute towards those targets will be seriously limited without increased investment in our councils. As we have heard, the issue of funding comes up time and again when it comes to local government’s climate responsibilities. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the report by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee states that the issue of local government finances was one of the main issues raised in its inquiry. Numerous individual councils that responded to the inquiry made it clear that insufficient funding is one of the biggest challenges that they face in this area.

Although the debate should not be entirely focused on local government funding, it is clear that progress on net zero is yet another area of local government performance that is being compromised by underinvestment. The committee’s report reveals that councils’ planning departments have shrunk, with more than a third of planning staff having been cut since 2009. The Royal Town Planning Institute has highlighted that planning authorities are now struggling to recruit staff at the same rate as they are retiring. To that end, the report is right to support the creation of an apprenticeship scheme for planners. The Scottish Government should continue to work with the RTPI on such a scheme.

However, the skills challenges that our councils face go far beyond the planning departments. Indeed, skills are one of the biggest hurdles that we face in retrofitting buildings for net zero, including switching to low-emission or zero-emission heating systems such as heat pumps. One of the biggest issues is that the efforts in that area must be maintained.

There are areas in Scotland that are trying to achieve that. Stirling Council has worked with Scottish Water Horizons to create a district heat network that powers much of the Forthside area of Stirling. That is an example of exactly the type of collaboration between local government and external partners that we need if we are to achieve our targets.

However, it is clear that the retrofitting journey faces significant skills challenges—so much so that numerous stakeholders, including Homes for Scotland and Scottish Renewables, have suggested that the 2030 and 2045 targets are not realistic.

The clean heat and energy efficiency workforce assessment produced by ClimateXChange sets out the scale of the challenges that we face. The report estimates that, to meet the 2030 target, Scotland will require at least 4,500 thermal insulation installers, up to 12,700 heat pump installers and up to 4,000 heat network installers. Those are massive numbers.

The Construction Industry Training Board has highlighted the point that the Scottish Government’s heat in buildings strategy has not provided a “clear pipeline of work” for the construction industry. That means that the industry still lacks the confidence that it requires to ensure that the workforce is ready and willing.

Given the amount of housing stock for which local government is responsible, it is vital that councils be able to access contractors. The skills challenges must be met and we must ensure that jobs are tied back. I hope that, in summing up, the cabinet secretary will at least acknowledge that that is one of the big issues that require to be addressed.

There are real ambitions for what we want to do in the sector, but they can be realised only if local and central Government take responsibility and it is possible for them to work together. Together, we must address the challenge, ensure that there is real development and ensure that the skills delivery review comes forward with many strategies about where we go from here.

Scotland’s Government must do more to achieve its net zero targets. It will be unable to achieve them unless local government is able to play its part in the journey. Councils must be empowered to invest fully in their own climate initiatives. That means giving them investment and ensuring that they can access the skills and workforce that they require to move forward. It also means supporting them to deliver local strategies towards net zero as much as is humanly possible.

Unless there is a step change in how local government participates in the journey to net zero, the 2045 target cannot be achieved. The onus is now on the Government to act and empower local government before it is too late. I hope that the cabinet secretary and the Government take heed of the warnings that we have given today.

You have indicated that many of the complaints that you receive are inadmissible, so there is a need to promote understanding so that individuals know what areas they can complain about and what capacity you have to deal with a complaint of that nature. How do you manage to get that information out so that people understand that you can investigate only certain aspects in relation to the code of conduct? It would be good to know what your ambition is for that, as that may help you to manage the number of complaints that you receive.