Seòmar agus comataidhean

Colleagues, are we content to support those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I think that you are quite right—the Government lit the fuse of expectation without giving us the bang of delivery on an issue on which the public expected progress.

Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Agenda item 1 is consideration of continued petitions. The first one is PE1812, which calls for the protection of Scotland’s remaining ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors. It was brought by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us. It calls on us to encourage the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation to give Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection. You can tell that the petition has been with us for a while, because it wants that to happen before COP26—the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—which was held in Glasgow in November 2021. That was the petition’s original aim, but the issue remains one of concern, and that aim indicates how long the petition has been in progress.

As I have said, we welcome Jackie Baillie, who has been following our deliberations on the petition at its various stages. We last considered it on 9 November 2022, when we agreed that we would pull together a summary of the evidence that we had heard and send it to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. Subsequently, we considered a draft letter to the Minister for Environment and Land Reform at our meeting on 7 December, at which we also agreed to hold off writing to the two subject committees until a response from the minister had been received, because the letter to the minister was, in effect, the summation of the issues that we wanted to take forward.

It has taken some time, but we have now received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, which has been included in our meeting papers for today. The cabinet secretary notes that a number of measures are already in place to protect ancient woodlands, including provisions contained in the fourth national planning framework—NPF4—and the control of woodland removal policy. The cabinet secretary goes on to restate the Government’s commitment to restore Scotland’s Atlantic rainforest and say that there is on-going work, in collaboration with NatureScot and Scottish Forestry, to determine the best approach to establishing a new national register of ancient woodlands. In response to our suggestion for an additional legislative protection, the cabinet secretary says that the forthcoming natural environment bill would be the route for safeguarding and managing ancient woodland within protected areas.

We have also received another submission from the petitioners, which reflects on their meeting with officials from Scottish Forestry. It highlights in particular the impact of invasive, non-native species on our woodlands—which we as a committee saw for ourselves on a site visit—and notes Scottish Forestry’s view that

“financial constraints are acting against the restoration of Scotland’s ancient woodland”.

The petitioners would like the Scottish Government to

“urgently re-evaluate the policy for commercial forestry species selection”

as a way of limiting and, if possible, reversing the spread of invasive species such as Sitka spruce.

Before I ask the committee to comment on where we might go given that we have received a response from the cabinet secretary, I wonder whether Jackie Baillie would like to contribute to our thinking.

The next petition is PE1926, on expanding universal free school meals for all nursery, primary and secondary schools. Monica Lennon joins us again for our consideration of this petition, which was lodged by Alison Dowling and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 February, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. I am pleased to say that we have received a response from the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Jenny Gilruth, which states that the Scottish Government remains

“focused on working with delivery partners to progress our free school meal expansion programme.”

The cabinet secretary notes that the Government is continuing to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other key delivery partners on the next phase of expansion, and goes on to say that she will

“update the committee on anticipated timescales for the pilot in secondary schools once”

the Government’s

“planning work has further progressed.”

Members may have noted that, in response to a question in the chamber on 18 May, the cabinet secretary said that she had not yet met officials to discuss proposals for the pilot in secondary schools but was willing to engage with young people in the design of the pilot.

Before I ask colleagues to comment, I invite Monica Lennon to contribute to our thinking.

PE1956, which was lodged by Louise McGee, is on increasing the provision of wheelchair accessible homes. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the existing wheelchair accessible housing target guidance and to explore options for increasing the availability of wheelchair accessible housing in Scotland.

The petition was last considered at our meeting on 23 November 2022, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, from which we have now received responses. However, as members will have noted, COSLA asked the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers—it has a marvellous acronym, but we will just stick with that—to provide a response on its behalf.

In its response, the Scottish Government confirmed that it is currently undertaking a review of the adaptations system, which it expects to have completed by the spring of 2024.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations noted that the most recent Government statistic for the total number of wheelchair accessible homes developed for social rent was 0.3 per cent for the year 2020-21. The SFHA highlighted that progress on a review of adaptations, new building standards and plans for a new accessible homes standard has been slow.

The Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers agreed with the petitioner that the Scottish Government should review the existing wheelchair accessible housing target guidance. It provided information on the wheelchair accessible homes targets that have been set by various local authorities, and went on to say that there is currently no definition of a wheelchair accessible home, which it said is a measure that is needed in Scotland.

In the light of the representations that we sought and have now received, do members have any comments or suggestions?

The cabinet secretary notes that the Government is continuing to work with COSLA, so it would not be unreasonable for us to get a view from COSLA about what it thinks that that engagement is producing. I would like to ask whether it has highlighted some of the issues that Paul Sweeney has just identified and whether it has had any response, or whether there are other issues that it feels might arise as a consequence. Do we agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE1937, lodged by Gillian Lamarra, concerns giving children the respect that they deserve by providing options for privacy when changing for PE. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their PE kit to school on the days that they have PE. We last considered the petition on 8 March and, at that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration has been given to reviewing and updating the learning estate strategy, because we felt that a lot of the issue depended on the estate itself.

We have received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, stating that the Scottish Government does not have any plans to update the learning estate strategy but that, along with the Scottish Futures Trust, it remains committed to working closely with local authorities in relation to individual councils’ school estates. Do members have any comments or suggestions in the light of that?

That is a very good point. I certainly have direct experience of constituents who were diagnosed as being at the end of life and had hoped to stay at home, but were given a date for adaptations that was, by some time, after the expected end of what life they had been given to understand lay ahead of them. That was doubly cruel. They were told, “Yes, it could be done, but not until you are no longer here.” In many ways, that was cruel and defeated the purpose completely.

Mr Stewart made specific suggestions. This is also an issue of delivery and whether there are underlying calculations and a proper appreciation of the overwhelming need that there is to support somebody at that particular moment, when they need it most. I wonder how we might pursue that further. Does Mr Sweeney have any suggestions?

Our next petition, PE1992, which was lodged by Laura Hansler, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling work by 2025 and creating a memorial to those who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A4—sorry, I mean the A9. There might be problems with the A4, too, but we are concerned with the A9 on this occasion.

Members will recall that we previously considered the petition at our meeting on 14 June. At that meeting, we heard from the petitioner Laura Hansler; Grahame Barn, who is the chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland; and officials from Transport Scotland.

During those two evidence sessions, we heard how dualling the road and installing a central reservation could dramatically reduce the likelihood of head-on collisions on the A9, and we were provided with details of the road safety measures that are being put in place to reduce road traffic collisions and resulting road closures on the route.

We explored issues around the procurement process, including the impact that existing processes have had on the level of risk that is passed to contractors, and timescales for the completion of the project. We also discussed the petitioner’s call for a national memorial for those who have lost their lives on the A9 and, significantly, identified that the petitioner was not calling for that to be on the A9 itself, which Transport Scotland felt would be vexatious. I think that the petitioner undertook to consider that further and come back to us in writing in due course.

At that meeting, we agreed to reflect on the evidence. We were joined by Edward Mountain in his capacity as reporter on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, but Mr Mountain is not with us this morning.

Do members have any thoughts or suggestions?

Given the changes that we have been advised have been applied elsewhere in the UK, it would be interesting to get not only an update on the capacity implications but the national fertility group’s view on why other parts of the UK have expanded their capacity to offer the treatment and we, as yet, have not. I would be very keen to understand its position on that.