Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

The second of the three new petitions that we are considering this morning is PE2014, on reverting to the appeals system used in 2022 for Scottish Qualifications Authority exams. The petition, which was lodged by Elliott Hepburn on behalf of Moffat academy students, calls on the Scottish Government to implement a revised SQA appeals process that takes into account evidence of pupils’ academic performance throughout the year, particularly prelim results.

The SPICe briefing states that the Scottish Government intends to replace the SQA and that it is expected that a bill will be introduced later this year for that purpose. The briefing outlines the appeals system used in 2022 and notes that the SQA described the 2022 appeals process as “an emergency response” to the Covid-19 disruption.

The SQA conducted a review of the certification and appeals processes, which included a consultation with learners, teachers, parents and others. The review found several issues, including increased workload for teachers and perceptions of unfairness in the process. All MSPs have probably received representations in relation to that.

Views on the approach for the 2023 appeals were mixed. The SQA appeals process for 2023 will involve a marking review by a senior marker that will focus on the correctness and consistency of the initial marking, and it will no longer consider alternative assessment evidence. The process is free, and individuals can appeal directly to the SQA.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has responded to the petition. She has stated that the SQA is responsible for its operational decisions, including its approach to the appeals process for 2023. Her response highlights the examination exceptional circumstances consideration service, which supports pupils who are unable to attend their exams due to reasons that are outwith their control or whose performance may have been affected by personal circumstances.

I am struck by the fact that the appeals process now is simply that a senior marker focuses on the correctness and consistency of the initial marking and no longer considers alternative assessment evidence. I have to say that I thought that that was very often the principal thing that many schools submitted on behalf of pupils. It was a case of presenting evidence to suggest that the individual had done better than the process had shown. Notwithstanding that, that is what is happening in 2023.

I imagine that colleagues elsewhere who are intimately concerned with these issues will have debated them thoroughly. We are in a situation in which the Scottish Government is, I think, indicating that a forthcoming bill will alter the situation, so I am not sure that there is terribly much more that we can do at this stage.

PE1961 is, as I mentioned a moment ago, also in the name of Edward Grice on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 to include private hire and taxi drivers by creating a specific criminal offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing private hire or taxi drivers while they are engaged in private hire or taxi work; and considering such offences as aggravated when the offence is committed while the driver is enforcing a licensing or operational condition.

We considered this petition, along with the previous one, on 7 December 2022, when we agreed to seek further information from Police Scotland, the Scottish Taxi Federation and Unite the union. Since then, we have received a response from Unite in support of legislating to protect private hire and taxi drivers but recommending that the scope of any such legislation be extended to include all transport workers. The petitioner has indicated that he would be agreeable to that suggestion.

Police Scotland has provided data on the number of breach of the peace and threatening or abusive behaviour offences that have been recorded over the past 10 years but was unable to provide a breakdown by occupation.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

A bill would be required to amend the legislation. It is not just a case of waving a wand and us all saying, “Aye”; there is a bit more of a process to it.

I am inclined to give the petition one last hurrah because Unite has come in in support of the petitioner, who has said that he would be agreeable to its suggestion. I think that I can anticipate the Scottish Government’s response, but, nonetheless, the petition has had that additional level of support, and we can flag up that that is the case and ask whether the Government might be prepared to contemplate that, if even only in the longer term. Are you content with that, Mr Stewart?