Seòmar agus comataidhean

We thank the petitioner, and we thank Tess White for her contribution.

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.

Thank you, Mr Golden. That was quite a comprehensive series of suggestions. Are colleagues content to keep the petition open and to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content with the suggestions from Mr Golden and Mr Ewing and that we write to the Scottish Government making the points that have been raised?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you—that is what we will do.

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. By way of introductory excitement, our first item of business is a decision on whether to take in private item 4, which is consideration of our work programme for the rest of this year. Are colleagues content to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.