Seòmar agus comataidhean

I record the apologies of the deputy convener, David Torrance, who is still not well. We send him our best wishes and hope to see him again soon.

Colleagues, we therefore have to consider whether there is more that the committee could have oversight of—or more of which the committee could have oversight; I can hear my wife correcting my grammar as I speak—or whether the committee has taken matters as far as we can. Do members have any suggestions for action?

I will just formalise the point about writing to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Recently, in deciding on a stage 3 amendment that was proposed in respect of dog collars—by Mr Golden, I think—the Parliament took the view that there had not been an opportunity to properly consider those matters. The amendment that we are talking about today is an example of exactly that—it was a stage 3 amendment where there was not proper consideration of the potential consequences.

The Parliament has acted differently in different situations. It would be right to write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to say that there ought to be a principle that the Parliament adheres to because, otherwise, we will pass legislation that has consequences that could have been foreseen if they had been properly examined. Obviously, in this case, the consequences were unforeseen by many members, because they did not have the proper opportunity to be alerted to what might follow as a consequence of the amendment being passed. Therefore, I think that we would want to write to that committee.

If we are contacting Mr Blyther, who is here today, and if there is the opportunity to get some information quickly, that might allow the issue to be one of the subjects that I raise with the First Minister at next week’s meeting of the Conveners Group. That would be one of a couple of issues that I could draw to the First Minister’s attention, but I want to do that in full possession of the latest facts. I can perhaps agree, by correspondence with committee colleagues, on the nature of the question that I might put. Does that seem reasonable?

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to relevant stakeholders seeking their views on the asks of the petition, and copies of the responses that we have received are included in the papers for today’s meeting.

The response from the Scottish Forum of Community Councils states its belief

“that Community Councils should be given more responsibility in relation to their existing involvement with local planning applications.”

The forum notes that councils could amend their standing orders to devolve power

“to a sub or ward committee”

to determine routine planning applications affecting a particular council ward. It also suggests a process be developed that would enable planning applications to be allocated to one of the four following groups for decision: the full planning committee, a ward-specific committee, a community council or a planning officer.

In its response, the Scottish Government indicated that it expected to publish guidance on

“effective community engagement in local development planning”

later in the year, and it did so in December 2024.

We have also received a response from the Royal Town Planning Institute, which outlines its support for community involvement in the planning process. Although it acknowledges

“concerns about community engagement being a box-ticking exercise”,

the response offers examples of meaningful community engagement practices that are being carried out across Scotland. It goes on to state:

“The role of Community Councils in the scrutiny of planning applications is well established”,

but it does not

“see any justification for the relocation of decision-making powers from local authorities to Community Councils.”

There is therefore a slight contradiction in the responses that we received. Before we consider what we might do next, I invite Jackie Baillie to offer her thoughts to the committee.

Ms Baillie has emphasised a point in the Scottish Forum of Community Councils’ suggestion about the different ways in which local concern could be expressed.

I did not see the footage to which you referred, Ms Baillie. You are not here to give evidence, but if the community thought that that was the wrong place for the facility, I am interested to know whether it had in mind a different place that would have offered more protection in the circumstances of that storm.

I couple that with the points that Mr Sweeney made about real detail in relation to longer-term commitment.

I was kind of minded to let the petition close, but, on the appeal of Mr Sweeney and in the light of Mr Choudhury’s recommendation, are members content to keep it open?

Members indicated agreement.

I am also aware that there are some dogs that go and sit by the grave of the person who formerly owned them. They are very sensitive to the reality of these things. I would be interested to hear the response to the request that we are going to make. Does the committee agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. Before we consider them, as always, I indicate to those who might be joining us online to hear their petition reviewed for the first time that there are two actions that we take in advance of the consideration of a new petition. We invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to give us a proper briefing on the issues underpinning the petition that has been lodged. We also contact the Scottish Government to get its preliminary views. The reason why we take those actions is that, historically, when the committee met to consider a new petition, if we had not done those two things in advance, we simply agreed to do them, which delayed the proper consideration of the petition. All of that is done to expedite the detailed consideration of the issues that are raised.

The final point that I want to put on the record relates to PE2056, on introducing legislation to allow the Scottish ministers to intervene in the hiring of public land. I am very sorry to say that, after we wrote back to the Scottish Government following what we felt was an incomplete response, the Government has sent us more or less the same response again. I feel that that shows discourtesy to the committee.

Therefore, with the committee’s permission, I would like us to write to the Government to specifically draw its attention to the actual question that we are asking and to say that we wish to have an answer to that question, not some generalised answer on the issue that is not relevant to the point that we are putting. Are colleagues content for us to write directly to the Scottish Government to ask it to answer the question that we are asking?

Members indicated agreement.

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?