Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is 12 months.

We considered a petition on that subject at our previous meeting, and I wrote to the minister—or, at least, I wrote to somebody—with Mr Ewing’s suggestion about how funds could usefully be transferred from elsewhere.

Does Mr Torrance’s proposal meet the acceptance of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

It seems invidious that Scottish schools are now behind the standard that is being set elsewhere around the UK and that four in 10 schools—the figure might be slightly higher—would not, in the event that an emergency occurred, have access to life-saving equipment that has a proven track record. I have seen such equipment being deployed, and I know that other colleagues have heard of instances of its deployment in which lives have been saved as a result.

Are colleagues content to support Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much, Mr MacGregor. I also thank your constituent for submitting her petition, which raises issues for the committee to consider. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

If I could just interrupt you on that point, Mr Torrance. In that letter to the Scottish Government, we could draw on some of the additional suggestions that might be made to it from Mr MacGregor’s evidence as well.

Thank you. Are there any other comments or suggestions from colleagues?

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the open session this morning. We will take item 4 in private. The committee will meet again on Wednesday 9 October.

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Agenda item 1 is to agree to take in private item 4, which is consideration of our draft report on the A9. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 2, we have five continued petitions to consider, the first of which is PE1856, lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite the union. The petition calls on the Parliament to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support to taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives and reviewing low-emission standards and implementation dates.

Transport Scotland has confirmed that a meeting was initiated and facilitated by Glasgow City Council with Unite, the Energy Saving Trust and Transport Scotland. Colleagues will remember that we held an evidence session with representatives from the Scottish Taxi Federation in relation to the issues raised in this petition and, I think, another one that we had at the same time.

Glasgow City Council’s recent written submission states that it received 776 applications for a temporary exemption to the enforcement of the low-emission zone. All 776 requests were granted. In short, all taxi operators who applied received the requested exemption. In February this year, conditions were agreed for those who may require an extension beyond the agreed year. Glasgow City Council granted 225 extensions to the exemption and notes that it will continue to show flexibility to operators who are making efforts towards compliance, should that be required.

In relation to the issues that we discussed, I think that a reasonably pragmatic approach was secured. In light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The second of our continued petitions is PE1958, on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The committee has taken considerable interest in the petition during this session of Parliament. It was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling—who I note is with us in the public gallery again, along with colleagues—on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, again on the basis again of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 22 November last year, at which time we heard from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise and agreed to follow that up by writing to the minister and to the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum. We have subsequently received a response from the Scottish Government referencing the support that is in place to support care-experienced people and the on-going collaboration with The Promise Scotland and other stakeholders to improve the package of support that is available to care-experienced young people.

The Scottish Government’s response also restates its commitment to introduce the proposed Promise bill by the end of the current parliamentary session. Members will have noted that a consultation is now under way, aimed at ensuring that young people who are leaving care and moving into adulthood have the right scaffolding of support available to ensure that they thrive. The Scottish Government consultation will remain open until next Thursday, which is 3 October.

The Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum response sets out its support for the aspirations of the petition, including the removal of arbitrary age criteria, and highlights the focus of the 100 days of listening on identifying solutions to ensure delivery of the Promise for all those who move on from care.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, the first of which responds to the detailed information that the Scottish Government provided. That submission raises further concerns about the varying levels of current support being provided to young people who leave care across Scotland. Jasmin has also included a practical list of suggestions for improving this scaffold of support that is available to people who are moving on through care or from care. In her most recent submission, Jasmin provides an overview of the themes that were raised during the 100 days of listening, which in her view reaffirm the need for the action that is called for in the petition.

We have expressed considerable interest in the petition and taken evidence on it, and the Government now indicates that it is taking action on the petition. The question for the committee is what more we think we can achieve in the time that is left to us in this session, which, of course, is now more limited. We had previously considered a parliamentary debate, but it is open to members to consider whether we have enough of an argument for that, given the Government’s response.