Seòmar agus comataidhean

Therefore, in essence, the data gathering is not ignored—

I will come back to that shortly in the questions that I have, because it follows on from one of those.

Thank you. We move to our final theme and questions from Davy Russell.

The next item is consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those who are joining us this morning or watching online that we have a very considerable number of open petitions but not long remaining in which to consider them. We have only eight meetings of the committee remaining before the dissolution of the Parliament. Our focus for the rest of the parliamentary session, in the limited time that remains to us, is therefore on identifying areas in which we believe that we can make real progress in relation to petitions.

The first petition that we will consider again this morning is PE1953, lodged by Roisin Taylor-Young, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support staff roles in order to consider urgently raising wages for ESS across the primary and secondary sectors to £26,000 per annum; increasing the working hours for ESS from 27.5 to 35 hours a week; 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.

When we previously considered the petition in March, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. Her response highlights the guidance on supporting children and young people with healthcare needs in schools, which states:

“NHS boards and education authorities should work collaboratively to ensure that all staff receive ... appropriate ... training”.

The cabinet secretary states that the Scottish Government has no formal role in setting the pay or terms and conditions of non-teaching school staff. The submission highlights the Scottish Government funding to support pupils with complex additional support needs, which includes an allocation for local and national programmes to support the recruitment and retention of the ASN workforce.

In view of the response that we have received from the cabinet secretary, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

That brings us to PE2171, lodged by Robert Macdonald, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the use of prisons for punishment and deterrence and use them only for public protection purposes, in order to reduce the pressure on the Scottish Prison Service and allow more focus on rehabilitation, thereby ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are jailed, whilst allowing those who pose less of a risk to be given community orders, fines and potentially lifelong driving bans.

The SPICe briefing explains that prisons hold remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners are awaiting trial or sentencing following conviction, while those in the second category are serving a custodial sentence. A Scottish Government paper published earlier this year concludes that there is

“no single reason for the increase in the prison population, and therefore no simple solution to manage and tackle the issue”.

The Scottish Government’s view on the ask of the petition is that, due to the complexity of the matter, it is not practical or achievable in the short term. However, the Government reiterates its long-term ambition to use prisons only for those who pose a risk of serious harm.

The response also pointed to various pieces of work that are aimed at shifting the balance between the use of custody and justice in the community. Most significantly, the sentencing and penal policy commission was established this year to establish the use and effectiveness of custodial sentences and community interventions. The commission is expected to make recommendations for dealing with offending behaviours in a way that is effective and proportionate, with the ultimate aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s prison population.

Finally, the Government reiterated that courts continue to have discretion in determining the appropriate sentence for any given case, which may include a custodial sentence if that is deemed necessary.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2170, which was lodged by Paul Blaker on behalf of Accountability Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the General Teaching Council for Scotland and replace it with a Government agency. The petitioner believes that the General Teaching Council for Scotland is not supporting teachers’ professional development, nor helping children to experience improved quality learning and teaching.

The statutory functions of the GTCS are set out in a 2011 order, the purpose of which was to establish it as an independent self-regulating professional body for teachers working in Scotland. Some of its main functions are to keep a public register, set standards for the teaching profession, investigate individuals’ fitness to teach and provide advice to the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government does not see the ask of the petition as practical or achievable, as it considers the GTCS to be effective in its statutory role. The Government states that it cannot intervene in processes or decisions made by fitness-to-teach panels, and that panel members are independent and not GTCS employees.

The GTCS commissioned the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care to undertake an independent review of its fitness-to-teach process. The PSA’s findings highlighted some improvements that could be made, such as reducing the time that the GTCS takes to resolve cases, supporting vulnerable participants, simplifying public-facing guidance and documentation, and enhancing case management. The GTCS has committed to presenting an action plan to its professional regulatory assurance committee in the light of those recommendations.

The petitioner’s additional submission brings forth further examples to illustrate his concerns that the GTCS is not meeting its core mission to uphold professional standards and protect pupils. It is a very determined representation, but the Government clearly takes an alternative view.

That brings us to PE2171, lodged by Robert Macdonald, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the use of prisons for punishment and deterrence and use them only for public protection purposes, in order to reduce the pressure on the Scottish Prison Service and allow more focus on rehabilitation, thereby ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are jailed, whilst allowing those who pose less of a risk to be given community orders, fines and potentially lifelong driving bans.

The SPICe briefing explains that prisons hold remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners are awaiting trial or sentencing following conviction, while those in the second category are serving a custodial sentence. A Scottish Government paper published earlier this year concludes that there is

“no single reason for the increase in the prison population, and therefore no simple solution to manage and tackle the issue”.

The Scottish Government’s view on the ask of the petition is that, due to the complexity of the matter, it is not practical or achievable in the short term. However, the Government reiterates its long-term ambition to use prisons only for those who pose a risk of serious harm.

The response also pointed to various pieces of work that are aimed at shifting the balance between the use of custody and justice in the community. Most significantly, the sentencing and penal policy commission was established this year to establish the use and effectiveness of custodial sentences and community interventions. The commission is expected to make recommendations for dealing with offending behaviours in a way that is effective and proportionate, with the ultimate aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s prison population.

Finally, the Government reiterated that courts continue to have discretion in determining the appropriate sentence for any given case, which may include a custodial sentence if that is deemed necessary.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That might be beyond the scope of the committee’s ability to properly explore.

In the first instance, are we happy to pursue Mr Ewing’s suggestion? Then, we will have a further opportunity to decide whether, as Mr Ewing is suggesting and as Mr Mountain is hoping, it might be one of our legacy petitions—or whether we think that it would be best served by a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session. We will write to the Scottish Government to seek a response to the petitioners’ latest submission. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The first of the new petitions is PE2166, which was lodged by John Watson McMaster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a standardised timeframe for civil proceedings that relate to child custody cases, including a 14-day timeframe for proof hearings. The SPICe briefing explains that section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 gives courts various powers to decide an issue in a dispute about parental responsibilities and rights.

The briefing states that relatively few section 11 cases tend to get as far as a proof hearing. Instead, they are typically settled during child welfare hearings, which are relatively informal, private proceedings. The briefing also notes that there have been long-standing policy concerns about delays in cases that affect children, including in section 11 cases, and inconsistencies in how such cases are managed. To address that, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will, when in force, require courts to consider whether any delay in proceedings would negatively affect a child’s welfare. The length of delay is not specified in the legislation, with the explanatory notes for the bill stating that the length

“would vary from case to case.”

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the specific asks of the petition to be practical or achievable. Its submission notes that a standardised timetable would not recognise the different complexities in individual cases. The submission also highlights the case management rules that are in place for family actions, which includes a key aim of bringing greater judicial case management to resolve cases more quickly.

The petitioner has provided a written submission calling for the committee to reconsider the timeframe that was set out in the petition. Following a meeting with the Scottish Government, he is now calling for a considered timeframe of four to six weeks rather than 14 days for a proof hearing. He states that that timeframe is pragmatic, because it aligns with the operational realities of the courts while still drastically accelerating the process. He also states that the timeframe would protect child welfare by prioritising swift resolution and improve system efficiency by reducing opportunistic and malicious litigation.

The petitioner’s submission states that the core issue is not a lack of rules but a systemic failure to enforce them consistently. He believes that the social damage that is caused by those procedural failures is measurable not only in the immense emotional toll on families but in the long-term costs to public services, including mental health support and social work intervention.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action in the light of what we have received?