���˿���

Are we content on that basis to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of a number of new petitions. As I always do before we begin consideration of new petitions, I point out to those who might be watching or following the proceedings, or to any petitioner who may have tuned in to see us discuss their petition, that, in advance of this consideration, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to provide us with a briefing on the issues that have been raised in it. We also ask the Scottish Government for its preliminary view. We do that simply because, historically, the committee, on our first consideration of a petition, would instruct those bodies to respond. Our current approach allows us to shortcut that and get to a meaningful discussion.

The first new petition, PE2103, from Dr Julie Badcock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to standardise the prescribed learning hours for primary and secondary establishments across all local authorities in Scotland.

The SPICe briefing explains that the length of the day and the number of learning hours is a matter for each local authority. It also explains that ministers have the power to make regulations that would set the minimum number of learning hours that each pupil should receive.

In 2023, the Scottish Government consulted on using those powers to prescribe the minimum annual number of learning hours. The consultation closed in June 2023 and the Scottish Government is yet to set out what its next steps will be. The Government’s submission states that it is carefully considering the very large number of responses and that it intends to publish its analysis of the responses in due course.

Its submission also states that Government does not support any reduction of learning hours in any local authority. That view was expressed in a letter to all local authorities last year. Ministers are working to reach an agreement with local government on the issue. The submission states:

“If no agreement is reached, Ministers remain open to taking steps towards utilising”

its powers to regulate the number of learning hours.

The issues in the petition are live, presently. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions??

We might specifically ask whether that would include the use of a registered conservation-accredited engineer. I think that would be useful.

Are members content that we should write to the Scottish Government in the first instance?

Members indicated agreement.

It would then be useful to have a round-table discussion on the issue. The clerks have noted the various recommendations. In this instance, I will invite the clerks to liaise with the committee and with Mr Sweeney, to see whether we can identify the key individuals who might be able to participate. I think that if we had all the people that he suggested, they would get a minute each and we would still not have enough time.

We will keep the petition open—it is one of enormous public interest—and we will pursue the recommendations that the committee has made and that we have heard from Paul Sweeney and Carol Mochan, whom I thank very much for joining us this morning.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. We have eight such petitions to consider.

The first, PE1862, from Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner, on behalf of Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities.

This is a long-standing petition, which we last considered at our meeting on 24 January 2024, when we agreed to write to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, the then Minister for Transport and local authorities and community councils representing island communities.

The commissioner, although not responsible for defining what attributes might be required for those undertaking a board position, tells us that there is nothing in the “Code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland” or accompanying guidance that would preclude ministers from including “island knowledge” as a requirement for board membership.

We have also received responses from the Shetland Islands Council, the Western Isles Council and Orkney Islands Council, which support the principle of adding “island knowledge” or “lived island experience” as essential criteria to the skills matrix for boards that are delivering lifeline services to island communities.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport tells us that, although the skills matrix will vary depending on the skills of the current board membership and the specific board vacancy, on every occasion, applicants are asked

“to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of how lifeline services affect our island communities.”

We have also heard from the cabinet secretary and her officials that more needs to be done to attract and appoint island residents to boards, with an emphasis on advertising vacancies as widely as possible.

We have pursued the aims of the petition quite well. That is the position, and there is nothing precluding those aims. The Government agrees that it still needs to try to achieve more. Do we have any recommendations for action?

Petition, PE1934, from Craig Scoular, on behalf of Greenfaulds high school rights and equalities committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. The resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help them to create a safer society for women.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 8 November 2023, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the University of Glasgow. At that time, the cabinet secretary indicated that the gender-based violence in schools working group was expected to publish its national framework to help schools to tackle sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

The framework has been published, and the cabinet secretary has stated that the Scottish Government has committed to commissioning an independent review to establish positive practice and further areas for improvement during this parliamentary session. The submission also highlights the revised statutory teaching guidance, which includes a section to support learning and teaching on consent and healthy relationships. The Scottish Government consulted on the guidance last year and is analysing the responses.

Meanwhile, the University of Glasgow’s written submission provides details of its evaluation of the equally safe at school intervention. The aim of the evaluation is to determine whether the intervention is effective, including cost effective. Its work will take place with six schools over two years, with the full results expected in December 2026.

Colleagues, do you have any suggestions?

We thank the petitioner for bringing the petition to us. It has been an interesting topic, and we have clarified issues to some extent. We will now see what difference it has made. If, in the next session of Parliament, it still seems that the issues are as they were, without improvement, we would very much welcome the petitioner considering whether it would be worth while lodging a fresh petition at that time.

Our next continued petition, PE1931, from Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion for rural properties and their households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 November 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Openreach. After the meeting, we received a written submission from the petitioner highlighting his on-going frustration that people with speeds of below 5Mbps are not being prioritised and expressing that he feels like people are being digitally excluded. I am sure that colleagues will have had letters from constituents on those issues.

The Scottish Government’s response informs us that about 52,000 properties remain eligible for the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme and, as at December 2023, 3,639 connections had been delivered through the use of those vouchers. Since then, around 460 vouchers have been issued, with approximately 100 further vouchers requested.

Openreach has stated that it routinely reviews the sequencing of its build programme to identify additional build that can be brought in. That is linked to the delivery of connections to an additional 8,653 properties through contractual overspill.

That is what we have been told. It remains a live issue. I do not know whether colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might respond in that light.

We thank Jordan Anderson for the petition. I would very much urge that the issues raised within it be pursued through the Scottish Youth Parliament. Of course, the Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body would consider requests actively made through that body.

PE2041, which was lodged by John Ronald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage local authorities to exempt staff working at community healthcare facilities who do not have access to free on-site staff parking from on-street parking charges, to allow them to care for vulnerable and sick people in our country without it costing them thousands of pounds per year.

We previously considered the petition on 6 December 2023, when we agreed to write to the health secretary, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Royal College of Nursing, the trade unions Unison and Unite the union, and the Allied Health Professions Federation.

Responses in support of the petition’s ask have been received from the Royal College of Nursing, Unite and the Allied Health Professions Federation. Although being mindful of the need for sustainable travel, the RCN highlighted that parking arrangements

“form part of working conditions for RCN members and impact recruitment and retention rates.”

In its response, the Allied Health Professions Federation noted that, if allied health professionals

“are required to pay for parking, they would effectively be penalised for accessing their workplace.”

The then Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care’s response notes the expectation that all NHS boards in Scotland should have a policy in place that enables staff to be reimbursed for valid expenses, including car parking charges, but the response is clear that such policies should not be extended to

“cover staff who drive to their work and park their car all day at their base of work”.

We have also received a response from the petitioner, who remains concerned that community health staff who use their own cars for work are being discriminated against.

Do members have any comments or suggestions? There is a route for the reimbursement of such charges when community care workers are out in the community and have to use off-street parking, but it is clear that a different view is taken to permanent daily parking at a fixed place of work. Are there any suggestions for actions?