Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1946, which was lodged by Sean Clerkin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for homeless temporary accommodation, including writing off the £33.3 million debt owed by homeless people for temporary accommodation to local authorities.

We last considered the petition on 13 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers and to the Scottish Government. We asked the Scottish Government for an update on the work undertaken by the housing affordability working group, and its submission states:

“the group has explored the underlying meaning of affordability and its different uses within housing debates, policy and practice. The group has not been asked to find solutions to housing affordability problems, nor has it been asked to focus specifically on homeless households. Rather, members have worked together to agree a shared understanding of what housing affordability is and how it should be measured, in order to support a range of policy and sector requirements across relevant areas.”

That might not have been everybody’s expectation, but there we are.

That report’s recommendations were expected before the summer recess in 2024. However, the Scottish Government's submission states that reaching consensus between stakeholders has—and I quote—“taken time”.

In response, the petitioner states that

“The ... exercise is yet another working group going nowhere”,

and, in his submission, he reiterates the increasing numbers of people in temporary accommodation and states:

“General Taxation should be used to pay for the costs of temporary accommodation”.

In its response to the committee, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers shares its view that it does

“not think that there is any case for the Scottish Government to take on the cost of funding temporary accommodation or to write off existing arrears.”

However, the submission highlights a number of areas where there is a lack of clear data to inform any work that could be undertaken in that area, and it explains that

“Most of those in temporary accommodation are eligible for housing benefit”,

which

“In most cases ... will cover the full cost to the resident with a deduction for heating or ‘board’ where this is included in the rent charge.”

Finally, the submission notes that

“Councils ... take a proportionate approach to collecting any arrears that do arise”,

including debt write-off, when that is the most appropriate approach. The association also suggests

“targeted funding to support the acquisition of additional ... temporary accommodation to support councils to meet their statutory obligations and provide the quality of temporary accommodation that homeless applicants are entitled to expect”,

and calls for

“a more consistent approach to accounting for the cost of temporary accommodation to improve transparency around charges and value for money.”

Do we have any suggestions as to how we might proceed? Mr Torrance, do you want to comment? There is a case for writing to the Minister for Housing, I think.

If we can proceed on that basis, I would be grateful.

Thank you, both. Would anyone else like to comment?

PE2106, lodged by Adam Csenki, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the guidance on mobile phones in schools to require all schools to prohibit the use of mobile phones during the school day, including at interval and lunchtime.

We last considered the petition on 25 September 2024, when we agreed to write to a number of folk. In her response to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills states that the mobile phone guidance for Scottish schools, which was published last August, takes a balanced approach and that, while recognising the challenges that mobiles create in many classrooms, the guidance acknowledges that mobile devices can be powerful tools to enhance learning, teaching, communication and social experience. They might also remove barriers to learning for some pupils, and they can be used to access some school services, such as ordering school meals. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills reiterates that decisions on the restriction or limitation of mobile phones should be for headteachers.

On similar grounds of flexibility and balance, the responses received from the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Association of Heads and Deputes in Scotland and School Leaders Scotland indicate that restrictions should be a matter for schools and that they do not support a national ban.

In his recent submission, the petitioner argues that Scottish schools that allow pupils unrestricted access to smartphones could be in breach of the duties that they are supposed to uphold under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, primarily in relation to protecting children from information and material that is injurious to their wellbeing. The petitioner gives a series of examples of children being exposed to harmful content while at school.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

In view of the correspondence that we have had, that recommendation seems sound, and we support it.

Members indicated agreement.

In light of the evidence from the Scottish Government, are members content with the proposed course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first new petition is PE2142, lodged by Andrew Stuart, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the policy on school commencement and deferred school entry in Scotland and seek to reverse the potential harms that are caused by existing processes that have resulted in 19-month school year groups.

In additional written submissions, the petitioner details his personal experience. He also highlights the potential negative effects on children’s performance of the “relative age effect”—a phenomenon that has primarily been studied in sport—according to which the date of birth could be linked to the degree of success. In the petitioner’s view, some groups of children might be disadvantaged, as their parents are less likely to know about, or indeed to choose, the deferment option.

The SPICe briefing notes that, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, it is local authorities that determine a school commencement date. Although, in principle, local authorities have flexibility in when to set those dates, there seems to be a high level of consistency across Scotland. The act also stipulates that parents have a duty to ensure that their child receives education that is suitable to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. Parents can choose not to send their child to school if they are not five years old at the commencement date—in other words, they are able to defer entry.

In the Scottish Government’s response to the petition, the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise defends the legal right of parents to defer entry as

“a longstanding feature of the Scottish education system”

and argues that it offers a choice to many parents who might feel that more time in an early years and childcare setting is more appropriate for their child’s needs. In the minister’s view, the quality of the teacher and the organisation of the class to meet a range of learning needs are more important in the success of children than the actual composition of classes. Furthermore, the curriculum for excellence framework gives teachers flexibility in how they choose to work with children of differing needs and abilities. The minister is open to revisit the issue in the future if evidence of significant harm to pupils were to emerge.

In the light of the minister’s fairly comprehensive response on this occasion, do colleagues have any suggestions as to what we might do?

I am encouraged to know that you are a high achiever, Mr Golden. I must say that my mother maintains that she thought she would have to get nappies in school colours for me, but that is another matter. Am I correct in saying that Mr Ewing and I attended the same primary school?

I hope that I am younger—no, I would not make any such claim. [Laughter.] I do not know whether they did nappies in school colours, Mr Ewing.

Thank you. Are colleagues content to support those proposals?

Members indicated agreement.