Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2134, which was lodged by Cally Smith on behalf of Huntly Swift Group-NES Swifts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help reverse the decline in swift populations by introducing legislation that would make swift nesting bricks a requirement for all new-build developments in Scotland and make it mandatory to include swifts in all ecological building surveys.

As the petition background tells us, swifts were added to the UK red list for conservation in 2021, and nest site loss is considered to be one of the factors that has contributed to a 62 per cent decline in the swift population since 1998. The SPICe briefing that we have received notes other possible causes for the decline, such as poor summer weather and a decline in the number of insects, which are swifts’ main food source.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights that improving biodiversity is listed as a cross-cutting outcome in the national planning framework 4, also referred to as NPF4, with policy 3 noted as playing a

“critical role in ensuring that development will secure positive effects for biodiversity.”

The response goes on to note the Scottish Government’s work with NatureScot in finalising its “Developing with Nature” guidance, published in 2023, which describes a number of measures that development can incorporate to conserve, restore and enhance nature. In the light of the polices that are contained in NPF4 and supporting guidance, the Scottish Government does not consider it necessary to mandate the use of swift bricks or other individual measures, although it does acknowledge that they may be an important and helpful intervention in some developments.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which adds further clarity to petition’s ask for a requirement to include swift bricks in “all suitable new developments”—I emphasise the word “suitable” there—and includes information on how that can be achieved in most new buildings. The petitioner’s second submission responds to the Scottish Government’s submission and makes clear that swift bricks are a universal provision that could be used to serve other cavity-nesting bird species, such as the sparrow, house martin and starling.

While the petitioner appreciates the “Developing with Nature” guidance, she argues that the enhancements that are suggested in the guidance are rarely being made. The submission also highlights that ecological surveys rarely include swifts, and when they are, the survey’s timing—outwith the peak breeding season of June and July—means that a “nil” or “poor” record of swift activity is often given.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Moreover, the Government has indicated that it intends to review the building standard on sustainable development, so there are further opportunities for such requirements to be incorporated at that point.

I understand. On that basis, colleagues, are we minded, in view of the responses received and Mr Ewing’s analysis, to close the petition on this occasion? Mr Choudhury, are you content with that?

PE2028, which was lodged by Pinar Aksu, on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network, and Doaa Abuamer, on behalf of the VOICES network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.

We are joined, as we have been in the past, by our colleague Paul Sweeney, who continues to take a keen interest in the issue. Good morning, Mr Sweeney.

We previously considered the petition on 15 May, when we agreed to write to Transport Scotland. In June 2024, we received a response from Transport Scotland indicating that work was on-going to establish the most appropriate way to deliver free bus travel for people seeking asylum in Scotland. At that stage, Transport Scotland told us that it was using the £2 million budget allocation to develop a national pilot scheme to provide free bus travel for people seeking asylum who were not already covered by existing concessionary travel schemes. It was noted that the funding was allocated for a single year only.

Members will likely be aware that, since Transport Scotland’s response was received, plans to extend free bus travel to people seeking asylum—which was secured in a previous Conveners Group meeting, when the First Minister at the time, Humza Yousaf, agreed to look at the matter and subsequently agreed to the policy—were initially scrapped as part of the Scottish Government’s plans to cut public spending. However, the plans have since been revived, with funding for the scheme included in the 2025-26 budget, which was recently approved by the Parliament.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners, which calls on the committee to seek further information from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government on next steps and a timeframe for taking forward the commitment to providing free bus travel for people seeking asylum in Scotland.

Given that the aims of the petition have been secured, the committee will need to consider whether there is more that we can do. However, before we have that discussion, I invite Paul Sweeney to offer his thoughts.

The first new petition is PE2133, which is on expanding ScotRail’s inter7city routes to include Dunfermline. The petition, which has been lodged by Andrew Wedge, calls for exactly what it says on the tin: for the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that every city in Scotland has a direct express rail connection to the others by expanding ScotRail’s inter7city routes to include Scotland’s newest city of Dunfermline. The petitioner suggests that the procurement of a replacement for the high-speed train fleet, which operates on the intercity routes, should be used as an opportunity to expand the intercity routes and improve connectivity between all Scotland’s cities.

As the SPICe briefing notes, Dunfermline was granted city status in 2022 and has two railway stations, both of which are located on the Fife circle line and are regularly served by direct trains from Edinburgh, Glenrothes with Thornton and Cowdenbeath. The briefing also draws our attention to ScotRail’s “Fit for the Future” consultation, which included a proposal for a direct service from Dunfermline to Dundee or Perth. However, as the proposal received negative feedback, it was not taken forward.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport acknowledges that the proposal in the petition is a reasonable one that has been given

“detailed consideration over recent years by ScotRail, Network Rail and Transport Scotland”.

The cabinet secretary’s response goes on to note that, although the proposal for an hourly Edinburgh to Perth via Dunfermline service was withdrawn, options to develop and enhance rail connectivity in Fife will be kept under review. The response also includes information on the appraisal of passenger services on the Alloa to Dunfermline line, which was not recommended in the set of national priorities for investment as part of the second strategic transport projects review. Again, the cabinet secretary has indicated that Transport Scotland will keep that under review, subject to a strong business case being developed and suitable funding being available to support that change.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which comments on the cabinet secretary’s response and suggests that a small amount of feedback from Perth residents and a minor increase in journey time due to the additional stops in north Fife resulted in Dunfermline losing out on the proposed hourly Edinburgh to Perth via Dunfermline service. The petitioner draws our attention to the growing populations in Dunfermline and west Fife, with further housing developments under construction, and emphasises the need for further investment in the infrastructure to support that growth.

Mr Wedge also raises concerns about the extensive journey time for passengers travelling from Fife to Glasgow or Stirling and suggests that ScotRail could make use of existing but less-used lines to offer direct express services, which would also help to reduce pressure on existing pinch points such as Haymarket.

That is a fairly comprehensive introduction to the new petition, as we have received some detailed responses. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action? Given the cabinet secretary’s response, I am not sure that there is anything that we can do directly in relation to the petition. There might have been more information to seek, but I feel that we have had quite strong direction at this stage. Do colleagues feel that there is more that we could do?

I notice that we have been joined by Paul Sweeney and Jackie Baillie. In order to facilitate what I am sure is a busy morning for them, I will reorder the petitions that we will be considering today.

I am minded to seek clarity on that point in particular, given that the parliamentary session now has only 14 months left to run. It is important that we try to provide some momentum behind anything that is being considered or justified, in relation to what might be being done or not done, in order to progress the aims of the petition.

We thank the petitioner, and we thank Tess White for her contribution.

So what would you like us to ask COSLA?

I see—okay. Are colleagues similarly minded?