Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next petition is PE1926, on expanding universal free school meals for all nursery, primary and secondary schools. Monica Lennon joins us again for our consideration of this petition, which was lodged by Alison Dowling and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 February, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. I am pleased to say that we have received a response from the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Jenny Gilruth, which states that the Scottish Government remains

“focused on working with delivery partners to progress our free school meal expansion programme.”

The cabinet secretary notes that the Government is continuing to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other key delivery partners on the next phase of expansion, and goes on to say that she will

“update the committee on anticipated timescales for the pilot in secondary schools once”

the Government’s

“planning work has further progressed.”

Members may have noted that, in response to a question in the chamber on 18 May, the cabinet secretary said that she had not yet met officials to discuss proposals for the pilot in secondary schools but was willing to engage with young people in the design of the pilot.

Before I ask colleagues to comment, I invite Monica Lennon to contribute to our thinking.

PE1956, which was lodged by Louise McGee, is on increasing the provision of wheelchair accessible homes. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the existing wheelchair accessible housing target guidance and to explore options for increasing the availability of wheelchair accessible housing in Scotland.

The petition was last considered at our meeting on 23 November 2022, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, from which we have now received responses. However, as members will have noted, COSLA asked the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers—it has a marvellous acronym, but we will just stick with that—to provide a response on its behalf.

In its response, the Scottish Government confirmed that it is currently undertaking a review of the adaptations system, which it expects to have completed by the spring of 2024.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations noted that the most recent Government statistic for the total number of wheelchair accessible homes developed for social rent was 0.3 per cent for the year 2020-21. The SFHA highlighted that progress on a review of adaptations, new building standards and plans for a new accessible homes standard has been slow.

The Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers agreed with the petitioner that the Scottish Government should review the existing wheelchair accessible housing target guidance. It provided information on the wheelchair accessible homes targets that have been set by various local authorities, and went on to say that there is currently no definition of a wheelchair accessible home, which it said is a measure that is needed in Scotland.

In the light of the representations that we sought and have now received, do members have any comments or suggestions?

The cabinet secretary notes that the Government is continuing to work with COSLA, so it would not be unreasonable for us to get a view from COSLA about what it thinks that that engagement is producing. I would like to ask whether it has highlighted some of the issues that Paul Sweeney has just identified and whether it has had any response, or whether there are other issues that it feels might arise as a consequence. Do we agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE1937, lodged by Gillian Lamarra, concerns giving children the respect that they deserve by providing options for privacy when changing for PE. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their PE kit to school on the days that they have PE. We last considered the petition on 8 March and, at that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration has been given to reviewing and updating the learning estate strategy, because we felt that a lot of the issue depended on the estate itself.

We have received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, stating that the Scottish Government does not have any plans to update the learning estate strategy but that, along with the Scottish Futures Trust, it remains committed to working closely with local authorities in relation to individual councils’ school estates. Do members have any comments or suggestions in the light of that?

That is a very good point. I certainly have direct experience of constituents who were diagnosed as being at the end of life and had hoped to stay at home, but were given a date for adaptations that was, by some time, after the expected end of what life they had been given to understand lay ahead of them. That was doubly cruel. They were told, “Yes, it could be done, but not until you are no longer here.” In many ways, that was cruel and defeated the purpose completely.

Mr Stewart made specific suggestions. This is also an issue of delivery and whether there are underlying calculations and a proper appreciation of the overwhelming need that there is to support somebody at that particular moment, when they need it most. I wonder how we might pursue that further. Does Mr Sweeney have any suggestions?

Our next petition, PE1992, which was lodged by Laura Hansler, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling work by 2025 and creating a memorial to those who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A4—sorry, I mean the A9. There might be problems with the A4, too, but we are concerned with the A9 on this occasion.

Members will recall that we previously considered the petition at our meeting on 14 June. At that meeting, we heard from the petitioner Laura Hansler; Grahame Barn, who is the chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland; and officials from Transport Scotland.

During those two evidence sessions, we heard how dualling the road and installing a central reservation could dramatically reduce the likelihood of head-on collisions on the A9, and we were provided with details of the road safety measures that are being put in place to reduce road traffic collisions and resulting road closures on the route.

We explored issues around the procurement process, including the impact that existing processes have had on the level of risk that is passed to contractors, and timescales for the completion of the project. We also discussed the petitioner’s call for a national memorial for those who have lost their lives on the A9 and, significantly, identified that the petitioner was not calling for that to be on the A9 itself, which Transport Scotland felt would be vexatious. I think that the petitioner undertook to consider that further and come back to us in writing in due course.

At that meeting, we agreed to reflect on the evidence. We were joined by Edward Mountain in his capacity as reporter on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, but Mr Mountain is not with us this morning.

Do members have any thoughts or suggestions?

Given the changes that we have been advised have been applied elsewhere in the UK, it would be interesting to get not only an update on the capacity implications but the national fertility group’s view on why other parts of the UK have expanded their capacity to offer the treatment and we, as yet, have not. I would be very keen to understand its position on that.

Do members agree with the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We touched on that a bit in our discussions last week. It is certainly an area that we would want to pursue with the cabinet secretary.

Mr Torrance’s suggestion that we invite the cabinet secretary is different from our original suggestion, which was to invite the Minister for Transport. Nonetheless, we would do that after the statement has been delivered to the Parliament. Are there any other suggestions?