Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have had a couple of suggestions from Mr Choudhury and Mr Ewing. Are we content to keep the petition open and seek further clarification on the basis of what they have suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The last of our continuing petitions this morning is PE2087, lodged by Paul Irvine. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pass a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement. The petition was last considered at our meeting on 29 May 2024, when we agreed to write to COSLA, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it is proposing a requirement for

“each burial authority in Scotland to prepare and maintain a management plan which will apply to all the burial grounds for which the burial authority has responsibility ... Burial authorities will not be required to record their decision on dog access within the management plan, but they could choose to set out their position in the plan if they wish. Burial regulations will not create any new rules in relation to dogs. The decision on whether to permit dogs in burial grounds will remain at the discretion of each ... burial authority based on local factors.”

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed? I call Mr Golden, who is fresh back from Crufts.

Are you suggesting that, on this occasion, we close the petition based on the substantive responses that we have received?

If those aspects are not fulfilled.

Thank you, Tess White. Having read through the papers and the detail that we received, I have to say that this was a practice of which I, too, was largely unaware. As you have said, when one is confronted with the detail, it seems that there really is a requirement for the Parliament to be proactive and for the Government to take a legislative lead, particularly in light of the fact that other Parliaments across these islands have already taken that step. It does not seem really adequate that Scotland should be trying to find difficulties where clear direction is required and, indeed, has been given by legislative moves and the legal framework elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I do not know whether you feel similarly, colleagues, but are there any views as to how we might proceed? I think that we really need to be very direct in our questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, because I do not think that we will want to allow this to languish. Are there any suggestions as to what we might seek to clarify with the cabinet secretary?

Thank you, Mr Golden. Is the committee content with that suggestion? Do you seek to contribute, Mr Ewing?

I take Mr Golden’s point. In some urban areas, I imagine that a cemetery is the nearest thing there is to a green space in the local community. It is about the way in which such things are managed or handled. It would be useful for us to find out what local authorities’ view of all this is and whether any enforcement is taking place. Mr Choudhury, do you have any thoughts?

I was looking for ways in which we might be able to do that, so I am content with that suggestion. Are colleagues content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1953, which was lodged by Roisin Taylor-Young, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support staff—ESS—roles in order to consider urgently raising wages for education support staff across the primary and secondary sectors to £26,000 per annum; increasing the hours of the working day for ESS from 27.5 to 35 hours; 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.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 20 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and request an update on the Bute house agreement commitment to explore options for the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants. The final proposals on that were due to be brought forward by autumn 2023.

The cabinet secretary’s written response of May 2024 stated that she was considering the outcome of that work. We have since received an update from officials that states that a draft report has been considered by the cabinet secretary but that it has taken longer than anticipated, due to the required engagement with a range of stakeholders. The submission states that the intention is to publish a final report this month or next month.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, which highlights the increasing number of children with additional support needs and states that teachers and support staff are not adequately equipped to handle that.

The petitioner highlights a particular case in which a staff member in an additional support for learning school had been employed with no induction, training or risk assessments. The staff member was not provided with de-escalation training, British Sign Language certification or Makaton certification, and they did not have specialist knowledge of complex disabilities. The staff member went on to suffer serious workplace injuries that prevented them from working.

The petitioner’s submission states:

“Education Support Staff in ASL schools often carry out medical duties including oxygen tanks, insertion of catheters, administration of medications and hoisting or lifting for intimate care.”

The petitioner concludes her submission by stating:

“It is time to put all these policies and action plans into place. Councils are crying out for support staff in schools and are unable to recruit or retain these staff due to workplace violence, lack of training, low pay and no career pathways.”

In the light of all that, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We thank the petitioner. In view of the responses received, that is the committee’s conclusion. However, should those reviews not lead to any improvement, a fresh petition could be raised in the next session of Parliament.