Chamber and committees

We will keep the petition open and take it forward on that basis.

That brings us to the end of our public consideration of business.

I do not mean to be flippant, because the issue can be quite distressing for individuals who—having previously been sited opposite what we used to refer to as a 48-sheet boaster, which might have had downlighting at night—find themselves opposite a digital display, perhaps with multiple advertisements that revolve over the course of an hour, sometimes quite rapidly. Depending on the luminescence, I imagine that that could be quite distracting. However, as the Government suggests, the solution is through local authorities. Does the committee agree with Mr Torrance’s proposal to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we know whether a date has been set for that summit? The clerk tells me that it is open at the moment. Do those suggestions from Mr Torrance meet the committee’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. We will keep the petition open and pursue the issue further in the way that Mr Torrance has suggested.

Our next petition is PE2018, lodged by Helen Plank on behalf of Scottish Swimming. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to keep our swimming pools and leisure centres open by providing financial investment for pools.

We last considered the petition at our most recent meeting, on 23 April, when, as colleagues will recall, we heard evidence from a range of stakeholders involved with swimming programmes. They included coaches, those involved in developing and implementing programmes for swimming lessons and water safety across Scotland, and elite-level athletes, such as our most successful Scottish Olympian, Duncan Scott. Over the course of two round-table discussions, we explored the issue of swimming pools as community assets that can integrate with other services for the benefit of a wide range of users, such as young children learning to swim, which we pointed out is absolutely essential. We considered swimming pools as a gateway to other water-based activities and as supporting young people’s and other people’s mental and physical wellbeing.

We also discussed the potential impact of pool closures for general water safety and the risk of drowning, as well as for Scotland’s ability to continue its excellent record of elite athletes competing at the highest international levels. We were struck by the fact that Scotland has the highest drowning rate of any of the nations in the United Kingdom.

There was support across both panels for the creation of a statutory duty to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn how to swim, ideally before they leave primary school, where, we heard, it is much more likely that that skill will be developed. At a later stage, peer group pressure and other factors can lead to children not properly learning how to swim. Participants spoke about the financial challenges of running swimming facilities and the need to consider smarter investment and a different way of doing things if we are to ensure access to good-quality swimming facilities at all levels. That included calls for a task force, made up of representatives from local authorities, leisure trusts, sportscotland, the Scottish Government and Scottish Swimming, to take a more joined-up and collaborative approach to finding solutions that would keep more pools open.

Over the past fortnight, we have all had an opportunity to consider the evidence that we have heard. I think that most, if not all, of us were struck by the fact that we pretty much thought that we could identify a common way forward. Would anybody like to make a suggestion?

Curiously, while I was skimming through YouTube in my insomnia, quite by chance I came across film of fishing communities across the west coast and elsewhere in Scotland, and I was struck by how coastal life has changed in the past three decades, following the disappearance of so many of the fishing vessels that used to be the lifeblood of those communities. We talk about that, but it is striking when you actually see images that show how much has gone and that what remains does so under pressure from the regulation that Mr Ewing correctly identifies as still being in place and presenting such difficulties for those communities.

Notwithstanding that, Mr Torrance has made a suggestion based on the fact that the aims of the petition have been achieved. Are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE2081, which was lodged by Professor Jeremy Hughes on behalf of Kidney Research UK in Scotland, and it calls on us to do exactly what it says on the tin, which is to urge the Scottish Government to make chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority.

When we previously considered the petition, on 15 May 2024, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to seek further clarity on the Scottish Government’s approach to the designation of clinical priorities. We have received a response from the cabinet secretary that states that the Scottish Government does not have a list of conditions that are clinical priorities and that there are, therefore, no criteria for the designation of clinical priorities.

The cabinet secretary goes on to say that,

“even ... where there is no specific policy or strategy”

for an individual condition,

“the Scottish Government is still undertaking work to support all people living with long-term conditions to access the best possible care and support”.

That includes, for example, a

“national policy on the reimbursement of electricity costs for home dialysis”.

It is the Scottish Government’s view that publishing more strategies for individual health conditions would not be the most effective way to improve care.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. The first responds to the cabinet secretary’s letter and draws our attention to the existence of a clinical priorities team in the civil service with staff aligned to particular clinical conditions.

The petitioner’s second submission provides an update on the work that Kidney Research UK has been doing to improve awareness, prevention, early detection, treatment and monitoring of chronic kidney disease in Scotland. That includes the launch of an action plan for Scotland and efforts to work constructively with the national health service and Government bodies to improve the lives of people with chronic kidney disease.

The petitioner remains concerned that there is no named civil servant to help to oversee and support the changes that are proposed in Kidney Research UK’s action plan, and he has invited the cabinet secretary to intervene directly in the matter by attending a summit on chronic kidney disease. This is the first time that such an event has been convened in Scotland.

Those are two significant contributions from the petitioner in response to the cabinet secretary. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE1989, lodged by Mary Montague, is the first of two petitions concerning defibrillator provision that the committee is considering this morning. I declare an interest in that Mary Montague is the provost of East Renfrewshire Council, which is the presiding local authority in which my Eastwood constituency sits. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces.

We last considered the petition on 30 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. The minister’s response highlights the Scottish Government’s participation in the Save a Life for Scotland partnership and the increase in defibrillator deployment by the public in recent years. The minister also points to a number of relevant factors that go beyond the availability of defibrillators, such as optimal placement, accessibility of the equipment and bystander confidence to use defibrillators.

The committee pressed the minister on engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding defibrillator provision through the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Scottish Government’s response explains that there is a lack of strong evidence for the effectiveness of legislation to mandate defibrillators in designated places and that, as such, the Scottish Government is focusing efforts on its established approach to improving survival rates.

The committee will recall that we were a bit concerned about the Scottish Government’s response. Defibrillators are now being provided everywhere else in the United Kingdom. I think that I recall that a Barnett consequential had even been provided in respect of that. I cannot remember whether that is correct, but that is my vague recollection. Nonetheless, it appears that Scotland is taking a unique position by not progressing provision, and I do not think that the committee was entirely convinced by that approach. Do colleagues have suggestions for how we might proceed?

Our next petition is PE2090, lodged by Stephen Henson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) (Regulations) 1984 to require application for express consent to advertise using a digital display, including where a site has been upgraded from a traditional paper-based display.

We previously considered the petition on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the heads of Planning Scotland, the Royal Town Planning Institute and Outsmart.

We have received a submission this morning from our colleague Paul Sweeney, who had hoped to be with us as we consider the petition further.

Outsmart, the trade association for the out-of-home advertising industry, has provided its views on the petition. Outsmart’s response explains that applications for advertisement consent require public consultation and that planning authorities determine applications case by case. Outsmart’s view is that the existing provisions are proportionate and appropriate. The submission explains that out-of-home media owners can work with local authorities to investigate and resolve matters where there is an issue with the luminescence of digital advertising screens.

As members will see, Mr Sweeney has lodged a submission that considers global best practice. He says that the best example of that comes from Melbourne city council. That is all detailed in his submission. Notwithstanding that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

I am content with that. I am pleased that, in some respects, the aims of the petition have been achieved. However, in that letter to the Government, can we emphasise the evidence of a fivefold increase in cot death from sharing beds? I do not think that we want to leave that as a lightly laid message—it should be strongly emphasised to the Government. On that basis, are we content?