Chamber and committees

Petition PE2082, on improving the support that is provided to families affected by cot death, was lodged by Kevin McIver. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop promoting the Lullaby Trust to Scottish families for cot death support, as that charity provides support only to families who live in England and Wales, and instead to improve the practical support that is available to families by prioritising the promotion of the Scottish Cot Death Trust, which has been supporting families since 1985.

When we previously considered the petition on 29 May 2024, we agreed to write to the Scottish Cot Death Trust. We have received a response from the trust that states that a fundamental difference on the final messaging on bed sharing meant that it took a decision not to support the Scottish Government resource on safer sleep for babies. Although the trust aligns with and supports most of the Government’s safer sleep messaging, its view is that the safest place for a baby under three months to sleep is one that is

“flat, firm, clear and separate.”

The response goes on to highlight international studies on sudden unexpected death in infancy, which, taken collectively, suggest that there is a fivefold increased risk of a baby dying if the child shares a bed with their parents. The response also notes that the Scottish Government has plans to update the safer sleep guidance and it asks that that be used as an opportunity to re-engage with the trust on the messaging around the risks of bed sharing. As our papers note, the Scottish Government has published updated guidance for professionals on safe sleep for babies, which includes strengthening messaging on bed sharing.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues agreed? I think that the committee wants to bring the minister in to give evidence on this area, because we felt that we had received pretty compelling testimony, and there is now the example from elsewhere in the country. Scotland seems to be uniquely taking the view that we should not be providing defibrillators. I do not think that they are terribly complicated to utilise. There are one or two in my constituency, and the committee has heard from people whose lives have been saved by their provision. Therefore, I think that we will hold the petition open. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Both petitions will be kept open, and we will be able to examine the issues in detail with the minister when she is available to give evidence.

We will write to the minister in the first instance, but we will seek to take the petition to a chamber debate before the end of the session—hopefully later in the year—given that there is an opportunity for the committee to take issues to the chamber. We have two or three issues that we are considering, but we might be able to address a couple of them in a single debate.

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.