Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Our first agenda item is the usual dry business of agreeing whether to take in private agenda items 4, 5 and 6, which are on consideration of a draft report on the participation blueprint, our approach to the end of the parliamentary session, and our annual report. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2093, lodged by Benjamin Harrop, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the Scottish ministerial code to: put the code under statute; enable independent advisers to initiate investigations, and if the First Minister decides to go against the independent adviser’s advice, they should make a statement to Parliament; set out the sanctions for breaches other than misleading Parliament; allow independent advisers to make recommendations for changes to the code; rename the independent adviser position to make it clear that there is no judicial involvement; and require ministers to make a public oath or commitment to abide by the code.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 26 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the First Minister. The committee’s letter particularly sought clarification on what consideration the First Minister had given to updating the ministerial code since taking office, and it asked him to set out the process for appointing independent advisers on the ministerial code, including whether any consideration was given to how long they should remain in post.

The First Minister’s initial response confirmed his intention to publish an updated edition of the ministerial code, and it indicated that the length of service of independent advisers on the code was a matter that is agreed between the First Minister and the individual advisers.

The most recent correspondence from the First Minister confirms the publication of an updated ministerial code, following the appointment of three new independent advisers. The First Minister’s response states that, as per the updated code, those advisers can begin investigations into alleged breaches of the code without a referral from him, and that when a breach is established, the advisers can recommend appropriate sanctions.

The petitioner’s response welcomes the changes that enable independent advisers to initiate investigations and to recommend sanctions and changes to the code, but highlights concerns that the code has not been put under statute and that there is no requirement on ministers to make a public commitment to abide by it. The petitioner also raises concerns that the designation of advisers as independent may cause confusion, with people believing that “independent” suggests a judicial role. However, I feel that a certain amount of progress—some might say that it is unexpected—has been made on the substance of the petition.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE2108, lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. The petition was last considered on 9 October 2024.

In its response to the committee, the Scottish Government states that it is confident that one medical opinion is sufficient for the granting of a short-term detention certificate, because of the additional safeguards and patients’ rights that are provided for in the 2003 act.

The petitioner and his wife, Clair Muir, have provided a joint written submission, which details Mrs Muir’s personal experience of being under a short-term detention certificate. The petitioner explains that, during Mrs Muir’s treatment, further investigation by a new responsible medical officer resulted in that treatment being brought to a conclusion. He believes that their experience would have been better had a second medical opinion been available before detention started.

The issues in the petition are familiar to many of us, and the petitioners have drawn our attention to them on a number of occasions. Given the Scottish Government’s response, what might we do now?

With some regret, we feel that we can do nothing further, in the face of the Government’s response.

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?