Chamber and committees

We would formally agree to take evidence when we have received the written submissions that we are seeking to receive in the first instance. Are members content to proceed on that basis and to keep the petition open? I think that that was David Torrance’s proposal. We will write to NHS Highland to seek its views on the petition. We can then combine that representation with any representations that we have received on PE1845. Having done that, we will probably formally agree to take oral evidence on the petition.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1891, which was lodged by Lewis Alexander Condy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all children will have had the opportunity to learn to swim by making it a statutory requirement to provide lessons in the primary school curriculum.

The petitioner notes:

“In 2017, it was estimated that 40% of children left primary school not being able to swim.”

He has pointed out that there is currently no requirement for local authorities to provide school swimming lessons in Scotland.

The SPICe briefing that accompanies the petition notes:

“Local authorities have a statutory duty to secure an adequate and efficient education for children of school-age in their area; what this education should entail is not set out in legislation. In fact, very little of the school curriculum is statutory.”

The Scottish Government has reiterated that point, and it has stated that the curriculum is designed to allow local flexibility and acknowledged that some schools already offer swimming lessons through the curriculum and others offer them through their active schools programme.

Through sportscotland, the Scottish Government works with Scottish Swimming, whose priority is that every child should learn to swim. It is currently in discussions on how to expand its programme.

The petitioner suggests that it is unfair to allow councils to choose whether to provide swimming lessons, as it leads to many children missing out or being forced to take private lessons, which may be inaccessible to lower-income families or those who live in rural areas. He believes that making the provision of swimming lessons in school a mandatory requirement will redress that inequality.

My recollection is that, when I was younger, there was quite an in-your-face public awareness and information campaign on the need to learn how to swim, by whatever means. Maybe it is just because the message is no longer targeted at me, but I am less aware of there being any such campaign now. We are told that the Scottish Government is in conversation with Scottish Swimming on how it can expand its programme, and I would be very interested to find out how that might be done.

PE1893, on introducing legislation to protect Scotland’s war memorials, was lodged by James Watson on behalf of the friends of Dennistoun war memorial group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that recognises desecration or vandalism of war memorials as a specific criminal offence.

The Scottish Government notes in its submission that the petition is identical to a previously closed petition, PE1830, which must have been considered towards the end of the previous parliamentary session, and that its position on the matter remains unchanged. The Scottish Government therefore refers to its previous submission for its full response. That submission advises that vandalism is a crime regardless of the motivations for it and that the Government condemns all acts of malicious vandalism and graffiti. The submission notes that, as legislation is currently in place to deal with the vandalism and desecration of statutes and memorials, including war memorials, the Scottish Government has no current plans to introduce new legislation for that specific purpose.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1896 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle that is provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable, reusable, metal bottle.

The petitioner is aged seven years old and is called Callum Isted. I believe that he might be the youngest petitioner that there has been to the Scottish Parliament, so I congratulate him straight away on that. He advises that, each week, schoolchildren are given 250ml disposable plastic water bottles to have with their lunches. He feels strongly that that is the wrong thing to do.

Callum has been campaigning to have reusable water bottles since early this year and is determined that his campaign will succeed. He has solved the problem for his school and now wants to help the whole of Scotland. He points out that some schools do not have working facilities such as drinking taps. He and his eco group at school have asked for the broken taps in his school to be repaired.

Callum does not understand why the Scottish Government cannot provide funding to councils to provide reusable water bottles. He also mentions COP26 and the fact that some children in Scotland cannot access safe drinking water without damaging the oceans with single use plastic.

The Scottish Government submission details the requirement that free drinking water must be readily available for all children and young people throughout the school day, as per the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020—that sounds very Mr Gradgrind. However, the nutritional standards and the associated statutory guidance do not specify the way in which water should be provided, and the Scottish Government states that that is a matter for individual education authorities to determine. The Covid-19 pandemic was cited as one reason why education authorities and schools might not wish to progress with providing reusable water bottles, given concerns about communal water facilities.

I am delighted that we are joined by Sue Webber MSP, who has an interest in the petition. I invite her to make any comments that she wishes to the committee.

That school has a very active campaigner on the ground.

We would love to have Callum come to the Scottish Parliament. That will be no challenge to him at all, after he takes on the world at COP later this week.

As well as inviting Callum to come to the Parliament to give evidence in support of his petition, I propose that we invite some of the stakeholders to join us on that occasion to explore the issues raised in the petition in some detail. However, in the first instance, we should write to them to get some idea of their views on the issues that have been raised. Are we all agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy to include Citizens Advice Scotland. We will keep the petition open and seek information from the bodies suggested by Paul Sweeney and Bill Kidd. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the sixth meeting in session 6—we have six MSPs this morning as well, so that is 666—of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We are meeting in hybrid format and Paul Sweeney is joining us remotely. Our only agenda item is the consideration of new petitions.

To those petitioners who might be following our proceedings, I say that, as a first step, we write to the Scottish Government for their views on the petitions that we are considering, and that all members of the committee have the opportunity to consider the detailed submissions that we receive in advance of our consideration of petitions.

Our first petition is PE1883, on the opening of toddler and baby activities in tier 3 of Covid-19 and any future pandemic lockdowns, which has been lodged by Katrina Clark. I am very pleased to welcome our colleague Jackie Baillie, who will speak in support of the petition. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow baby and toddler activities to be considered equally with other indoor activities in tier 3 of future lockdowns.

In its response, the Scottish Government states that guidance was available from September 2020 for unregulated organised children’s activities and was developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders; that soft play centres in level 0 and level 1 areas began to reopen from 2 November 2020; and that all centres were able to reopen on 19 July 2021.

The response highlights support for families during the pandemic, including in relation to play and wellbeing, and notes that, due to the fluid nature of the pandemic, the Scottish Government is not in a position to rule out further Covid-19-related restrictions or to advise on what those might be.

The petitioner’s response points out that, even though guidance was in place from late 2020 onwards,

“the general consensus from parents on social media ... was that baby/toddler groups were not available until March/April/May of this year.”

The petitioner draws comparisons with the reopening of pubs and cafes, and suggests that age groups were not treated equally. She also highlights the impact on speech and language.

Before members comment on the petition, I wonder whether Jackie Baillie would care to speak in support of it.

PE1887, which was lodged by Nicola Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that has been provided sets out the current legal framework and explores how various criminal offences may apply to instances of domestic abuse during pregnancy. The information is summarised in the clerk’s note, which notes that women are at increased risk of physical abuse, and particularly domestic violence, during pregnancy and early maternity.

The Scottish Government submission provides information on the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, stating that it enables physical, psychological and controlling behaviours to be prosecuted at once, which includes certain forms of psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour that were previously difficult to prosecute.

However, in her submission, the petitioner shares her experience of domestic abuse, which sadly led to the loss of her child. She explains that she was hit by a car and that her injuries caused her to miscarry, which led to her partner taking a plea deal of reckless and culpable conduct with a domestic abuse aggravator. The sentence was a payment of just £300 compensation.

The petitioner explains the impact of the incident, including permanent left-side weakness, difficulty in walking for long periods or distances, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and grief.

In 2018, the petitioner conducted a study with 40 female domestic abuse survivors, the main findings of which are provided in the clerk’s note. Do colleagues wish to speak about this serious petition?

Would anybody like to comment?