Seòmar agus comataidhean

The point about the capacity to deliver the course is interesting, and I think that the SQA’s response is fair. I am not aware of the number of people in Scotland who are qualified in BSL, but it might be worth trying to establish a route to a solution with Scottish Government colleagues.

It might also be worth trying to engage with the further education sector, perhaps including certain colleges that might be able to offer BSL as a qualification. On that basis, if we are able to establish some understanding about the logistics of delivery, it might enable the SQA to work towards developing a qualification that could be offered.

We might not have a BSL teacher in every school in Scotland, but the course might be offered at a school or a college within a local authority area and that would allow interested students to apply to do the course. I am sure that there is a way of working through the issue that has been identified, and it might be worth looking at how we can bring stakeholders together to see whether we can hammer that out.

I congratulate Mr Choudhury for making such an elegant case on behalf of his constituent, the petitioner, and I thank him for coming to the committee. I agree with the points that he raised and with Mr Torrance’s comments.

In my time as a representative in Glasgow, the issue has been brought up with me time and again, particularly by the Spiers family who, a few years ago, launched the Christopher’s saving lives campaign, after their son tragically drowned in the River Clyde.

I have also met representatives from the Glasgow Humane Society, who raised a number of recurring issues about a lack of confidence when people encounter difficulty, particularly in open and tidal waters, as well as a lack of respect for life-saving equipment, which is frequently vandalised and removed—often by young people. There is an issue around general education in that area.

Teaching kids to swim is a fundamental life-saving exercise; it is not necessarily a recreational activity. That is the fundamental consideration. It is a public safety matter, rather than a sporting matter and that needs to be the consideration and basis on which we take the work forward. Furthermore, the issue of certain councils’ infrastructure might be a valid concern. Not every school has a swimming pool or ready access to leisure centres.

However, we might also want to consider education with regard to open-water swimming and open-water confidence. Outdoor education was certainly a big part of my primary education and, given that confidence in open water is the main issue here, that might well be a consideration. As has been mentioned, there was the tragedy that happened at Loch Lomond last summer when young people got into difficulty.

That is a major issue to consider, and it might not raise the same issues with regard to physical infrastructure, given that there are plenty of opportunities to experience open-water swimming in Scotland at a relatively low cost. It is just a matter of introducing children to that environment and explaining some of the hidden dangers in such waters. The Glasgow Humane Society, for example, has described mud as being one of the main safety issues in rivers. The fact is that a lot of people drown not because they cannot swim but because they get stuck in mud and cannot physically remove themselves from the river. Obviously that is a distressing situation for someone to be in, and it is not for want of being able to swim but a lack of awareness of how treacherous river banks can be. It is that broader spectrum of education that needs to be introduced to our schools.

The issue of council finances is a long-running one. It has been a picture of long-term decline, certainly over the past decade—I think that the overall figure is that, on average, 10p in every £1 that a council in Scotland has to spend has been cut over that period. Bearing in mind that 80 per cent of a council’s budget is set by the Scottish Government, the power in relation to council budget decisions lies largely with central Government. Only 20 per cent of a council’s finances can be raised through local charges and the council tax. Therefore, local government’s capacity to generate its own income is constrained.

Furthermore, as the SPICe report points out, there has been an increase in the level of ring fencing—that is, in the slice of a council’s budget that has strings attached, which means that it cannot be used on a discretionary basis or has to be displaced from existing budget lines and used to deliver Scottish Government-mandated projects. In effect, that is a way of funding central Government priorities indirectly through stealth, by displacing existing budget demands on local government.

That compounds the financial pressure that councils face. I accept that the latest figures from SPICe require updating but, from what I can discern, the pressure on local government has not relented. That is indicated by the recent reports that every council leader in Scotland from across the parties has written to the First Minister to request an emergency meeting to discuss council financing. That indicates that, regardless of party affiliation, this is a major issue confronting local government. Through COSLA, the leaders of all 32 councils have sought an emergency meeting with the First Minister to discuss the issue.

The acuteness of the matter has not abated, so the concerns that have been raised are valid. It would be worth while seeking information on the latest figures and impacts. We should also take a longer-term view of local government finance.

What I find problematic in the minister’s response to the committee is the fact that absolute figures in isolation do not illustrate the problem. We have to consider the percentage position relative to previous years. Also, looking at the issue in cash terms in isolation is not necessarily helpful, when we have seen an inflationary spiral in the past year and significant pressures on wages are likely in the next financial year. All those things need to be properly unpacked and considered, rather than just throwing figures at us that sound impressive on the face of it but do not give the full context.

I am not entirely convinced by the response. On that basis, I think that there is merit in continuing the petition to gather further evidence.

I noted the petitioner’s requests and the feedback that we received. In particular, I noted that the Scottish Government said that it did not believe that the use of body cameras would necessarily be appropriate for all front-line clinical staff, given that the safety risks vary considerably across different job roles.

Obviously, there are also patient confidentiality issues. That concern has been reiterated by the BMA. Confidentiality, breach of trust, sensitivity, data protection—[Inaudible.]—wide. However, I think that there are certain instances in which the use of such devices might be appropriate and might be worth considering more thoroughly.

To that end, I propose that we write to the Scottish Ambulance Service to request more information on its trial of the use of body cameras and to ask when it expects the trial to conclude and how the findings from it will be utilised. I also propose that we write to the Scottish Government to ask what plans it has to review the findings of the Ambulance Service’s trial and to scale up the use of the measure, should the trial prove to be successful and it be deemed appropriate for the use of body cameras to be tried out more widely.

I think that I was referring to the 32 council leaders, who have written en masse to the Scottish Government in recent weeks to express their concern about the latest budget round. It would be helpful to understand their collective position.

I am all right, thank you, convener.

I think—possibly because of my ex-Army background—that school uniform is a fine thing and it builds school identity. I will not rehearse all the arguments about it, because I think that they have been had before. A wider consideration is the financial effect of school uniform and some of the financial pressures that are faced by families. There have been some interesting innovations in that regard, particularly in Glasgow, with Glasgow’s Pre-Loved Uniform Service, which was set up by Donna Henderson. It is basically an exchange, because a lot of kids grow so fast that they outgrow clothing that is still perfectly usable. The service has been trying to reduce waste as well as addressing some issues around financial exclusion by introducing clothing rails in schools around Glasgow so that people can exchange items of uniform and refurbish uniforms.

When we are thinking about the issue of uniforms, we might want to think about how they are provided to kids and look at ways in which we can make the process more sustainable and reduce the turnover of uniform items that go to waste. It would be worth considering taking evidence from Donna Henderson, because she has done a fantastic job in Glasgow.

I share the petitioner’s concerns, having had dealings personally with Barrhead Travel in my region, which is one of the largest travel agents in the UK. It has raised concerns that the package of support was designed largely for hotels, hospitality venues and tourist attractions, which might be affected by the cessation of inbound tourism, and that similar consideration was not given to businesses that are involved with outbound tourism, and particularly travel agents. The support is geared towards travel agencies with premises but, even then, because of the way that the scheme is constructed, some businesses with multiple premises or companies such as Barrhead Travel, which employs nearly 500 people, do not necessarily qualify for support.

There is a major concern that there is a gap in the way that the system and schemes have been designed. The Northern Ireland model is certainly worth investigating as a benchmark. Before Christmas, I raised the matter with Ivan McKee, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, and I was not convinced by his response. He made a point about having engaged with Barrhead Travel and, in effect, the company disputed that that was the case. There is clearly an issue about the level of engagement with the industry, and that is not to mention the issue of the design of the support structures. Clearly, people feel that they have been let down.

It is therefore appropriate for us to interrogate the matter further. We should write to the Scottish Government to raise the issue of the Northern Ireland scheme and ask why it has not been emulated. Perhaps we should also seek evidence from stakeholders. I nominate Barrhead Travel, but it might be worth investigating the position of other major participants in the sector.

I suppose that it is an issue of capacity. After taking out Government ministers and other members who cannot participate in CPGs, the number of members who are available to participate in any given CPG is quite restricted. I have a personal interest in the industry, having worked in the sector previously, so I felt that there was a gap in the market in which to set it up. I am grateful to colleagues for their support, and I hope that the CPG’s first year will be a success.

Thank you, convener.