Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. If you are joining us to watch our excitements this morning, it is nice to have you with us. We look forward to a series of continued petitions and new petitions.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take in private item 4, which relates to correspondence that we have received. Are members content to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Our second item is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those, PE1865, which was lodged by Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices.

Katy Clark had hoped to be here to speak to the petition but is unable to join us, and I understand that one of the petitioners has been ill and, therefore, was not able to make a submission that they would have liked us to consider as part of our consideration of the petition this morning. In the light of that, I suggest that we defer consideration of the petition until our next meeting, in order that the petitioner be given the opportunity to make their additional submission. Do colleagues agree?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2018, on recognising the value of swimming pools and providing financial relief to help keep pools open, has been lodged by Helen Plank on behalf of Scottish Swimming. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to keep our swimming pools and leisure centres open by providing financial investment for pools.

We have been joined for our consideration of the petition by our MSP colleagues Neil Bibby and Fulton MacGregor, both of whom I welcome to the meeting. I am familiar with the fact that this item had some airtime in the chamber last week, with considerable widespread cross-party support underpinning the matter.

When we previously considered the petition, in March last year, we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister now tells us in her response that she has met Scottish Swimming to discuss its report, “The Future of Swimming Facilities in Scotland”, and she says that, although the Scottish Government recognises the financial challenges that are faced by local government, it remains of the view that it is for locally elected representatives to make decisions on how best to deliver services to their communities, including the provision of leisure facilities—although some of us might say that these are life-saving, never mind leisure, facilities.

We have received a submission from the petitioner highlighting Dundee City Council’s plans to close five school swimming pools, which she has used as a further example of the budgetary pressures that are facing councils across Scotland and which are putting public pools at risk of closure. The submission also summarises opinion polling on the benefits of swimming pools, showing 88 per cent of responses agreeing that pools are important for communities, and indeed often act as community hubs. They are also important because they teach people how to save their own and, perhaps, other people’s lives in extremis.

We have also received correspondence from our colleague Liz Smith reiterating her support for the petition.

Before I invite comments from the committee, I invite Neil Bibby and Fulton MacGregor to contribute to our discussion. I will bring them in alphabetically, so we will start with Mr Bibby.

In the light of what we have been told, are colleagues minded to accept David Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we agreed on that? If colleagues agree, I would like to refer to the response that we received from the minister at the time. We could say that we accepted her response in good faith and are a little disappointed to find that neither of the things discussed in that response as being imminent has actually happened. That is of concern.

That is partly why I thought that we should also approach the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

I know that our colleagues are not here to give evidence but, having heard their submissions, I wonder whether they think that there are any organisations that we might want to include in any round-table discussion, beyond those that we have already mentioned.

As an alternative route forward, we could highlight to the petitioner that they could seek to approach a member of the next Parliament to see whether they would be minded to introduce a member’s bill on the subject, rather than simply come back with a fresh petition.

Are colleagues content that we act on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are you content with that suggestion, Mr Golden?

Thank you for that, Mr Ewing. Having heard that, are colleagues content, on this occasion, to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2060, which was lodged by Daithi Broad, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. This is another petition that we last considered on 7 February. We agreed to seek the Scottish Government’s views on whether it intends to carry out work relating to the issues raised in the petition and to ask whether it would carry out any relevant awareness-raising work.

The Minister for Victims and Community Safety states that the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 effectively addresses the issue of persistent repeated trespassing. She also states that the Scottish Government does not consider that strengthening of the act is required and that no further work is planned in the area. She explains that the Government has received virtually no representations on the issue and will not take any direct action unless new and substantial evidence comes to light—so there we are.