Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are several increasingly focused and quite serious issues.

Would anybody else like to come in?

PE1898, which is our final continued petition this morning, was lodged by Julia Gow. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it a crime for a stranger to enter someone’s home without permission or a warrant.

A response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlights that the individual facts and circumstances of each case are considered when assessing whether to prosecute. It provides a non-exhaustive list of various offences that may be relevant in a circumstance where a person enters the home of another person without their permission.

Similarly, Police Scotland stated that cases are dealt with according to the circumstances and evidence presented, stating that it is unaware of any scenarios where the existing law is insufficient to deal with matters criminally if required.

The petitioner’s response recognises that there are offences that may cover specific circumstances but emphasises that no law currently exists for the specific circumstance that is outlined in her petition. She states that that is frustrating.

Do colleagues have any comments?

I note that Police Scotland does not believe there are scenarios in which it has insufficient powers. Again, I am not sure that I have bottomed out what the extent of the issue might be but, given what Police Scotland has said and the evidence in the responses that we have received, I think that it is unlikely that the Scottish Government is minded to take the issues further forward. Mr Torrance has suggested that we close the petition under rule 15.7. Do colleagues support that?

Members indicated agreement.

Under item 3, we have just one new petition to consider. As I say to any petitioner tuning in for the first time, in advance of our consideration of a new petition we send it to the Scottish Government to seek its views so that our discussion is just a little bit better informed before we launch into consideration of it.

PE1913 has been lodged by Wendy Swain and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department in Social Security Scotland that will fast-track future adult disability payment applications for people with a cancer diagnosis while they are undergoing treatment.

I am delighted to welcome Martin Whitfield, who is joining the committee on his first visit to the public petitions process, I think. We will hear from him in a moment, but first I will provide some further background on the petition.

Adult disability payment will replace personal independence payment in 2022. The Scottish Government’s submission states that the definition of terminal illness will be changed under ADP to remove arbitrary time constraints and ensure that decisions are better informed by clinical judgment. Research into the impact of the new definition has revealed that the number of people with cancer accessing ADP using the fast-track process will more than double compared to Department for Work and Pensions fast tracking.

It is estimated that the number of terminally ill ADP recipients who have cancer will increase from 2,800 to approximately 8,200 under the new definition—a whopping increase—and it is projected that a majority of ADP recipients with cancer, 62 per cent, will be able to use fast-tracked processes, compared with less than a third who were able to do so under PIP. Further changes to the delivery of disability benefits through ADP are detailed in the clerk’s note. The Scottish Government has stated that it does not support an additional fast-track route specifically for people with cancer and that its approach will not prioritise any single condition over another.

The petitioner shares the experience of her family member who has incurable blood cancer and who has been told that his illness is not affecting his life enough for him to receive PIP.

Before the committee considers the petition, I welcome Martin Whitfield and invite him to speak in support of it.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their contributions.

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

I am delighted to say that we are joined by our colleague Foysol Choudhury MSP. Good morning, Mr Choudhury. I will invite you to speak in a minute or so but, before I do so I will provide a bit more background to the following proceedings.

We previously considered the petition in November of last year, when we agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek data on how many schools provide swimming lessons as part of the curriculum. We also wrote to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and Scottish Swimming.

COSLA’s submission states that, currently,

“There are no local or national mechanisms in place”

to collect the data, and notes that the delivery of swimming lessons can depend on factors such as access to facilities, cost and delivery model. The latest figures, which are pre-pandemic and are for 2018-19, suggest that

“21 Local Authorities were offering swimming activity through the Active Schools Network.”

Scottish Swimming notes in its submission that

“there were over 106,000 children enrolled in learn to swim programmes ... prior to the pandemic”.

The submission also highlights data that suggests that

“there is a direct correlation between a child’s socio-economic background and their opportunity to learn to swim.”

Scottish Swimming states that it has submitted a proposal to the Scottish Government in support of a programme of school swimming and is currently involved in discussions with sportscotland on its potential development.

We also received a submission from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which highlights the need for any swimming programme to include consideration of outdoor water survival skills.

The petitioner suggests that the current policy of allowing councils to choose whether to provide swimming lessons is unfair, leading to many children missing out or being forced to take private lessons, which might be inaccessible to lower-income families or those living in rural areas.

Before I turn to members of the committee, I ask Mr Choudhury whether he would like to comment on the petition’s aims.

Thank you for those very helpful comments.

We have had quite a comprehensive discussion this morning. I see no indication that other committee members wish to come in, so I thank Foysol Choudhury for joining us this morning.

I think that we will keep Mr Condy’s petition open and write as David Torrance has suggested, but I suggest that we also include some of the themes that Paul Sweeney has talked about and highlight not just the teaching of swimming as people would traditionally think of it in controlled environments such as swimming pools but the life-saving benefits of what one might call, for want of a better description, wild swimming in its widest sense and as described in the conversation that we have just had. It might go slightly broader than the range of the petition, but we could look at what more might be done to progress the issue in a way that would save lives, even though ultimately the petition’s objective with regard to swimming pools is slightly impractical for certain local authorities. There is certainly a very important issue at the heart of this.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to seek further information on the basis that has been proposed?

Members indicated agreement.

Once again, I thank Mr Choudhury for joining us this morning.

PE1912, on funding for council venues, has been lodged by Wendy Dunsmore. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide councils with the necessary additional revenue to run essential services and venues.

It is worth noting that the SPICe briefing on the petition, the Scottish Government’s submission and the petitioner’s submission were all written before the Scottish Government budget 2022-23 was published, which happened on 9 December 2021. Key points from a separate SPICe briefing on local government finance that was produced following the budget’s publication include the facts that, once additional revenue and capital grants are factored in, the total local government settlement increased by £603 million, or 5.1 per cent, between 2021-22 and 2022-23; and that there will be a real-terms increase in provisional revenue allocations for all local authorities, except Western Isles Council, Shetland Islands Council and Orkney Islands Council, which all experience small real-terms reductions.

In his submission, the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth highlights the 2021-22 settlement of £11.7 billion, stating that it provided “a cash increase” in local government spending. The petitioner’s submission is a collective response to the minister from Unite, Unison and the GMB. Although they recognise that local authorities make decisions about service provision and delivery, they note that those decisions are not without

“unfair challenges caused by a real terms reduction of funding”.

The petitioner’s submission also points out that, as much of the £11.7 billion settlement figure is ring fenced for Scottish Government commitments, it is therefore “not technically available” for local authority spending decisions.

I invite comments from colleagues.