���˿���

PE2074, which was lodged by Iona Stoddart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the funding that it provides to local councils, enabling them to deliver the best possible health and social care, and help to protect the vulnerable, frail and elderly population from the closure of residential and nursing care homes.

Ms Stoddart draws our attention to research that suggests that as many as one care home a week is closing, in part due to cuts to health and social care budgets. The petition has also been prompted by proposals to close two local authority-run care homes in South Lanarkshire.

It is perhaps worth noting that, since the petition was lodged, South Lanarkshire integration joint board has passed plans to close both care homes. However, it has also written to the Scottish Government in an attempt to secure funding that would enable the closures to be reconsidered.

The SPICe briefing notes that it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to allocate funding provided by the Scottish Government based on local needs and priorities. The briefing also notes the Accounts Commission publication, “Local government in Scotland: Overview 2023”, which includes reference to a UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers that found that 44 per cent of respondents identified adult social care as a service at risk of cuts. I think that any MSP would be aware of the pressures on all health and social care partnerships in their constituencies and the particular cuts that are being imposed unless care is defined as critical or essential.

The Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has responded to the petition, stating that this is

“not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in”,

and that it is up to each democratically elected council how it manages the spending of discretionary budget allocations. In doing so, the minister notes

“record funding of over £13.9 billion”

being delivered as part of the latest local government settlement.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am minded to say that I am inclined to write to the Minister for Local Government, Empowerment and Planning to seek his reflections on the UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, which found that 44 per cent of council chief executives and senior managers had identified adult social care as a service that was at risk of cuts due to very large gaps in local government budgets. I am not prepared to sweep the issues that are raised by this new petition under the carpet on the back of what we have heard from the Government so far. I suspect that the position has deteriorated even since the petition was lodged. Do colleagues have any views?

Thank you, Ms Baillie. We have a suggestion to write to the Royal Town Planning Institute. Do colleagues have any other suggestions to make?

Given the technical nature of the issue, the responses that we have received and, as has been said, the quite helpful summary of procedure from the Government—which partly addresses the aims of the petition and the question of the petitioner—Mr Ewing has proposed that we close the petition on that basis. Are members content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2077, which was lodged by Thomas Ross, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove personal and social education—often referred to as PSE—PSE from the curriculum for excellence and for it to stop being taught in secondary schools. The petitioner notes that, in their view, PSE is “a useless subject” that takes up secondary school pupils’ learning time.

The SPICe briefing notes that health and wellbeing is a key area of curriculum for excellence and that PSE is one of the ways in which schools support the health and wellbeing curriculum. The briefing also notes that PSE lessons can cover aspects of planning for choices and changes, substance misuse, relationships, sexual health and parenthood and financial literacy, as well as aspects of physical activity, sport and health.

In her response to the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills notes that

“PSE offers us an opportunity to ensure children and young people are prepared for the issues and challenges that life may bring”,

and makes the key point that

“The Scottish Government has no plans to remove PSE from the national curriculum.”

The cabinet secretary also highlights the Education and Skills Committee 2017 report, which noted

“how valuable good PSE is to young people”,

and says that the Scottish Government continues to take forward the recommendations of that report.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. We will, unusually, meet next Wednesday, when we will hear evidence from the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, about the A9 dualling project.

We have had no suggestion that that session will not take place.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1975, which is on reforming the law relating to strategic lawsuits against public participation—commonly referred to as SLAPPs. The petition was lodged by Roger Mullin and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April 2024. At that point, we heard evidence from Professor Justin Borg-Barthet, Graeme Johnston, Roger Mullin and Ahsan Mustafa. I again thank our witnesses from that session for their evidence.

This morning, after our various considerations, I am pleased to welcome Siobhian Brown MSP, who is the Minister for Victims and Community Safety; Martin Brown, who is a solicitor with the Scottish Government’s legal directorate; and Michael Paparakis, who is the policy and bill programme manager at the Scottish Government’s private law unit.

I understand that, before we move to questions, the minister wants to make a short statement.

All of which is noted.

I point out that the petition was launched in September 2022, which makes it something of a teenager in our schedule of petitions. If that is a pensioner petition then, by that definition, some of our petitions are out of the Jurassic period.

We can agree on that point.

Minister, thank you very much. We do not need detain you any longer. I think that the petitioner’s aims are potentially in hand and can be resolved. I am grateful to you for that and for joining us with your colleagues this morning.

Welcome back. We continue our consideration of existing petitions. PE1973, on ending the use of sheriffs’ discretion when ruling on civil cases and providing clear legal guidance on the division of assets, was lodged by Sandy Izatt. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and to provide greater clarity on the division of assets in cases of cohabiting couples who are separating by removing the use of sheriffs’ discretion rulings in civil cases; providing clear legal guidance to the Law Society of Scotland on the division of assets for cohabiting couples; allowing appeals to be heard when it is determined that a sheriff has the rule of law wrong but has used their discretion to prevent an appeal, at no cost to the appellant; and publishing information on what resources have been allocated to provide clear legal guidance.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We have received a response from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety—who was just with us—in which she wrote that she was “unable to provide” an anticipated timescale for introducing a bill on cohabitation. The minister confirmed that Scottish Government officials were beginning “detailed work” on the Scottish Law Commission report on cohabitation, including an assessment of whether it would be helpful for the Government to consult on the commission’s recommendations.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who expressed his concern about the vagueness of the information that we have received on the issue and highlighted his continued concern about the use of sheriffs’ discretion in preventing appeals.

In the light of what we have heard about the petition’s progress—the Government will move forward but does not know when it will do so, and the petitioner feels that matters remain a little vague—what are committee members’ views?