Seòmar agus comataidhean

The petitioner argues that the current system is not working, but that is disputed. If the current system is still not working after the review, the option is open for the petitioner to bring the issue back, perhaps in the next parliamentary session.

My instinct is that you are probably right, and in saying that I am mindful of the huge pressures on the transport budget in all respects. Having said that, the petition is a new one, so I wonder whether we could write to Transport Scotland and ScotRail to ask whether the proposal to reopen the Alloa to Dunfermline line for passenger services will be reviewed in light of what the petitioner has described at some length in his response to the minister as the very significant housing development in the west Fife area, and general development in that area around Rosyth and so on. We could also ask what consideration has been given to using connections to provide rail services linking Dunfermline with Glasgow and Stirling without the need to go via Edinburgh.

That would at least get on the record from Transport Scotland and ScotRail what exactly they are saying about that. I strongly suspect that, once we get the responses within a few weeks, we may conclude that, with the elections next year, the issue is really a matter for debate at that time and of each party setting out its priorities for what improvements it would support in the next session of Parliament. That would be part of the process. However, because the petition is a new one, we owe it to the petitioner to try to get that further information, at the very least.

If equine guidance is currently being developed, perhaps we could ascertain when it will be produced and provided, and allow the petitioner the opportunity to comment once it has been produced. I know that he argues that guidance in itself will be insufficient, because it would not outlaw practice that he believes to be injurious. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence to support that; indeed, the minister talks about injurious ill-health side effects.

To be fair to the petitioner, if guidance is to be produced, he should be given an opportunity—given all the work that has been done subsequent to his lodging of the petition—to see whether the guidance cuts the mustard.

I am very grateful to Mr Sweeney for his most informative introduction and for giving us the interesting background to the history of the Clyde, which has a place in the hearts of many Glaswegians.

I originally hailed from Glasgow, my grandfather won a medal for swimming the Clyde and I used to be the cox to my father’s team of four oarsmen, who were called the “Senior Argonauts”. They certainly were very senior. As the cox, I managed to steer them into the river bank on many an occasion. We never needed to be rescued by George Parsonage, though, who was the riverman and who for 50 years rescued people from the Clyde. He saved so many lives; indeed, he used to say, “If there were a notch in my oar for every rescue I carried out, there’d be nae oar.”

However, irrelevant personal reflections aside, I just wanted to convey that I think that we all have an affection for the River Clyde, and many of the arguments towards the end of Mr Sweeney’s remarks about how it can better be cherished, appreciated and protected are, I think, ones that we would all agree with. Therefore, rather than close the petition, we should explore how that could be done.

Without wanting to sound any discordant note, I should also say that it was in Glasgow 48 years ago that I studied the law of persons, and I have to point out that the river cannot be a person in law. Therefore, we can have sympathy with the petitioners’ aims, but the means by which they seek to give effect to them would not, I think, really fit with Scots law—and, in saying that, I pay all my respects to other countries that have taken a different view on that matter. There could be some new form of body—after all, the Glasgow Humane Society had a role, the Clyde mission has a role and other bodies have been mentioned. A new charity could be established if that was felt necessary. That would be a more orthodox manner of pursuing aims that we might all agree are worthy ones.

The idea of having a conjoined session that deals with various important outstanding health petitions and hearing from the cabinet secretary on all of them is sensible. Incidentally, that is what we are doing with Fiona Hyslop on transport issues. It would be a good use of the committee’s time and save the cabinet secretary from repeatedly attending.

However, to take up Foysol Choudhury’s suggestion, we should make it clear that, prior to the oral evidence session, we would benefit from receiving a written response from the cabinet secretary and ask that he provides that. Actually, was it Marie McNair who made that suggestion?

One option, which I have used in dealing with the constituency case that I have described, is to compile a letter to the Lord Advocate and seek her view as the person in overall charge of prosecutions in Scotland.

We could also write back to the petitioner to seek a little bit more information and ask whether the public authority’s explanation that the onus rests with the individual to inform of a change of address is applicable in this case.

I agree with that recommendation. I note that Mr Mundell has been pursuing the issue doggedly and with feeling since the outset.

There is a very serious issue that has not, to me, been resolved, although I am no expert. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health has provided a fairly lengthy reply, unlike in some cases, so that is good. On one hand, the petitioner initially argued that there were 12 preventable deaths per week, which is quite a high incidence, but the National Screening Committee argues precisely the opposite. In her response of 21 April 2024, the minister said:

“The error, or misunderstanding of the incidence of YSCD, is why we have made repeated requests to meet with the National Screening Committee to clarify this issue … We have also requested for the NSC to transparently publish the pre-screening and post-screening incidence death rates for other conditions which meet the NSC screening criteria.”

I wonder whether we have quite got to the bottom of that, and whether, when we are writing to the cabinet secretary, we could ask whether that meeting with the National Screening Committee has taken place, what it says, what its updated position is, and what is the explanation for the apparent massive discrepancy between the two positions. If the petitioner is right, the problem is profoundly serious, not only for her, given her tragic loss, but for many families across Scotland and, indeed, the UK. We therefore have a duty to ensure that the minister’s efforts are assisted by the committee, so that we get to the bottom of this, if we possibly can.

Yes, quite so. I want to place on the record that, in her evidence, the minister was very open to suggestions and that the demeanour and tone of her evidence was encouraging in that regard. I also want to express some concerns that guidance alone is unlikely to appease those who have a real grievance.

Finally, it is only fair to put on the record that, from my quite long experience as a solicitor, I think that most property factors are fairly diligent. In the course of working in tenements, they very often deal with difficult situations in which owners are at loggerheads. In my experience, the fees that are charged are not particularly huge. I want to make it clear that the committee is not in any way suggesting that all property factors should be criticised; quite the contrary—they have a difficult and sometimes thankless job to do, albeit that it iss a necessary one, because otherwise repairs to common property would not happen.

Where there is overcharging, I do not think that the law has any real remedy other than going to court, which is so expensive that nobody will ever take it up unless they are a multimillionaire—in which case they probably do not live in a flat on Govanhill Street, so there we are.

In other words, we would have both. First, we have the written response, which we can study, and that will better inform our examination and evidence-taking session.