Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have tried to consider the petition carefully. As a solicitor formerly in private practice for a quarter of a century, I dealt with quite a lot of matrimonial work and the financial settlement on divorce, which, as the minister said in her reply, is covered by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

One understands that both parties to divorce usually have very strong feelings and often feel that the division of the cake is unfair, and one can sympathise with that in certain circumstances. However, the Government has set out clearly that it is not in favour of that policy, and there is really no prospect whatsoever that it will change those principles.

I think that the 1985 act is a very good piece of legislation, and I want to make one specific point clear, which may not be immediately apparent. Under the act, the assets that fall to be divided between the parties are classified as matrimonial property, that is, property that is brought in in anticipation of marriage or property that is acquired or created during the period of the marriage, from the date of the marriage until the date of the separation or raising of the writ, if there has not been a separation.

In other words, the point is that, if you get married at, say, 50 and then divorced at 55, and you took out a pension when you were 25 and you still have that pension, then only the proportion of the pension attributable to the time period relating to the date of the marriage and the date of the separation falls to be taken into account. That is because the law recognises that there needs to be a recognition of the contributions of both parties in bringing up children and so on. If there is one breadwinner, the other spouse—usually, though not always, the female—may often have substantial childcare responsibilities.

The law is quite sophisticated. It seems to me to have stood the test of time. It seeks to be fair and, although the petitioner feels that it is unfair, I am not persuaded by her arguments. Therefore, on this occasion—I have not said this for a while—I agree with the Scottish Government.

Well, that is interesting. “Algorithms” was the word that I was unsuccessfully hunting for.

I think that we have probably pursued the issue as far as we can at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, so I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis of four factors. First, the guidance on the visibility of pedestrian crossings is set out in the UK-wide guidance on the design of pedestrian crossings. Secondly, national planning framework 4 highlights safe crossing, pedestrian priority and reduced street clutter as desirable qualities. Thirdly, the Scottish Government considers that it is for local authorities to identify streets that are in need of decluttering. Fourthly, the day-to-day enforcement of the pavement parking prohibitions, along with consideration of reporting systems, is also the responsibility of local authorities.

Taking account of those factors, I recommend that we close the petition.

I entirely agree that there should be a debate in due course. However, prior to that point, and to inform both the debate and the committee’s work, it would be useful to glean more information. We could write to the Deputy First Minister to seek an update on any further action that the Scottish Government is taking in respect of the action points that were mentioned in her correspondence of 5 December 2024. We could also write to the leader of Glasgow City Council to ask that she meet the Fornethy survivors to discuss their continuing request for recognition of and redress for the abuse that they experienced at Fornethy house.

There seems to have been what we might call a tussle as to whether the Scottish Government or Glasgow City Council should pay. That is a pretty unseemly scrap, and it is preferable that it not take place. However, given that the Deputy First Minister seems to be trying to get the council to pay up, I think that we should find out what the council’s view is.

In my view, the Government should pay up anyway. If it wants to use its muscle to try to recover from Glasgow City Council, that is fair enough. The Government has the firepower, the lawyers and the taxpayers’ money to enable it to get the money back, but the Fornethy survivors do not. Why should they be in the position of begging for what they should have had in the first place? I am sorry, convener—those last remarks were unscripted.

I was impressed by Mr Bibby and Mr MacGregor’s arguments, and by the range of support across political parties for ensuring that, in Scotland, we go back to the golden age that we enjoyed in our boyhood, convener—I thought that I had pulled rank in you in terms of age, but hey ho. As one moves gently towards the other end of life, nearer the crematorium stage, and as one suffers more from things such as arthritis and so on, and cannot do load-bearing exercise, an awful lot of people whose exercise consists of swimming cannot do other forms. The issue is not only about children and life-saving; it is beneficial in other ways.

I was also struck by Mr MacGregor’s point that all sports are beneficial if we take part in them. They are good for mental health, physical health, wellbeing, endorphins and all the rest of it. Believe it or not, I used to be quite active on that front myself. However, he made the salient point that swimming is different. It has far more benefits and a broader range of benefits than just life-saving and so on. Your comments are also entirely endorsed, convener, so I do not think that we should close the petition at all.

Moreover, towards the next election, I would not be surprised if the issue finds its way into the manifestos, certainly of the main parties. We have to make choices, and local authorities are the ones who have to make provision, but the passing of the buck by the Scottish Government to local authorities is not acceptable, really. It is just not on. You cannot pass the buck if you are in charge.

If the Government wants suggestions about saving money, I would ask why we do not have full swimming pools instead of empty cycle lanes all over the place? The Government seems to have unlimited funds to construct cycle lanes, which, as far as I can see, remain empty from dawn to dusk, not least because they are on steep hills, which nobody except Olympian cyclists can actually navigate. That is just one suggestion. I could come up with five or six others quite easily, but I will spare the committee that.

Holding a round-table discussion is the very least that we can do. I wonder whether we could pause and think about what else we might do, because, unlike so many other topics that are plainly the responsibility of local authorities, such as refuse collection, which are vital functions in themselves, swimming has a far broader range of benefits. We cannot just say that it is a matter for local authorities.

I know that other members have taken an acute interest in this and we could ask for their views about who to invite to a round-table discussion so that we do not exclude anyone. Liz Smith would be one example.

I do not think that there is any real alternative other than to close the petition, for the reasons that Mr Torrance has set out, so I would not oppose that. However, this is an area of lingering and continuous public concern, not only on salary levels but on the levels of some pay-offs that are made to very senior people, which are of telephone number amounts. It just never seems to end. I want to register the fact that the Government has completely failed to address the issue, and it just goes on and on. It is the same at Westminster, so it is not only a Scottish problem. It seems that, the more you get paid, the less accountable you are—we never see the top civil servants. Some of them get paid more than £200,000—or one of them does, anyway.

The petitioner has raised a legitimate area of public concern. A study would not necessarily advance the petition unless there was a will to do something aboot it, and I am afraid that there seems to be a lack of will to do anything about it. That is my impression. I know that petitioners get very angry when they think that their petition has been rejected out of hand, but I do not think that there is anything that we in the committee can do about it. I just thought that I would put that on the record.

It is a sort of modern version of Parkinson’s law: the more you get paid and the higher up you are in a quango, the less accountable you are.

We should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to highlight the issues that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the petition, including concerns about, first, the evidence base for designating a new national park, particularly regarding the impact of existing national parks; secondly, the lack of clarity and trust in the consultation process that is being conducted by NatureScot; and, thirdly, the need for an independent review of the existing national parks and their performance, which was what the petition called for inter alia.

During the committee’s evidence session with the cabinet secretary, she indicated that she had ruled out—apparently absolutely—holding a referendum of people living within whatever boundaries were proposed to be set for the national park. However, since then, Dumfries and Galloway Council has held a vote, the result of which, by a very substantial majority, was that there should be a local referendum. Therefore, in the committee’s letter to the rural secretary, can we ask whether she is aware of that vote, what her response is, and whether she will reconsider that decision in the light of the very clear expression of the opinion of local representatives.

Finally, out of respect, so that it is involved and given its knowledge of the area, could we write to the council to ask for the details of its decision and how it believes that matters might be progressed?

So, the compromise is that we make the Scottish Parliament great again, slowly. That is fine with me.