Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

That is all helpful context, but this is what I am trying to get at. There is currently a relatively known number of people in Scotland who use drugs and might benefit from rehabilitation if that service were available to them. If we assume a fairly high take-up rate, do we have an understanding of the capacity that would be required?

Obviously, everyone presenting at once would be unrealistic, but has there been any consideration on your part of the rough numbers that we would be looking at in terms of scale, staffing and facilities? It might be that all of that is perfectly fine—my question is about whether you have looked at the logistics in any detail.

I appreciate the feedback on the planning for the Commonwealth games.

I want to pick up on the point about legacy, and, in particular, the opportunities for developing capital facilities that are not currently being utilised. For example, Whitehill pool in the city’s Dennistoun district, which is close to Tollcross international swimming centre, has been closed since December 2023 due to the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which has displaced a number of local clubs, including ones that focus on people with disabilities.

Has sportscotland engaged with the organising committee for the 2026 games and the Commonwealth Games Federation about what capital investment opportunities are available to ensure that facilities, in particular in the deprived parts of Glasgow, can be repaired in time for there to be a legacy proposition for the Commonwealth games?

That is great. One of the core venues for the Commonwealth games is Scotstoun stadium, the main tenant of which, Glasgow Warriors, is looking into developing the facilities. Are there any discussions about how the capital investment can assist with a longer-term legacy in rugby development—for Glasgow Warriors in particular—at the stadium?

That is no problem.

I will quickly return to an earlier point on equalities and equity of access to sport as a potential legacy of the Commonwealth games. I believe that a concern was raised at the November meeting of the Scottish Sports Council Trust Company board regarding

“strategies to engage key groups, such as BAME children experiencing poverty.”

It was highlighted that there were

“challenges in identifying specific students within schools”

and that there could be better use of

“data to target support and remove barriers, including financial assistance.”

Could the Commonwealth games offer an opportunity to enrich the data picture on engaging young people, especially those from deprived backgrounds or ethnic minority backgrounds? Do you think that looking at that picture through the prism of the Commonwealth games would allow us to build such relationships, given that Glasgow has the most ethnically diverse population in Scotland?

I will raise the issue of the Glasgow school of sport at Bellahouston academy. The school has been operating since 1999 and currently has around 65 pupils, 40 of whom are from outside the Glasgow City Council area. It costs Glasgow City Council approximately £380,000 per annum to sustain pupils who come from outwith the local authority. The council has recognised the cost pressures, and it proposes to close the school in 2026. It closed to new admissions last year. I believe that it has engaged with sportscotland about a way forward for sustaining the school, but that was not successful. What is your position on whether the school offers a valuable contribution to Scotland’s elite sport development, and what could be done to broker a solution in order to sustain the school in the long term?

Has there been any discussion with the Scottish Event Campus about the planned expansion of its facilities and how that can support a legacy for the games?

Has sportscotland engaged with other local authorities about whether they could sustain the pupils who currently attend the school for the duration of their secondary education? Has sportscotland made any effort to be involved in future planning in relation to pupils who currently attend the school and whether the model should be sustained? You seem to be suggesting that the model is obsolete. Is that correct?

Do you have any ideas about how that work might evolve? Could that happen through engagement with the charities that work with more deprived communities or engagement with specific schools? Is an idea emerging of how that work might be developed?

Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to join the committee again today. I felt that I had to be close to the Clyde to make this statement, which is why I did not come to Edinburgh today.

I was rather disappointed by the Government’s response to the petitioners, because the points that the Government made in rebutting the petitioners’ requests represented the actual position of the petitioners, so I feel that they are in violent agreement. Legal personhood for a river might seem like a bit of an esoteric concept, but I think that it is exactly what is needed. Indeed, that has been a glaring gap in our policy landscape for some time.

The Scottish Government cited the Clyde mission as a vehicle for such work, which might be something to consider, but I agree with the petitioners on the fundamental point that there are

“insufficient governance and stewardship mechanisms in place to implement and safeguard the River Clyde and its potential.”

Although the petitioners

“understand that the River Clyde is central to Clyde Mission’s ... remit and ... sits at the centre of the Clyde corridor,”

they point out that

“the river itself is not represented as an entity”,

nor is there a formal mechanism for all stakeholders to be involved.

I think that an opportunity exists for further development. A myriad of private owners have significant interests in the control of the river and its hinterland, yet there are no formal obligations to engage or consult beyond fairly threadbare planning and statutory obligations. There is a need to improve accountability all round and to address those issues.

Historically, the river had a far greater degree of oversight. The petitioners cite the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park as a potential benchmark for how the current arrangements could be evolved. However, the issue is not purely about the nature aspects of the river; it is about all aspects of the management of the river, including the population, industry and so on.

Glasgow Town Council, which became trustee of the River Clyde in 1770, initially had management responsibilities for dredging and harbour development. The River Improvement Trust of 1809 added ferries to its remit in 1840. In turn, in 1858, that was replaced by the Clyde Navigation Trust, which had a fairly formal standing. It had nine representatives of ship owners, harbour rate payers were represented, the Corporation of Glasgow had 10 representatives, and the chamber of commerce, the Merchants House, the Trades House, the County of Lanark Council and, indeed, the boroughs of Dumbarton, Clydebank, Renfrew, Govan and Partick were all represented.

That evolved into the Clyde Port Authority in 1966, which was a trust port, and then the Ports Act 1991 opened the door for the Clyde Port Authority to be privatised. It was the subject of a management buy-out, floated on the London Stock Exchange and then acquired by a private group of companies, Peel Group Ltd, in the early part of this century, in 2003. It controls, privately, 450 square miles of land around the river and significant strategic port facilities, but there is no formal mechanism for everyone to be involved in the management of that and to consider its wider impact.

Therefore, although the Clyde mission has been a welcome development in recent years—it has been led by the local authorities in the Glasgow city region and Argyll and Bute Council, and has been resourced with £1.5 million of investment to set up a strategic master plan—there could be further development in that respect.

My fundamental request to the committee is for it to consider how we can bring in the Clyde mission and the relevant local authorities, and to discuss how we can develop the mission’s accountability mechanisms. How do we put it on a more formalised footing? Can there be more representation? Can there be more formalised board meetings? Can it have a wider remit? Finally, can we build out from the Clyde mission and try to get back to something like the Clyde Port Authority of old, with a broader management plan for the river that feels visible and accountable?

I think that that is the essence of the petitioners’ request. This is not some esoteric concept; it is about going back to what we once had: a broader management structure that was very effective in managing the River Clyde and other rivers in Scotland.