Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

As it happens, convener, I had an informal meeting on Monday this week with someone who is involved in the grocery business in Scotland. He expressed a number of concerns about the possibility that the proposed ban, although it is welcome, will not go far enough, because it will not prevent the importation of vapes, which will therefore continue to be imported and sold—and they will be sold on the black market. He said that they are already being sold in such a manner, that they are being sold in an unauthorised way by various groceries and that, in particular, there are no penalties enforced other than the recovery of tax in respect of the particular number of vapes that have been identified as having been wrongly sold.

I am no expert on this matter. However, I find myself in somewhat unusual agreement with the Green MSP, as there is perhaps more that might be done in addition to what has already been done. I am told that the illegal vapes that are being sold are very often injurious to health.

Before we close the petition—and it may be that that is what we will do at a later date—I suggest that we write to the Scottish Grocers Federation, which represents more than 5,000 small convenience stores that employ more than 50,000 people. Its representatives are probably the people on the front line who are dealing with the sale of vapes and who are under huge pressure through physical attacks on their members of staff, which are often associated with the sale of such items. I suggest that we ask for their views on whether the ban will go far enough.

I agree with Maggie Chapman that this is a matter of profound concern. We have taken all sorts of action on smoking and, to many people, vapes are just smoking through the back door.

I note that the petitioner’s 23 January submission, which extends to two and a half A4 pages, is very closely argued and covers an awful lot of points that I will not rehearse. Plainly, the petitioner has, possibly along with others, carried out a great deal of background work.

Can we ask the health minister to respond to the main points that the petitioner’s submission raises? They are, in many cases, points of principle that should be addressed because they might affect many people, as the petitioner suggested in his original petition and attached comments.

I was going to suggest that we write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to ask what further consideration the Scottish Government has given to the suggestion that the small claims court be given powers to dismiss property factors in situations where excessive charges have been introduced. That matter arose in evidence that Sarah Boyack presented to the committee some time ago, which indicated a particularly egregious example of apparent overcharging.

We should also seek further detail on the Scottish Government’s response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report into house building, including the anticipated timescale for the publication of that response, and ask how many property factors have been dismissed in the past 10 years, although I am not sure that the Scottish Government will have that information.

“Hair today, gone tomorrow” comes to mind. However, I had better not stray into facetious territory, because, to be fair, the petitioner has raised a point about which he and other people feel strongly. For that reason, I do not think that we could close the petition yet; we should allow it serious consideration.

I am just re-reading that exchange, which you described as “grisly”, convener. I note that you said:

“I am happy to say to the petitioner that we will not bury the petition but will make efforts to keep it alive.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 15 May 2024; c 18.]

Given that undertaking, convener, perhaps we should keep it open so that it is not given a premature burial.

The background to the petition as originally set out by Mr Macdonald is a little bit alarming. It is worth quoting, for the sake of the petitioner. It says:

“On Saturday 4th November 2023, Police Scotland attempted to arrest a paramedic at home due to missing a court date. The summons had been sent to a previous address and thus the paramedic had no knowledge of it. On the evening of the 6th of November, the individual was arrested and spent the night in the cells. The summons was for a court date in 2018.”

The attempted arrest was around five years after the original summons. I am concerned that we have not had a proper explanation for that.

I have had a very disturbing case in the constituency of an individual—obviously, I will not mention their name—who was the victim of a road traffic incident. Information about a court diet was mistakenly sent to the accused person and not to him, for which no full explanation has ever been provided. Therefore, I am not sure that this is just a one-off.

I wonder whether, out of fairness to the individual whose situation is described in the petition, we need to give a little bit more thought to how to get to the bottom of this. It is not clear to me what the status of the paramedic was, nor whether the requirement in the explanation that was provided by the public authority involved is applicable in this case—namely, that the onus was on the individual to inform the court of a change of address. If that is applicable, the point probably applies. However, if it is not applicable, we have not had an answer for the petitioner, and they have not had a proper hearing.

Perhaps we could give careful thought to this, in case I have got any of the detail of the situation wrong, in which case I would sincerely apologise to the committee for wasting time. However, this man was put in a cell in circumstances that seem to indicate some possible fault on the part of the state, and we cannot allow that to happen.