Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was struck that the ministerial response was quite detailed and specifically pointed to the national planning framework, which requires such environmental matters to be considered at a general level.

I am not sure that the law can be quite as specific as the petitioner is asking for it to be, and I am not quite certain as to whether the word “suitable” has been incorporated in the petition—the call is only for the use of such bricks to be “mandatory” in suitable premises. As I understand it, the petitioner argues that not all house construction is suitable, because if houses are not more than 1 or 2m apart, it is simply not practical for birds to fly in and out as the buildings are too close. From what I can gather from the papers, on the one hand, the word “suitable” has been inserted, but even if that is the case, the current planning framework allows for such things to be considered, and no doubt they would be raised locally, in areas that have a strong swift population.

I am open to hearing what other colleagues say, but I am not really sure that we can do much more with the petition. I suspect that, if we write to pressure groups, they will just ask us to support it, and if we write to builders, they will say not to support it. We could write, but I am not sure that doing so will take us any further, particularly since we have already responses with copious detail from SPICe and the minister.

I concur with that. I am just rereading some of the papers. In a previous discussion of the petition, you observed, convener, that people should not

“be denied the benefits to which they are entitled”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 18 January 2023; c 24.]

As I recall, it was the petitioner’s wife who had severe Alzheimer’s disease and who took the matter to a tribunal, which established that the present law allows councils to wait until not GP certification but the much later event of a qualifying benefit being received. That means that Governments can limit their liability to pay debt benefits by allowing the process to become protracted and delayed, which is entirely wrong.

I will supplement Mr Golden’s suggestion. Because the issue of disability benefits entitlements is very much in the news at the moment, I wonder whether we might ask the minister to do two things. The first is something that the minister failed to do in the original reply, which is to say whether the Scottish Government agrees in principle that the petitioner has a strong argument. All that the Government said was that the suggestion would require a change in the law, but it ducked the question of the principle.

My second point follows on from that, if the Government agrees that that principle is applicable. I cannot really see how it could not apply—it must. There is a political question about how severe disabilities should be before someone gets benefits but, if someone has severe Alzheimer’s, there is no doubt that they should be getting the benefits from the day that the diagnosis is made. The Scottish Government should take that up specifically with the UK Government as a point of principle. I commend Mr Brown for being dogged in his pursuit of that principle.

There is that as well, yes.

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.

On the face of it, this is a matter for local authorities, but on the other hand, when the petition was considered before, I think that it was your good self, convener, who suggested that we 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 that found that 44 per cent of council chief executives and senior managers had identified adult social care as a service at risk of cuts due to very large gaps in local government budgets. I am not prepared to sweep the issues under the carpet until we have heard from the minister.

We have heard subsequently from the cabinet secretary, but the reply, which I am looking at, does not seem to me to answer the specific question that you raised. I am not quite sure whether that is the case, as it is quite a long reply, and I have just reread it briefly. However, if I am correct, the question remains unanswered and we should at least pursue it, as well as writing to COSLA, which could no doubt be asked to comment on that particular survey, too.

You could say that all local services are subject to the risk of cuts, and that, therefore, 44 per cent might not be a particularly remarkable statistic. However, it is nearly half, and we all know that this is a pretty serious issue when it comes to care for the elderly population. It is going to become an even more serious and more difficult issue in years to come as the proportion of elderly people and the number of people requiring care increase.

It could be brought back in some form quite easily, if, after the review—

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.

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?