Official Report 567KB pdf
Schools (Prescribed Learning Hours) (PE2103)
Item 3 is consideration of a number of new petitions. As I always do before we begin consideration of new petitions, I point out to those who might be watching or following the proceedings, or to any petitioner who may have tuned in to see us discuss their petition, that, in advance of this consideration, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to provide us with a briefing on the issues that have been raised in it. We also ask the Scottish Government for its preliminary view. We do that simply because, historically, the committee, on our first consideration of a petition, would instruct those bodies to respond. Our current approach allows us to shortcut that and get to a meaningful discussion.
The first new petition, PE2103, from Dr Julie Badcock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to standardise the prescribed learning hours for primary and secondary establishments across all local authorities in Scotland.
The SPICe briefing explains that the length of the day and the number of learning hours is a matter for each local authority. It also explains that ministers have the power to make regulations that would set the minimum number of learning hours that each pupil should receive.
In 2023, the Scottish Government consulted on using those powers to prescribe the minimum annual number of learning hours. The consultation closed in June 2023 and the Scottish Government is yet to set out what its next steps will be. The Government’s submission states that it is carefully considering the very large number of responses and that it intends to publish its analysis of the responses in due course.
Its submission also states that Government does not support any reduction of learning hours in any local authority. That view was expressed in a letter to all local authorities last year. Ministers are working to reach an agreement with local government on the issue. The submission states:
“If no agreement is reached, Ministers remain open to taking steps towards utilising”
its powers to regulate the number of learning hours.
The issues in the petition are live, presently. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions??
We should keep the petition open and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to ask for an update on the Scottish Government’s work with local authorities to reach an agreement on the provision of learning hours, including information on how the work is expected to progress and when information on the outcome of that work will be available, and to ask when the analysis of responses to the consultation of prescribing minimum hours will be published. Given that the consultation closed in June 2023, we should ask for an explanation as to why its publication is taking so long.
I think that the committee can accept that, if there are a considerable number of responses, it might take time to analyse those. However, it is 15 or 16 months since the consultation closed, and it would be interesting to understand what the on-going delay is. Are colleagues content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Listed Buildings (Demolition) (PE2105)
PE2105, which was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent unnecessary use of emergency public safety powers to demolish listed buildings.
We are joined this morning by two of our parliamentary colleagues, Carol Mochan and Paul Sweeney, who are both former members of this committee. Welcome back to you both.
The SPICe briefing explains that local authorities are required by law to intervene where a building presents a danger to people in or about that building, to the public generally or to adjacent buildings or places. Where the local authority considers the required action to be urgent, it can carry out that action without first obtaining the usual statutory consents. That includes where demolition is considered the required action.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that works undertaken on listed buildings without prior consultation should be limited to the minimum necessary requirement to protect the public until proper consultations can take place.
It also states that it is for the local authority to determine the most appropriate course of action, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case, and that it is not possible for guidance to be specific about the approach required when the instances of dangerous buildings are unique and require a risk-based approach to determining the appropriate action.
The petitioner’s written submission states that in order to adhere to the legislative requirements and good practice, enhanced guidance is needed to set out the minimum structural evidence and processes that are required before demolition works to listed buildings is undertaken. She recognises that the approach to managing dangerous listed buildings is unique and requires a risk-based approach. However, it is her view that that does not prevent the creation of additional guidance to ensure the appropriate expertise is sought when assessing what action should be taken.
Before we consider what we might do, we will hear from Carol Mochan and Paul Sweeney. Carol Mochan, what would you like to say?
I appreciate the opportunity to come along and speak to the petitions committee this morning. I am obviously here to support the petition PE2105, which I am supporting on behalf of my constituents right across the region that I cover, which is South Scotland. I have been contacted many times about this issue, which is important not only because of the need to save beautiful and historic buildings in the region for future generations, but because there seems to be a need to enhance the guidelines around dangerous buildings.
In my work with constituents since being elected, I have found that we have a number of ordinary members of the public who really care about their communities and the buildings and the history of the villages that they live in. Often, they raise issues with the council and other public bodies and ask whether advance work could be done before an emergency situation is reached. Unfortunately, in a number of cases in the three years that I have been a member, I have agreed with my constituents that that does not seem to be a priority and that the system seems to not be working very well. We end up the use of legislation around emergency building care. Of course, my constituents understand that it is important that the public is protected. There is no question of that, but they feel that there is a loophole in that we get to emergency situations and then the legislation is used, whereas things could be different if we had enhanced guidelines.
I want to thank, in particular, my constituent Esther Clark, who has worked tirelessly to address this issue in Ayr, where she lives, and where there are many historic buildings, which we know may be getting to the point where they are at risk.
It is with some urgency that I say that we would do well to support the petition, in order that we do not continue to have this unnecessary response in situations where we feel that the public could be vulnerable. I hope that the petitions committee will continue to consider the petition. Thank you.
10:15
I thank members of the committee for considering the petition, which concerns an issue that has been a bone of contention for me for many years. When I was growing up in Glasgow, a city that has experienced significant demolition and destruction of its built heritage over the years, I was motivated to become engaged and get involved in many ways by my desire to try to preserve the built heritage of the city and my community.
I guess the matter begs the question: why do all these buildings seem to be getting demolished a lot of the time and what is the process that is underlying that? I have spent a great deal of time interrogating the issues and getting to the nub of what is going on. I could go back to 2004 and the demolition of the Elgin Place memorial church in Pitt Street, which was done unnecessarily two days after Christmas, based on no evidence from a suitably qualified structural engineer. Coming back to the present day, as we speak, in Sauchiehall Street, which is just around the corner, the listed ABC building—the former Regal cinema—is currently being demolished, despite there being advice and an assessment from a conservation-accredited structural engineer that the façade could be preserved. That advice was disregarded by the owner of the building and by Glasgow City Council’s building control officers. The building was summarily served with a dangerous building notice and is currently being demolished without any due process whatsoever. No evidence has been presented that the building could not be saved, at least in part.
That is why this petition is so important. Save Britain’s Heritage’s engagement, as my colleague Ms Mochan mentioned, came about as a result of the Ayr station hotel incident in Ayrshire, where the building suffered a fire. The building was deemed to be dangerous and the council’s building control team came in and started a process of almost wholesale demolition of the building. It made no communication with stakeholders and no evidence was presented transparently about why that demolition was necessary in its entirety, even though the local Ayr Development Trust had commissioned its own structural specialist engineers—the top experts in their field, Ed Morton and Ben Adam, who were registered conservation-accredited engineers—who had produced reports saying that the building could be substantially saved, at least as a shell, which were completely disregarded. There was not even the courtesy of a response from the council on the matter. That took place was over a period of months, so the notion that the demolition had to happen urgently—in a matter of hours or days—to safeguard the public is a fallacy.
In reality, such exercises are long drawn out and take place over a series of months. Indeed, the ABC building has been standing empty in Sauchiehall Street since 2018 and has potentially been a danger to the public since that time, yet only in the last three months or so, after a proposal from a developer to demolish the building and build a new building has been received, has building control suddenly leapt into action and expedited an emergency demolition order.
I would contend that the process is subject to routine abuse and manipulation. One of the problems, not even just with the dangerous buildings process under sections 29 and 30 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 but with the process under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1997, is that there is no independent arbitration and no independent scrutiny of the evidence presented by developers or those applying to demolish listed buildings to test whether the evidence presented is sufficiently robust.
I would suggest that the petition makes a reasonable ask: that the conservation accreditation register of engineers, which is maintained by the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers, is used as the basis for the qualifications that are necessary for an expert to judge the condition of a listed building when it is in a dangerous condition and when applicants are applying for a listed building consent to demolish a listed building or a building in a conservation area. That would be a necessary enhancement. I can tell you, with all sincerity, that the process is subject to routine abuse whereby soft engineers are commissioned by clients to present reports that basically advocate for their desired outcome. Those engineers are not independent—they are commissioned by the applicant. Of course, the engineers will do what the client wants, so that is why the process is inherently tainted by bias under its current guise.
I would suggest that, certainly in the case of listed buildings, there should be a much higher threshold of evidence necessary to justify demolition. There are 2,214 buildings in Scotland on the current buildings at risk register, and over the past three decades or so that the register has been active, 658 listed buildings in Scotland have been demolished. There are probably many more out there that did not make it to the register in the first place. I would say that most of those, if not all of them, could have been saved in whole or in part had a more proactive approach been taken by the planning authorities, and the right expertise was in the room assessing those buildings.
No planning authority in Scotland has a conservation-accredited engineer employed. Theirs is not an in-house set of skills. In the same way that I would not go to a GP to seek treatment for a brain tumour, but would go to a neurosurgeon, there needs to be the necessary expertise commissioned to ensure that we do not unnecessarily lose the nation’s built heritage. The petition has the perfectly reasonable contention that guidance should be enhanced so that in cases of listed buildings at risk when a section 29 or section 30 order is served, a conservation-accredited engineer must be commissioned to investigate the building and determine what could be saved, if anything.
That independent approach would be much better at achieving outcomes such as saving the façade of the ABC building on Sauchiehall Street, which is currently being unnecessarily demolished. That will be a permanent loss to our national heritage, which is a crying shame. I could cite numerous other examples. The Springburn public halls in 2012 could have had its façade preserved, but it was entirely demolished. The Elgin Place church, maybe known to some as the Shack nightclub, on Pitt Street was unnecessarily demolished. There are numerous other examples: Ayr station hotel is the latest in a litany of buildings lost to the nation.
I would encourage the committee to consider further actions by asking stakeholders to present further evidence. I would suggest asking the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers to talk about why the CARE register is so important and why its use would result in a good professional benchmark for enhancing the guidance in Scotland. I would suggest having Lydia Franklin and Henrietta Billings from Save Britain’s Heritage along to discuss, in particular, the case of the Ayr station hotel. I would suggest speaking to registered conservation-accredited engineers who are currently practising in Scotland, such as Ben Adam at Narro Associates, Will Rudd Associates, and Ed Morton, who is a CARE engineer who was involved with the Ayr station hotel. I would suggest engaging with the Scottish Historic Buildings Trust, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Glasgow City Heritage Trust, whose director is Niall Murphy, the Scottish Churches Trust, and National Trust for Scotland. It might be good to have Liz Davidson along, who has been heavily involved in the Glasgow Building Preservation Trust and efforts to save Glasgow School of Art’s Mackintosh building—the Mac. The Ayr Development Trust, of course, was heavily engaged in the saga at Ayr station hotel, and it could recite to the committee the flaws in that process in detail. Esther Clark might be a good starting point, as might Robin Webster, who is an eminent conservation architect—top of his field in Scotland—who could also relate some of the issues. That is just a set of suggestions of people to bring along to the committee. I have many more in my reservoir of suggestions.
I would encourage the committee in the strongest terms to inquire deeply into the issue. I am fully clear that there are flaws in the current process and that the current regulations are open to regular, routine and pretty sophisticated abuse by consultants, planning officials, applicants and property developers.
Thank you for that unsurprisingly compelling advocacy in support of the aims of the petition. I am old enough to remember the era before multiplex cinemas when the ABC cinema—the Regal—in Sauchiehall Street was a regular place to go. I can recall Charlton Heston going there for the premiere of “Earthquake”, with surround sound, when we were shaken in our seats during the earthquake. It seems that the cinema survived that, but is not surviving the calumnies that have been visited on it by Glasgow City Council’s planning process.
The argument that you make is an interesting one. Most of us are aware of buildings that are being lost without necessarily having fully understood what processes have led to their demolition. Sometimes that will, of course, have been completely necessary and unavoidable, but there is sometimes a suggestion that there is a shiny new model that might better suit the owners and they are keen to pursue it. I am minded, in relation to Glasgow, of the Odeon cinema on Renfield Street, where the magnificent façade was preserved and has been incorporated into the much newer building structure that was allowed to be developed on what had been the site of the auditoria of that cinema complex. There are solutions that can be found if people want to find the imagination to take them forward.
I am quite interested in the petition, and I think that the public is generally interested in it. I do not know whether we have a room in Parliament big enough for all the people whom Mr Sweeney was suggesting, but I am minded to conduct an informed round-table discussion on what is happening with the process and whether legislation might not be more appropriately drafted to give a little bit of weight to the idea of conservation-accredited engineers having a say on this. I think that those arguments were quite interesting.
I wonder whether there is anything that we might do to inform that panel. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what we might do in the first instance?
I agree that there is quite a lot in this matter. For decades, perhaps, many of our buildings have been unnecessarily demolished, in my view, across the whole of Scotland.
Initially, we should write to the Scottish Government to ask how it can be confident that existing powers contained in the building standards legislation and supporting guidance are sufficient to protect listed buildings from unnecessary demolition. Furthermore, we should ask it how local authorities should determine whether partial or total demolition is the only appropriate solution to address a safety risk in cases that are considered to be urgent. In addition, we should ask it what level of community engagement might be appropriate for local authorities and whether it has considered producing additional guidance to set out the minimum structural evidence required and the provision of appropriate expertise in cases where a listed building is being assessed against the Building (Scotland) Act 2003.
We might specifically ask whether that would include the use of a registered conservation-accredited engineer. I think that would be useful.
Are members content that we should write to the Scottish Government in the first instance?
Members indicated agreement.
It would then be useful to have a round-table discussion on the issue. The clerks have noted the various recommendations. In this instance, I will invite the clerks to liaise with the committee and with Mr Sweeney, to see whether we can identify the key individuals who might be able to participate. I think that if we had all the people that he suggested, they would get a minute each and we would still not have enough time.
We will keep the petition open—it is one of enormous public interest—and we will pursue the recommendations that the committee has made and that we have heard from Paul Sweeney and Carol Mochan, whom I thank very much for joining us this morning.
Proceeds of Crime (Funding for Charities) (PE2107)
PE2107 is about using more money that is recovered from the proceeds of crime to support community-based charities that train animals to assist in the detection of drugs. The petition, which was lodged by Kevin Craigens on behalf of the Shetland Times Ltd, calls on the Scottish Government to direct more public funding that is recovered through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to support charities such as Dogs Against Drugs, which are vital to their communities and play an integral part in the seizure of drugs and criminal assets.
The background to the petition tells us that the charity Dogs Against Drugs was directly involved in the seizure of more than £360,000-worth of drugs and more than £14,000 of cash last year. However, due to financial pressures, the charity has had to let go one of its dog handlers, and the petitioner has suggested that changes to the way in which the proceeds of crime are distributed could reduce such pressures.
The SPICe briefing notes that, although Police Scotland does not publish the number of dogs in its dog unit, a freedom of information response from April 2023 stated that the police had 144 dogs across Scotland, with that figure having been relatively stable for a number of years. In Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, local policing teams work with charities, such as those highlighted in the petition, to carry out detection activities, though they do not fund them.
Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that money that is recovered through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is paid into the Scottish consolidated fund and is currently used to fund the cashback for communities programme. The current phase of the programme
“focuses on delivering a range of trauma-informed and person-centred services and activities for young people ... who are at risk of entering the criminal justice system.”
The Government’s response highlights that a grant of £10,000 was awarded to Dogs Against Drugs through the serious organised crime community grant scheme and that, more recently, it received a one-off grant of £30,000 from money that is ring fenced for projects relating to serious organised crime. That is expected to relieve the current financial pressures while officials consider longer-term funding options.
Do members have any suggestions for action?
We should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to seek further details on the work that is being undertaken to consider longer-term funding options for charities that play a vital role in the seizure of drugs and criminal assets.
I should have noted that we received a late submission, which colleagues will have seen, from our colleague Beatrice Wishart on the petition.
Mr Golden has suggested that we keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary. Are we content to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (PE2108)
PE2108, which was lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.
The SPICe briefing explains that a short-term detention certificate authorises a patient’s detention in hospital for 28 days in order to determine what medical treatment the patient needs and to provide that treatment. The 2003 act specifies the criteria that an approved medical practitioner must confirm have been met in order for a detention certificate to be used, and the act requires that a mental health officer must give consent before it is used. If the patient has a named person, that person must also be consulted and have their views taken into account.
In England, the decision on whether to detain a patient is made by an approved mental health professional following an assessment by two doctors. When the Mental Health Act 1983 was being debated, it was stressed that the independence of the two doctors making medical recommendations was important in order to avoid collusion, influence or interference with clinical judgment.
In her response to the petition, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport outlined the use of short-term detention certificates and highlighted the right of appeal. The submission also highlights that reducing coercion is one of the priorities that emerged from the Scottish mental health law review.
The petitioner has shared his view that the certification process
“does not contain sufficient safeguards”
because the mental health officer who grants consent is not necessarily independent of the approved medical practitioner. His view is that the mental health law review was “not fit for purpose” and that, although the review stated that coercion should be reduced, it is not clear how that will be achieved. The petitioner would like
“supported decision making to be the norm rather than substituted decision making.”
These are important issues. I think that I recognise the name of Andrew Muir—he might have lodged petitions with the committee previously. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?
We should keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to highlight the requirement in England for an assessment by two doctors before short-term detention and to ask how it can be confident that just one medical opinion is sufficient for cases in Scotland.
If there are no other suggestions for action, are we content to keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open. We thank Mr Muir for raising the issue with us. We will write to the Scottish Government and see what response we get in the first instance.
That bring us to the end of our public session. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 30 October. We will move into private session to consider agenda items 4 and 5. I again thank Marie McNair for joining us as a substitute for David Torrance this morning.
10:33 Meeting continued in private until 10:41.Previous
Continued Petitions