Official Report 616KB pdf
That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions.
I will start, as I always do before turning to the individual petitions, by saying that the committee invites our independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to contribute thoughts on the content of each new petition. We also seek a preliminary response from the Scottish Government. We do so because, historically, those were the first two things that we spent a meeting agreeing to do, and this process allows us to expedite our consideration of the petition.
RAAC-affected Communities (PE2113)
The first new petition is PE2113, lodged by Wilson and Hannah Chowdhry, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide support to communities that are affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.
The petition calls for a national fund to be set up to assist struggling homeowners and tenants who are affected by RAAC; and for the initiation of a public inquiry to investigate the practices of councils and housing associations on the issue, including investigation of how business related to RAAC was conducted, the handling of safety reports and property sales, the disclosure of RAAC, and responses to homeowners’ concerns. It also calls for legislation that is similar to the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 to be introduced or updated to ensure that developers, councils and housing associations are held accountable for using substandard property materials. Such legislation should mandate risk disclosure and make surveyors and solicitors liable for untraced defects, and it should include provision for a comprehensive register of high-risk buildings in Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that, although the Scottish Government is not currently providing financial support to homeowners or local authorities for RAAC remediation work, it previously operated a scheme to support those who had a bought a home designated as having inherent structural defects.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government set out that
“the presence of RAAC in a building does not necessarily mean that the building is unsafe”,
and recommends that homeowners follow the risk-based approach of the Institution of Structural Engineers, as there may be no issues to address at some properties. The response goes on to state that Scottish Government is committed to working with the UK Government on the issue, and also references the requirement for local authorities to have in place a scheme of assistance strategy, which should set out the support available to private homeowners to make repairs to their home.
The response also mentions plans to review the Scottish home report, which is expected to consider how to ensure buyers can make an informed decision in relation to undertaking more detailed surveys, including structural reports establishing how the property is built, what materials are used and how these will perform in the future.
The petitioners have also provided two written submissions, the first of which comments on the Scottish Government’s response and raises concerns about the action, or lack thereof, that has been taken by local authorities to address this issue. In particular, the petitioners highlight that, although Scottish councils offer advice and guidance through the scheme of assistance strategy, none of them offers financial support to homeowners aiming to retain and remediate their properties.
The petitioners’ second submission follows the recent UK budget and the announcement of an additional £3.4 billion for Scotland, and calls for a portion of that funding to be allocated to support the needs of homeowners who are affected by RAAC. We have also received submissions from our MSP colleagues Edward Mountain and Murdo Fraser in support of the petition’s aims.
We have received comprehensive information in advance of our consideration of the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed with what is an important petition? Many of us will have seen documentary coverage of the issues arising from buildings that are affected by RAAC.
I wonder whether the committee would consider keeping the petition open and writing to the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland to seek their views on the action called for in the petition. The committee could also consider writing to the Minister for Housing to highlight the petitioners’ submissions, including the concern that local authorities’ scheme of assistance strategies offer homeowners only advice and guidance, rather than making provisions for financial support where repairs are required.
It would also be reasonable to seek an update on discussions with the UK Government on funding for RAAC remediation and management, including whether the Scottish Government has any scope in that. The committee may also wish to ask the minister for further information on its plans to review the Scottish home report.
I feel that the issues that have been raised in the petition merit the committee taking formal evidence, and the information that we are seeking will help to inform the committee. The issue is of significant material concern to the individuals who have been affected by RAAC.
Whether we think that the answers that we receive allow the petition’s aims to be advanced in a meaningful way or whether we think that they will have to be addressed by some other means, we should flag up that this is very much an issue on which we might wish to take evidence from the minister at a future meeting. Are members content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
11:00
We will keep the petition open and take forward the evidence gathering as suggested this morning. We will also write to the Minister for Housing to seek responses to the points that have been made by the petitioner, and we will seek information from the UK Government. We will do all that with a view to potentially hearing from the minister in order to explore the issues in, I hope, more detail and to get some answers for the many people who have been affected by this issue.
I see that the petitioners are in the gallery. Unfortunately, it is not competent for us to take contributions from the gallery, but I am delighted to recognise that they have taken the trouble to come along and hear our consideration of the petition this morning. I hope that they are pleased that the petition is staying open and that we will be taking forward the issues that it seeks to explore.
Social Care Services (Regulation and Oversight) (PE2114)
PE2114, lodged by Bill McCabe on behalf of BetterCareScotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the effective regulation and oversight of social care services in Scotland by replacing the Care Inspectorate with a new independent oversight body that has a specific focus on risk management; uses regulatory and analytical expertise to identify and eradicate poor practice; and meaningfully engages with service operators and those with lay expertise to help deliver better, more transparent social care outcomes for the people in Scotland.
The SPICe briefing provides an overview of the Care Inspectorate’s qualification requirements for prospective inspectors, noting that specialist training covering regulation, scrutiny and improvement and an understanding of the different functions of its work, including registration complaints, inspection and enforcement, is provided as part of the inspectorate’s induction process. Members will also have noted from the briefing that the Scottish Government commissioned an independent review of inspection, scrutiny and regulation of social care in Scotland, and has accepted all the review’s recommendations, many of which could be considered pertinent to the asks of the petition.
In her response, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport states that, in 2019, the Care Inspectorate agreed with ministers that it would take a risk-based, intelligence-led approach to its regulatory activities. The minister’s response also mentions the independent review, telling us that the Government is taking a phased approach to the implementation of its recommendations to deliver continuous improvement that addresses the key challenges that were highlighted.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who welcomes the minister’s acknowledgement of the need for radical reform of social care regulation, but thinks it unrealistic to believe that the 38 high-level recommendations of the independent review will deliver it. The petitioner believes that Scotland needs a model of social care regulation that is designed to work in the interests of service users, and suggests that the current social care system deters scrutiny. The petitioner’s submission then goes on to state that the lack of support for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill makes reform of social care regulation, as proposed in the petition, more urgent than ever.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of the information that we have received, I wonder whether we can close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has accepted the independent review’s recommendations, with work under way to ensure their implementation. If that is not to the petitioner’s satisfaction, the petitioner could lodge a new petition in the next parliamentary session, and I would urge them to do so.
In light of the Government’s commitment to taking forward actions at this stage, that will be the principal way forward.
Are members prepared to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner and take note of their on-going concerns, which might be addressed in the work that will now take place. If that work fails to achieve that objective, we very much encourage the petitioner to come back with a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session.
NHS Dental Services (Composite Fillings) (PE2115)
PE2115, lodged by Paul Arran, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that white composite fillings are available as a treatment option for registered national health service dental patients, specifically when treating molar teeth.
The SPICe briefing notes that, although many people choose or prefer composite fillings because they can be coloured to match the existing teeth, amalgam is longer lasting and enables restorations to be carried out more quickly. However, amalgam fillings should not normally be provided for patients under 15 years of age, patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding, or patients where there is a letter from secondary care recommending that amalgam should not be used due to specific medical concerns.
Members may also have noted that, as part of wider efforts to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury, the European Union has agreed regulations that will ban the use of dental amalgams and prohibit the manufacturing, import and export of other mercury-added products from 1 January 2025.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government has stated that dental amalgam has been used successfully for more than 150 years and has been proven to provide lasting, reliable restorations. The response goes on to highlight the reforms to the NHS dental sector that were introduced in 2023, with the aim of allowing dentists to offer far more effective preventative care and to reduce the requirement for all restorations, regardless of material used. It is the Scottish Government’s view that
“to include white fillings in all cases for aesthetic reasons in the absence of an oral health rationale would not be supported within NHS general dental services.”
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that resin composite fillings are available to patients under 15 years of age, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and those who have specific medical conditions that contraindicate the use of dental amalgam, and on the basis that it is the Scottish Government’s view that including white fillings in all cases for aesthetic reasons in the absence of an oral health rationale would not be supported within NHS general dental services.
That is a proposal from Mr Torrance, in the light of the responses that we have received. It is not clear how we might otherwise take matters forward. There is obviously the issue of the EU ban. Are members content to proceed with Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, but we are unable to take the petition further for the reasons that Mr Torrance stated.
Toxic Chemicals (Coasts) (PE2117)
That brings us to the final of the new petitions that we are considering this morning. PE2117, lodged by Bruce Whitehead, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of any chemical labelled “Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects” or carrying the dead fish pictogram, on coastal jetties or slipways.
The key legal framework in Scotland for protecting the water environment is provided by the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, or CAR, regime. The framework covers both direct discharges into the water environment and situations where there is a risk of diffuse pollution from activities on land. Under that regime, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s role is to assess the risk of proposed activities before deciding whether to grant an authorisation. The Scottish Government considers this to be a regulatory matter and points to the Great Britain regulatory framework, which is in place to prevent or minimise harm to people and wildlife from the use of biocides used in amenity settings. Its response to the petition states that it does not believe that the Scottish Government has a role or that there is a reason for Scottish ministers to intervene.
The petitioner explains that he is concerned about the use of chemicals at Hawes pier and believes that the conditions of SEPA’s authorisation have been breached. He says that manual application of the authorised chemical has led to spillages over the pier edge into the river and in unpermitted weather conditions.
Are there any suggestions for action?
I do not think that the committee can take the petition any further, and I wonder whether the committee would consider closing it under section 15.7 of standing orders, on the grounds that there is a GB-wide regulatory framework to prevent or minimise harm to people and wildlife from the use of biocides; that the CAR regime in Scotland covers both direct discharges into a water environment and situations where there is a risk of diffuse pollution from activities on land, with SEPA assessing the risk of proposed activities before granting any authorisation, if appropriate; that many factors beyond labelling are required to assess the risk that a product poses to wildlife; that algae remover concentrate, which the petitioner refers to, has been authorised as safe for use by the Health and Safety Executive; and that the Scottish Government considers the issues raised to be a regulatory matter and that there is a robust framework in place, and therefore does not believe that there is either a role for the Government or a reason for ministers to intervene.
Can we also write to the City of Edinburgh Council to see whether there is any concern about the issues that the petitioners have raised?
Mr Torrance has proposed that there are grounds to close the petition. I think that we can do nothing more, given the Scottish Government’s response. However, in closing the petition, I suggest that the committee write to SEPA, drawing its attention to the petitioner’s view about the situation at Hawes pier and the fact that it would appear that its conditions for authorisation have been breached. It would be for SEPA to respond to that, and to the petitioner’s contention in relation to the manual application of the authorised chemical leading to spillages over the pier edge into the river and in unpermitted weather conditions. Although I do not think that we can take things forward, given the Government’s response, we can draw attention to that point quite directly on behalf of the committee.
Can you clarify your point, Mr Choudhury? What would you like us to write to the City of Edinburgh Council to establish?
To establish whether there are any concerns for the council about the issue that the petitioner is raising. If we close the petition, that is the end of it, but if there are some concerns that are—
We could address that point in the letter to SEPA. I do not think that the committee can do any more, but we can invite SEPA to consider those issues and see whether it feels that the action is sufficiently robust.
I am happy with that.
Is the committee content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of the formal part of today’s meeting.
11:12 Meeting continued in private until 11:25.Previous
Continued Petitions