Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning. It has been very interesting to hear panel members discuss how the quality standard of decision making around dangerous buildings could be improved.

I wonder whether the requirement for CARE accreditation could be stipulated in the context of a section 29 or 30 order. I am conscious of what the City of Edinburgh Council representative said about building standards, which was that action is usually taken immediately to remove any immediate public risk; a cordon is set up; and then there is, in most cases, a bit of a cooling-off period. Given that that is the point at which a more considered assessment can be made, might that also provide an opportunity to stipulate that bringing in CARE-accredited structural engineers in listed building cases—which, as has been discussed, are relatively few in number—would be an appropriate and proportionate measure? Indeed, the cost of doing so could be recovered from the owner if it incurs an extra fee for the council.

That is an interesting case. Another case that I have noted, which might be of particular interest to Mr Ewing, is the Secretary of State for Scotland v Highland Council—the so-called Achintore case—involving Fort William primary school, in which the council attempted to defend its proposed demolition of a B-listed school building. It constituted a prima facie offence under legislation equivalent to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997; the case predated it, but the test was broadly similar to the test available for offences under section 8 of the 1997 act, and the Secretary of State for Scotland at the time succeeded in obtaining an interdict to prevent demolition, providing evidence that remedial works were in fact possible. Now that Highland Council, ironically, uses the building as offices following a full refurbishment in 2018, that case perhaps illustrates that the key here is having a sort of umpire of expertise, if you like, at the heart of decision making so that the case can turn on those judgments.

On Professor Masterton’s earlier point, if the CARE register were to be enhanced in statute, not only would it provide a powerful incentive for conservation accreditation for structural engineers in Scotland and a higher standard of assessment for the engineers making those decisions; the list of people who would seek to get accredited would probably grow, if that became a legislative check in both the 2003 act under sections 29 and 30 as well as a potential enhancement to the enforcement powers in the 1997 act. Do the witnesses agree that that is likely? There are cases where one person’s engineer makes a fatal decision about the building and another engineer disputes it. If they are brought in, accredited conservation engineers more often than not tend to find the solution, when other engineers have doomed the building.

It helps me get an indication that there is some cooling-off period, which might provide an opportunity to enhance the legislation. It is not as if you move in with a bulldozer and completely level a building in 24 or 48 hours or whatever. That would happen only in very rare and exceptional cases.

Renfrewshire Council has submitted written correspondence to the committee, highlighting some of the difficulties with enforcing the powers in the 1997 act. I have had similar correspondence from Glasgow City Council, which said:

“We note that although the Planning Authorities (in Scotland) have powers to act where a designated heritage asset has deteriorated to the extent that its preservation may be at risk - in practice such powers are rarely utilised due to the significant cost, complexity and uncertain outcomes in light of constrained resources and significant competing demands”,

such as using a compulsory purchase order to obtain a building.

One of the absurdities of the current legislation is the compensation requirements if the building has received consent for restoration, even though it is derelict. There is a rarely-used provision under section 45 of the 1997 act that directs minimum compensation to offset cases where the building has deteriorated, and the cost of restoration can be recouped, but it has only ever been used once in the act’s history.

On that basis, do the witnesses agree that, after more than a quarter of a century, the legislation is ripe for legislative review, and that the committee could perhaps consider in its recommendations asking the Government to undertake a review of the 1997 act and how effective its provisions are in that regard?

There will be themes that you gather from people’s experiences, and there will be a level of commonality that perhaps drives you instinctively towards certain recommendations. Aggregating patient experience, do you have any insights on common trends or common relationships that enable you to identify what needs to change? Could you at least offer some personal insight on that?

It seems that fundamental problems have been identified in relation to resourcing. In its 2023 report “Adult mental health”, Audit Scotland noted that limited and short-term funding across many mental health services is creating additional challenges in addressing staff recruitment issues. That makes it difficult to fill vacancies, because funding is often provided only on a fixed-term basis, which is undesirable to applicants. We have seen that play out in relation to not only third-party services, but core services such as those that are provided at Skye house, where a culture of high staff turnover and a lack of leadership was identified as a key causal factor in the poor performance of that unit.

What long-term strategies are needed to address that short-termism and to deal with the resultant issues with staff recruitment and retention that are currently being experienced across pretty much all aspects of Scotland’s mental health system?

That is helpful. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

I thank the witnesses for coming. Sir Gregor has hinted at the theme of some of my questions. The module 1 report highlighted the importance of data and research when we are responding to a pandemic. Professor Patrick Vallance told the UK inquiry that there was a paucity of data, and I think that Sir Gregor just echoed that point. In Professor Patrick Vallance’s words, the UK Government and devolved Administrations

“were flying more blind than you would wish to”.

Issues were identified around the lack of formal structures for the Office for National Statistics to contribute to preparedness planning, as well as a lack of compatibility in data systems across the four UK countries. At paragraph 4.75, the report identifies that

“This means that, despite England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland being at risk of the same health emergency, the data and health systems were so different that they were a barrier to effective preparedness.”

Could members of the panel comment on that paucity of data, which the UK Covid inquiry identified as a weakness? What work is specifically under way to establish countermeasures to those weaknesses so that we have appropriate and reliable data systems across the UK?

You have given us a helpful and encouraging insight into Scotland’s underlying data picture. Inevitably, however, I want to focus on areas of development. What work is being done specifically to improve the data systems? What projects are being commissioned? How will new systems be tested? Are there exercises in the pipeline? Is there a timescale for when data systems are likely to be tested in a pandemic simulation exercise? Will that happen in the next few years? What new hibernated studies or existing studies are being developed? It would be good to get a more specific indication of what work is under way in the light of the learning from the Covid-19 pandemic.

I thank the panel members for joining us today. I want to touch on the wider issues regarding key challenges to mental health services. The convener touched on some of the complex cases and asked how services can be better able to deal with those. What measures do—[Inaudible.]—to improve care in Scotland’s mental health system for individuals with complex needs, including autism—