Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, December 7, 2022
Official Report 688KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Home Reports (PE1957)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE1957, on home reports, making surveyors more accountable. It has been lodged by Catherine Donaghy and calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that surveyors are legally responsible for the accuracy of information provided in the single survey and to increase the liability on surveyors to pay repair bills where a home report fails to highlight existing faults in the condition of the property.
Catherine has shared her experience of buying a house only to discover that the property had major faults, which had not been highlighted in the home report. She tells us that those faults included a hole in the roof and missing rainwater and gutter systems, none of which had been noted as having a category 3 rating, requiring urgent or immediate repair.
As we do with all new petitions ahead of considering them—as I should have said a moment ago—we invite the Scottish Government to comment on the underlying principles of the petition and to respond. The Scottish Government has stated that it considers the asks of the petition to be inappropriate because the scope of the home report survey is outlined at the beginning of the report and clearly identifies the limitations of the survey, and because members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors carrying out the single survey and valuation in a home report must be appropriately qualified, carry professional indemnity insurance and have in place a complaints-handling procedure that offers independent third-party recourse to complaints—that is to say, by people such as Catherine Donaghy.
In responding to the Scottish Government’s view, Catherine explains the difficulties that she has experienced in pursuing a complaint with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and she has suggested that all home reports should include contact details for the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution.
It is an interesting petition. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I hope that the situation that the petitioner found herself in is just a one-off, but it might not be. We might assume that, when we get a home report, the fundamentals would be covered in that report. It is important to continue the petition. I would request that we write to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to seek a view on the issues that are raised by the petition, requesting information on the training and guidance that is provided to surveyors and valuers to ensure the accuracy of information that is included in a home report. We should also ask for RICS’s view on the proposal to include contact details for the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution in home reports. In addition, I think that it would be useful to write to the Law Society of Scotland to seek its views on the issues that are raised in the petition.
If the situation is not one that regularly occurs, the relevant regulations should protect the individual who is purchasing a property. The quality of the survey that surveyors carry out is vitally important.
I should mention that sceptics of the proposal for home reports—of which I was one at the time—were concerned about the principle underpinning home reports, which is that they would do away with the need for undertaking expensive surveys when people were making offers for properties. On the question whether a home report is deficient, it has certainly been my experience in the years since the introduction of home reports that, when someone buys a home, a survey has still been needed as part of the requirements of the mortgage lender.
In addition to the suggested contents of the letters to RICS and the Law Society of Scotland, I wonder if we could add further inquiries about the complaints process. That might include asking for information on the number of complaints per annum, the number of complaints that have been upheld and the number that have been rejected in comparison with the total number of home reports.
When I was a solicitor—albeit in a different century from the one that we are now in—my experience was that most surveyors were pretty professional and thorough. I am very surprised that a hole in the roof was not spotted. That sounds like a pretty patent defect, as opposed to a latent defect. I would be interested to know how widespread such complaints are and what the upshot has been for the people who have made complaints. The petitioner says that her experience was pretty dismal, and it would be good to get the bigger picture. Could those matters could be added to the letters?
I think that that would be very sensible. The experience of the committee with regard to petitions that we have considered before has sometimes been that the veneer of a possible recourse, on examination by the committee to evidence the substance of it, has fallen short of what might have been hoped for or experienced. Interrogating the actual practice, experience, numbers and resolution of the existing complaints process would be a sensible thing for us to try to establish.
In particular, we should tease out whether complaints that have been upheld have resulted in a remedy—namely, a financial recompense—and whether, if that has been the case, the recompense has been provided by the indemnity insurers or by the surveyors.
It is probably a complicated area, convener, because there will be an overlap between whether the solicitor or the surveyor was negligent. It could be that, in some cases, both might be negligent, in which case there would be a recourse to dual indemnities: the solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance and the surveyor’s insurance. Nonetheless, it would be useful to get a picture rather than to look at the matter in isolation.
11:30
Are colleagues content that we proceed on the basis of the suggestions made by Mr Stewart and Mr Ewing?
I share the concerns raised by the petitioner about whether home reports are fit for purpose. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Glasgow City Heritage Trust. In tenemental properties in particular, there are major deficiencies in assessing overall building condition in home reports in Glasgow.
Our colleague Graham Simpson MSP has reconvened the cross-party working group on maintenance of tenement scheme property. Perhaps we should write to Under One Roof, the charity that provides impartial advice to home owners and people purchasing homes, as well as the Built Environment Forum Scotland, which is the secretariat for the working group on tenement maintenance. I know that an action on the matter is to improve the standard and quality of home reports.
I also understand that the Scottish Law Commission is undertaking a project on improving tenement law. It might be that an element of its work is about improving the regulations on home reports. There are major issues with people purchasing property based on highly defective information that leaves them liable for significant repairs to, say, the roof of a tenement that was not assessed as part of a home report. For example, if somebody has a ground floor flat, they are still liable for the roof, which will not have been looked at as part of the home report.
The home report is particularly problematic in relation to tenemental properties.
We can do what you suggest.
Are members content to incorporate all those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Looked-after Young People (Aftercare) (PE1958)
The next petition is PE1958, which was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland. The petitioner is with us in the public gallery, although she is not contributing to our consideration orally. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday on the basis of individual need, to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives on the basis of individual need, and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people, including by ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the report “The Promise” are fully implemented in Scotland.
Jasmin-Kasaya tells us that some care-experienced people in Scotland find it difficult to access services due to the application of arbitrary criteria relating to their age and when they left care. She says that care-experienced people who leave care before their 16th birthday are not included in the legal definition of “care leaver” and, therefore, are not eligible for continuing care and aftercare. That means that they are left to navigate difficult issues without the support that many of their care-experienced peers are entitled to.
She asks the committee to consider how continuing care, the Promise and/or human rights legislation can strengthen protection in line with the inclusive definition set out by The Promise Scotland and the First Minister’s personal commitment to care-experienced people. She suggests that the situation could be fixed by improving existing legislation to ensure that all care-experienced people have access to support.
Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government says that it is fully committed to improving the lives of our care-experienced young people and highlights the point that continuing care and aftercare are available to young people who are care leavers. The Scottish Government’s response mentions a range of support that is available to young people with care experience, as well as plans to introduce a care experience grant to provide young people with additional financial support. The Government also highlights the publication of the Promise implementation plan, which sets out the work that it is undertaking to keep the Promise that was made to Scotland’s children and young people who are care experienced.
I draw members’ attention to the further written submission that we have received from Jasmin-Kasaya, in which she highlights the point that the Scottish Government has addressed neither her concerns about young people who leave care before their 16th birthday nor the ask to extend support throughout a care-experienced person’s life. She tells us that she is aware of many care-experienced peers who have been left to struggle without support due to not being formally looked after at the age of 16, as well as others who have had to push to be kept on compulsory supervision orders when the local authority tried to remove them before their 16th birthday.
The issue is a very complicated and serious one that obviously has an impact. Colleagues have had the opportunity to consider the papers, including the latest submissions that we have received. Do you have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?
I would like to invite the petitioner and representatives of Who Cares? Scotland, CELCIS, the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum, the Promise, and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland to a round-table discussion to explore issues that the petition raises. If the committee agrees to that, could we also invite some people with life experiences of the situations that are raised in the petition?
In advance of that, we could write to various organisations to seek their views in order to help to inform the discussion that will take place. We can write to CELCIS and the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum to get their contributions. Do members want to wait until we have had that conversation before we write to the Scottish Government?
I think that we should have the round-table discussion first and then write to the Scottish Government, in order to get a flavour of what people think.
I would like to add a small suggestion to what Mr Torrance suggested, which I agree with. In seeking to invite individuals with lived experience to participate in the discussion, perhaps we could ask the petitioners, who have said that they are aware of other examples, whether they would be happy to suggest to us people with lived experience, as they have knowledge of the issues. It would be good to see whether they could point us in the right direction.
I am happy to agree to that.
I thank the petitioner for bringing the petition to the committee. We take the petition very seriously, and we will write to various organisations ahead of sponsoring a round-table discussion in the Parliament in which we can explore the issues in detail. We can then write to the Scottish Government with a summary of our thinking and any conclusions that we have reached. Do members agree to that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Affordable Housing (PE1959)
PE1959 is on tackling Scotland’s affordable housing crisis. We have finally reached a petition whose number is the year in which I was born. That has been creeping up on me. The number must have passed the year in which you were born a long time ago, Fergus.
Such details are more than I can remember these days.
The petition, which was lodged by Amber Roberts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to improve the current housing crisis by merging housing associations and local council housing and by considering introducing a new right-to-buy scheme for council tenants. Amber Roberts suggests that merging housing associations with local council housing could help more council houses to become available and result in more than 76,000 council homes being built by 2034. She has also set out a proposal for a right-to-buy scheme that would allow council tenants who have lived in the property for 10 years or more the opportunity to buy their home.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has stated that its
“approach to the planning and delivery of affordable housing, is focussed on providing the ‘right homes in the right place’.”
It has highlighted that
“Housing associations and councils have a long history of ... working in partnership in the delivery of affordable homes”
and has noted that
“Not all councils build new homes, six local authorities have previously transferred all of their housing stock to housing associations.”
Reference is made to the Scottish Government’s own target of delivering
“110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which at least 70% will be available for social rent”.
It has highlighted that that would
“exceed the number of homes for social rent suggested within the petition”
and that the target would be delivered “within a shorter timeframe”.
That is a lot of houses to be built in 10 years.
The Scottish Government has also stated that it has no plans to reintroduce the right-to-buy scheme, and it has provided details of the support that is available to assist affordable home ownership. That support includes the low-cost initiative for first-time buyers and the open market shared equity scheme.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of the Scottish Government’s response and there being no plans to reintroduce the right-to-buy scheme for council tenants, I think that there is nothing that the committee can do but close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
It is difficult to know what meaningful steps we can take, given the Government’s position. I also do not think that we can keep the petition open until 2032 to see whether the 110,000 homes materialise. That is, in itself, a challenging issue. Given the definitive response from the Scottish Government, I am unclear as to what more we can do.
Are members content that we close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank Amber Roberts and regret that there seems to be nothing more of a practical nature that we can do.
Private Hire Cars and Taxis (PE1960)
PE1960, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally recognise private hire cars and taxis as modes of public transport and to enshrine such recognition in law, is lodged by Edward Grice on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association
The SPHA tells us that private hire cars and taxis provide a valuable service and play an important role in local transport. The SPHA goes on to tell us that, despite that, they are often overlooked by planners and policymakers in comparison with other modes of transport, which has led to their being excluded from public transport stakeholder groups and has prevented meaningful engagement on decisions affecting the services they provide.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights that there is no legal definition of public transport and that each transport mode is subject to specific legislation. In the Government’s view, that means there is no obvious legislation that could be amended to enshrine the definition in law and to set out the relationship between the different transport sectors and local and national Government.
However, the Government states that it considers the provision of taxis to be a vital part of the transport system and that it will continue to engage with industry representatives on matters such as low-emission zones and licensing.
We heard from taxi owners during a previous evidence session, and this idea flitted in and out of the conversation. Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I think that we should take more evidence on the subject. I suggest that we write to the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and Heads of Planning Scotland, seeking their views on the petition and asking how the views of the taxi and private hire trade are included in their decision-making processes, what scope there is to include the taxi and private hire trade in public transport stakeholder groups, and how engagement and consultation on decisions that affect the services that they provide could be improved.
I suggest that we also write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on what is happening with the short-life working group and to ask for further information on any action that is being undertaken to improve engagement between the taxi and private hire industry and the planning and licensing authorities. That would give us an indication of where we are in the process.
I am happy to support that. Are colleagues willing to support those suggestions?
I have a small addendum to Mr Stewart’s recommendation, which I entirely support. The Scottish Government’s short-life working group includes representatives of the taxi and private hire trade as well as representatives from Transport Scotland, local authorities and Unite the Union. Could we ask the Government to specify who those representatives are and whether they are sufficient? Is the group rather top-heavy with people from public sector bodies and not sufficiently representative of the range of interests in the taxi and private hire sector? Could we ask the Scottish Government whether the membership of the short-life working group might be extended to include greater representation from the people whose lives and businesses are affected?
That seems a sensible proposition. Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Private Hire Car and Taxi Drivers (PE1961)
PE1961, which seeks to make it a specific offence to assault, threaten or abuse a private hire or taxi driver while at work, has been lodged by Edward Grice on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 to include private hire and taxi drivers by creating a specific criminal offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing private hire or taxi drivers while they are engaged in private hire or taxi work and by considering such offences as aggravated when the offence is committed while the driver is enforcing a licensing or operational condition. The SPHA highlights the 2021 act and the creation of a new offence for situations whereby a retail worker is assaulted, threatened or abused while engaged in their work. The SPHA believes that a similar offence is required to protect private hire and taxi drivers while they are at work.
11:45In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that there are a range of common-law and statutory offences to protect everyone, including private hire and taxi drivers, from abuse and violence. Those include the statutory offence of threatening or abusive behaviour, as well as common-law offences of assault and breach of the peace. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?
I was struck by the Scottish Government pointing the finger at Daniel Johnson in relation to the development of the 2021 act. I am not quite sure what they thought Mr Johnson’s remedy might be.
Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
The committee could consider writing to Police Scotland, seeking information on the number of threatening and abusive behaviour offences that have been recorded in each year over the past decade and whether the data can be broken down by occupation and workplace. The committee could also write to the Scottish Taxi Federation and Unite Scotland to seek their views on the petition.
I am content with both of those suggestions. Are colleagues agreed to take those actions?
Members indicated agreement.
Meat Production Ban (PE1963)
PE1963, which was lodged by Roger Green, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to phase in a ban on meat production in Scotland between 2030 and 2040, to coincide with anticipated changes to future food production and consumption.
Roger Green highlights an initiative being implemented by the United Nations and the World Health Organization to reach a global plant-based diet. He states that Scotland should achieve healthy dietary goals by 2030 to 2040 and, among other dietary priorities, that should include phasing out meat consumption.
The SPICe briefing provides detailed information on various aspects of meat production, including the economic impacts, the proportion of meat eaters in the UK and the environmental impacts. The briefing states that 70 per cent of people in the UK are meat eaters and the total agricultural workforce in Scotland is around 67,400 people. It also points to the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to introduce policies to encourage consumers to shift their diets and reduce beef, lamb and dairy production by 20 per cent.
The Scottish Government’s response states that its vision is for Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative farming and highlights funds to encourage adaptation to climate change in the sector. It confirms that the Scottish Government will continue to work closely with Public Health Scotland, Food Standards Scotland and other agencies on diet, health and climate impacts to inform future policy.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
Considering that the UK Climate Change Committee recommends a reduction of meat consumption rather than a ban on production; that the Scottish Government’s climate change plan update sets out a plan for a 24 per cent reduction in overall emissions from the agriculture category by 2032; that banning meat production may have negative environmental and economic consequences; and that the Scottish Government has stated that it continues to actively promote the consumption of fresh, local and seasonal produce, I suggest that the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
Given the response from the Scottish Government and its detailed explanation of its various initiatives, I think that there is little more that we, as a committee, could do. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (PE1964)
We move to PE1964. Apologies—I have quite a long screed to read here, but this is our final petition this morning. The petition, which was lodged by Accountability Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent review of the SPSO in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO; assess the quality of its work and decisions; and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.
The SPICe briefing outlines the role and responsibilities of the SPSO, the budget and resource challenges, the complaints process, service standards and challenges. The briefing states that, over four years, the SPSO received 369 complaints about the service that it provides. The briefing also highlights the SPSO’s request for a change to legislation to allow it to take complaints in any format and to enable it to initiate its own investigations. A note on previous related petitions is also contained in our briefing.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, due to current resource constraints as well as the independent nature of the ombudsman and Parliament’s role in scrutinising the work of the ombudsman, it does not intend to take forward an independent review of the SPSO in the near future. The Scottish Government also states that it has opted not to amend the legislation in relation to the powers of the SPSO at present, due to competing demands on resources.
Members may wish to note that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee took evidence from the ombudsman yesterday as part of its scrutiny of the SPSO’s annual report, and I understand that those considerations did not include the issues that have been raised by the petitioner.
We received several additional submissions from the petitioner and others. Those set out concerns about the complaints process and the SPSO’s consideration and handling of evidence, including the approach taken where factual errors have been identified. People’s negative experiences and the impact of the SPSO complaints handling process on complainants have also been highlighted. The issues raised include the challenges of self-investigation and the need for structural independence. The submissions also call for an independent review of the SPSO. Accountability Scotland said that it would welcome clarification from the Scottish Government as to whether it considers that there is value in an independent review.
In an interesting submission to the committee, Bob Doris MSP stated that he believes that there is clear value in reviewing the SPSO 20 years on, as there has been no meaningful or detailed analysis of the processes and systems that are currently in place. He suggested that there would be merit in exploring how effective the SPSO is, including by considering the effectiveness of the safeguards that are in place and what changes are required. He also suggested that we may wish to understand the Scottish Government’s thinking on whether such a review would be desirable.
In reading the Scottish Government’s response, it struck me that it does not necessarily deny some of the issues that are raised in the petition; the Government simply takes the view that it does not have the resource or time to explore those matters at the moment. The Government did not express a view as to whether a review would be of value, as Bob Doris suggested it would be, and said that it would consider doing one at a later date.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Before we make any further recommendations, could we write to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee to ask it what relevant work it intends to do in that area, and whether it will consider what the petition asks for?
Apparently, we have already established that that committee is not interested in pursuing what the petitioner raised.
Okay. If that is the case, would the committee like to ask the petitioner and the SPSO to give evidence to members?
I also have another, rather lengthy, ask. Could we write to the SPSO on the issues raised in the petition, including its approach to the handling and consideration of evidence and the rationale for not reviewing its decisions when complaints are upheld? Could we also write to the Scottish Government to clarify its view on the need for, or the desirability of, a review of the SPSO after 20 years of operation, and ask whether it considers that its processes and safeguards in relation to the SPSO are sufficient and effective? Finally, could we ask the Government whether it considers that the legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose, whether it would benefit from a review and what revisions might be required?
I am happy to write to the organisations that you have suggested, but we would do that instead of taking evidence from the petitioner, at this stage. As you suggested, we would write to the SPSO and the Scottish Government.
Are there any other suggestions, or are members content for us to proceed in that way?
It would also be useful to write to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to seek clarification of its role in relation to the SPSO and to ask for its views on the action that has been carried out for the petition, specifically in relation to the value of the independent review of the SPSO.
That is very generous of you, Mr Stewart. I am on the corporate body and am therefore one of the people who would be in receipt of the letter that you suggest.
I support those proposals.
I note that a similar petition was considered in 2014, at which point it was recommended that there should be oversight, but the Government advised that it was too soon to consider doing that in the light of the legislation in 2002. It feels like we are sufficiently distant from that juncture and should now reconsider the issue and whether there might be a means for the Scottish Parliament, as an institution, to hold greater oversight of the ombudsman. Perhaps that could be done through a discreet committee that could be the ultimate arbitrator or escalating body.
I agree with Mr Sweeney that it must be time for some sort of review, after 20 years. The can has been kicked so far down the road that there cannot be much road left.
I also note that the SPSO’s budget has increased from £4.7 million to £6.3 million in only four years, and yet the SPSO says that it has insufficient resources because of case volumes. I am interested to learn more about that, because the increase has been much more handsome than that which other public bodies have received during the same period.
To be fair to the ombudsman, one of its limitations is that it does not really have any teeth, and therefore, even complainants whose complaint is upheld do not have a remedy; they do not get any cash or anything else. They might get an apology, if they are lucky. That is an inherent limitation, and it is not the fault of the ombudsman. However, that would fall to be considered in any review into whether the role of an ombudsman is efficacious and achieves what society might expect when there has been serious maladministration.
I am happy to take all those suggestions on board. The Parliament has not existed for much longer than the SPSO has, and we have had two or three reviews into how we function, so it seems perfectly reasonable that after a similar length of time it might be time to have a look at the way that the SPSO functions. I do not think that it can be argued that a review needs to be deferred indefinitely, because it has been deferred for long enough.
We are collectively agreed on the suggestions that have been made.
That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. We will take the rest of the agenda items in private. The committee’s next meeting will take place a week today, when we will meet with participants on the citizens panel of our public participation inquiry.
11:56 Meeting continued in private until 12:05.Air ais
Continued Petitions