Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

One option, which I have used in dealing with the constituency case that I have described, is to compile a letter to the Lord Advocate and seek her view as the person in overall charge of prosecutions in Scotland.

We could also write back to the petitioner to seek a little bit more information and ask whether the public authority’s explanation that the onus rests with the individual to inform of a change of address is applicable in this case.

I agree with that recommendation. I note that Mr Mundell has been pursuing the issue doggedly and with feeling since the outset.

There is a very serious issue that has not, to me, been resolved, although I am no expert. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health has provided a fairly lengthy reply, unlike in some cases, so that is good. On one hand, the petitioner initially argued that there were 12 preventable deaths per week, which is quite a high incidence, but the National Screening Committee argues precisely the opposite. In her response of 21 April 2024, the minister said:

“The error, or misunderstanding of the incidence of YSCD, is why we have made repeated requests to meet with the National Screening Committee to clarify this issue … We have also requested for the NSC to transparently publish the pre-screening and post-screening incidence death rates for other conditions which meet the NSC screening criteria.”

I wonder whether we have quite got to the bottom of that, and whether, when we are writing to the cabinet secretary, we could ask whether that meeting with the National Screening Committee has taken place, what it says, what its updated position is, and what is the explanation for the apparent massive discrepancy between the two positions. If the petitioner is right, the problem is profoundly serious, not only for her, given her tragic loss, but for many families across Scotland and, indeed, the UK. We therefore have a duty to ensure that the minister’s efforts are assisted by the committee, so that we get to the bottom of this, if we possibly can.

Yes, quite so. I want to place on the record that, in her evidence, the minister was very open to suggestions and that the demeanour and tone of her evidence was encouraging in that regard. I also want to express some concerns that guidance alone is unlikely to appease those who have a real grievance.

Finally, it is only fair to put on the record that, from my quite long experience as a solicitor, I think that most property factors are fairly diligent. In the course of working in tenements, they very often deal with difficult situations in which owners are at loggerheads. In my experience, the fees that are charged are not particularly huge. I want to make it clear that the committee is not in any way suggesting that all property factors should be criticised; quite the contrary—they have a difficult and sometimes thankless job to do, albeit that it iss a necessary one, because otherwise repairs to common property would not happen.

Where there is overcharging, I do not think that the law has any real remedy other than going to court, which is so expensive that nobody will ever take it up unless they are a multimillionaire—in which case they probably do not live in a flat on Govanhill Street, so there we are.

In other words, we would have both. First, we have the written response, which we can study, and that will better inform our examination and evidence-taking session.

Thank you for that full exposition of what has happened since the petition was lodged on 7 September 2022—nearly two and a half years ago. As you described, there has been fairly detailed consideration by this committee and other committees as a result of Accountability Scotland bringing the issue to Parliament, so there has been a good airing of many of the issues involved.

I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioners. However, in the light of everything that you have said—in particular, the fact that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recently held a call for views and took evidence to consider the performance of the ombudsman and how that has been evaluated and improved, and that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee has been established to review and develop a framework for SPCB supported bodies—I think that we have ensured that the petition has been properly scrutinised by Parliament.

I add that, having looked at the 2002 act, in particular section 16, I see that, as I alluded to in the evidence session last September, the ombudsman has no power to award any specific remedy to any individual, despite the fact that it has the power under section 16 to issue special reports where there has been a “sustained injustice or hardship”, but it does not then have any power to recommend that the body that caused the harm should issue any compensation. I mention that on the record because it seems to me to be a lacuna. To be fair, if somebody goes to the SPCB seeking justice and all they get is, “Well, your complaint is upheld”, they might well feel that that is unsatisfactory, especially in the most serious of cases where there has been injustice and hardship.

Although I think that we should close the petition, I expect that the supported bodies committee might be asked to consider the matter along with the rest of its considerations.

As it happens, convener, I had an informal meeting on Monday this week with someone who is involved in the grocery business in Scotland. He expressed a number of concerns about the possibility that the proposed ban, although it is welcome, will not go far enough, because it will not prevent the importation of vapes, which will therefore continue to be imported and sold—and they will be sold on the black market. He said that they are already being sold in such a manner, that they are being sold in an unauthorised way by various groceries and that, in particular, there are no penalties enforced other than the recovery of tax in respect of the particular number of vapes that have been identified as having been wrongly sold.

I am no expert on this matter. However, I find myself in somewhat unusual agreement with the Green MSP, as there is perhaps more that might be done in addition to what has already been done. I am told that the illegal vapes that are being sold are very often injurious to health.

Before we close the petition—and it may be that that is what we will do at a later date—I suggest that we write to the Scottish Grocers Federation, which represents more than 5,000 small convenience stores that employ more than 50,000 people. Its representatives are probably the people on the front line who are dealing with the sale of vapes and who are under huge pressure through physical attacks on their members of staff, which are often associated with the sale of such items. I suggest that we ask for their views on whether the ban will go far enough.

I agree with Maggie Chapman that this is a matter of profound concern. We have taken all sorts of action on smoking and, to many people, vapes are just smoking through the back door.

I note that the petitioner’s 23 January submission, which extends to two and a half A4 pages, is very closely argued and covers an awful lot of points that I will not rehearse. Plainly, the petitioner has, possibly along with others, carried out a great deal of background work.

Can we ask the health minister to respond to the main points that the petitioner’s submission raises? They are, in many cases, points of principle that should be addressed because they might affect many people, as the petitioner suggested in his original petition and attached comments.

I was going to suggest that we write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to ask what further consideration the Scottish Government has given to the suggestion that the small claims court be given powers to dismiss property factors in situations where excessive charges have been introduced. That matter arose in evidence that Sarah Boyack presented to the committee some time ago, which indicated a particularly egregious example of apparent overcharging.

We should also seek further detail on the Scottish Government’s response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report into house building, including the anticipated timescale for the publication of that response, and ask how many property factors have been dismissed in the past 10 years, although I am not sure that the Scottish Government will have that information.