Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 2 is the consideration of new petitions. These are the last new petitions that we will be considering. Given where we are in the parliamentary session there is, sadly, little opportunity for us to do much at all in respect of them.

PE2210, which was lodged by Nora Fry, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve access to local healthcare in rural communities by ensuring that general practitioner practices resume inclusive emergency care pathways at all hours; ensure on-call doctors are available in GP practices and emergency clinics, including after hours; remove telephone triaging, telephone appointments and remote diagnosing; and prohibit GP receptionists from requesting private health information or redirecting patients to other disciplines.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that, since the 2018 GP contract, GPs have been expected to become less involved in more routine tasks, with those tasks being delivered by other health professionals in the wider primary care multidisciplinary team. The 2018 contract also highlighted opportunities to develop the skills of practice receptionists to support patients with information on a range of primary care multidisciplinary team services that are available.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that modern general practice is based on services provided by a range of disciplines, which means that GP receptionists need to be able to signpost patients to the right clinician, which in turn means asking patients for some information. It further states that the obligation to provide out-of-hours services was removed from the GP contract in 2004 for most GP practices. The submission states that the Scottish Government does not believe that the profession would support any revision to its contracts for a proportionate cost and that any such revision would endanger progress towards recruiting more GPs. The response states that the Scottish Government is not taking action to return out-of-hours services to general practitioner delivery, nor to make all GP appointments in person.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, in which she states that GP receptionists are not qualified to triage or determine whether a patient’s circumstance is urgent. She points out that there may be situations where a patient holds back on vital information because that person only wishes the doctor to know. On the issue of access to emergency care, the submission highlights an example in which a patient tried to access care at a local hospital but was advised by the nurse in charge that it did not deal with emergency cases. The receptionist at the individual’s local practice then advised her to call an ambulance. The petitioner expresses her view that people in rural areas are greatly disadvantaged in healthcare settings. She states that, as people age, they will experience health issues and should have access to on-call duty doctors to help when an emergency occurs.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. In the light of that, are colleagues content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I am afraid that the clincher is that the Scottish Government is not prepared to move on it. That is the point.

We therefore close that petition.

That brings us to the conclusion of the formal part of this morning’s business. I would be grateful if colleagues stayed for just a few minutes longer.

Meeting closed at 11:10.

: PE2105,on safeguarding Scottish listed buildings that are at risk of unnecessary demolition, was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent the unnecessary use of emergency public safety powers to demolish such buildings.

We last considered the petition on 18 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. In response to the petition, the building standards division carried out research to establish case studies to illustrate how local authorities resolve issues relating to listed buildings that become to defective or dangerous. That research project concluded in July 2025, and a full report has been shared with committee members for their information.

The cabinet secretary’s response to the committee notes that the case studies that are contained in the report underline the fact that no two scenarios are the same, and that difficult decisions are often required. She goes on to state that it is clear from the research that decisions are made in collaboration with the parties involved whenever possible; professional advice from experienced structural engineers is central to the outcome for each building; and the use of emergency powers is the last resort and happens only when all other related legislation has failed to protect the building.

Following the research, the building standards enforcement handbook and procedural handbook will be expanded to reflect recommended best practice as indicated by the project’s findings. The guidance will not recommend using only conservation-accredited engineers to support decision making, as there are insufficient numbers of those engineers to meet need across Scotland. The cabinet secretary’s response states that the lack of availability of that resource nationally would significantly hinder local authorities’ ability to meet their statutory duty to act immediately to remove the danger that is posed.

The Scottish Government considers that the current legislative framework under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 provides planning authorities with a range of provisions to intervene if a building is at risk. The cabinet secretary therefore does not consider that a legislative review is required at this time.

The petitioner’s submission to the committee states that they are pleased that guidance in the building standards enforcement handbook and the procedural handbook will be expanded. However, she urges that emphasis be explicitly placed on consulting conservation-accredited engineers to ensure that decision making is informed and robust. The submission highlights evidence to the committee stating that the number of conservation-accredited engineers would increase significantly if that work was incentivised through legislation.

The petitioner also states that consultation with national and local heritage groups and experts on the expanded guidance is essential to ensure that the process is fair and transparent. The submission therefore calls for a consultation to be carried out before the report’s recommendations are enshrined in guidance. The submission also reiterates the call for a legislative review and a requirement for consultation with a conservation-accredited engineer to ensure that decisions to demolish listed buildings under emergency powers are transparently and robustly justified.

Our former committee colleague Paul Sweeney has been very closely associated with the petition and had hoped to be with us this morning. That would have been his finale performance before us, as he has been a faithful re-attender at our meetings.

I do not know whether colleagues have any suggestions for action. I hear everything that we are being told. I remember that we took a considerable amount of evidence on the matter, and it struck me as impressive. From all that I have heard, I am not sure that we have identified a solution that will not lead to inappropriate decisions and demolitions taking place. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Are colleagues content that we close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Given that a review is under way, there will be an opportunity to pursue the matter and to interrogate the Government on it in the next session.

PE2061, which was lodged by Laura Johnston-Brand, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent coercion of vulnerable, frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual.

We last considered the petition on 18 June, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. In its response, the Government states that, following the 2024 consultation on proposed changes to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, it concluded that additional time was required to ensure that any legislative proposals were robust and workable and would deliver the best outcomes. For that reason, the proposed bill was no longer included in the May 2025 legislative programme. The Government has set up an expert working group to develop the policy and the operational considerations to support future legislative change in the area, and a minister-led oversight group has been established to monitor and drive progress. Initial meetings were expected to take place in September 2025.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland previously highlighted concerns that requiring a medical assessment in all instances in which a potentially vulnerable person signs a legal document, rather than only in cases in which there is concern about their mental capacity, may prove burdensome, time-consuming and potentially more expensive for the individuals affected.

Members might also remember that Law Society of Scotland guidance states that, when a solicitor takes instructions from a client, they should be satisfied that the client has the capacity to give instructions in relation to the matter in question. The guidance further indicates that, if there is any doubt as to a client’s capacity to instruct in a particular case, solicitors should seek input from an appropriate qualified professional.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

From the response, it was almost as though we were asking for free lawnmowers to cut grass or something. I thought that the response fell well short of the importance of the issue that underpins the petition, which deserves slightly more direct attention. I am quite happy to write to the Government, although we will no doubt be accused of making funding requests for the budget without identifying sources. In this instance, however, we would be identifying a source, because we would be saying that the proceeds of the drugs should be directed to the charity.

I note that the Scottish Government intends to have completed an assessment by May 2026. We could write to the Government to indicate that we have closed the petition and that we thought that, frankly, the response was a bit short and that the issue deserves greater merit and attention. In addition, we could say to the petitioner that, in the light of the fact that there is to be an assessment by May 2026, there would be an opportunity for the committee in the next parliamentary session to consider a fresh petition on the basis of the outcome of the review. We could suggest that the petitioner pursues the fund more directly at that time.

Are colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.