Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2150, which was lodged by Wilson Chowdhry—who I think is in the public gallery—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the mandate of the Scottish Housing Regulator or to establish a dedicated body to ensure that owners of ex-council properties receive the support and protection that they need to deal with significant structural issues.

According to the petition, the new or amended regulator should provide oversight and advocacy for owners of ex-council properties experiencing structural crises; monitor standards and safety through on-going inspections and the implementation of mitigation measures; maintain safety standards in homes, particularly when systemic issues affect multiple properties; co-ordinate, support and facilitate clearer pathways for owners of ex-council houses to access advice, financial aid or alternative accommodation where properties become uninhabitable due to structural risks and where local authorities may have a conflict of interest; and ensure transparency by requiring relevant authorities to disclose known structural risks and safety failures and to provide clear information on the hazards, such as reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, to owners of ex-council homes.

We have received two additional submissions from the petitioner, in which he provides a comprehensive view of the main issues around RAAC and similar structural defects affecting council-built properties before privatisation.

Members may recall that the petitioner has another active petition under consideration by the committee, which is calling for the provision of support to RAAC-affected communities. Our colleagues in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee have been undertaking on-going scrutiny of building safety and maintenance issues in Scotland, including consideration of RAAC. In providing evidence to the LGHPC, the former Minister for Housing and Local Government stated his continuing engagement with local authorities regarding support for RAAC-affected communities. I should say that there is also a members’ business debate taking place today in Parliament on recognising RAAC in council and former council housing.

Our SPICe briefing on this petition tells us that the Scottish Housing Regulator’s statutory objective under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 is to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are, or may become, homeless, tenants of social landlords or recipients of housing services provided by social landlords. The briefing further highlights that the SHR does not have any specific advocacy role, nor a statutory role, regarding owners of ex-council properties, as I think that most colleagues will have established when representing constituents.

The Scottish Government’s response makes it clear that it has no plans to amend the SHR’s objective, which is the regulation of social landlords. The response also reiterates the Government’s position that local authorities have a duty to ensure that housing in their areas meets the relevant standards. However, where ex-council homes were sold under the right to buy, there are no responsibilities incumbent on local authorities for the maintenance of those properties, which falls to the owner.

Finally, the Scottish Government states that home owners who require advice and information can access the scheme of assistance under which local authorities can provide financial and non-financial help for private housing.

That is a fairly brusque and clear determination from the Scottish Government, which I think limits our options. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we proceed? I should say that the RAAC issues remain part of an open, on-going petition. I recognise that there have been some further suggestions in respect of those issues in this petition, but at least it helps that there is continuing discussion of the on-going petition in relation to RAAC. However, in respect of the Scottish Housing Regulator, the Scottish Government seems to be fairly determined. I wonder what colleagues feel in the light of that.

That is a significant sum of money.

Although the Government has said that it has no plans to address the issue that has been raised in the way that is suggested, it is one that we have all had experience of with those people who have found themselves in this situation. It is an important issue, but it will have to be addressed differently. I suspect that, given the position that we are in, we have no further course of action open to us.

Thank you. I see that you have paws all over the petition.

I quite liked the phrase “long past time”, which Ms Wishart used. I think that after 20 years without a sensible funding model, “long past time” is a perfectly reasonable description for the fact that we have not resolved the issue. I agree that we cannot hypothecate the funding, but I cannot imagine that a funding model would cost us more than £554,000. Clearly, proceeds are being raised and it ought to be possible.

Ms Wishart, is there anything further that you would like to say to the committee?

We could reasonably point that out in the closing letter to the petitioners. As colleagues have suggested, there has been substantial movement and we have proposals to close the petition on that basis. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, however. By the time the next session convenes, it may be that there is scope for something further if the petitioner seeks to come back.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1993, lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Challoner, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate funding and financial support during their studies, by providing bursaries to all third and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on placements, reforming the assessment criteria for bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements and adequately funding those bursaries.

The petition was last considered on 30 October 2024, after which we wrote to the Minister for Higher and Further Education about the Social Work Education Partnership’s report on practice learning funding. The minister’s response states that the report recommended improvements to the system of disbursing financial support and to the oversight and quality assurance of practice learning. The research for the report also expanded to consider the wider support packages for undergraduate and postgraduate social work students.

The minister’s response also outlines recent changes to the support made available for social work students. From the academic year 2024-25, the Scottish Government is providing all eligible undergraduate and postgraduate social work students in an assessed placement with a £750 grant. The grant is intended to provide support for costs incurred while undertaking mandatory placements.

The submission also highlights that up to £2,000 can be claimed by those with exceptional travel costs related to placements in, or students being resident in, remote and rural locations.

For postgraduate students, the earnings threshold for bursary eligibility has been increased and the various discretionary allowances have been streamlined.

The petitioners’ recent written submission welcomes the steps taken by the Scottish Government. However, the petitioners remain concerned that the changes do not resolve the fundamental inequality between social work and other studies, such as nursing, midwifery and paramedicine.

Do we have any suggestions?

Mr Torrance has made appropriate suggestions. Are there any other suggestions?

We come to the last of today’s continued petitions. PE2039, lodged by Amy Lee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pay student nurses for their placement hours. We last considered the petition on 30 October 2024. At that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration has been given to the Royal College of Nursing’s report on nursing student finance. The Scottish Government’s response states that the former chief nursing officer met students at a round-table event to discuss the themes in the report’s recommendations. A short-life working group was then set up to review the clinical placement expenses guidance in order to respond to student concerns and the Royal College of Nursing’s recommendations.

The submission highlights that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is committed to carrying out a review of the financial support package for nursing, midwifery and paramedicine students. The views of stakeholders, including students, are being considered as part of that programme and review.

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

We thank the petitioner, to whom we will write, explaining our reasonings.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I hear echoing in my ear my late colleague David McLetchie, who similarly was a conveyancing lawyer of some experience. I recall his views on the legislation on home reports, as introduced in the 2007 Parliament—I remember those debates vividly. I think that there is an interesting potential future petition to be made to this Parliament, following up on the Scottish Government identifying the limitations of the home report. If home reports are under review, it would be very interesting to know how those limitations have been addressed and what the future value of the home report is, because it seems to me to mitigate expense in only a very few cases. People now find that they have to incur the very same expense over and above the fact that a home report has been commissioned. However, I think that we have agreed to close the petition at this stage. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.