Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Notwithstanding that, are colleagues content that we proceed with closing the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Of course, one cannot predetermine whom the Government of Scotland will be after the next election or whether the complexion of that Government might lead to a different view being taken were a fresh petition to be lodged.

Are colleagues content—however reluctantly—to pursue Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

We are content to do so. We thank the petitioner very much and anticipate that she will ensure that the Parliament remains alert to the issues in the next session.

Our next petition is PE1962, lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they are parked only in designated and regulated locations.

We last considered the petition in April, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether, in the interests of safety and parity with formal campsites and aires, landowners who allow overnight motorhome habitation on their land should be required to obtain a licence for that activity.

The Scottish Government’s response to the committee sets out that schedules 1 and 6 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 make reference to allowing overnight motorhome and caravan habitation. Under the legislation, a landowner does not require a licence if they allow three or fewer caravans, at any given time, to stay for a maximum of 28 days within a 12-month period. A licence would be required if more than three caravans were sited on the land or if the land was in use for more than 28 days in a 12-month period. The exemption that is set out in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 applies only if the total period of occupation by caravans is less than 28 days in any 12-month period. The 28-day limit does not reset after a period of occupation by one to three caravans ends.

The Scottish Government’s submission notes that decisions as to whether any particular use would be material in planning terms are made by the relevant planning authority on a case-by-case basis. The submission states that, because of the existing licensing and planning rules, the Scottish Government’s view is that there is no requirement to change the existing legislation.

The petitioner’s response to the information that is provided in the Scottish Government’s submission is that people are making up their own rules rather than following what is set out. The submission highlights instances in which sites are operating without a licence but authorities

“do not seem to care about it”

and cases in which people are operating in grey areas where overnight stays could technically be allowed.

Edward Mountain MSP has provided a written submission that states that there is no control of the use of parking sites over the 28-day period that is set out in the legislation. He states that, in fact, parking sites are available for 365 days of the year.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that that is understood, but do you agree with Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I was slightly confused, I have to say. Interesting as those recommendations were, Mr Torrance, I think that they strayed a little from the asks of the petition.

In light of that, do you have a recommendation that directly speaks to the petition?

Our next petition is PE2187, lodged by David Corner, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reinstate six-monthly dental check-ups for state pensioners.

The SPICe briefing explains that, in November 2023, substantial reforms were made to the treatments that dentists offering NHS care provide. Prior to the reforms, patients would be sent a reminder to visit their dentist annually, although a number of dentists did that every six months. The reform introduced the extensive clinical examination, which is intended to be more thorough, and for which most people will be recalled annually, rather than within a shorter time. However, dentists can still use their discretion to determine whether a patient should additionally attend a review exam between those thorough annual examinations.

In its response, the Scottish Government explains that the extensive clinical examination is based on clinical guidance on the appropriate recall for dental check-ups, which is produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The response confirms that dentists can still see patients more frequently than every 12 months, based on their assessment of patients’ individual oral health needs. The Government therefore concludes that the issues raised in the petition do not require remedial action. Are colleagues content with that?

The next petition is PE2180, lodged by David Sinclair Aiton, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urgently review the correct guidelines for the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland housing and property chamber and to introduce case progress and hearing timelines, as the protracted and timeless nature of the current process is contrary to article 6 of the European convention on human rights.

The Scottish Government states that the Scottish ministers are not responsible for reviewing guidelines and that the administration of the First-Tier Tribunal is a matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Scottish Government does not consider possible legislative changes to reduce wait times to be a practical solution and refers to engagement with SCTS on this issue, including the recent appointment of additional members to the tribunal and on-going work to identify further recruitment priorities.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that tribunal procedures are set out in the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber (Procedure) Regulations 2017, as amended. The rules do not prescribe time periods for an eviction order application to be listed for either an initial case management discussion or hearing.

The briefing refers to an answer to one of my own parliamentary questions, which states that the average timescale for an application to be heard is slightly more than six months. The briefing also highlights information from the tribunal’s annual report 2023-24, which states that the volume of applications received for 2023-24 is the highest ever and is 10 per cent higher than the figure for 2022-23.

In his submission, the petitioner considers that long wait times are not solely attributable to increasing case loads. He also argues that the proposed review of guidelines is fully achievable and suggests newer amended rules to enable expedited hearings and to introduce a provision for decisions on the granting of eviction orders without the need for a hearing when the facts of the case are not disputed by the parties involved.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Obviously, my constituency interest led to the parliamentary question that I lodged, and I think that the current situation is a matter of public concern.

Are we content with Mr Torrance’s proposal, but that we recommend that this is a petition whose aims might—[Interruption.] Oh, have you not made your proposal yet, Mr Torrance?