Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I am sorry—I went straight to Mr Ewing, not to you, Mr Torrance. It was Mr Ewing’s proposal, not yours. I thought that you had indicated that you wanted to add something.

Are we content with Mr Torrance’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

It strikes me that the timing concern is wholly legitimate. We know the opprobrium that can be attached to an individual being charged, and it would seem curious if evidence had not been corroborated before things got to that point in the process, so it is perfectly legitimate for us to seek further clarification on those matters.

Yes. I should emphasise that, in pursuing these matters, we are not doing so on a purely theoretical basis; the evidence that is before the committee indicates that that was the actual experience of the petitioner.

Maurice Golden, do you want to follow up on any of those points?

Fergus Ewing has a final thought.

Monica Lennon, would you care to ask a couple of questions?