Seòmar agus comataidhean

Because I see that our MSP colleague Beatrice Wishart has joined us, I will switch to the petition with which she is concerned, which is PE2107, on using more money that is recovered from the proceeds of crime to support community-based charities that train animals to assist in the detection of drugs. The petition, which was lodged by Kevin Craigens on behalf of The Shetland Times, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to direct more public funding that is recovered through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to support charities such as Dogs Against Drugs, which are vital to their communities and play an integral part in the seizure of drugs and criminal assets.

We are joined by Beatrice Wishart—good morning, Ms Wishart. Of course, we also have our man in Crufts on the committee, Mr Golden.

We last considered the petition on 9 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. The committee sought further detail on the work undertaken to consider longer-term options for funding charities that play a vital role in the seizure of drugs and criminal assets.

In her response on 11 November, the cabinet secretary reiterated the Scottish Government’s commitment to progress a fairer funding approach for the third sector and stated that her officials continue to work across Government to identify potential long-term funding solutions for charities similar to Dogs Against Drugs. However, the response highlighted challenges in delivering long-term funding in the current economic context, as any commitments would reduce flexibility in future budgets. The cabinet secretary made reference to some work in progress that is aimed at improving the clarity and consistency of grant-making practices across Government, including developing a consistent baseline for third-sector funding.

Before the committee considers any options that it might have, I ask Beatrice Wishart whether she would like to offer us some thoughts.

PE2152, lodged by Lesley Roberts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the home report system so that it protects both the seller and the buyer. The petition calls for home reports to be updated every three months while a property remains for sale and to ensure that surveyors are held accountable where they are found to have assessed a property inaccurately.

In an additional submission, the petitioner highlights her personal experience of purchasing a house with defects, which were picked up in a secondary builder’s report, but which she believes should have been picked up in the home report.

The SPICe briefing notes that the petition is very similar to PE1957, on making surveyors more accountable for home reports. We agreed to close that petition on 21 February last year, on the basis that, first, the scope of the home report is outlined at the beginning of the report and, secondly, members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are subject to various requirements when drawing up home reports.

The briefing reiterates that the single survey, which is part of the home report and which is provided by the seller of most homes, is not the same as a structural survey. While the single survey fundamentally relies on a visual inspection of a property, the structural survey provides more detailed information on its structure and fabric. It also adds that the single survey has to be drawn up by a surveyor who is registered with or authorised to practice by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and that there are various legal responsibilities and professional standards with which those surveyors have to comply.

The initial Scottish Government response echoes those points and adds that a review of the home report is currently under way. The review aims to update the home report guidance to ensure that its limitations are clear to buyers, along with providing information about other steps that they can take to assess the condition of the home that they are considering buying.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in relation to the home report, the limitations of which have to be made clear to buyers?

We will move to PE1900, which is where we were originally scheduled to begin our proceedings this morning. The petition, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. We previously considered the petition on 11 December 2024, when we agreed to write to the then Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy, our late colleague Christina McKelvie.

Members will recall that, as a result of the committee’s work, the Scottish Government conducted a rapid review of each health board to check the current arrangements for ensuring access to medication for detainees. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health responded to the committee to confirm that the majority of health boards have taken the appropriate action to meet the required standards. The submission states that, by spring 2025, the aim is for all health boards to have the appropriate care and practices in place for detainees in police custody. At that point, the Scottish Government will begin developing an approach to on-going monitoring in the form of annual updates.

The minister’s response states that NHS Grampian has recognised that more is required to ensure compliance with the appropriate policies and procedures when dealing with detainees in police custody. The minister notes that, in Elgin and across the NHS Grampian area, there are still some concerns relating to detainees not receiving their prescribed methadone while in police custody.

The written submission from the minister includes a copy of correspondence from NHS Grampian. The letter states that NHS Grampian is at the stage of planning the introduction of opiate replacement therapy, prescribing and administration across all three of the area’s custody suites. The correspondence also states that NHS Grampian now has a robust standard operating procedure in place and has planned a comprehensive training programme for its nursing staff.

The petitioner’s written submission shares that he read the minister’s response with a mixture of sadness, anger and regret. He points out that this denial of adequate healthcare had not been noticed despite the existence of controlled drug accountable officers across Scotland for 10 years.

In the light of the petitioner’s angst and the representations received, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

I am inclined to agree.

We have to be careful, as that involves an active case. We cannot really discuss it.

No problem. Thank you very much.

Paul Sweeney has been much concerned with the petition’s progress, and he has been with us online this morning. I will use my discretion to invite him in and see whether he would like to put any questions to you.

Welcome, Mr Sweeney—the floor is yours.

There we are. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. Your contribution and some of the others that we have heard along the way perhaps play into what I might pose as the final question.

The Scottish Government has committed to updating guidance on how local authorities deal with dangerous listed buildings, including undertaking research to inform that work. Is there any point that you might want to volunteer in conclusion, additional to anything that we have discussed, that you would like to see reflected or included in that fresh guidance?

Thank you all very much for what has been a very interesting conversation. We have had the opportunity to consider the petition on a number of occasions, and it does come to mind sometimes in the period between our considerations. When a building that is under threat materialises in the national infrastructural consciousness, one immediately thinks of the provisions that we have been discussing.

We will consider the evidence that we have heard at a future date, and thank you all for your participation. I suspend the meeting briefly.

Can we incorporate the suggestions made in the ALACHO dispatch in our submission to the minister? Are we agreed?

Yes, we can, absolutely. That would be a perfectly reasonable response.