Official Report 690KB pdf
Listed Building (Demolition) (PE2105)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE2105, which 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 public safety powers to demolish listed buildings.
We last considered this petition at our previous meeting, which was on 4 June 2025. At that meeting, we heard evidence from Hazel Johnson, director of the Built Environment Forum Scotland; Laura Shanks, chair of Local Authority Building Standards Scotland; and Professor Gordon Masterton, chair of the Institution of Civil Engineers panel for historical engineering works.
We are also joined online by our colleague Paul Sweeney MSP, a former member of the committee, who has taken an on-going interest in this petition. Good morning, Mr Sweeney. Before the committee considers how we might proceed on the basis of the evidence that we heard last week, I invite you to offer the committee your thoughts.
Oh, it seems that Mr Sweeney’s connection has dropped—I saw his name on the screen in front of me and assumed that we had him. We are actively trying to get him back.
We will return to the petition later in the meeting, once we have Mr Sweeney with us again.
Gaelic Investment (PE2098)
In the meantime, we turn to PE2098, which was lodged by Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh—I am stuck, because it is all in Gaelic. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring investment in the Gaelic language to sustainable levels by increasing Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s annual budget to at least £8.5 million and to increase funding in line with inflation each year.
We last considered this petition on 11 September 2024 when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on the Gaelic officer scheme.
The Scottish Government’s response states that it provided funding to ensure that the Gaelic officer scheme was able to continue until the end of the financial year 2024-25, and that it then provided Bòrd na Gàidhlig with a further £510,000 to support the scheme in 2025-26.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Considering the evidence that we have heard, the committee could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government provided Bòrd na Gàidhlig with a further £510,000 to support the Gaelic officer scheme in 2025-26 as part of the £5.7 million uplift for Gaelic.
If members have no further comments or suggestions for action, does the committee agree to close the petition on the basis of the Scottish Government’s position?
Members indicated agreement.
Vulnerable People (Capacity) (PE2061)
Our next petition is PE2061, which was lodged by Laura Johnston-Brand and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help 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 this petition on 30 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Office of the Public Guardian, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. We have received responses from all of them.
The Office of the Public Guardian makes it clear that it will not comment on matters of policy but notes that the proposals in the petition could impact the provisions for powers of attorney, guardianships and intervention orders and access to funds authorisations under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Those provisions include the submission of medical reports for consideration by the judiciary or the OPG.
The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has indicated that it receives a small but steady number of complaints each year that involve concerns about the steps that have been taken by a solicitor to assess capacity, although it was not able to identify cases alleging coercive behaviour. None of the service complaints that have been investigated by the SLCC have been upheld. Conduct complaints about solicitors are not handled by the SLCC but are passed to the Law Society of Scotland.
The data from the Law Society of Scotland shows that the overall number of applications that were made to the client protection fund increased between 2020 and 2024, although the number of paid claims remained roughly the same. The LSS did not attempt to identify capacity-related claims, but it might be able to provide further data on whether claimants were individuals, solicitor firms or others.
The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland noted concerns that had been raised by doctors in both primary and secondary care regarding inconsistencies in relation to how lawyers involve medical teams to support capacity assessment when working with clients who are also in-hospital patients. It also noted that, as long as assessment of capacity is undertaken by qualified individuals, they do not need to be medically qualified, highlighting concerns from primary care doctors that a requirement for a medical assessment in all situations might prove burdensome, time consuming and potentially more expensive. However, on balance, the academy indicated that it was broadly supportive of the petition at this time.
Finally, we have also received a submission from the petitioner, who points out that the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which provides the current framework, was subject to a review in 2024, with the consultation analysis being published earlier this year. She highlights that the majority of responses agree that there need to be relevant changes to how power of attorney documents are obtained and by whom, and also that further mandatory attorney training was needed.
In the analysis of the consultation, the Scottish Government stated that the responses would inform the development of a bill amending the adults with incapacity legislation. Although the proposed bill was part of the programme for government that was announced last September, it was not included in the updated legislative programme that was published last month.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In the light of the evidence, the committee could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that it is already best practice for solicitors to obtain a medical opinion if there are doubts about a person’s capacity. In addition, the Scottish Government does not believe that the proposed legislative changes are necessary or appropriate, and evidence that has been received by the committee suggests that the action that is called for could become time consuming, costly and burdensome.?
Thank you for that suggestion. I am slightly concerned that the bill was in the Government’s programme for government in September but then disappeared in the updated legislative programme.
Having read the submissions from the SLCC, the OPG and others, it is clear that this is an area that is not without complexity. The fact that the bill has apparently been removed from the legislative programme begs the question why. I think that, before moving to close the petition, which otherwise I would do, it would be useful to find out why that was done. I think that it is a legitimate question that should be answered. If we ask it and get an answer now, that might save time in the next session of Parliament, were the petitioners to bring the issue back to us. I do not think that we would be unduly extending the work in this session of Parliament, which is limited, given the fact that we have less than a year to go. I am curious about the reasons for the Scottish Government not proceeding with the bill.
Having said that, and having been a practising solicitor for some 20 years—although I am no longer—I note that it is up to each solicitor to assess the capacity of a client, and if one has concerns then one has to raise them, as there is a clear professional ethical duty to do so. Looking at the evidence that we have seen, there seem to be vanishingly few cases where the solicitors have been accused of coercion in any way—I think that that is specifically stated. Of course, it could be said of me that, as a solicitor, I would say that, wouldn’t I?
I sympathise with Mr Torrance’s approach and would agree with it were it not for the fact that the Scottish Government appears to have supported the proposals but no longer does so. If we find out why the position has changed, we may well feel that we can close the petition, having received a satisfactory answer. Mr Torrance may be happy with that.
I am happy with that.
I think that Mr Torrance was quite right in his recommendation, but that the issue that Mr Ewing raises stands out slightly, and that we would be advised to find out more. We more or less accept that the petition has run its course insofar as we can act, but it is important to understand why the bill has just disappeared from the Government’s programme, so we would like to ask about that.
Yes. It should also be said on the record that, were there to be a new system involving a requirement for a medical opinion, in practical terms, that would involve probably tens of thousands of certificates in situations where, quite frankly, they would not be necessary. Solicitors would be under an obligation to take a precautionary approach, and it would clog up the process of, for example, drawing up a will or arranging a power of attorney, meaning that someone could cease to have capacity in the period in which the process of obtaining medical opinion is going through, or they could die without leaving a will, meaning that an unnecessary intestacy would arise. The system is not without its flaws, but I suspect that the costs of the new process of obtaining the certificates would be very substantial indeed for the client, because I cannot see the state paying for it any time soon.
Thank you, Mr Ewing. We will hold the petition open until we gain the information that we seek.
Listed Building (Demolition) (PE2105)
We will return to PE2105. Good morning, Mr Sweeney. I think that your connection may have dropped. We had done the preamble and given you the big build-up. I then said to the world that we were about to receive the wisdom of Mr Sweeney, only to be met by a great big blank nothing. However, you are now with us so, without further preamble, would you like to give some thoughts to the committee before we consider how we might proceed on the back of the evidence that we heard last week?
I apologise to colleagues for the technical difficulties.
The evidence session that the committee had was extremely useful. It elicited a number of important points on the current deficiency in policy, most notably the lack of a requirement for local authorities’ building standards and building control departments to engage the services of a conservation-accredited structural engineer when assessing the need to demolish a listed building or the extent to which it should be demolished.
It was clear from the evidence from the local authority representative that there is not the time pressure that might be assumed. Normally, with initial cordoning and so on, a significant period is available to do that assessment properly and thoroughly before coming to a considered view about what can and cannot be salvaged. Similarly, too often, inappropriately qualified individuals are making those critical decisions, which have a permanent effect on the nation’s heritage.
The purpose of the petition has been proven, and the need for the recommendations of the petitioner has been proven. I understand that Save Britain’s Heritage has corresponded further with the committee, and it shared that correspondence with me. I associate myself with its comments. Save Britain’s Heritage has offered to meet the committee, which might be a useful exercise to enable the committee to further understand its specific concerns.
Moreover, the general representation of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is that local authorities in Scotland are simply unable to effectively use many of the statutory provisions in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 due to a lack of resource and expertise. Clearly, further guidance and support are needed from central Government to give effect to the duties on local authorities with regard to preservation of heritage and giving best effect to enforcement action. There is also a need to update statutory guidance relating to the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 in relation to emergency powers and the use of dangerous buildings notices under sections 29 and 30: in the case of listed buildings or even buildings in conservation areas, an engineer who is accredited with the conservation accreditation register for engineers should be engaged prior to final decisions being made regarding what fabric can and cannot be retained. That would be useful.
Further engagement with COSLA to establish the real extent of the view of local authorities would perhaps be a useful measure. We had correspondence from Renfrewshire Council, and I certainly conveyed correspondence from Glasgow City Council. That is a widely held view across local authorities, so a COSLA planning representative might be a useful stakeholder to engage with. There is a clear need for legislative review and for the planning directorate to update guidance to further strengthen provisions in regard to protections for listed buildings.
That is my view on the matter, and I hope that the committee agrees.
Do members have any comments or thoughts for reflection? We could certainly frame representation to COSLA in relation to the issue, but are there any other suggestions?
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the minister, highlighting the evidence that has been heard and seeking an update on the possible expansion of the listed buildings advice provided in the building standards enforcement handbook and procedural handbook.
Together with the suggestion from Mr Sweeney that we engage with COSLA on the key issue that we felt was raised on the local authority aspect, are members content to keep the petition open and to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, Mr Sweeney.
Proceeds of Crime (Funding for Charities) (PE2107)
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.
Thank you for inviting me to the committee.
I think that members all know the background of the community-led charity Dogs Against Drugs, which was started over 20 years ago. It aims to act as a deterrent and it also has an educational purpose.
I am very grateful for the engagement with the justice secretary, and the charity was grateful to receive £30,000 last year, which helped it over a financial difficulty for that year. However, year on year, the charity is struggling with funds to try to offer the service, which Police Scotland has said is very valuable. The Shetland Times petition was quite narrow in suggesting that cashback for communities should be extended more to the communities that have such charities, but I think that Dogs Against Drugs is a unique charity. It provides a public service that is obviously valued by Police Scotland but also by the community.
I suggest that it is long past time, given the charity’s history and that we would not want to see the loss of drugs dogs in the community, that the Government found a more suitable funding model to ensure that its very valuable work continues. For example, the value of drugs seized in 2024 over 12 months was £554,000—that was all in our community, which has 23,000 people.
That is a significant sum of money.
I welcome The Shetland Times campaign. The member has highlighted the value of those seizures. One way to combat the drug issue is through the efforts of Dogs Against Drugs and the specialist training it offers. I do not know what breeds are there and whether they are beagles, short-haired pointers or German shepherds, but they are all fantastic dogs that can help to tackle the scourge of drug problems.
The committee should follow up with the Scottish Government to ask for clarity on the specific work that it has done to improve grant-making practices, including progressing the development of a consistent baseline for third sector funding, and what practical actions the Government is taking. It might be an overstretch to ring fence those funds entirely, but priority should perhaps be given to third sector organisations such as Dogs Against Drugs.
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?
The latest figures that I have show that it costs around £130,000 to operate Dogs Against Drugs each year. The charity is not asking for £130,000 but for some kind of sustainable model going forward. It raises funds through its corporate work. It has bingo evenings and raffles and so on, which I am not sure is a sensible way to continue. Although it is well supported by the community, that is not a sensible way to support the police with deterrence and the prevention of drugs coming into the island.
I would not like to think that the nation’s security relied on a bingo drive. We could make some of those representations and incorporate them into what we send to the Scottish Government. The charity is obviously a very successful one that is doing great and good work. It is looking for a model—as we have said, it is long past time for that, as it has sought and been assured that something might be done. I think that we would like to see something actually being done.
Do members agree to keep the petition open on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Detainees in Custody (Access to Medication) (PE1900)
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?
The committee might consider writing to the new Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport seeking confirmation that all health boards have appropriate care and practice in place for detainees in police custody; an update on the work on monitoring compliance with the rapid review; and a detailed update on NHS Grampian’s policy and practice for providing prescribed medication, including the status of its controlled drug licence application.
Mr Torrance has made appropriate suggestions. Are there any other suggestions?
I very much support that. We could include in the letter the reference that Dr Coldwells makes to the apparent lack of action in this regard, his negative comments, and the petitioner’s observation that each health board has a controlled drug accountable officer, or CDAO, but that
“Strangely CDAO don’t seem to be accountable for their failure to follow the policy.”
That was an interesting remark, and I wonder whether the minister could be asked to comment on it. The issue has dragged on for a long time. As I pointed out when the petition was previously considered, it had taken three years for nothing very much to happen.
Are members content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Social Work Students (Work Placements) (PE1993)
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.
10:00The 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?
In light of what you have just said, convener, might we close this petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that a grant of £750 is now available to all eligible undergraduate and postgraduate social work students to support them with costs incurred while on placements.
Secondly, additional funding, as you have pointed out, of up to £2,000 can be claimed by students for exceptional travel costs related to placements in, or students being resident in, remote and rural locations.
Also, the earnings threshold for postgraduate bursary eligibility has been increased and, finally, the postgraduate discretionary allowances have been streamlined.
In closing the petition, convener, perhaps, if members were agreed, we could point out to the petitioners that if, in the light of the experience of these new changes, the petitioners consider that the financial position is still inadequate, it would be open to them to challenge this new regime as being inadequate. For example, if there were cases in which someone in a remote location was not given access to the additional travel costs, that would be a legitimate area of challenge. That is just one example.
I am sympathetic to the other points that the petitioners make, but the Government’s response has been fairly substantial, given the overall scarce resources.
I am inclined to agree.
I fully agree with Mr Ewing.
It is outwith the scope of the petition, but the nub of the issue is around recruitment and were a petition to be submitted in the next session with that slightly wider scope, it might allow the new committee to look at other aspects of what councils are doing to aid recruitment, particularly in councils outwith the central belt. I am certainly aware of some initiatives in Angus Council. This specific petition is just one part of a wider recruitment issue.
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.
Student Nurses (Payment on Placement) (PE2039)
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?
Unfortunately, we will need to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, first, on the basis that the Royal College of Nursing is not in favour of student nurses being paid while on clinical placement. Secondly, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is carrying out a review of the financial support package for nursing, midwifery and paramedicine students.
However, in closing the petition, we should highlight to the petitioner that, were that review not to take place or were it not to meet with the petitioner’s particular asks, the petition could be brought back in the next session of Parliament.
Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner, to whom we will write, explaining our reasonings.
Next
New Petitions