Official Report 690KB pdf
That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. Before I introduce our new petitions, should anyone be looking in to follow our proceedings and see how the committee considers their petition, I highlight, as I always do, that before we consider a petition, we always do two things.
First, we ask the Scottish Parliament information centre, the Parliament’s independent research body, to give us an impartial view of the issues raised by the petition. Secondly, we write to the Scottish Government for its initial view. We do both those things, because, historically, they were the first two things that we would otherwise have decided to do and it expedites the process and consideration of the petition.
ADHD (Diagnosis and Treatment) (PE2156)
I see that we are joined by our colleague Elena Whitham this morning, so I will take the petitions out of order to make as efficient use of Ms Whitham’s day as is possible. Rather than the first new petition, we will begin with the last one, PE2156, which has been lodged by Terence Lloyd and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urgently address undiagnosed and untreated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder by developing a funded national ADHD strategy, standardising ADHD diagnostic pathways, reducing waiting times and ensuring equitable access to ADHD diagnosis, treatment and support across Scotland. As I said, we are joined by Elena Whitham, whom I will invite to say a few words in a moment.
The petition states that Scotland faces a growing ADHD crisis, with long waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, or no access at all, due to regional funding disparities. The SPICe briefing notes that some health boards have recently withdrawn their neurodevelopmental assessment services. The briefing also notes that, in many regions, the only way of obtaining an ADHD diagnosis and medication is now through a private assessment.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that work is under way to implement adult neurodevelopmental pathways, to standardise diagnostic pathways and increase access to support. The response highlights the public consultation on the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill, which included discussion on statutory strategies, including national ones. However, the Scottish Government states that it does not currently have any plans to develop and implement a specific national ADHD strategy. The Scottish Government highlights the funding that is made available to health boards for improvement to mental health services and its engagement with the Royal College of General Practitioners on voluntary and shared care agreements.
Before the committee considers how it might proceed, I wonder whether Elena Whitham would like to offer her thoughts.
Thank you, convener. I am very grateful to be able to speak today in support of PE2156, lodged by my constituent Terence Lloyd, and which seeks improved and equitable access to ADHD diagnosis and treatment in Scotland.
Failure to diagnose and support ADHD early in life is not a neutral act. It causes lasting harm. When children and young people with ADHD are not recognised and supported, they are often labelled as disruptive, difficult, defiant or clumsy daydreamers. Without understanding the internalised shame and difference as they grow into adulthood, the consequences of that early neglect are compounded. We see individuals who are undiagnosed and unsupported fall through the cracks into systems that were never built to care for them: into substance use as a way of self-regulating; into the criminal justice system due to impulsivity or misunderstood behaviour; into cycles of poverty, debt, unstable housing and often homelessness. I have worked directly with people who have lived this reality. I know what it means to come to a diagnosis in your 30s, 40s or even 50s, after years of feeling broken, when in fact the system has failed you.
I personally know what it is like to be 50 and come to the realisation that I have lived my whole life with a neurodevelopmental difference, most likely ADHD, and I can look back on so much and understand it so much better.
This is a public health issue, this is a mental health issue, but above all, it is a social justice issue. ADHD is recognised as a neurodevelopmental condition that affects people from all walks of life, yet access to assessment and support remains deeply unequal. I have heard from far too many individuals who are left struggling for years without recognition, without treatment and without understanding.
In my area, there is no adult pathway to an ADHD diagnosis without a co-occurring severe and enduring mental health issue, and it is wholly unacceptable that people must become acutely unwell to have their ADHD recognised and treated. We must ask ourselves what kind of system allows someone to wait years for a diagnosis whilst their education, career, mental health and relationships suffer.
That is not a system built on fairness; it is not a system that reflects our shared commitment to health equity. Mr Lloyd’s petition brings into sharp focus the urgent need for reform. The postcode lottery in diagnostic services, the lack of specialised training for clinicians and the gaps in support post-diagnosis are all issues that we can and must address. By supporting the asks of this petition, we could affirm a fundamental truth: that every person in Scotland deserves access to timeous, compassionate and appropriate care, regardless of where they live and what their circumstances are.
There is a lot of work happening across the country as we sit here today, as the Government outlined, but in most places change is not being felt on the ground. We must collectively put our shoulders to the wheel on this issue. Thank you, convener.
Thank you very much. It is a bit disturbing to read about the lack of parity of access and the position as it stands. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
In light of the time that the committee has left in this session, I wonder whether the committee would consider passing the petition over to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee given that its work programme includes something on ADHD.
Yes, I understand that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has agreed to undertake a review of the issues raised, in parallel to the petition. I think that, in this instance, that might be the best thing that we can do, given parliamentary time.
Provided that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is going to do that review, we should pass the petition to that committee, which will be better able to consider it.
I add, though, backing up what Ms Whitham has said, that this issue arises almost every day in our constituencies. It is of huge concern to many young people and their families, particularly their parents, waiting forever for nothing to happen. It is a huge source of tension, problems and difficulty, socially, for the families and children involved.
It is a very worthy petition that needs to be thoroughly examined and pursued, and the apparent lack of any inclination in the Scottish Government to do anything about it is quite baffling and inadequate.
Do we want first to establish whether the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee would be prepared to take on the petition? [Interruption.] The clerk tells me that they have agreed to the inquiry, so I think that we can proceed on that basis. Are members content to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
Colour Blindness (Accessibility) (PE2138)
We come to PE2138. Colleagues will be aware that they have fresh submissions before them. The petition was lodged by Dr Ian Hume McKee, who, you might remember—well, no, only Fergus Ewing, David Torrance and I might remember—is a former parliamentary colleague of ours. He stood down in 2011, I understand. I remember Dr Ian McKee—I can remember some very florid chamber contributions and sparring engagements in times past. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make the design and signage for publicly owned buildings accessible for people with colour blindness. Good morning, Dr McKee, if you are joining us.
The petitioner highlights the difficulty that he and other colour-blind people experience when dealing with a world in which information is often provided in a colour-coded way. He points out that hospitals use red and green lines to direct patients, and graphs and Government documents use colour to differentiate trends. The SPICe briefing states:
“While there are regulations and guidance on inclusive access to public buildings, there is limited specific guidance on addressing the challenges associated with colour blindness.”
The briefing outlines the requirement to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, as set out in the Equality Act 2010. However, SPICe notes that it is not clear whether colour blindness would constitute a disability under the act, as it would likely depend on the impact that the condition has on an individual.
We have received a written submission from our parliamentary colleague Gordon MacDonald, which highlights the challenges that are faced by colour-blind high school students. He shares an example of a student in his constituency who was unable to answer a higher geography exam question because it could be answered only by identifying colours on a map. He explains that the question was worth 20 out of 100 marks, so the student was left at a serious disadvantage.
10:15I mentioned at the beginning of this agenda item that we seek an initial view from the Scottish Government on each new petition. However, I was disappointed that the response from the Scottish Government on this petition, which was due in mid-February, was only very recently received. We now have that response before us, and I wonder whether the committee would like to consider how best to proceed. If responses to our inquiries are not timeously responded to, it merely delays our ability to represent the petitioner who has brought the petition before Parliament, which is our responsibility and our endeavour. We understand that it can take a little time to consider a petition, but it is very unhelpful if we do not have the response in due course, such that we can consider the detail of the petition timeously.
With the delay to the response, in addition to its generality, it would be worth while writing back to the minister seeking detailed views on the action that is called for in the petition; details of the current accessibility standards for the design and signage in publicly owned buildings for people with colour blindness; and the minister’s view on whether it is acceptable for the Scottish Government to fail to provide a response to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, as the convener has highlighted. Perhaps it would also be as well to write to Disability Equality Scotland seeking its views on the action that is called for in the petition.
It must have been quite tricky for any higher geography student suddenly discovering that part of the exam was conditional on being able to identify colours, because they would be quite concerned. The suggestion that colour blindness might not actually be a disability of any sort is therefore also a cause for concern.
Are colleagues content with Mr Golden’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Support for Ex-council Properties (PE2150)
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.
In the light of the Scottish Government’s decision not to change the Scottish Housing Regulator’s remit—it is determined not to do that—and because there is an on-going petition in the petitioner’s name on RAAC, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing this petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plans to extend the Scottish Housing Regulator’s remit as the independent regulator of all social landlords, which is set in law, and home owners who are affected by serious structural issues can access support through the scheme of assistance provided by local authorities, which can include financial help.
I would support that, but in doing so I would point to the fact that the petitioner, who has another petition live before this Parliament, is not in any way losing anything today. There is no door being shut on the petitioner. The petitioner is already in the room with the other petition, which is directly considering the RAAC issues.
Moreover, as you have indicated, convener, as well as the members’ business debate, there is virtually constant accountability through members raising questions about RAAC every week. The Government’s response has been inadequate by any stretch of the imagination, and that has been covered in the chamber time and again.
I stress that there is no need for the petitioner to feels that today is a disappointment because RAAC is very much a live issue before Parliament. Whatever view one takes about the performance of the Government, that is undoubtedly true.
Another brief point is that, if there were to be another regulator—another quango—it would make not a blind bit of difference to the problems that face us at the moment. By definition, any such new quango could not impact things that have happened before its existence and establishment. You cannot apply judgment retrospectively in that regard, nor do I think that a new public body would really make the kind of difference that most people want to see. I simply do not think that it is the right solution to an admittedly very serious problem. That is just a personal view, and it could be right or wrong, but it is not the main point. The main point is that the petitioner has done extremely well in raising this in Parliament, and has done so successfully, with members of all parties pursuing it vigorously and continuing to do so between now and next May.
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.
I agree with colleagues, but is there a way in which we can merge both petitions?
The problem is that the standing orders of the Parliament do not allow us to have two petitions open in relation to the same thing at the same time, so I am afraid that we cannot do that.
It is important that we acknowledge that some of the issues here remain active in a live petition. In closing it, we accept that there is an issue here, but the Scottish Government—and, at this stage in the life of the Parliament, there is not much more that we can give effect to in that regard—has said that it is not prepared to pursue the suggested solution that is before us. I therefore do not think that we have any other course of action than the one that Mr Torrance has suggested to us.
Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
It may be a disappointment in some senses, but that is sometimes the way that these things fall, I am afraid.
Home Reports (PE2152)
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?
I have tried to consider the papers carefully. I have concluded that we should seek to close this petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, primarily on the basis that surveyors are already subject to various requirements, including the need to have a complaint handling procedure in place and to offer independent third-party recourse for complaints. Also, the home report guidance is being updated to make the limitations of the single survey clearer to buyers and to provide information about other steps that buyers can take to assess the condition of the home they are considering buying.
10:30In saying that, it is important to state something that is true but is perhaps not mentioned very much, which is that when someone buys a heritable property—typically a house or flat, a dwelling house—the system is caveat emptor. The buyer takes on the risks, and it is up to the buyer to decide whether or not the home report is sufficient. Very often, in practice—this happened in my day—one would look at the home report and decide that there were further investigations that required to be carried out, for example, into whether internal alterations to a property had been made with or without consent, or whether there was an extensive problem of infestation of dry or other forms of rot.
All those things have to be discussed by the buyer’s solicitor with the buyer, and the buyer’s solicitor owes legal duties. The RICS rules about what surveyors are bound to do are very clear: the surveyor must be chartered and that chartered surveyor must have professional indemnity. The chartered surveyor, in providing the home report, does not have a duty to provide a thorough, detailed, intrusive, incursive report, but only a report designed primarily for mortgage valuation. Having seen those reports myself, and worked with them, and having seen a home report recently, I would say it is a very limited document. Frankly, it spends more time setting out the exclusions of liability than it does describing the actual property. That may be a bit cynical, but that was true of the home report that I saw very recently.
I think that there is a much wider issue here. Possibly the petitioner’s complaint is an individual legal complaint that she may have to pursue against the RICS or the individual surveyor’s indemnifying insurers, and that would be a legal private case for her to pursue. In saying that, I am not passing any judgment. It is a possibility. However, given that the Scottish Government is carrying out a review in this area, there are not any magic solutions here.
The home report was brought in to replace the situation where there were five parties going for the same property and five different surveyors surveying the same property each time. That was regarded as an unnecessary expense and an unnecessary procedure, and that is the reason why the home reports were brought in. There is no perfect system, however, and caveat emptor is where it starts and, frankly, where it very often finishes. It is up to the individual to listen carefully to advice from solicitors.
I did not mean to give a conveyancing lecture here, convener, but because we are proposing to close a new petition, I thought it only courteous and respectful to the petitioner to set out the reasons why I do not think that this committee, at this stage in the parliamentary session, can do anything more, while recognising that the petitioner certainly has raised valid points, which I am quite sure will be reflected by many other people who were less than satisfied with the experience that they had. That is by no means new, convener, and if there were easy answers that everybody could be happy with, I am sure that they would have been discovered long ago.
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.
Planning (Equestrian Access) (PE2154)
PE2154, lodged by Jasmine Bissett, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update planning policies to make it mandatory for new urban developments to give consideration to equestrian usage and ensure that suitable access and signage is included as part of that consideration.
The SPICe briefing for the petition explains that, in general, decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan. The development plan for the given area in Scotland consists of the fourth national planning framework—NPF4—and the relevant local development plan, with which all colleagues will feel familiar. NPF4 requires planning authorities to consider the need to safeguard access rights when developing LDPs.
However, under the Land Reform (Scotland Act) 2003, local authorities and national park authorities have a legal duty to protect routes for responsible public access to land in the countryside, and the Scottish outdoor access code stipulates that access rights extend to horse riding. In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it expects the issue of
“horse-related infrastructure in urban developments”—
what a sentence—to be considered at a local level, including in terms of signage, to ensure suitability to location and use.
In an additional submission, the petitioner expresses the view that local authorities tend to prioritise more popular modes of transport to the detriment of the needs of equestrians. Additionally, the petitioner highlights that the response received from the Scottish Government acknowledged that Scotland’s great trails were designed solely for pedestrian usage and that catch-up has been needed to open suitable areas of the trails for other uses.
I have equestrian users in my constituency, so I am aware that sometimes there is a lack of access or thought given to routes for equestrian users. Notwithstanding that, and in the light of the Scottish Government’s response, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
In the light of evidence from the Scottish Government, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that where access rights apply, local authorities and national park authorities already have a statutory duty to uphold those rights and to enable all types of responsible access, including equestrian. The Scottish Government expects the need for equestrian-specific infrastructure, including signage for shared use, to be considered locally in order to ensure that provision is appropriate to the location and use.
I think that there are some issues underlying the petition, but I am afraid that time is short in this parliamentary session and I do not know that we can do justice to them. It is a petition that somebody might like to consider bringing back, in order to challenge the Government’s assertion in relation to some of those matters. At this stage, I think that the committee is minded to close the petition. Do colleagues agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner.
E-cigarettes (Cessation Support) (PE2155)
PE2155, lodged by Daniel Taggart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to people trying to give up e-cigarettes and vapes by expanding access to nicotine replacement therapy and stop-smoking medications to include e-cigarette users and vapers.
The SPICe briefing for this petition explains that while e-cigarettes and vapes are currently considered lower risk than traditional tobacco products, they still pose health concerns and that further research is required to study their long-term impact on health.
The most recent data for Scotland shows that 12 per cent of adults reported using vapes or e-cigarettes in 2023, compared with just 10 per cent the year earlier. The national health service guidance for pharmacists on public health services states that e-cigarette users should be able to access licensed smoking cessation products, including nicotine replacement therapy. However, the guidance cautions that many e-cigarette products contain nicotine, which means that switching to NRT could create issues with determining the correct dosage.
Additionally, for patients who try to quit non-nicotine e-cigarette products, reintroducing nicotine through NRT would be inappropriate. For those patients, the guidance recommends referral to non-pharmacy specialist smoking cessation services, which may include telephone support, one-to-one support or group support.
In its initial response to the petitioner, the Scottish Government mentions the “Tobacco and vaping framework: roadmap 2034”, under which it has committed to improve information about vapes and to increase awareness of avenues of support for stopping vaping or smoking. The Government has also committed to continue to fund and support cessation services. Despite that, the quit your way Scotland service, which is also referenced in the Scottish Government’s response, appears to be geared primarily towards those who are trying to quit smoking. In fact, with caveats around evolving research on their safety, vapes are being suggested as one of the few possible options to help people who wish to give up smoking.
Do members have any suggestions for action?
I think there is something in this petition. The reality is that, in the United Kingdom, the battle to stop people smoking has largely been won, with the long-term trend such that smoking will eventually be only a peripheral activity for most of the population. However, there has been a massive expansion in the use of e-cigarettes and vapes, initially designed as replacement products, particularly among young people and under-18s, despite that being illegal.
It would be worth writing to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, asking for clarity on what steps the Scottish Government is taking to increase support, as well as awareness of support, for those who are trying to quit e-cigarettes and vapes, with a particular focus on young people.
Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
That draws to a conclusion the public part of our meeting. As I said at the start of our meeting, we have an additional committee meeting next Wednesday, 25 June, when we will take evidence from, among others, the Lord Advocate and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs.
10:40 Meeting continued in private until 10:52.Previous
Continued Petitions