Chamber and committees

We have to be careful about the discussion of cases that are actively alive in court procedures at the moment, as is the one to which you are referring. I would be grateful if you perhaps did not refer specifically to something that is sub judice.

I invite my colleague Fergus Ewing to lead the questioning.

Thank you. That is very helpful. I see that colleagues do not have any further questions. I thank the witnesses for coming in. Is there anything that you would like to mention that you feel we did not manage to explore in the detail that you might have wished?

The next petition is PE1985, which is on evaluating garage to home developments. The petition was lodged by Darren Loftus and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent evaluation and provide national guidance on garage to home developments.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 23 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, before we move forward, we received a request from the petitioner yesterday asking us to defer consideration of the petition until a later date. We are still trying to establish the underpinning of that, but in light of that request, are colleagues content to defer consideration of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. As there are no other comments, suggestions or variations of view, do member wish to pursue the proposal from Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content for us to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

?

Our next petition is PE2000. I do not know whether that is statistically significant—two thousand what, I am not entirely sure. It was lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or creating a new body that is similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which could enable students to access redress without the need for court action.

We previously considered the petition on 19 April, at which point we agreed to seek the views of Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students Scotland. Universities Scotland has responded, stating its view that

“the SPSO offers an effective route for complaints-handling”

where cases have not been resolved at an institution level, and that it sees

“no basis for an expanded remit or new body”

to be established.

The response also notes new guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority, published earlier this year, which provides advice on how consumer protection law applies to the UK higher education sector and what enforcement action is available when higher education providers do not comply with the law.

The response also refers to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill that is currently being considered by the UK Parliament and is expected to significantly strengthen the Competition and Markets Authority’s enforcement powers.

NUS Scotland’s response states the organisation’s support for

“a review into the complaints processes for higher education institutions”,

and notes its view that

“extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman”

would be an

“effective way of”

empowering students to hold universities to account, although we note that the SPSO has no wish to take on that remit.

We also received a response from the petitioner expressing concerns about the SPSO’s remit and approach to complaints handling, and the impact on students of navigating complaints processes and having to seek redress through civil courts.

From NUS Scotland and from the petitioner, there is a desire to go further, but from the SPSO and Universities Scotland, there is less of a desire to do so. Do colleagues have any comments or observations in view of the responses that have been received???

That latter point in particular, on which the Scottish Government has given a clear direction, means that there is limited scope for the committee to advance the aims of the petition. Do colleagues therefore support Mr Torrance’s recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a couple of questions on the various submissions that the committee has received and your own. In your final submission, you say that the Police Scotland statement remains “technically correct”. I want to look behind that. Do you believe that it remains technically correct because that is convenient or because it is technically correct—if you understand my meaning? When you say “technically correct”, do you worry that that is a euphemism for not entirely responding to the issues that you are raising?

Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 20 December. We now move into private session to consider items 4 and 5, as we agreed to do earlier.