Chamber and committees

Thank you, Ms Baillie. I think that that is reasonable. By 2033, even you and I might have retired along with other members of the committee.

I find that increasingly hard to do these days, but I still try.

David Torrance, do you have any suggestions that we might make? It seems perfectly reasonable to try to find out where we stand, as we were given to understand that we would have heard something by now.

Our next continued petition is PE1957, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that surveyors are legally responsible for the accuracy of information provided in the single survey and to increase the liability on surveyors to pay repair bills where a home report fails to highlight existing faults in the condition of the property.

We previously considered this petition at our meeting on 7 December 2022, when we agreed to seek the views of a number of organisations. We have received responses from the Scottish Law Commission, Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Law Society of Scotland. Copies of the responses have been included in our meeting papers for today.

Although BEFS saw no concern with the petitioner’s suggestion that all home reports should include contact details for the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors response noted that

“it is not”

currently

“possible to name a single specific third-party resolution service as this would indicate bias”.

The responses from RICS and the Law Society noted an expectation that the Scottish Government will carry out a review of home reports in the near future, which is a move that BEFS would support.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Mr Ewing’s point highlights the conundrum that was at the heart of the debate when the Parliament sought to introduce home reports. Gosh, I think that they were introduced during my first session as an MSP—the 2007 to 2011 session.

Item 3 on our agenda is consideration of new petitions. Before I introduce each new petition, as I always do for those who might be following our proceedings elsewhere, I indicate that, as a matter of practice, we invite the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament’s independent policy advice resource—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to offer comment on petitions. We do that because, historically, if we did not do that, that was usually what happened at the first meeting at which we considered the new petition. Therefore, we bypass that and we are therefore already considering the position with a degree of information having been obtained.

We are joined by Michael Marra, who has been sitting quite contentedly through some of our deliberations. In order to facilitate his day, we will move first to petition PE2009, which was lodged by Caroline Gordon, and which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure fair access to Scottish universities for residents in Scotland and the UK by reviewing university business models and Scottish Government funding arrangements.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that

“Scottish universities are autonomous institutions and as such are responsible for their own admission policies and selection criteria. The Scottish Government and Scottish Ministers are unable to intervene in universities’ business models.”

The submission emphasises Universities and Colleges Admissions Service data, published in January 2023, which shows that a near-record number of Scottish students secured a place at the University of Edinburgh. The Scottish Government aims to have 20 per cent of students entering university from Scotland’s 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds by 2030. The submission highlights that 9.1 per cent of the University of Edinburgh’s full-time first degree entrants in 2020-21 came from Scotland’s most deprived areas.

The petitioner has responded to the Scottish Government’s submission, stating that “many capable young Scots” are unable to attend due to

“chronic underfunding and poor government policy.”

She notes that freedom of information requests have shown an 84 per cent increase in the number of Scottish domiciled applicants being refused entry to Scottish universities since 2006. The petitioner concludes with a call for the Scottish Government to conduct a review of its funding arrangements for Scottish universities and remove the cap on places to provide equal opportunities for all young people, regardless of their background.

As I said a moment ago, we are joined by Michael Marra. I invite him to speak to the committee before we consider how we might proceed.

Thank you, Mr Marra. I know that you have been raising the issues in Parliament with the First Minister. I am content with the proposals that you have made. Would members of the committee like to add any further suggestions?

That makes sense. Are we content to pursue the suggestions that Mr Marra has made, as well as the one from Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry that that is not the decision that the petitioner will have looked for, but I thank them for raising the issue. We have put their concern on the record.

PE2008, which was lodged by Kirsty Solman, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to create a separate accident and emergency for children and young people presenting with mental health issues.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition details on-going work to support people experiencing poor mental health. It states that several mechanisms are in place to ensure that emergency mental health care is accessible quickly and as close to home as possible.

For example, the mental health unscheduled care pathway ensures that anyone presenting at A and E in a mental health crisis is properly assessed and cared for. Care plans are put in place that may include support from crisis support organisations or local mental health services, or admission to the hospital where necessary.

The redesign of urgent care programme ensures that each health board is providing access to a senior clinical decision maker 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for urgent mental health assessment or urgent referral to local mental health services.

The Scottish Government has published the child and adolescent mental health services national service specification, which outlines the provisions that young people and their families can expect from the NHS, including a 24/7 mental health crisis response service for children and young people.

In her response to the Scottish Government, the petitioner highlights that there are only two wards in the west of Scotland for those in crisis with their mental health and questions the effectiveness of speaking to a child or parent over the phone to assess their mental state. The petitioner also questions the rationale behind the redesign of urgent care programme, stating that the programme does not have sufficient CAMHS staff available. She also notes the lack of information on the locations of available hubs for children and adolescents struggling with their mental health.

The petitioner raises a number of challenges to and questions for the Scottish Government in response to its submission, details of which are available in the clerk’s note.

Do colleagues agree that we will write to the Scottish Government requesting that it provides a clear view on the merits of what the petition is asking for as well as responding to the points raised by the petitioner in her recent written submission, to which I have just referred?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. That was the final petition this morning. We will now move into private session.