Chamber and committees

You paid tribute to the work of the petitioner earlier, and it was obviously a difficult personal situation that led to the petition being submitted to the committee. The petition identified some issues that were accepted in our correspondence with the Government as areas that merited a bit of further work and explanation.

We were impressed with the evidence that we heard last week. The experience of David Strang and Dr Carole Hunter is significant, and it underpinned an informed discussion.

Our job is in relation to the issues raised in the petition, and I will let David Torrance turn to those.

Thank you. We are now happy to hear from Nicoletta Primo.

That might be something that the committee can pursue a bit further by trying to find out where those schemes exist, what the uptake is, and what education there has been for an understanding of the schemes among rail travellers and rail staff.

Mr Gallant mentioned that he lives in a rural community. Alexander Stewart is going to touch on rurality.

Thank you.

Colleagues, we would normally consider the evidence at a future meeting, but one issue that has come out of the petition is that of companion travel. Are we content to initiate a series of inquiries of the local authorities that offer this scheme, in relation to its uptake and the understanding of passengers and rail staff of its working practices?

Issues have been identified, and it would be interesting to know whether the supporting local authorities are aware of passengers who are unable to access the ticket at the start of their journey and who then find that they are not entitled to the reduction at the end of the journey. It would be interesting to initiate some inquiries on those points, which would help to inform our next discussion.

I will bring in Fergus Ewing in a second but, for the purposes of our understanding, from an editorial point of view, how many people do you estimate are involved in the falconry business? Is the employment that underpins the practice of falconry quantifiable?

Thank you for that comprehensive statement in support of the aims of the petition. It touched on issues that we have tried to address as a committee, and it underpins the reason why we have you with us this morning.

You are correct: we hoped to be joined by Dr Nick Fox, who was due to achieve a parliamentary first by joining us from an international flight. Unfortunately, however, he is not in the 2.5 per cent of airspace that would allow a connection to be made.

We will touch on the issues that you have raised as we develop the discussion. However, as this is the first opportunity that there has been for the discipline of falconry to be aired in a parliamentary discussion, it might be useful if, in the first instance, you give us an overview of what the practice entails, and its cultural and social significance to Scotland.

Our next continued petition is PE1905, on the public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950, which was lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJW’s Support. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions that were taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse allegations since 1950.

The committee will recall the evidence that we heard directly from Angela about her experiences and the issues that she would like to see addressed. I once again thank her for taking the time to speak with the committee on what is a particularly difficult topic.

At our most recent consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the evidence session and the findings of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales. That inquiry has now published its final report, which sets out 20 detailed recommendations, some of which relate directly to the suggestions that Angela has made. Our papers highlight the relevant recommendations.

The Deputy First Minister has responded to the committee and has reiterated that, if the remit of the Scottish child abuse inquiry was widened, it would add years on to the timeline, which would produce negative outcomes for survivors. The Deputy First Minister considers neither that the scope of the inquiry should be extended, nor that a separate inquiry should be established to consider abuse that took place in non-residential religious organisations.

The Scottish Government has set out a number of alternative measures, including engagement with faith leaders and a public consultation as part of work to develop the national child protection guidance in Scotland 2021. That guidance covers reporting practice, creation of policies and procedures, and careful vetting processes in religious settings.

Angela has provided a written submission to the committee, which includes links to relevant articles in support of her petition. She points to the research that was undertaken by the inquiry in England and Wales in order to reach a decision on mandatory reporting, highlighting the importance of that for victims in insular organisations. Angela says that religious organisations that do not wish to engage will not be required to do so. Angela states that religious leaders should be mandatory reporters and that training should be provided alongside PVG checks—under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007—as part of any vetting process.

We have heard evidence and we have seen the recommendations from the inquiry in England and Wales. We have, yet again, received the Deputy First Minister’s assertion that the Scottish Government is not willing to expand the scope of the current inquiry or even to initiate a separate inquiry. We have also received Angela’s response further to all of that.

What comments or suggestions do colleagues have, given what seems to me to be the intransigent position with which we are confronted?

I am very happy to support that proposal. Are colleagues happy to support it?

I do not particularly want to lose sight of the conviction that we as a committee came to on the back of the evidence that we heard that the Government’s position is wrong-headed. I wonder whether colleagues would be prepared to invite the clerks to draft a letter summarising our conclusion on the back of the evidence that we have heard that the Scottish child abuse inquiry, notwithstanding everything that the Government has said, should have its terms of reference extended, or that there should be an investigation into the possibility of establishing an alternative inquiry based on the evidence that we have heard during our consideration of the petition.

Are colleagues content for us to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE1957, on home reports, making surveyors more accountable. It has been lodged by Catherine Donaghy and calls on the 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.

Catherine has shared her experience of buying a house only to discover that the property had major faults, which had not been highlighted in the home report. She tells us that those faults included a hole in the roof and missing rainwater and gutter systems, none of which had been noted as having a category 3 rating, requiring urgent or immediate repair.

As we do with all new petitions ahead of considering them—as I should have said a moment ago—we invite the Scottish Government to comment on the underlying principles of the petition and to respond. The Scottish Government has stated that it considers the asks of the petition to be inappropriate because the scope of the home report survey is outlined at the beginning of the report and clearly identifies the limitations of the survey, and because members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors carrying out the single survey and valuation in a home report must be appropriately qualified, carry professional indemnity insurance and have in place a complaints-handling procedure that offers independent third-party recourse to complaints—that is to say, by people such as Catherine Donaghy.

In responding to the Scottish Government’s view, Catherine explains the difficulties that she has experienced in pursuing a complaint with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and she has suggested that all home reports should include contact details for the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution.

It is an interesting petition. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

The petition, which was lodged by Amber Roberts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to improve the current housing crisis by merging housing associations and local council housing and by considering introducing a new right-to-buy scheme for council tenants. Amber Roberts suggests that merging housing associations with local council housing could help more council houses to become available and result in more than 76,000 council homes being built by 2034. She has also set out a proposal for a right-to-buy scheme that would allow council tenants who have lived in the property for 10 years or more the opportunity to buy their home.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has stated that its

“approach to the planning and delivery of affordable housing, is focussed on providing the ‘right homes in the right place’.”

It has highlighted that

“Housing associations and councils have a long history of ... working in partnership in the delivery of affordable homes”

and has noted that

“Not all councils build new homes, six local authorities have previously transferred all of their housing stock to housing associations.”

Reference is made to the Scottish Government’s own target of delivering

“110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which at least 70% will be available for social rent”.

It has highlighted that that would

“exceed the number of homes for social rent suggested within the petition”

and that the target would be delivered “within a shorter timeframe”.

That is a lot of houses to be built in 10 years.

The Scottish Government has also stated that it has no plans to reintroduce the right-to-buy scheme, and it has provided details of the support that is available to assist affordable home ownership. That support includes the low-cost initiative for first-time buyers and the open market shared equity scheme.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?