Chamber and committees

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?

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.

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.

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.

I 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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

I am inclined to agree.

I think that that stands as a helpful example of why the Scottish Government should think twice about any association with the Scottish Greens.

We are talking about the Scottish Government’s lack of investment in the Rolls-Royce potential in the Clyde. I heard Mairi Gougeon say—unbelievably—that the Government is in favour of Scotland’s defence industries and its armed forces, because we need to defend ourselves, but that it is not in favour of giving our armed forces anything to defend themselves with. That is a completely unacceptable position.

In 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, perhaps there were grounds for putting on rose-tinted spectacles. Maybe we were briefly seduced by the kind of world that we thought we might all be going to live in, but the world is evolving around us right now. We should celebrate the fact that we have leading defence industries here in Scotland that employ the very best of our young people at the forefront of technology. We need to get behind them and be part of the defence of this country and the free world.