Seòmar agus comataidhean

Marie McNair will ask questions on our third theme, which is the NatureScot reporter process, including local engagement.

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions.

I will start, as I always do before turning to the individual petitions, by saying that the committee invites our independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to contribute thoughts on the content of each new petition. We also seek a preliminary response from the Scottish Government. We do so because, historically, those were the first two things that we spent a meeting agreeing to do, and this process allows us to expedite our consideration of the petition.

It would also be reasonable to seek an update on discussions with the UK Government on funding for RAAC remediation and management, including whether the Scottish Government has any scope in that. The committee may also wish to ask the minister for further information on its plans to review the Scottish home report.

I feel that the issues that have been raised in the petition merit the committee taking formal evidence, and the information that we are seeking will help to inform the committee. The issue is of significant material concern to the individuals who have been affected by RAAC.

Whether we think that the answers that we receive allow the petition’s aims to be advanced in a meaningful way or whether we think that they will have to be addressed by some other means, we should flag up that this is very much an issue on which we might wish to take evidence from the minister at a future meeting. Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

One theme of the petition is the instruction of an independent review. The Scottish Government was unenthusiastic, but there was a general feeling in the committee that, after 20 years, it would not seem unreasonable to have an independent review. Some of the witnesses from whom we heard last week addressed the issue of a consultation process on two fronts. First, NatureScot has a vested interest in the outcome of the consultation, so it is therefore not truly independent in its analysis of what emerges.

Secondly, regarding the consultation itself, although people will come forward and contribute, it will elicit only the information that comes from those people who choose to participate in it, which is not necessarily always the complete picture. The merits of an independent review would be that somebody would be charged with proactively going out and asking questions, whether or not the issues that they asked about had been volunteered by a body of people, an individual or whoever, as a consequence of a consultation.

I am interested to know your perspective on the petition’s ask that a review be held that would look at aspects such as farming, forestry, crofting and angling, which would give Parliament and the wider public a holistic view of the success of the development of national parks and enable them to see to what extent the existing national parks have evolved from the original conception. What is your view on that aspect of the petition?

In that case, I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses and others leave.

Reusable Water Bottles (PE1896)

Mr Lumsden, this is your debut at the committee. We are pleased to have you here and keen to hear any contribution you might wish to put before the committee as we consider the petition.

Is he only nine? He must be older than that.

Mr Torrance has proposed that there are grounds to close the petition. I think that we can do nothing more, given the Scottish Government’s response. However, in closing the petition, I suggest that the committee write to SEPA, drawing its attention to the petitioner’s view about the situation at Hawes pier and the fact that it would appear that its conditions for authorisation have been breached. It would be for SEPA to respond to that, and to the petitioner’s contention in relation to the manual application of the authorised chemical leading to spillages over the pier edge into the river and in unpermitted weather conditions. Although I do not think that we can take things forward, given the Government’s response, we can draw attention to that point quite directly on behalf of the committee.

Can you clarify your point, Mr Choudhury? What would you like us to write to the City of Edinburgh Council to establish?

We could address that point in the letter to SEPA. I do not think that the committee can do any more, but we can invite SEPA to consider those issues and see whether it feels that the action is sufficiently robust.

PE2114, lodged by Bill McCabe on behalf of BetterCareScotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the effective regulation and oversight of social care services in Scotland by replacing the Care Inspectorate with a new independent oversight body that has a specific focus on risk management; uses regulatory and analytical expertise to identify and eradicate poor practice; and meaningfully engages with service operators and those with lay expertise to help deliver better, more transparent social care outcomes for the people in Scotland.

The SPICe briefing provides an overview of the Care Inspectorate’s qualification requirements for prospective inspectors, noting that specialist training covering regulation, scrutiny and improvement and an understanding of the different functions of its work, including registration complaints, inspection and enforcement, is provided as part of the inspectorate’s induction process. Members will also have noted from the briefing that the Scottish Government commissioned an independent review of inspection, scrutiny and regulation of social care in Scotland, and has accepted all the review’s recommendations, many of which could be considered pertinent to the asks of the petition.

In her response, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport states that, in 2019, the Care Inspectorate agreed with ministers that it would take a risk-based, intelligence-led approach to its regulatory activities. The minister’s response also mentions the independent review, telling us that the Government is taking a phased approach to the implementation of its recommendations to deliver continuous improvement that addresses the key challenges that were highlighted.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who welcomes the minister’s acknowledgement of the need for radical reform of social care regulation, but thinks it unrealistic to believe that the 38 high-level recommendations of the independent review will deliver it. The petitioner believes that Scotland needs a model of social care regulation that is designed to work in the interests of service users, and suggests that the current social care system deters scrutiny. The petitioner’s submission then goes on to state that the lack of support for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill makes reform of social care regulation, as proposed in the petition, more urgent than ever.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?