Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next petition is PE1958, which was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland. The petitioner is with us in the public gallery, although she is not contributing to our consideration orally. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday on the basis of individual need, to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives on the basis of individual need, and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people, including by ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the report “The Promise” are fully implemented in Scotland.

Jasmin-Kasaya tells us that some care-experienced people in Scotland find it difficult to access services due to the application of arbitrary criteria relating to their age and when they left care. She says that care-experienced people who leave care before their 16th birthday are not included in the legal definition of “care leaver” and, therefore, are not eligible for continuing care and aftercare. That means that they are left to navigate difficult issues without the support that many of their care-experienced peers are entitled to.

She asks the committee to consider how continuing care, the Promise and/or human rights legislation can strengthen protection in line with the inclusive definition set out by The Promise Scotland and the First Minister’s personal commitment to care-experienced people. She suggests that the situation could be fixed by improving existing legislation to ensure that all care-experienced people have access to support.

Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government says that it is fully committed to improving the lives of our care-experienced young people and highlights the point that continuing care and aftercare are available to young people who are care leavers. The Scottish Government’s response mentions a range of support that is available to young people with care experience, as well as plans to introduce a care experience grant to provide young people with additional financial support. The Government also highlights the publication of the Promise implementation plan, which sets out the work that it is undertaking to keep the Promise that was made to Scotland’s children and young people who are care experienced.

I draw members’ attention to the further written submission that we have received from Jasmin-Kasaya, in which she highlights the point that the Scottish Government has addressed neither her concerns about young people who leave care before their 16th birthday nor the ask to extend support throughout a care-experienced person’s life. She tells us that she is aware of many care-experienced peers who have been left to struggle without support due to not being formally looked after at the age of 16, as well as others who have had to push to be kept on compulsory supervision orders when the local authority tried to remove them before their 16th birthday.

The issue is a very complicated and serious one that obviously has an impact. Colleagues have had the opportunity to consider the papers, including the latest submissions that we have received. Do you have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

PE1959 is on tackling Scotland’s affordable housing crisis. We have finally reached a petition whose number is the year in which I was born. That has been creeping up on me. The number must have passed the year in which you were born a long time ago, Fergus.

It is difficult to know what meaningful steps we can take, given the Government’s position. I also do not think that we can keep the petition open until 2032 to see whether the 110,000 homes materialise. That is, in itself, a challenging issue. Given the definitive response from the Scottish Government, I am unclear as to what more we can do.

Are members content that we close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We move to PE1964. Apologies—I have quite a long screed to read here, but this is our final petition this morning. The petition, which was lodged by Accountability Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent review of the SPSO in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO; assess the quality of its work and decisions; and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.

The SPICe briefing outlines the role and responsibilities of the SPSO, the budget and resource challenges, the complaints process, service standards and challenges. The briefing states that, over four years, the SPSO received 369 complaints about the service that it provides. The briefing also highlights the SPSO’s request for a change to legislation to allow it to take complaints in any format and to enable it to initiate its own investigations. A note on previous related petitions is also contained in our briefing.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, due to current resource constraints as well as the independent nature of the ombudsman and Parliament’s role in scrutinising the work of the ombudsman, it does not intend to take forward an independent review of the SPSO in the near future. The Scottish Government also states that it has opted not to amend the legislation in relation to the powers of the SPSO at present, due to competing demands on resources.

Members may wish to note that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee took evidence from the ombudsman yesterday as part of its scrutiny of the SPSO’s annual report, and I understand that those considerations did not include the issues that have been raised by the petitioner.

We received several additional submissions from the petitioner and others. Those set out concerns about the complaints process and the SPSO’s consideration and handling of evidence, including the approach taken where factual errors have been identified. People’s negative experiences and the impact of the SPSO complaints handling process on complainants have also been highlighted. The issues raised include the challenges of self-investigation and the need for structural independence. The submissions also call for an independent review of the SPSO. Accountability Scotland said that it would welcome clarification from the Scottish Government as to whether it considers that there is value in an independent review.

In an interesting submission to the committee, Bob Doris MSP stated that he believes that there is clear value in reviewing the SPSO 20 years on, as there has been no meaningful or detailed analysis of the processes and systems that are currently in place. He suggested that there would be merit in exploring how effective the SPSO is, including by considering the effectiveness of the safeguards that are in place and what changes are required. He also suggested that we may wish to understand the Scottish Government’s thinking on whether such a review would be desirable.

In reading the Scottish Government’s response, it struck me that it does not necessarily deny some of the issues that are raised in the petition; the Government simply takes the view that it does not have the resource or time to explore those matters at the moment. The Government did not express a view as to whether a review would be of value, as Bob Doris suggested it would be, and said that it would consider doing one at a later date.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Apparently, we have already established that that committee is not interested in pursuing what the petitioner raised.

That is very generous of you, Mr Stewart. I am on the corporate body and am therefore one of the people who would be in receipt of the letter that you suggest.

I am happy to take all those suggestions on board. The Parliament has not existed for much longer than the SPSO has, and we have had two or three reviews into how we function, so it seems perfectly reasonable that after a similar length of time it might be time to have a look at the way that the SPSO functions. I do not think that it can be argued that a review needs to be deferred indefinitely, because it has been deferred for long enough.

We are collectively agreed on the suggestions that have been made.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. We will take the rest of the agenda items in private. The committee’s next meeting will take place a week today, when we will meet with participants on the citizens panel of our public participation inquiry.

Thank you. That is one of the advantages of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We are taking forward the issues of an individual with a petition rather than bringing forward individual party-political considerations, which sometimes allows us to have a meaningful conversation about the particular issue at hand.

Thank you for your appearance with us this morning.

I should mention that sceptics of the proposal for home reports—of which I was one at the time—were concerned about the principle underpinning home reports, which is that they would do away with the need for undertaking expensive surveys when people were making offers for properties. On the question whether a home report is deficient, it has certainly been my experience in the years since the introduction of home reports that, when someone buys a home, a survey has still been needed as part of the requirements of the mortgage lender.

I am content with both of those suggestions. Are colleagues agreed to take those actions?

Members indicated agreement.