Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

We thank the petitioner and take note of their on-going concerns, which might be addressed in the work that will now take place. If that work fails to achieve that objective, we very much encourage the petitioner to come back with a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session.

PE2115, lodged by Paul Aaron, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that white composite fillings are available as a treatment option for registered national health service dental patients, specifically when treating molar teeth.

The SPICe briefing notes that, although many people choose or prefer composite fillings because they can be coloured to match the existing teeth, amalgam is longer lasting and enables restorations to be carried out more quickly. However, amalgam fillings should not normally be provided for patients under 15 years of age, patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding, or patients where there is a letter from secondary care recommending that amalgam should not be used due to specific medical concerns.

Members may also have noted that, as part of wider efforts to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury, the European Union has agreed regulations that will ban the use of dental amalgams and prohibit the manufacturing, import and export of other mercury-added products from 1 January 2025.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government has stated that dental amalgam has been used successfully for more than 150 years and has been proven to provide lasting, reliable restorations. The response goes on to highlight the reforms to the NHS dental sector that were introduced in 2023, with the aim of allowing dentists to offer far more effective preventative care and to reduce the requirement for all restorations, regardless of material used. It is the Scottish Government’s view that

“to include white fillings in all cases for aesthetic reasons in the absence of an oral health rationale would not be supported within NHS general dental services.”

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That is a proposal from Mr Torrance, in the light of the responses that we have received. It is not clear how we might otherwise take matters forward. There is obviously the issue of the EU ban. Are members content to proceed with Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2006, lodged by Ewan Miller, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors or to lay regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

Our colleague, Sarah Boyack, joins us once again in our consideration of the petition. Good morning, Sarah.

We last considered the petition on 7 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to seek an update on work to finalise and publish the voluntary code of practice for land-owning maintenance companies. The response from the minister highlights the mechanisms that are available to home owners to remove property factors, which have led her to the view that legislative change at this time is neither necessary nor proportionate. The minister’s response also notes that work has not progressed on the voluntary code of practice as anticipated, and adds that

“this code would apply only where homeowners pay a land-owning land maintenance company for management of the open spaces that are owned by the land maintenance company.”

Sarah Boyack, do you have anything to say to the committee in light of what has progressed—or not progressed, as it turns out—since we last considered the petition?