Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that there are some issues underlying the petition, but I am afraid that time is short in this parliamentary session and I do not know that we can do justice to them. It is a petition that somebody might like to consider bringing back, in order to challenge the Government’s assertion in relation to some of those matters. At this stage, I think that the committee is minded to close the petition. Do colleagues agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE2105, which was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent the unnecessary use of public safety powers to demolish listed buildings.

We last considered this petition at our previous meeting, which was on 4 June 2025. At that meeting, we heard evidence from Hazel Johnson, director of the Built Environment Forum Scotland; Laura Shanks, chair of Local Authority Building Standards Scotland; and Professor Gordon Masterton, chair of the Institution of Civil Engineers panel for historical engineering works.

We are also joined online by our colleague Paul Sweeney MSP, a former member of the committee, who has taken an on-going interest in this petition. Good morning, Mr Sweeney. Before the committee considers how we might proceed on the basis of the evidence that we heard last week, I invite you to offer the committee your thoughts.

Oh, it seems that Mr Sweeney’s connection has dropped—I saw his name on the screen in front of me and assumed that we had him. We are actively trying to get him back.

We will return to the petition later in the meeting, once we have Mr Sweeney with us again.

In the meantime, we turn to PE2098, which was lodged by Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh—I am stuck, because it is all in Gaelic. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring investment in the Gaelic language to sustainable levels by increasing Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s annual budget to at least £8.5 million and to increase funding in line with inflation each year.

We last considered this petition on 11 September 2024 when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on the Gaelic officer scheme.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it provided funding to ensure that the Gaelic officer scheme was able to continue until the end of the financial year 2024-25, and that it then provided Bòrd na Gàidhlig with a further £510,000 to support the scheme in 2025-26.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I see that we are joined by our colleague Elena Whitham this morning, so I will take the petitions out of order to make as efficient use of Ms Whitham’s day as is possible. Rather than the first new petition, we will begin with the last one, PE2156, which has been lodged by Terence Lloyd and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urgently address undiagnosed and untreated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder by developing a funded national ADHD strategy, standardising ADHD diagnostic pathways, reducing waiting times and ensuring equitable access to ADHD diagnosis, treatment and support across Scotland. As I said, we are joined by Elena Whitham, whom I will invite to say a few words in a moment.

The petition states that Scotland faces a growing ADHD crisis, with long waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, or no access at all, due to regional funding disparities. The SPICe briefing notes that some health boards have recently withdrawn their neurodevelopmental assessment services. The briefing also notes that, in many regions, the only way of obtaining an ADHD diagnosis and medication is now through a private assessment.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that work is under way to implement adult neurodevelopmental pathways, to standardise diagnostic pathways and increase access to support. The response highlights the public consultation on the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill, which included discussion on statutory strategies, including national ones. However, the Scottish Government states that it does not currently have any plans to develop and implement a specific national ADHD strategy. The Scottish Government highlights the funding that is made available to health boards for improvement to mental health services and its engagement with the Royal College of General Practitioners on voluntary and shared care agreements.

Before the committee considers how it might proceed, I wonder whether Elena Whitham would like to offer her thoughts.

Thank you very much. It is a bit disturbing to read about the lack of parity of access and the position as it stands. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Together with the suggestion from Mr Sweeney that we engage with COSLA on the key issue that we felt was raised on the local authority aspect, are members content to keep the petition open and to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Sweeney.

PE2150, which was lodged by Wilson Chowdhry—who I think is in the public gallery—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the mandate of the Scottish Housing Regulator or to establish a dedicated body to ensure that owners of ex-council properties receive the support and protection that they need to deal with significant structural issues.

According to the petition, the new or amended regulator should provide oversight and advocacy for owners of ex-council properties experiencing structural crises; monitor standards and safety through on-going inspections and the implementation of mitigation measures; maintain safety standards in homes, particularly when systemic issues affect multiple properties; co-ordinate, support and facilitate clearer pathways for owners of ex-council houses to access advice, financial aid or alternative accommodation where properties become uninhabitable due to structural risks and where local authorities may have a conflict of interest; and ensure transparency by requiring relevant authorities to disclose known structural risks and safety failures and to provide clear information on the hazards, such as reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, to owners of ex-council homes.

We have received two additional submissions from the petitioner, in which he provides a comprehensive view of the main issues around RAAC and similar structural defects affecting council-built properties before privatisation.

Members may recall that the petitioner has another active petition under consideration by the committee, which is calling for the provision of support to RAAC-affected communities. Our colleagues in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee have been undertaking on-going scrutiny of building safety and maintenance issues in Scotland, including consideration of RAAC. In providing evidence to the LGHPC, the former Minister for Housing and Local Government stated his continuing engagement with local authorities regarding support for RAAC-affected communities. I should say that there is also a members’ business debate taking place today in Parliament on recognising RAAC in council and former council housing.

Our SPICe briefing on this petition tells us that the Scottish Housing Regulator’s statutory objective under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 is to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are, or may become, homeless, tenants of social landlords or recipients of housing services provided by social landlords. The briefing further highlights that the SHR does not have any specific advocacy role, nor a statutory role, regarding owners of ex-council properties, as I think that most colleagues will have established when representing constituents.

The Scottish Government’s response makes it clear that it has no plans to amend the SHR’s objective, which is the regulation of social landlords. The response also reiterates the Government’s position that local authorities have a duty to ensure that housing in their areas meets the relevant standards. However, where ex-council homes were sold under the right to buy, there are no responsibilities incumbent on local authorities for the maintenance of those properties, which falls to the owner.

Finally, the Scottish Government states that home owners who require advice and information can access the scheme of assistance under which local authorities can provide financial and non-financial help for private housing.

That is a fairly brusque and clear determination from the Scottish Government, which I think limits our options. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we proceed? I should say that the RAAC issues remain part of an open, on-going petition. I recognise that there have been some further suggestions in respect of those issues in this petition, but at least it helps that there is continuing discussion of the on-going petition in relation to RAAC. However, in respect of the Scottish Housing Regulator, the Scottish Government seems to be fairly determined. I wonder what colleagues feel in the light of that.