Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023

Official Report 546KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Fast Food Chains (Reward Systems) (PE2003)

The next item is consideration of new petitions. As I always do for the benefit of those who might be joining us online to watch our consideration of their petition, I indicate that, ahead of a petition’s first consideration, we seek an initial view from the Scottish Government and a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre, or SPICe, which is the Parliament’s impartial research service. That will not necessarily determine the committee’s view, but it does mean that, rather than our just going through the motions of suggesting that we get a briefing, we have anticipated that that will be our course of action and will, therefore, have the evidence already before us.

The first new petition is PE2003, which was lodged by Lewis McMartin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop fast food chains promoting unhealthy food choices by banning the use of reward systems. The Scottish Government’s response outlines its current work to restrict the promotion of food and drink that is high in fat, sugar or salt. When consulting on its planned legislation on the issue, promotional reward systems were not specifically discussed, but it remained open to views on whether such other types of promotions should be restricted beyond those set out in the consultation. The Government is considering responses to the consultation and will publish an external analysis report.

Has the consultation concluded? I am told by the clerks that the consultation has now closed, so it is too late to suggest that the petitioner contributes to it. I am also told that the petitioner is aware of that fact. That is fine.

I felt that the term “fast food” was rather loose in its definition. There are fast food salad bars now. I was not sure whether the petitioner quite articulated who he was specifically targeting. Do we have any suggestions?

I agree with that, convener. The term is open to interpretation, which creates difficulties for us in determining what the petitioner is trying to suggest. I concur with what you are saying, but I am not sure how we take forward the petition in these circumstances. Does it change any of the views that we might have when there is not that definition or that broad span that gives us the opportunity to look at this?

I am slightly unsure what to do. The Scottish Government said it was open to representations, but it is not our responsibility to make those. We could ask the Scottish Government what it thinks of all this in practice, but that is not really taking forward matters, so I am uncertain. I have to say that, on this occasion, I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, but I am open to other suggestions.

I concur with that, convener. I do not think that we can look at the matter as the petitioner is suggesting. In that circumstance, I suggest that we close it, because the petition is too wide and varied and does not give us the full opportunity to look at things.

10:00  

I am happy to support that recommendation, convener.

As you have stated, convener, the wording of the petition is nebulous. Irrespective of that, the issues involved are almost certainly reserved to the UK Government.

Yes. It is not that I do not see an issue at the heart of the petition but that I am uncertain as to what productive opportunity there is for the committee to take forward the petition. Therefore, we are reluctantly minded, on this occasion, to close the petition. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Public-private Partnerships (PE2004)

PE2004, which was lodged by Line Kikkenborg Christensen on behalf of Jubilee Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the use of public-private partnerships—PPPs, as they are affectionately known—and to commit to a new model of financing and managing public infrastructure in Scotland that has safety, quality, value for money and accountability to the taxpayer at its heart. The petitioner argues that public-private partnerships have left Scotland’s public sector with high levels of debt, poor service provision, lack of accountability and unsafe buildings.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government acknowledges that the use of private finance for infrastructure projects is more expensive than conventional public borrowing, and it shares concerns about the flexibility and value for money that historical private finance initiative contracts have offered.

The Scottish Government has stated that, as part of its national infrastructure mission commitment, a new approach to revenue finance, which includes the mutual investment model, has been announced. That follows a decision in 2019 to stop using the non-profit distributing model that was originally adopted in 2010. The Government highlights its view that current borrowing powers are limited and insufficient to deliver the ambitions of the national infrastructure mission, but adds that, should additional powers become available, it will examine all options to ensure that the lowest-cost financing route is utilised.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner offering comment on the Scottish Government’s response, with reference to Audit Scotland’s 2020 report “Privately financed infrastructure investment: The Non-Profit Distributing (NPD) and hub models”. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Government to act on Audit Scotland’s recommendations and to rethink the way in which infrastructure is managed and financed in Scotland.

That is all quite technical but nonetheless important and of considerable financial consequence. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

The petition makes some valid points in reference to where we are with regard to this whole situation, and it would be useful to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarity on its response to the points that the petitioner makes in her submission. We should also ask whether the Government has considered the Scotland against public private partnerships task force position paper “Financing Public Scotland: A Proposal for an Alternative to Public Private Partnerships”. If it has, what is its response to the recommendations?

As you say, convener, the matter is complicated, but, if we get some clarity from the Scottish Government, that might give us an opportunity to investigate and to get further information on it.

I wonder whether, in addition to the action that Alexander Stewart suggests, with which I concur, we might wish to write to the Scottish Futures Trust to seeks its views, because, as I understand it, its remit very much falls into this area.

I would add that the petitioner wants to abolish PPPs and to create a new model, but it is simply not clear to me what that new model would be. The statement on the new model is very much couched in abstract terms that outline what it should achieve rather than describing exactly how it would operate in practice. SFT has great expertise in that area, so it would be useful to get its insights.

I am happy to agree with that.

I agree that the petitioner makes a lot of valid points, but I also agree with Alexander Stewart and Fergus Ewing that the petitioner needs to come up with some proposals on how she wants to see us proceed.

Okay. Do we agree to write to the organisations that Mr Stewart and Mr Ewing have identified?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. We will keep the petition open and proceed accordingly.

---

Adoption Barometer (PE2005)

Our next new petition is PE2005, which was lodged by Jonathan Patrick. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally respond to the annual adoption barometer report that is undertaken by Adoption UK. The Scottish Government’s response notes that it has recognised and welcomed the findings of the adoption barometer 2022 report. It highlights that Clare Haughey MSP, the then Minister for Children and Young People, attended the formal launch of the report, and that the report was referred to in a members’ business debate in March 2023. The Scottish Government states that there are no plans to publish a formal written response to the report, which is consistent with its approach to previous annual adoption barometer reports and with the approach that other Governments across the UK take.

It appears that the Scottish Government’s procedural approach is consistent with that in other jurisdictions. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has welcomed, engaged with and referred to the adoption barometer 2022 report and that it has no plans to publish a formal written response to the report, in line with previous publications and a UK-wide approach?

In light of that consistent approach across the UK and the actions that by David Torrance identifies in his recommendation, are colleagues content that we do not pursue the petition further?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Property Factors (PE2006)

That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE2006, which was lodged by Ewan Miller, is on reviewing and simplifying the legislation in relation to the dismissal of property factors. Forgive me for the slightly complicated introduction as I speak to the petition. To clarify a jargon term for the benefit of anybody listening, property factors manage the maintenance and repair of common property and communal areas in flats and housing estates on behalf of the home owners and residents. The petition 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 introduce regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal, which is a free dispute resolution service, powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

In his submission, the petitioner, as the chair of a local residents association, explains his experience of a struggle to dismiss a property factor. He argues that the legal framework around the process is complex and makes the dismissal of property factors unreasonably difficult.

The SPICe briefing explains that dismissal of property factors can, indeed, be a convoluted process, as the relevant legislation is complicated and needs to be read in conjunction with the title deeds of a particular estate. There can also be complicated legal questions on whether conditions in title deeds are enforceable. As a result, it may often be necessary to seek legal advice. Court actions may also be necessary if a dispute between home owners and a property factor cannot be resolved. Of course, all that can be quite an expensive consideration for those involved.

The briefing notes various inquiries into the system over the years, particularly in relation to landowning maintenance companies, which are property factors that own the land that they maintain—normally, open spaces on housing estates—and operate in a particularly complex legal environment.

In 2013, the Scottish Government stated:

“doing nothing is not an option, given the concerns in this area”.

At the same time, it indicated a preference to prepare a voluntary code of practice on dismissing and replacing landowning maintenance companies rather than to legislate. However, the code is yet to be introduced and, on 30 June 2022, Ash Regan MSP, the then Minister for Community Safety, responded to a parliamentary question on the timeframe, saying that the Government had prepared a draft code and planned to seek the views of stakeholders before it proceeded with publication.

It should be noted that the new code is intended to cover only landowning factors. With regard to non-landowning factors, the Scottish Government, in its submission, states that it has

“no plans to amend the legislation”

and highlights that the current regulations require factors to provide home owners with “clear information” on the dismissal process.

As a constituency MSP, I have come across this issue and have found the whole business almost impenetrable. It is extraordinarily difficult, even for residents associations that are dealing with factors, to be confident that they can proceed, as they are confronted with what are sometimes quite threatening suggestions of the costs for which they may be liable.

Given the period over which the issue has been raised and the comprehensive lack of progress, I wonder what colleagues think.

I wonder whether the committee could write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the voluntary code of practice on dismissing and replacing landowning land maintenance companies and, in particular, to ask what has been done since June 2022 to seek views on the draft code for customer-facing bodies and landowning land maintenance companies, as well as to ask when the final draft code of practice will be published.

In addition, I wonder whether we could write to relevant stakeholders, including the Property Managers Association Scotland, Shelter Scotland, Under One Roof and Citizens Advice Scotland, to seek their views on the petition.

I wonder, too, whether there are any bodies that are representative of home owners rather than factors. When the Scottish Government says that the current regulations require factors to provide home owners with clear information on the dismissal process, I would like to know whether there is anybody who can illustrate that that actually happens. That sounds like one of those vague provisions that I suspect exists in writing but not in practice. That is just from my experience.

You make a valid point, convener. As you identified, there are areas that we are already aware of, but there are other organisations that participate or that may be involved that we do not have information from. It would be useful to see what is there when it comes to the factor side and whether there are other areas that we could incorporate.

Our constituents continue to suffer in relation to this problem. It is about trying to find out who is in control and who has the rights, and, as you indicated, the process can become very costly for everybody. We should try to find out whether there is any other process that we can tap into.

I wonder whether, when we write to the Scottish Government, we could, in addition, ask on what basis it is satisfied that the regulation is being properly implemented or how it would evidence that that is the case.

I certainly do not disagree with the approach that has been recommended—inquiries should be made. I will, however, play devil’s advocate a little bit.

My experience from being a solicitor over many years is that, although people do not necessarily enjoy paying factors’ fees, the whole purpose of having a factor in a tenement is to ensure that there is a system for carrying out common repairs. If there is such a system, it needs to be paid for. In my experience, factors’ fees are not particularly great and, in many ways, being a factor is a bit of a thankless task, because the level of the fees is generally not huge. There is therefore a general public policy imperative that it is desirable that there be a system, which is normally very clearly set out in the title conditions, for the appointment and removal of factors by a majority of owners.

The desirability of having a factor is clear. Indeed, if there is no factor, there is a serious risk of major repairs not being done and things becoming much worse. I would have thought that that would be a rather more serious issue than the few cases where there may be concerns about overcharging and so on.

I say that to stick up for the humble factors who, in my experience, are often on a bit of a hiding to nothing and who have eight masters: eight people who can phone them at any time of the day to demand that action be taken immediately on all sorts of things.

I am just playing devil’s advocate, for a change.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I am sure that cups of coffee or something stronger have been raised in toast to your splendid defence.

I do not disagree with any of that. Where good practice is in place, all the positive attributes and advantages that were identified in everything that you have said apply. The issue is simply that, where that is perhaps not the case, residents find themselves in a difficult position—they are not entirely clear as to what they can do, and they find that quite a difficult atmosphere can obtain in trying to take matters forward. So, with an understanding of the very valuable work that is done, are we nonetheless content to proceed on the basis that has been recommended?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you all very much. That brings us to the end of this morning’s public session. We will move into private session to consider our public participation inquiry. We will meet again to consider petitions in public session on Wednesday 17 May.

10:16 Meeting continued in private until 11:20.