Chamber and committees

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?

I am happy to agree with that.

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.

What would be the best way to frame that question? Should we ask the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that question at the same time as we make the inquiry that Mr Ewing has suggested? Are we asking whether it can give any indication of the current volume of cases and the waiting times that are associated with such charges getting to court?

Do we agree to take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content for the committee to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to establish what happened in relation to the prosecutions?

Foysol Choudhury wants to say something.

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.

PE1928, which was lodged by David Gallant, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. We last considered the petition on 21 December 2022, when we heard evidence from the petitioner and Sight Scotland, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

At the time, we agreed to wait until responses had been received from the local authorities that offer discount fares for companion travel before writing to the Scottish Government. I am pleased to say that we have now received responses from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, West Lothian Council and Fife Council. Those responses highlight the financial pressures that are faced in operating the existing concessionary fares travel scheme, with West Lothian Council actually removing its rail concession scheme as part of its budget-saving measures.

Previously, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration it is giving to introducing a national policy for companion rail travel—you may recall that there were issues depending on where people accessed and alighted from trains—and to ask it to confirm that the fair fares review would consider free travel for companions and people with disabilities.

We have received a submission from the petitioner ahead of this morning’s meeting. He does not feel that the local authorities’ responses were relevant to the aims of his petition and has suggested that free rail travel for disabled people could be restricted to specific routes or localities in order to benefit those who live in more rural areas.

In the light of the comments that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions relating to the petition that we might consider for further action?

PE1933, which is an important petition for the committee, was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy survivors group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 23 November 2022. We agreed to write to the Scottish Government, setting out the evidence that we had gathered and specifically recommending that action be taken to widen the current eligibility criteria of Scotland’s redress scheme to ensure that victims of the same type of crime, committed over shorter periods and in different care settings, are eligible for redress under the scheme.

The committee received a response from the then Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, which indicated that work was under way to test the existing eligibility criteria and guidance in relation to Fornethy and that we would receive a further update when that analysis was completed.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who is concerned that the matter might disappear into the long grass as a result of the recent changes in Government. The petitioner’s submission also requests clarification on the cut-off date for a person who was in care and who seeks to access the redress scheme.

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?

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.