Chamber and committees

The question for those bodies is to what extent increased energy efficiency is a key issue for the project. Will such work be useful for other ships that will be constructed in the UK?

That was helpful. I was thinking about ferries in general, not just those two ferries. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the repair and maintenance of existing ferries. If that is for somebody else—

Yes, I would, and thank you very much, convener, for the opportunity to address the committee this morning.

I am increasingly receiving casework from constituents on a range of issues arising with property factors. The main issue is that factors are seen as unaccountable, with high and rising costs, high quotes for repairs, insufficient information to assess value for money, poor communication, lack of engagement or interest in engaging with residents, historic debts being passed to current owners and people finding it very difficult to challenge costs or standards of work, to suggest improvements or to remove factors altogether.

Constituents feel powerless against factors that have been appointed by developers. There is a lack of a clear tendering process for the initial appointment, as referenced by the petitioner in highlighting the appointment of the factor by the developer. There is a lack of transparent information about services and costs before people commit to buying a new build, which means that they buy a property without knowing exactly what they are committing to financially. Reliance on title deeds is problematic, too, because they are not clear with regard to voting rights, processes and procedures.

Constituents have reported to me poor communication when responding to queries, unwillingness to engage on improving services or processes, errors in invoices and staff unclear about what they should be doing. There is also a big worry about future costs, including the costs of repairing unadopted roads, and people are worried about costs rising while their income is reducing and there being no help available if their income falls.

Using the code of practice to challenge factors is seen as incredibly cumbersome and as working against individual owners, who face a huge amount of organisation if they have to reach out to their neighbours. The First-tier Tribunal is also incredibly daunting to owners, as they might well be up against the factors and their legal teams.

I have asked written and oral questions on the steps that the Scottish Government will take to ensure that the system works for property owners. Moreover, in a working paper that was published last November, the Competition and Markets Authority referenced the imbalance of power between factors and home owners. The issues that constituents are raising with me come down to the power that factors have and the power that home owners have.

During the committee’s previous consideration of the petition, Mr Ewing made points in defence of the role of factors, and I want to make it clear that it is always better to have a factor in place than not. If there is no factor in place, buildings can fail or fall into a state of repair and basic health and safety approaches can end up not being followed. That is in no one’s interest, but there has to be more transparency in the system from factors being appointed to having the capacity to change them.

A constituent of mine has calculated how much their factor earns. They pay £45 a quarter in factor management fees in a development with more than 250 properties. In other words, in a development not that far from this Parliament, a factor is receiving over £11,000 a quarter, or nearly £50,000 a year for managing the property—and that does not include the cost of any works that need to be done, which owners themselves pay for.

To conclude, convener, I think that the Parliament has a duty to ensure that our constituents are protected through legislation. The Scottish Government has been slow to act on this matter, and I encourage the committee to use this petition in order to think of ways of ensuring a fair power balance between factors and home owners.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee.

I was going to move on—the example was given beautifully, actually—to SEPA and Scottish Water on what difference has actually been made. I will pick up the point that Bridget made about wellbeing and sustainable development. There is Scottish Government work in considering policy and legislation, and there is my member’s bill. What difference is ESS is making to relationships? I ask SEPA first, then Scottish Water.

Thanks. Does Scottish Water have a particular perspective on the matter?

I was thinking about the upcoming human rights legislation, which may propose a new human right to a healthy environment, and about how that would be delivered in practice with both an enforcement framework and different legal and non-judicial opportunities for redress. How does that relate, following on from Ben Macpherson’s questions about an environmental court and linking into Aarhus convention compliance? I can see a couple of nods. I do not know who wants to kick off.

Thank you, convener. If you look at my entry in the register of members’ interests, you will find that I am a member of a number of organisations, which I have declared. The main declaration to make is that I was the cabinet secretary who introduced the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. I say that just for peoples’ interest.

That is really useful. Does anyone else want to come in on the back of that?

Yes, that is really helpful. It links into the issue of the extent to which Environmental Standards Scotland has functioned in the way that people expected. I can see some nodding from Dr Shivali Fifield and Professor Sarah Hendry. Does one of you want to kick off on that?

It is fascinating to come in on the back of those questions, because, although I have not declared this, I actually introduced the first free bus travel scheme for the over-60s in Scotland. It is interesting to see the extent to which members of the public are now using concessionary bus passes, whether they be over 60 or under 22.

I just wanted to follow up on that by asking about the Scottish Government’s strategy and funding streams to ensure that we get more people using buses. As colleagues have pointed out, we have lost a lot of bus services over the last few years. For the piece of work that we are looking at today on bus services improvement partnerships, what analysis have you done of the benefits of such partnerships versus bus franchising and the costs and benefits of the different options? One thing that feels clear is the resource issue so that local authorities can choose what to do, whether it be BSIPs, as you have mentioned, or bus franchising. After all, there will be start-up as well as on-going costs. Do you have a cost benefit analysis that you can share with us about the choices to increase modal shift?