Chamber and committees

In the submission of 14 March, under the heading “Concerns voiced to me”, the petitioners raise the following question:

“If the old military road improvements work well will this kick the permanent solution into the long grass?”

That has been mentioned, but another point, which I do not think has been mentioned, is:

“The selection criteria for the Medium-Term Solution did not consider ensuring we have a two way road which stays open when it rains and is free from traffic lights, road closures, and convoys—a fundamental requirement of the people who actually use the road, and we would have assumed is the role for which Transport Scotland exists”.

I just wanted to read that into the record, because those are the petitioners’ concerns, and our job is to get not only a general response from the minister but a specific response to what appear to me to be legitimate points that the petitioners have raised.

They existed far before then. The issues have certainly been debated for quite a long time. If there is to be a Scottish Government review, we should at least find out when it expects to hold it.

It is worth establishing that, but I think that the detailed responses from BEFS, RICS and the Law Society clearly set out the parameters of the home report. As is confirmed by my experience as a solicitor, it is more than a basic valuation report, but it is far less than a detailed structural report, which would cost huge amounts of money. The limitations of the home report are clearly stated on it and, in practice, most solicitors are pretty good about advising clients about those limitations. Moreover, the surveyors have to have liability insurance and undergo professional training. The system is pretty well understood and works pretty well in practice.

Imposing a blanket strict liability, which is what the petitioner wants, would simply mean that the cost of a home report would go up exponentially in order to pay for the additional professional liability insurance premiums that would automatically ensue. I say that not because I want to prejudice the outcome of any review, but because it would be risky to raise the petitioner’s expectations, although I understand that some individuals might have experienced hard cases. I cannot comment on individual circumstances.

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 suggest that we write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to seek information on the outcomes of the 47 prosecutions that are referenced in the response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I make that recommendation because I noted in our papers a reference to the fact that the incidence of motorcycle theft in Edinburgh has led to advice being given to tourists not to visit Edinburgh. That is a particular concern, not to mention that theft is, of course, a serious matter—

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.

Our notes indicate that some sort of tourist advisory group has given advice that riders should avoid travelling to Edinburgh. That is quite serious. None of us wishes people to be deterred from visiting Scotland for reasons of that nature. In deference to the petitioner and for the reasons that I have mentioned, I think that it would be worth making a further effort to explore the issue.

I am pleased that the Scottish Crofting Federation emphasised the importance of exempting crofters from any ban of the traditional practice of burning peat for domestic use on a small scale, which is part of the history and culture of the Western Isles. I am sure that there would be threats of direct action were the ban to be extended to that practice, and I would certainly be there, manning the barricades, having recently developed a taste for direct action.

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.

I wonder whether we might invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence at a future meeting. MSPs from across the parties have expressed strong feelings on the issue. Time is marching on, and the petition is quite old. The sooner the Deputy First Minister can give evidence, the better, out of consideration of the additional pain that is being caused to those who are impacted by the continuing delay and uncertainty. I just add that caveat.