 Good morning and welcome to the Citizen's Participation in Public Petitions Committee. It is a great pleasure to have you with us if you are joining us this morning. Our first agenda item is a declaration of interest following the resignation from the committee of Carol Mocken, who was only with us for a short time, I am sorry to say, but very much appreciated Carol Mocken's contribution and her valuable insights to the work of the committee during her time with us. I have pleasure in welcoming to the committee in her place Foyleswell Chowdry MSP, and the first item of business this morning is to invite Mr Chowdry to declare any relevant interests. No, I don't have any. So any interests you have are as in your register of interests. No, nothing to do with the interests. Okay, agenda item two is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is petition number 1887 to create an unborn victims of violence act lodged by Nicola Murray, and the petition calls upon the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence, which causes a miscarriage. Now, at our previous consideration of this petition on November the 23rd last year, we heard evidence from the petitioner Nicola Murray herself and key stakeholders, and the committee agreed to recommend that the Scottish Government create a specific statutory offence and or aggravator for causing miscarriage through acts of domestic violence. We also recommended that in its forthcoming report on the provisions of Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018 the Scottish Government should include a review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current legal framework in bringing forward and prosecuting charges where miscarriage is caused. Now, the committee also wrote to the Scottish Sentencing Council requesting that the evidence gathered be taken into account as part of the council's development of sentencing guidelines, and we've since had confirmation from the SCC that it will consider the committee's evidence as part of its work. The then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans response said that he would take time to fully consider the implications of any proposed changes before considering any next steps, including the potential for wider consultation. He said that officials were already exploring potential policy options and that he would welcome meeting with the petitioner once that work has concluded. The cabinet secretary's response refers to a recent report on the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018, but notes that it does not include a review of the effectiveness of the current framework in bringing forward and prosecuting charges where miscarriage is caused. A little bit of work has taken place and has been forthcoming in the wake of the evidence that we took from Nicola Murray. Do you have members of any questions or comments or suggestions that we might consider in relation to that? David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I wonder if the committee would agree and we could find time in the visual schedule for the Parliament that we take it to a chamber debate to raise issues raised in the petition. Are we agreed with that suggestion? I understand that, having investigated this speculatively, it could be later in the autumn before that opportunity arises, which I suppose would also allow us the opportunity just to pursue any outcomes that might be forthcoming from the on-going investigations so that we have all of that information before us at the time of the debate, but we are agreed. We are. We move then to petition number 1928, which is to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. This has been lodged by David Gallant. It 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 this petition in December on the 21st last year when we heard evidence then from the petitioner and site Scotland, and we agreed to write the Scottish Government. At the time, we agreed to wait until responses had been received from those local authorities who offered 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 faced in operating the existing concessionary fares travel scheme. With West Lothian Council actually removing their rail concession scheme as part of their own budget saving measures. The committee previously 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 upon where you accessed and alighted from trains. To ask it to confirm that the fares review will consider fee travel for companions and people with disabilities. We have also received a submission from the petitioner ahead of this morning who did not feel that the local authority responses were relevant to the aims of his petition and suggested that free rail travel for disabled people could be restricted to specific routes or localities in order to benefit those living in more rural areas. In light of the responses, we have received to members of any comments or suggestions in relation to this petition that we might consider for further action. I wonder if the committee could write to the Scottish Government as previously agreed to ask what consideration it has been given to introducing a national policy for companion rail travel. To seek confirmation that the fares review will consider the option of extending a national entitlement card scheme to provide free rail as well as bus travel for people with disabilities. I think that we did get information from some councils, convener, and I think that that was useful to have. The committee may want to highlight the responses that we did receive from West Lothian Council and Fife Council in that correspondence, because they say that that was something that did have an impact as well. I would be content with what David Trons is suggesting as well. Right, so we are generally content with the proposals that have been made and we are. Petition number 1933, an important petition for the committee to allow the Fornethys survivors to access Scotland's redress scheme lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethys survivors group colleague in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland's redress scheme to allow Fornethys survivors to seek redress. We previously considered this petition at our meeting on 23 November and we agreed to write the Scottish Government's setting out the evidence that we have 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 time 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 Fornethys and that we would receive a further update when this analysis was completed. Now, we've also received a submission from the petitioner concerned that the matter might disappear into the long grass as a result of the recent changes in government and the petitioner's submission also requests clarification on the cut-off date for a person in care scheme seeking to access the redress scheme. I wonder if we might invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence at a future meeting and perhaps I could also just add that I mean I think there's been quite strong feelings expressed across the across parties by various MSPs in this issue and time is marching on and the petition is quite old and I think the sooner the Deputy First Minister could give evidence the better out of consideration of the additional pain being caused to the petition to those impacted by the continuing delay and uncertainty so I'll just add that caveat. Any other suggestions? Can I suggest just for the avoid... David? I was going to simply say can I suggest that just in case for whatever reason the Deputy First Minister is not familiar with all the issues that we just maybe restate some of what we said in the previous letter to the Deputy First Minister and also the response we received at that time just as the caveat underpinning why we're now seeking to meet with the Deputy First Minister herself. Agreed? David, is there anything you wanted to add to that? No, no, we're all content. We are. Petition number 1945 to ban the extraction and use of peat for horticulture and all growing media by 2023 lodged by Elizabeth Otway calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal ban on the extraction of peat imports, exports and sales in order to protect peatlands both in Scotland and worldwide. The Scottish Government submission from November last year highlights that the revised draft national planning framework for MPF4 prohibits new commercial peat extraction except in limited circumstances. Since then, the Scottish Government submission was received or since that Scottish Government submission was received, MPF4 has now been approved. In its submission, the Scottish Government said that it had been working with the industry to understand transitional issues and that a consultation to remove peat from Scottish horticulture was expected to begin in December 2022. However, it would not be possible to implement a sales ban by 2023. The submission said that a delivery plan and timetable for phasing out horticultural peat would be developed after the consultation responses had been analysed and discussions with industry and environmental NGOs had taken place. The Scottish Government consultation was in fact launched in February and closes shortly on 12 May. The Scottish Crofting Federation in its submission urges the Scottish Government to restrict any ban on peat to horticultural sales and imports and the commercial extraction of peat for burning while protecting the traditional rights of crofters to extract peat on a small scale for personal use. Do members have any questions or comments on this when Alexander Stewart? Thank you, convener. I think that it is important to be right to the Scottish Government seeking a summary of the responses that they have had to date from their consultation. An update on when the delivery plan for timescale for phasing out horticultural peat will be developed and produced in light of the responses to that consultation and information on whether the Government supports a legal ban on the import sale and use of peat of horticultural and commercial extraction of peat for burning, with the exception of crofters traditional and cultural use. I am pleased that the Crofters Federation emphasised the importance of exempting from any ban should it take place 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 where people would extend the ban. I would certainly be there manning the barricades having developed recently a taste for direct action community. Well, ripping the sod, basically, to extend your current pong show for ripping into things. Just out of interest, Mr Ewing, given your own experience, is this traditionally from their own land? Where do crofters tend to, for domestic use, take the peat from? I think that this is a community effort and that it is done by usually more than one person in a particular way. I think that it is the community land that is used by and large, not individual, but I am not sure. I am no expert on that. Thank you very much for that. Colleagues, are we content with the suggestions that have been made? We are. Petition number 1946, to call on the Scottish Government to pay all charges for homeless temporary accommodation. This is lodged by Sean Clarken, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for homeless temporary accommodation, including writing off the £33.3 million debt owed by homeless people for temporary accommodation to local authorities. Since our previous consideration of the petition, the Scottish Government's temporary accommodation task and finish group published its report on 30 March this year. The group made two recommendations about charges for temporary accommodation, which are available in the clerk's note to you. The response to our recent correspondence with the Scottish Government states that provisions to prohibit local authorities from charging individuals for the provision of temporary accommodation have not been considered for inclusion in the housing bill. The Scottish Government has stated that it has no plans to pay for homeless temporary accommodation nor waive the outstanding debt owed. Shelter Scotland's written submission outlines a number of issues, including its view that a change in the financing of temporary accommodation is overdue. The petitioner's recent submissions highlight concerns about the repossession of family homes, resulting in record amounts of homelessness in Scotland and his submission outlines information received through an FOI to Glasgow City Council. He states that the system is unworkable and broken now and meaning that thousands of people need help immediately. I again invite colleagues to suggest any way in which we might proceed. David Torrance. I wonder if the committee could write to the Scottish Government seeking confirmation of its planned work in response to a temporary accommodation task and finish group's report, particularly if the committee would ask about recommendations 14 and 15 as they relate to temporary accommodation charges. Thank you, Mr Torrance. Colleagues, do we have any other suggestions, or are we content to proceed writing to the Scottish Government, as Mr Torrance has suggested? We are, thank you very much. Petition number 1949, review the rules concerning dual mandate MSPs. This has been lodged by Alexander James Dixon calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding dual mandate MSPs and legislate to bring them in line with the Senate and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections. We previously considered this petition on 9 November when we agreed to write to the Welsh Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Electoral Reform Society, and at our last consideration we also noted the Scottish Government's view that this would actually be a matter for Parliament to consider. Having now received responses from our colleagues and other devolved institutions, members will have noted that legislation to prevent members of the Northern Ireland Assembly from simultaneously being a member of the UK House of Commons or the lower house of the Irish Parliament was brought forward by the UK Government. While similar legislation in Wales was introduced by the Senate commission, that is the equivalent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. It appears that if the Scottish Government has no appetite to pursue this matter, we should consider what options are available to Parliament to give the matter further consideration. Although I always do observe that ministers hold a dual mandate in that they have a second responsibility over that of being an MSP. Do colleagues have any suggestions? I think that under this circumstance it would be better for us to refer the petition to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, because it would have a more opportunity to look into and investigate rather than be at this. That might extend and give more information. Under rule 15.6 of standing orders for further consideration, I would suggest that we hand it to them and ask them to take further action on it. May I, just in the process, state for the record that I am a member of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, although in this instance the recommendation is to send it to a different committee? Thank you. Petition number 1971 to take robust action to stop motorcycle theft lodged by Kenneth Clayton calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent and reduce motorcycle theft by empowering police to pursue and tactically engage thieves and reviewing sentencing policy to allow the courts to implement tougher punishment for those convicted of motorcycle theft, including the use of mandatory custodial sentences for those carrying weapons or groups who threaten individuals with violence. We last considered this petition, colleagues, on 21 December, when we agreed to seek information from Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Police Scotland have provided further detail on operation sorteria that was focused on tackling motorcycle thefts and related anti-social behaviour across Edinburgh. They also share information on the work that the Police Prevention, Interventions and Partnership team is continuing to take forward in collaboration with others on this issue, which you will have read with interest. The Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service notes that there is no specific common law offence of theft for a motorcycle, but they have used their database to identify 47 charges related to motorcycle theft over the past five years. Interestingly, it also noted that 32 per cent of the relevant police reports in relation to this originated from the Edinburgh area, where operation sorteria obviously was in place. The Scottish Police Authority mentions in its response that recent reports highlight an overall increase in vehicle crime, but that this is not specifically attributed to motorcycle theft. The SBA also noted that more than 1,800 motorcycle riders have been stopped over the past year to engage, educate and encourage what is described here as appropriate attitude and behaviours on the road. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Fergus Ewing? Yes, could I suggest that we do write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service to seek information on the outcomes of the 47 prosecution's reference in the response from the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service? In making that recommendation, I do so because I noted from the papers that there is reference to the fact that the particular instance of theft of motorcycles in Edinburgh has led to some advice being given to tourists not to visit Edinburgh. I think that that is a particular concern as well, as of course theft is a serious matter anyway, but I think that... Those are just tourists generally, sorry. I think that the notes that we have indicate that advice has been given by some sort of tourist advisory group that riders should avoid travelling to Edinburgh. I think that that is quite a serious thing. None of us wish people to be deterred from visiting Scotland for reasons of that nature. In order to explore or to deference the petitioner as far as we can, I think that it would be worth making that further effort because of the factor that I have mentioned. Mr Torrance, have you any comment to make? No, none at all. We are content with that, so we are content to support the writing just to establish what happened in relation to the prosecution. Excellent. Yes, Faisal Chowdry. Thank you. My apologies for coming in late because I was stuck in the car park. That's on a motorcycle, I trust it. No. I had quite a lot of cases on motorcycle theft and do you think we can ask the court if there is any... What's the waiting list of a number of people who causes this crime to go to the court? If we can get that number. How long is the waiting time? A lot of time that same person is coming back and doing the same incident regularly. What would the best way to be to frame that question? Is that to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service at the same time as we're inquiring after Mr Ewing's suggestion would be to say if they're able to give any indication of the current volume and the waiting time associated with bringing two proceedings any charges that might be under way? Agreed? Thank you. That leads to the end of item two. We now move on to the consideration of our new petitions. As I always do, in case there are those who are joining us online to look at our consideration of petitions, ahead of the first consideration of the petition by the committee, we do seek to get an initial view from the Scottish Government and also from SPICE, which is the Scottish Parliament's impartial research service. That doesn't necessarily determine the view of the committee, but it does mean that, rather than us just go through the motions of suggesting that we then do that, that we have anticipated that that will be a course of action and therefore have that evidence already before us. The first of the new petitions we're considering this morning is petition number 2003. This has been lodged by Lewis McMartin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop fast food chains from 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 fact sugar or salt, and when consulting on its planned legislation on this issue, promotional reward systems were not specifically consulted on, but it did remain open to views on whether such other types of promotions should be restricted beyond those set out in the consultation. The Scottish Government is currently considering responses to the consultation and will publish an external analysis report. Has the consultation then concluded or has it, but it did remain open to views? So it still is open to views. It now has closed, so it's too late to suggest that the petitioner actually contributes to the consultation. I was so the petitioner is aware of that fact, but that's fine. Colleagues, I felt that the term fast food was rather loose in its definition, and I know that there are now fast food salad bars. I wasn't quite sure if the petitioner quite articulated who it was that he was specifically targeting here, but, colleagues, do we have any suggestions? I would agree with that, convener, because I do think that it's open to interpretation, and that creates some difficulties for us as to where and what the petition is trying to suggest here. I would concur what you're saying, but I'm not quite sure how we then take that forward if that is the case. Does that change any of the views that we might have when there's not that definition or that broad span that gives us the opportunity to look at that? I'm slightly unsure of what to do. The Scottish Government said that it's open to representations, but that's not our responsibility in this regard. I mean, we could ask the Scottish Government what it thinks of all of that in practice, but that's not really, I think, taking matters forward, so I'm uncertain. I mean, I have to say, on this occasion, I'm minded to close the petition under rule 15.7, but I'm open to other suggestions from colleagues. I think that I would concur with that, convener. I don't think that we can look at it as the petitioner is suggesting, so under that circumstance, I would suggest that we do close it, because it is too wide and varied and doesn't give us the full opportunity. I'm happy to support recommendations, convener. I think that the issues involved, although, as you stated, convener, the wording of the petition is nebulous and vague, but nonetheless the issues involved are almost certainly reserved to the UK Government. I mean, it's not that I don't see at the heart of all of this an issue, it's just that I'm uncertain what productive opportunity there is for the committee to take the petition forward, and I think that we are therefore reluctantly minded on this occasion to close the petition. We agreed. Petition number 2004 to abolish the use of public-private partnerships in Scotland and this has been lodged by Lline Kickenburg Christensen on behalf of Jubilee, Scotland, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the use of public-private partnerships, PPPs, as is affectionately known, and to commit to a new model of financing and managing public infrastructure in Scotland, which is safety quality, value for money and accountability to the taxpayer at its heart. The petitioners argue 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 the use of private finance for infrastructure projects is more expensive than conventional public borrowing and shares concerns around the flexibility and value of money for money offered by historic private finance initiative contracts. 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, follows a decision in 2019 to stop using the non-profit distribution model that was originally adopted in 2010. The Government also highlights its view that current borrowing powers are limited and insufficient to deliver the ambitions of the national infrastructure mission, but 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 rethink the way infrastructure is managed and financed in Scotland. So, all quite technical but nonetheless important and of considerable financial consequence. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? We might proceed Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. I think that the petition does make some valid points in reference to where we are in this whole situation and it would be useful to write to the Scottish Government to seek some clarity its response to the points made by the petitioner's submission and to ask whether it has considered the Scottish Age Against Public Private Partnership Task Force position paper and Financing Public Scotland a proposal for an alternative to public-private partnerships, and if so, what its response is to some of those recommendations. As you say, it is complicated and complex, but if we get some clarity from the Scottish Government that may give us an opportunity to investigate and get further information from them on that. I wonder whether, in addition to the action that Alexander Stewart suggested, which I concur, we might wish to write to the Scottish Futures Trust, because, as I understand it, the remit is very much of this nature and seek their views. I would just add that the petitioner wants to abolish PPPs and create a new model, but it is simply not clear to me what that new model would be, because the statement of the new model is very much couched in abstract terms about what it should achieve, rather than describing exactly how it would operate in practice. Nonetheless, I think that SFT has great expertise in this area, so it would be useful to get their insights. I agree with Alexander Stewart that he needs to come up with some proposals on how he wants to see us going. We agreed to write to the organisations as identified by Mr Stewart and Mr Ewing. We are, thank you very much. We can keep that petition open and proceed accordingly. Our next new petition is petition number 2005, which is a formal response to the annual adoption barometer report in Scotland lodged by Jonathan Patrick, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally respond to the annual adoption barometer report, which 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. Additionally, Clare Hockey MSP attended the formal launch of the report, and it was referred to in a member's business debate in March 23. The Scottish Government states that there are actually no plans to publish a formal written response to the report, which is consistent with its approach to previous publications of the annual adoption barometer reports and the approach that is taken by other Governments across the UK. It appears that the Scottish Government's procedural approach to this is consistent with other jurisdictions. Do members have any comments or suggestions? David Torrance? If the committee would 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 adoption barometer 2022 report, and has no plans to publish a formal written response to the report, in line with previous publications and the UK-wide approach? In the light of that consistent approach across the UK and the actions that were identified by David Torrance and his recommendation, are colleagues content that we do not pursue the petition any further. That brings us to the last of this morning's new petitions for us to consider. It is petition number 2006 to review and simplify the legislation in relation to dismissal of property factors. Forgive me for a slightly complicated introduction as I speak to the petition, which has been lodged by Ewan Miller. Property factors to clarify a jargon term for the benefit of anybody listening in manage the repair and maintenance of common property and communal areas in flats and housing estates on behalf of the homeowner's residence. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factor Scotland Act to cover dismissal of property factors or bring forward other regulations that would achieve the same aim that could include giving the First Tier Tribunal 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 residence association explains his own experience of a struggle to dismiss their 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 relevant legislation is complicated and needs to be ready in conjunction with the title deeds of a particular estate. There can also be complicated legal questions on whether conditions and title deeds are enforceable, and as a result it may often be necessary to seek legal advice. Court actions may also be necessary if a dispute between homeowners and a property factor cannot be resolved. Of course, that can all be quite an expensive consideration for those involved. The briefing notes various inquiries into the system over the years, particularly in relation to land-owning maintenance companies. Those are property factors that own the land that they maintain, normally open spaces and housing estates, and operate in a particularly complex legal environment. In 2013, the Scottish Government stated that doing nothing is not an option. Given the concerns in that area, it indicated a preference to prepare a voluntary code of practice on dismissing and replacing land-owning maintenance companies rather than to legislate. However, the code is yet to be introduced. On June 32, 2022, Ash Regan MSP, the then Minister for Community Safety, responded to a parliamentary question on the timeframe, saying that the Government has prepared a draft code and is planning and seeking the views of stakeholders before it proceeds with publication. It should be noted that the new code is only intended to cover land-owning factors. With regard to non-landing owning 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 homeowners with clear information on the dismissal process. I have to say that this, as a constituency MSP, is an issue that I have come across myself. I have found the whole business of it almost impenetrable. It is also an extraordinarily difficult thing, even within residence associations, within buildings and dealing with factors, confronted sometimes with quite threatening suggestions of the costs for which they may then be liable to be confident that they really can proceed. Given the periods over which this has been raised and the real comrades of lack of progress at all, what colleagues think? Is anybody going to volunteer, David Torrance? Thank you, convener. I wonder if a committee could write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the voluntary core of practice on dismissing and replacing land-owning, land maintenance companies, in particular, to ask what has been done since June 2022 to seek views on the draft code for customer-facing bodies and land-owning land maintenance companies, and when the finalised voluntary code of practice will be published. I wonder in addition to that, if we could write to relevant stakeholders, including the Property Management Association Scotland, Shelter Scotland, Under One Roof and Citizens Advice Scotland, seeking their views on the petition. Is anybody representative of homeowners rather than factors? When it says that there are current regulations that require factors to provide homeowners with clear information on the dismissal process, I would like to know if there is anybody who can illustrate that that actually happens. That sounds to me like one of those vague provisions that I suspect exist in writing, but not in practice, but that is just from my own experience. Alexander Stewart? I think that you make a very valid point, convener, because, as you have already identified, there are areas within that that we are already aware of, but there are other organisations who participate or who may be involved in all of this that we do not have some information from. I think that it would be useful just to see what is there when it comes to the factor side of things and if there are areas that we could also incorporate, because we have all suffered and our constituents continue to suffer on this problem. It is about trying to find out who is in control and who has the rights, and it can, as you indicate, become very costly for everybody. I do think that we should try and find out if there is any other process that we can tap into. In addition, when we write to the Scottish Government, asking them on what basis they are satisfied that that regulation is being properly implemented, or how they would evidence the fact that that is the case. I certainly do not disagree with the approach that has been recommended and inquiries should be made, but just to perhaps play the devil's advocate a little bit, I mean, my experience as a solicitor over many years is that, whilst people do not necessarily enjoy paying factors fees, the whole purpose of having a factor in a situation of a tenement of flats is to make sure that there is a system for carrying out common repairs. If there is such a system, it needs to be paid for. Factors fees, in my experience, are not particularly great and, in many ways, being a factor is a bit of a thankless task, because the level of fees are generally not huge. Therefore, there is a general public policy imperative that is desirable that there should be a system normally set out in the title conditions, and usually very clearly set out in the title conditions for the appointment and removal of factors by a majority of owners. However, the desirability of having a factor is very clear indeed, and indeed, if there is no factor, the risks of major repairs not being done and, therefore, things becoming much worse is a very serious one. I would have thought, perhaps, rather more serious issue than the few cases where there may be concerns about overcharging or so on. I say that to stick up for the humble factors that, in my experience, are in a bit of hiding to nothing very often and have to have eight masters, eight people that can phone them at any time of the day demanding that action be taken immediately and all sorts of things. I am just playing the devil's advocate for a change. Thank you, Mr Ewing. I am sure that cups of coffee or something stronger have been raised and toasted to your splendid defence, but I do not disagree with any of that. Where good practice is in place, then all the positive attributes and advantages identified and everything you said there apply. It simply, I think, is in the circumstance where perhaps that is not the case that residents find themselves in a very difficult position, not being entirely clear what it is that they can do and then finding quite difficult atmosphere can obtain in trying to take matters forward. With an understanding of the very valuable work that is nonetheless done, are we content to proceed on the basis that has been recommended? We are. Thank you all very much. That brings us to the end of the public session this morning. We will be moving into private session to consider our public participation inquiry and will meet again to consider petitions in open session on Wednesday the 17th of May, and on that basis I move to private session.