Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. The first item on our agenda is a decision on taking agenda item 4, which relates to the consideration of evidence that we are about to hear, in private. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We do not have a national park in Eastwood, so I do not come to this with any particular axe to grind. I always say that what motivates us here is not any party-political position, but is the petition—our responsibility is to try to articulate and take forward the interests of the petitioner as best we can.

I will kick off. We already have two national parks, so what was it that caused the Government to say, “We will now develop another national park?” What was the motivating factor at that point?

Our next petition is PE2116, lodged by Ellie Harrison on behalf of Better Buses for Strathclyde, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the process for implementing the bus franchising powers that are contained in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 by introducing, without delay, the regulations and statutory guidance that are required to give bus franchising powers full effect; amending the 2019 act to remove the requirement for proposed franchising frameworks to be approved by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner, and instead empowering regional transport partnerships to have the final say on approving proposals; and providing additional funding to help support regional transport partnerships in preparing franchising frameworks and assisting them with the initial set-up costs once frameworks are approved.

We have assembled a galaxy of parliamentary talent this morning. I welcome to the meeting Neil Bibby, Patrick Harvie, Mark Ruskell, Graham Simpson and Paul Sweeney. We had also hoped to have Katy Clark with us, but unfortunately she is unable to attend.

For some of you—I am looking at Mr Sweeney—it is a return to familiar territory. I think that we have also had Mr Ruskell at the committee before, but it is Mr Harvie’s first appearance—during my tenure, at any rate.

Is that a potential future career option for you, Mr Ewing?

I call Paul Sweeney to speak on his written submission.

Is the committee content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

There are two suggestions from Mr Torrance. If there are no other suggestions from the committee, are we content to agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open and make those requests, and further examine the options at a later date.

PE2006, lodged by Ewan Miller, 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 lay regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

Our colleague, Sarah Boyack, joins us once again in our consideration of the petition. Good morning, Sarah.

We last considered the petition on 7 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to seek an update on work to finalise and publish the voluntary code of practice for land-owning maintenance companies. The response from the minister highlights the mechanisms that are available to home owners to remove property factors, which have led her to the view that legislative change at this time is neither necessary nor proportionate. The minister’s response also notes that work has not progressed on the voluntary code of practice as anticipated, and adds that

“this code would apply only where homeowners pay a land-owning land maintenance company for management of the open spaces that are owned by the land maintenance company.”

Sarah Boyack, do you have anything to say to the committee in light of what has progressed—or not progressed, as it turns out—since we last considered the petition?

That brings us to the end of the formal part of today’s meeting.