Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 have, from time to time, sat in on children’s hearings and have been very impressed by the evident care and thoroughness that have been shown. Perhaps I was shown the best ones—I do not know—but I suspect that the people on the panel were very experienced. I was certainly very impressed.

What, in particular, are children’s hearing panels not doing that they should be doing, and how can that be corrected? Is the reporter to the panel not pursuing certain aspects, or is the panel itself failing in certain ways? Can you be more specific about that? We will want to make recommendations about what precisely should be done. We have received evidence on a wide range of things.

So there are two issues.

That is really helpful. You have clarified that extremely well.

The other issue is supervision orders. Will you expand on that? You made only a short reference to that, so I am not sure how significant it is. I had a quick look at the definition of supervision orders, and they seem largely to be part of the criminal sentencing world rather than the social work and care world, if you see what I mean. I am not an expert in this area and I was a bit puzzled, because supervision orders seem to be issued by children’s hearings. There is provision for supervision orders to be made in respect of adults as well, but that is very much in the context of sentencing.

We should keep the petition open. Quite obviously, these are very important matters to the petitioners and to people in this part of Scotland. I represent the Highlands and have been known to mention other roads—

We should encourage the current First Minister to meet Callum Isted—although perhaps not in Bute house, given what you have said, convener. I am sure that the First Minister would like to do that.

We should also seek from the minister an assurance that she will request information from each local authority on water provision in schools. Specifically, we should seek some detail on the methods of provision and how sustainability requirements are met.

In addition, it occurred to me that it would be remiss of us if, in our letter to the minister, we did not specifically invite her to refer to and describe her response to Callum’s petition and if we did not ask local authorities, first, whether they would wish to be part of a national procurement scheme that could implement the petition and, secondly, whether that would be more efficacious in providing a reliable and continuously available supply of water to children. The minister said that the provision of water is up to schools, and they do that in different ways—for example, through water fountains. Often, however, such things do not work or are not available when somebody wants a drink of water.

Everybody knows that it is handy to have a bottle of water. You can take it everywhere with you and keep hydrated all the time. Hydration is important for children, but most of them do not really realise that. That might be a patronising remark, but there is a risk that they do not appreciate how important it is to be hydrated in order to be alert and able to concentrate.

There is a big difference between a water fountain that might be available for several hundred kids—

I think that I am correct in saying—I have just looked, but I could not find the relevant part of the oral evidence—that there is a lack of clarity about the legal responsibility for ensuring the safety of people who visit cemeteries and for dealing with the risk of headstones falling over. If there is such a lack, I think that we could invite the Scottish Government to indicate whether it believes that it should provide clarity by allocating specific legal responsibility for safety in cemeteries, quite possibly to local authorities, as they would appear to be the only public bodies that could be endowed with or given that responsibility.

If there is some lack of clarity, in the event of any further ghastly incident or accident, the victim or their family could be left in the virtually legally impossible situation of having no clarity and no redress against anyone. Therefore, I think that it behoves the committee at least to ask the Scottish Government to consider whether that could be done and, if not, why not.

In a modern, civilised society, there needs to be clarity on such matters. Of course, property owners have very clear responsibilities in law, but if you do not know who the property owner is, you face a very difficult task indeed. Fortunately, we are talking about something that probably happens only rarely, but we should at least ask about the issue, as the Scottish Government could provide clarification.

There are those who are under 16 who are cut out of the system, and there are those who need care after they are 26, which is an arbitrary age.

Do you mean that the system does not have the powers in law?

Indeed.

We should encourage the minister to set out in a letter Callum Isted’s proposal as a potential option. The question is whether local authorities would like that to be done and whether they would like the Scottish Government to take on the responsibility of looking into procurement. As I pointed out to the minister, somewhat in vain, if a national procurement scheme is better able to get the best price possible in such an exercise and can do so in a way that improves provision, we owe it to Callum—as does the minister—to ensure that that is done.