���˿���

I share the concerns raised by the petitioner about whether home reports are fit for purpose. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Glasgow City Heritage Trust. In tenemental properties in particular, there are major deficiencies in assessing overall building condition in home reports in Glasgow.

Our colleague Graham Simpson MSP has reconvened the cross-party working group on maintenance of tenement scheme property. Perhaps we should write to Under One Roof, the charity that provides impartial advice to home owners and people purchasing homes, as well as the Built Environment Forum Scotland, which is the secretariat for the working group on tenement maintenance. I know that an action on the matter is to improve the standard and quality of home reports.

I also understand that the Scottish Law Commission is undertaking a project on improving tenement law. It might be that an element of its work is about improving the regulations on home reports. There are major issues with people purchasing property based on highly defective information that leaves them liable for significant repairs to, say, the roof of a tenement that was not assessed as part of a home report. For example, if somebody has a ground floor flat, they are still liable for the roof, which will not have been looked at as part of the home report.

The home report is particularly problematic in relation to tenemental properties.

It is interesting that I knew nothing about the pilot, and I do not know how many Glaswegians knew about the pilot. However, I note that TFL says that it issues

“press releases publishing changes to fares, and advertising campaigns to highlight the cheapest way to travel around London (these can be seen in media advertising and on our services).”

It goes on to say that it has seen “strong growth” in the adoption of pay as you go, with

“over 70 per cent of all journeys now made using PAYG.”

I take the point about population density and scale, but, nonetheless, there are cities of equivalent size to Glasgow that have that technology and it works very successfully. I wonder whether, sometimes, there is risk aversion, leading to our not persisting with a measure that might initially make a bit of a loss but that, in the longer term or even in the medium term, would result in a perception change and in a lot more people using a service because it has become much more convenient for them to do so. Perhaps we can be too timid.

I agree, and the point that Mr Ewing makes is important. Perhaps the removal of the road in a broad sense is a bit of a provocation, but the petitioner goes into that question in more nuanced detail in his comments; he talks about specific interventions that would reduce the road’s impact such as capping or constructing buildings above the road. There are areas where it is overengineered—for example, the Townhead interchange was built for a flank of the motorway that was never built. That is a massively overengineered solution that could largely be deconstructed without having any material effect on traffic. There are ways in which that could be done.

The point that the petitioner is perhaps trying to drive at—pardon the pun—is that the issue has never been seriously reflected on by Transport Scotland, and it is only recently that the city council has started thinking about it. It feels like there is an opportunity for the committee to be a catalyst.

Thank you very much for that. I really appreciate it.

Another important point that I noted that the task force raised was that people who use drugs should be provided with naloxone on liberation. That seems to be a relatively straightforward recommendation to implement. Is there any indication at this stage that the Government is adopting that policy and that it will instruct Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service to do that? I know that you mentioned that you are awaiting a detailed report.

That is great. Does Dr Hunter have any points to make on that?

Thank you. Your points are really important and help to colour the overall context of this policy area.

I recall Dr Neal’s evidence, which was very helpful. In particular, she broached the idea of a member’s bill as a potential remedy and did not find that convincing. I tend to agree with her. She said that we simply require an amendment to the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, as that would be a smoother and more coherent remedy. I recommend that we seek the Government’s agreement on that.

Yes, convener. That is certainly a positive indication from Glasgow City Council that it is seriously investigating the matter, not least as it has submitted a levelling-up fund application worth £50 million to the UK Government to finance the capping of the M8 at the Mitchell library at Charing Cross. However, the asset itself is owned by the Scottish Government, and Transport Scotland as the agency.

It would be good if the committee could establish the exact nature of the co-operation that is required from all levels of Government, from the council to Transport Scotland, to deliver the best outcome for the city. We have not fully established that. It is one thing for Glasgow City Council to have a position, which, although it is positive, is not necessarily specific in its actions. The council has put in one levelling-up fund bid, but there is no indication from the Scottish Government, via its agency Transport Scotland, of what its intentions are, at either a strategic or an operational level, to effect the proposed changes or to co-operate with the council.

Furthermore, the points that Dr Wood makes about the international dimension, given some of the work that that chap has done, are really important. Perhaps there is some merit in requesting a response from Transport Scotland or from the minister in relation to the matter. We can then assess what the Scottish Government’s position is in the light of the evidence that we receive.

It may be analogous to the Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd investigation, which involved technology for the air traffic control system. It is perhaps not entirely similar with regard to the impact on jobs, but there is something in the fact that it involves a technological solution to deliver a performance outcome in transport. There is also the matter of the unconvincing response from ScotRail.

I do not know whether there is some engineering expertise that we could approach.

This is not only a rural problem, but a persistent problem in parts of Glasgow, too. For example, I have dealt with constituent correspondence in relation to the parking of motorhomes on Glasgow Green. The petition might give us an opportunity to look at what local authorities do to enforce motorhome parking and whether there are local byelaws or provisions that could be more widely adopted. I have to say that it feels like a matter for local authorities to deal with through byelaws and local levies and parking restrictions rather than something to be dealt with through statutory measures.