Official Report 142KB pdf
We have four petitions to consider. Petitions PE198 and PE173 have been grouped together because they relate to financial problems in Aberdeenshire Council, which were the subject of a previous petition from the council.
The Parliament has responsibilities for communities. Rural communities are under most strain at present. I am concerned that the proposed closure of the office represents something else being taken away from a rural setting. Therefore, should we not also address our concerns to Wendy Alexander? I understand fully who is responsible for the closure, but the Parliament and the country should be concerned that we are losing talented people from the countryside in big numbers. The closure is part of that drain.
Frankly, I think that this is a matter for Aberdeenshire Council. It is an issue for the Parliament when it considers the budget for the local authority. It is important that we should argue why some local authorities should perhaps receive more than others receive. However, it is up to the local authority to decide on something such as the location of a council service.
I would like us to flag up our concerns about the matter. The Parliament will be remiss if it turns a blind eye to communities that come under pressure. The budgetary pressure that Aberdeenshire Council is under is caused by decisions that are taken by the Parliament.
I agree with Kenny Gibson. The Parliament has to be careful that it is not seen to intervene in decisions that are wholly within the remit of local government. If we intervened, we would swiftly discover that local government strongly resented it. The key issue is subsidiarity. If any of us who were previously in local government had thought that the advent of the Scottish Parliament would mean that every decision that we made would be second-guessed and scrutinised at parliamentary level, we would have had strong concerns.
I would like to marry the two perspectives. I accept everything that Bristow Muldoon and Kenny Gibson said, but I take on board what Gil Paterson said, as I do not think that there is anything wrong in expressing concern about the issue. Perhaps in the letter to the petitioner, we could mention the inquiry into local government finance in which we will participate.
I do not think that there is consensus in the committee that rural communities are under the most strain. I will have a debate any time about the strains that inner cities and some parts of my constituency suffer because of the level of poverty. I do not think that, on the basis of one petition, we can sit in judgment on a local authority. Expressing our concern, as Sylvia Jackson suggests, would not progress the matter and would reflect on a decision about which we do not know enough to be able to say whether it was appropriate. Even if we did know more about it, it is clearly a decision for the local authority.
I want to make the same point. My basic concern about our conducting this debate is that we do not have any evidence on the decision. The decision may concern the petitioners, but it is not necessarily a bad decision—we do not have any evidence one way or the other. It would be entirely wrong and would send out the wrong signals for the committee to sit in judgment on a decision that has been made by another democratically elected organisation. We should not set such precedents. I am concerned about the fact that the petition is before us, as the purpose of the Public Petitions Committee is to establish whether there is a remit for committees to become involved in petitions, and it should have known that this is a local authority decision, over which we have no influence. I do not know why we are discussing it.
The letter that you propose, convener, should set out clearly the points that have been made: that we have no remit over, and are not commenting on, specific decisions by councils on how they provide their services, but that the overall funding of local government is within our remit and that we intend to initiate an inquiry to improve it. It would be fair to tell the petitioner that we are responding in so far as it is within our remit, but that we are not trespassing on local government.
It is largely a question of how the response is put. I think that if such a closure occurred in any of our areas, our people would feel upset. We can express our understanding of that, while making it clear that is not really in our barrel. That would not commit us one way or the other.
Colin Campbell has found the right tone. In our report in response to the budget, we expressed concern about the general situation. What I meant earlier was that we should express concern about the wider context rather than about individual decisions.
The problem is that we do not know what the consequences in the budget would be if the office were not closed. We do not even know whether it is financial constraints that have determined that the office should close—the reason might be something else entirely. As soon as we empathise with the petitioner, and agree that it is a shame and that they must be upset, we are passing judgment on the decision-making process. The decision in this case might be entirely about financial constraints and the council might be deeply unhappy about it and might welcome the involvement of the committee—it might be making other difficult decisions. We have to be careful that we do not appear to sit in judgment on the local authority.
I do not think that anybody mentioned that.
Even if we knew the detail of the case inside out, and were 100 per cent in agreement with what the petitioner was calling for, we still have no right whatever to intervene. I think that we just have to express the position that this is simply a matter for Aberdeenshire Council.
The sooner we get to Norway, the better. [Laughter.] Bearing in mind the amount of time that the Norwegians spend, and the effort that they make, knowing that there is a considerable problem in their country, we do not seem to recognise that we are losing many young people in a country setting. We will soon end up with cities and nothing in between. It is a major problem in this country, which the Parliament should recognise, and we should do something about it. There is pressure on post offices, schools and so on.
Convener, are we straying from the subject?
Slightly—
No—that is the subject.
I wish to pull this together. Members have two petitions in front of them, and there appear to be two different matters. On the first petition, PE173, I, too, do not want to get the committee or myself into a position of commenting on the closure of the area office, when I do not have all the background. It is a matter for the local council, and that is what I would wish to say on that.
I completely agree with what you say. You are absolutely right to talk about the different natures of the first two petitions. From my education experience—and members will know from their experience in other committees—I would say that we must be careful, along the lines that you suggest.
If the committee wishes me to do this—I do not feel one way or the other about it—I would prefer that we referred the point to John McAllion, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, rather than to the conveners liaison group. How do members feel about that?
I agree: the matter should be referred to John McAllion. If an issue is genuinely for the Local Government Committee, we should deal with it. It is quite clear, however, that PE173 in particular is not something in which we should be involved. It is wholly inappropriate for us, as Michael McMahon and others have said, to be expected to deal with the matter or even discuss it. I have similar views about other petitions on our briefing paper.
Are members in agreement that I write to John McAllion along those lines with regard to PE173? I might bring in the other petition that we have discussed later.
We move on to petitions PE154 and PE156, from Hillhead Primary School board and Hillhead Community Council respectively. The primary school board, in petition PE154, calls for the Scottish Parliament to intervene to overturn the decision of Glasgow City Council concerning 7 and 8 Alfred Terrace. Petition PE156 is from Mrs Jean Charsley, on behalf of Hillhead Community Council, and calls for exactly the same thing.
I think that that is another issue which it is not appropriate for the committee to deal with. Whether there are broader issues about a possible desire to have greater powers of appeal on planning issues is another matter—but it is not the question that we are being asked to consider.
I agree again with Bristow Muldoon. If there is an issue of maladministration, the petition should go straight to the commissioner for local administration in Scotland; it should certainly not come to us. It is clearly not an issue of national significance. It is of importance to people locally, but it is really up to Glasgow City Council now.
Two issues are highlighted, one of planning and another of the possible misuse of compulsory purchase powers, which is of more relevance to the committee. Planning seems to come under another committee's remit anyway—I am not sure whether that is correct, but that seems to be the system.
If there is an alleged misuse of a compulsory purchase order, the first route is through the local government ombudsman, not necessarily through Parliament. I am not absolutely sure from memory, however, that that is the case.
Roll on, proportional representation.
Do members wish to add comments to the letter about whether such petitions are coming to appropriate committees?
Yes.
Absolutely.
This matter highlights the problems that citizens have with planning. If a planning development is requested by a firm, permission for which is turned down, that firm can appeal to the secretary of state. The citizens cannot do that. It is an obvious lack in the planning system.
That is a legislative matter.
Yes, it is a legislative matter.
It is about planning law. That has been picked up by the Transport and the Environment Committee, and in the deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee. It might be something else for us to consider.
I am concerned about one thing that you said, that we agreed that it was correct for the Executive not to have called the council in. In my experience, if the council is a developer, the Executive always calls—or should call—it in. There seems to have been an extremely bad decision by somebody in the Executive, and I in no way condone that.
It is a private company which is the developer.
Right—but it is council ground. The council had compulsorily purchased it.
Yes.
And the council will benefit?
There will be a capital receipt.
In that case, it must benefit. The secretary of state cannot duck out of that. I think that it was a very bad decision by the Scottish Executive, and I would not wish to be party to saying that it was okay. If you leave that bit out, convener, I am happy.
You have picked up the point that, because there was a compulsory purchase order by Glasgow City Council, which then sold the site on to a private company for building houses, the council should have been called in.
Correct.
It depends: if the planning application was submitted after the land had been sold, that would not be the case.
It would depend on whether the council is a beneficiary.
Do members wish me to ask for clarification about that?
That would be useful.
We spoke to the Executive about the matter, and its position on compulsory purchase powers was as described. That is correct, unless the situation changed when the land was sold. We need clarification on that.
Meeting closed at 15:02.
Previous
Draft Covenant