Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2000

Official Report 220KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We now move to the current petitions. We have received several responses, which are among the additional papers that have been circulated to members. The first is the response from the Scottish Executive to petition PE47 from Mr James Strang. He petitioned the Parliament about Henry McLeish misinforming the House of Commons over the Scottish Legal Aid Board and its goings-on. It also concerns what Mr Strang claimed was the misapplication of the regulations by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

There is a full response to Mr Strang's concerns from Mr Ian Allen of the justice department, who seems to have answered the points that have been raised in the petition. I believe that it would be appropriate for us to copy the letter to the petitioner and to leave the matter at that. Does anyone think that something else should be done?

I think that what you suggest is reasonable.

The original petition was based on comments that Henry McLeish made in the House of Commons, which Mr Strang, who is a student of law, thought were misleading. However, the justice department has given a full explanation, pointing out that it would ultimately be a matter for the courts to determine whether the regulations had been applied incorrectly. It is not open to the Scottish Parliament to instruct the board on the correct interpretation of regulations, as that is a legal matter. As the letter answers Mr Strang's points in full, we should pass it to him and leave the matter there.

The next update is on the petition on Carrick Street Halls in Ayr, PE130. We have received a reply from the chief executive of South Ayrshire Council to my letter. It sets out the council's position and states that the lunch club at the centre is no longer functioning, but that all the other groups and activities will continue to be accommodated during the six-month extension period. He claims that the only equipment that has been removed is

"office equipment or equipment from the main kitchen (which is no longer in use)."

He points out that

"alternative suppliers . . . have now been found for almost all of the Lunch Clubs in South Ayrshire from which the Council has withdrawn its subsidy."

The question is whether there is anything more that we can do in this case. We achieved some breathing space for the people at Carrick Street Halls.

It is essentially Churches that are running lunch clubs in Ayr and elsewhere in Ayrshire. However, the council's response is misleading in that the halls are open only between 1 pm and 3 pm. The council is determined to close the halls and will do so. I am not sure what we can do. The council has taken a decision on grounds on which it is perfectly competent to act. The consequences have been the subject of much debate.

They may indeed have had an influence on why you are here.

I suspect that they had a big influence. I do not know what we can do, although I would be delighted to hear any suggestion.

We have a wee problem with the lunch clubs. I am not pointing a finger at anyone. We wanted everything to remain in place pro tem. In the Official Report, it is clear that we wanted the lunch club facilities to remain and no equipment to be removed, but the letter that we sent did not raise the issue of the lunch club. The lunch club is the key, because hundreds of people turned up for it. I do not want to get into the matter of the letter at the moment—perhaps we will deal with it when we discuss how the committee is going.

It is all very well to say that the lunch club

"is the only service which is no longer available in the Halls",

but it is the one for which the hundreds of people came and which created the social binding of the group. That statement is not very smart of the council. Like John Scott, I keep myself up to date on this matter and know that there are issues on the go that may allow a new Carrick Street Halls to rise from the ashes, if the council can get moving. However, it is difficult to know what to say to the council. The problem lies partly in the terms of our original letter. Many of the groups of older people have now dissipated and the heart of the halls has been knocked out. However, the political will still exists in Ayr to hold the council to account for this.

The council definitely will be held to account. A sense of community is emerging to replace the Carrick Street Halls, which the Churches are rallying round to support.

As are businesses.

The bottom line, as George Thorley pointed out in his previous letter, is that the council believes that it has £5 million less to spend this year, £6 million less to spend next year and £7 million less to spend thereafter, which represents a total cut of £18 million. It is against that background that the council has reached its decision.

You are right that the decisions have been taken wholly within the council's powers and that it is not for us to question them. However, the reasons for the decisions can certainly be questioned politically, by individual MSPs and parties rather than by the committee. At the local government and Scottish Parliament elections, those who are responsible will be held to account. The committee can do no more than bring the matter into the public domain and make the situation clear to people.

We would be going beyond our powers—the convener will correct me if I am wrong—if we sat in judgment on a council that was exercising its legal power.

That will be a major element of our discussion on the handling of petitions. It is not within the remit of the committee to hold local government to account, as that is done by the people of Scotland. We can merely try to ensure that petitions that are submitted to us are dealt with properly. In this case, the council has dealt with the petition—we may not like the answer, but the council will be held to account by the people who vote for it rather than by us.

Could we perhaps express our concern—as a final bit of thunder—that the lunch club that was at the heart of the halls was closed? We can question whether that was really necessary.

Without wishing to be political—

Go ahead, John—I am ready for you.

I am not trying to be political. An alternative budget was presented to the council, which would have made cuts in a different area and would have kept the lunch clubs going. However, the council made its decisions and had its reasons for doing what it did.

It is difficult for an all-party committee to take a position on a political issue. Choosing between two budgets is a political decision.

I was not really making a political point. We are dealing with all these older people, who are ill and are getting dispossessed. It would perhaps have been prudent for the council to have consulted them more, and then, if closure was inevitable, to have maintained the lunch club until it had to move. The council has left a shadow of what was there before. That was unkind.

We could frame a letter in response to the council's letter, thanking it for the information and drawing its attention to the fact that our original letter was perhaps not drafted in the right terms.

Did we ask the council to outline its future plans?

I cannot remember.

We need to note the concern of members, but as Christine Grahame and John Scott are elected representatives in that area, they have the opportunity to express their views locally. The committee has taken the actions that it agreed to take and has received a reply. We do not necessarily like the decision, but the issue is a local one.

I do not think that we can comment on the decision. The Public Petitions Committee's concern is the petition; that is the only thing on which we can comment.

We need to draw a line under the issue, as we have received the information for which we asked.

We could find a form of words that showed that we were concerned that the main service available through the club no longer functioned, although we accept that nothing can be done about that—apart from through local political action.

I think that that is fair.

We cannot hold the council to account. That is not our role. We note that the lunch club was the main function of the Carrick Street Halls and it was withdrawn.

Would there be any point in passing the matter on to another committee?

The other committees would be in the same position. This is a local government matter; it is not a decision for the Parliament.

John Scott's suggestion would close the loop. We passed the petition on to other committees in the first place and we should inform them of the final outcome.

That will be on the web, on the current petitions page.

Every petition is posted on the website.

The next item is a response to petition PE133. We have a letter from North Lanarkshire Council on the Longriggend Residents Association. As members will see, this is a complicated matter, relating to the different responsibilities of the council, the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Executive and the local residents. We have also received a letter from Jill Paterson—sorry, I mean Gil Paterson.

You will owe him a pint for that, convener.

Do not tell him; he is bigger than I am.

Gil Paterson has enclosed a letter that outlines the latest response of the Scottish Prison Service. I am worried about the petition because it has clearly become a legal dispute between the owners of the properties and the Scottish Prison Service. North Lanarkshire Council has made it quite clear that it is not prepared to adopt the pavements and lighting until they have been upgraded to a particular standard. As members will note, that will cost quite a lot of money:

"£200,000 with a further £25,000 required with regard to street lighting."

A further £40,000 is required for drainage provision.

The dispute is between the Scottish Prison Service, which says that the situation was made clear to the owners in the title deeds of the properties when they were sold, and the owners who think that the Scottish Executive should pick up the bill. That is a legal matter. It is for the courts to decide who is liable; we cannot make the decision. It is suggested that we pass the correspondence to the petitioners.

Was there not evidence that at some stage the local authority gave the impression that it would take over the responsibility, subject to the systems being brought up to standards? That often happens in private developments; there is more to it than simply the contents of the title deeds.

If the amenities are not up to adoptable standards, the council will not take over the responsibility.

I know that. I think that the Scottish Prison Service was going to bring things up to those standards. There is no dispute about what the title deeds say; the debate surrounds what was agreed between the local authority and the residents.

It is more to do with what was agreed between the Scottish Prison Service and the residents.

That is the key. The Scottish Prison Service was considering upgrading the amenities but decided against it. Having made that decision, the SPS sold the houses on the basis of the title deeds, which were accepted at that time. Until that matter is resolved, there is not much that we can do.

Is it not the case that the SPS is going to switch off the lights at the end of the month?

No. The Scottish Prison Service will stop paying the bills, which will be redirected to the owner-occupiers. There is no question of the lights being turned off.

Just as well it is the summer.

This is a legal dispute between the owners and the SPS.

There is an issue about the SPS making an undertaking at some point to bring the amenities up to standard and not doing it. It is more than just a dispute about title deeds.

It depends what happened when the SPS withdrew the offer. Someone must have agreed to that somewhere along the line.

I do not think that a firm commitment was given.

That is an issue for the courts to settle, rather than the Public Petitions Committee.

If it can be proved in court that there was a commitment, the SPS will be expected to carry out the upgrading.

The local authority might have to adopt certain aspects. The letter says that that comes under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

The residents cannot make the local authority bring the amenities up to standard.

Unless it is in a dangerous condition. The Longriggend residents would have been better off if the roads were in a dangerous condition, because that would mean that the local authority had to adopt them. That is a catch-22 situation.

I am not sure that that would work.

We have the response to the letter, which we can pass on to the petitioners. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item is a response from West Lothian Council about PE136 on Training Adults in the Community.

Colin Williamson of TAIC gave evidence to the committee when we met in the Borders. He was very good and has been very energetic in lobbying the Scottish Executive and every committee in the Parliament. The letter from West Lothian Council gives details of the background to the funding of TAIC and the reasons behind the council's decision to withdraw that funding. As the committee knows, the council has offered to provide alternative support for users of the service and funding for individual need assessments.

It seems that there is little else that we can do to assist TAIC, although we can pass on the information that we have received from the council. It is clear that the council will say that it does not have the funding.

Where did we send the petition?

We dealt with the matter by writing to West Lothian Council.

The petitioner phoned me to say that the information that I had given him had been quite useful. After that, I had a discussion with the head of adult education at Fife Council, who told me that she had given him some support and advice about alternative Government funding.

We passed the petition to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee for further consideration.

The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee has noted the petition and has asked Karen Whitefield to take the issues into account in her report. She is considering overall problems in the voluntary sector, rather than making a recommendation on this specific issue.

When will the training programme end?

It has already finished, or rather the funding has ended. The letter says that:

"Alternative support for existing service users will be provided by the Council's own services or by services funded by the Council in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector . . . a budget of £5,000 is available to cover the cost of needs assessment and to provide support to individuals as required."

We could pass that letter on to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.

Could we ask West Lothian Council to specify the nature of the alternative support? That would assist Karen Whitefield and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.

I am concerned, because I thought that Colin Williamson made an extraordinarily eloquent presentation and I was persuaded of the merits of the project. The funding represents a tiny amount of the council's education budget. If the project has merit, it should have a good fight for its funding. I want to know what alternative services the council intends to provide.

I do not disagree with that, although I think that the important element of the letter is the point about individual needs assessment. On the basis of that assessment, the council will identify whether there is suitable alternative support for the individuals. I expect the council to write back and to tell us that that is what is being undertaken.

The important thing for the council is to ensure that, rather than perpetuating an organisation, individual needs are being met. That will depend on the individual assessment. Seventy-eight people are currently using the services, each of whom will be individually assessed. For some of them, their needs will be met by in-house council services; others will be sent to voluntary organisations. To be fair, the council will not know which person will go to which service until the assessment has been carried out.

The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee is considering the petition, so we will pass this correspondence on for its information and repeat the information to the Equal Opportunities Committee, asking it to take this response into consideration in its handling of the petition. I wish that this committee were all-powerful.

I wish that it were a big Santa Claus.

This is a funding issue. All that we can do is pass the information from West Lothian Council to the committees that are considering the petition and ask them to deal with it.

I sometimes wish that people who are considering these issues did not just receive a piece of paper but heard some of the petitioners, such as that young man. It would give an impetus to their decision that they might not otherwise have had. The problem is that the petitioners have something worth while to say, yet that is filtered by the way in which we operate.

We could suggest that Karen Whitefield contact them.

You have answered the question—that would be super.

As you were so impressed by the young man, could he make representations to the relevant committee?

That will be a matter for that committee. However, Karen Whitefield is the reporter, so we could write to her and suggest that she speak to this young man, because this committee was particularly impressed by the way in which he presented the information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Members have a copy of the final petition, although it is not on the agenda, as this letter came in only today. It is a response from Argyll and Bute Council to the petition about Toward Primary School; members will recall that Margaret Ewing spoke to the committee about that petition. The main point to note is that we asked the council not to close the school until the Education, Culture and Sport Committee had had a chance to consider the matter. The council has agreed to do so and it should be congratulated on that.

It is suggested that the clerks should pass this letter immediately to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and ask it to consider the matter urgently. The committee has said that it will consider the petition on 23 May and that there will be a response to it.

Should we pass the letter to the petitioners?

By all means we can do that. For the most part, that happens automatically.