Local Government and Transport Committee, 13 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Common Good Assets (PE875)<br />Listed Buildings<br />(Consultation on Disposal) (PE896)

---

Common Good Land (PE961)

Agenda item 5 is consideration of petition PE875, by Mary E Mackenzie; petition PE896 by Florence Boyle, on behalf of West Dunbartonshire Heritage Ltd; and petition PE961, by Sally Richardson. All three petitions raise the issues of the means by which common good assets are recorded and the requirement of local authorities to consult communities or take cognisance of their views with regard to how common good land and property is used. The petitions cover fairly similar ground.

We are asked to consider how we wish to take forward the consideration of the petitions. There is quite extensive paperwork, including supporting documentation and the record of the consideration that the Public Petitions Committee has given to the petitions.

I suggest that we do not do anything different from what we did with the petition on home safety officers. There is an issue for us to explore. If we talk to people who have some expertise on the matter, we will get a clearer view of the issues and we will be able to reach a conclusion. We have a tried and trusted method of dealing with petitions. I leave it up to you to determine which organisations would come before us.

As the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I can assure you that the petitions generated quite a bit of interest. Not only were they novel, but the examples that were given to us were particularly interesting. The supporting evidence demonstrates the expertise that exists in communities in Scotland and highlights how little is known about what constitutes common good assets and how they should be disposed of. Miss Mackenzie, who is one of the petitioners, saw an item in an antique shop that she knew belonged to the City of Edinburgh Council. She discovered that no one in Edinburgh could trace the item. However, she proved that it had at one time belonged to the council and that no one knew that it had been disposed of. There is no register of common good assets. No one keeps track of where the assets lie.

These days, I think that the Public Petitions Committee refers to this committee only a few of the petitions that it receives. That reflects the fact that the Public Petitions Committee now plays a greater role in dealing with petitions earlier. As the petitions have been referred to us, it is appropriate that we consider taking evidence on them.

My initial suggestion is that among the people from whom it would be useful to hear are the petitioners, COSLA—given that local authorities probably form the largest group of owners of such property—and the Scottish Executive, for a broader overview. I am open to suggestions.

The clerk circulated a report by Andy Wightman about the common good fund in Edinburgh. In the time that has been available I have skimmed that report, which raises interesting issues about the management of that fund, which might be an example for others. Mr Wightman has considerable expertise in land and property ownership issues and he might be a useful witness.

I am happy to add his name to the list.

As I said when we discussed the matter before, we need to know whether local authorities know how much land or assets they have and whether they have a register or inventory of that, as Michael McMahon said. It would be good to contact all local authorities, to find out whether a problem exists and, if so, what its scale is.

Did the Public Petitions Committee find that out?

The Public Petitions Committee wrote to COSLA. The issue that was left outstanding was the fact that it was clear that no register exists. Some organisations accepted that no register or inventory existed and said that that was fine, because that is the way things are done, whereas others said that having an inventory or register would be useful. What is left for the Local Government and Transport Committee to do is to determine the best outcome. The question, which is similar to that in an earlier debate this afternoon, is whether we should allow local authorities to operate individually as they see fit. Should someone hold a register centrally, which might be controlled centrally but collected locally? That would allow people to know exactly what is held as common good in their local authority areas.

I, too, have skimmed the paper from Andy Wightman, who has been suggested as a witness. I would like to hear from representatives of the two councils that he cites, because the difference between the funds—and, I assume, in how they have been managed—is stark. The committee would benefit from hearing from representatives of Aberdeen City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council about how they manage their common good funds.

We could do that. We could ask COSLA to appear along with those councils, rather than having separate groups on the agenda.

You suggest a panel of three witnesses.

Yes.

That is a good idea.

We will take evidence on existing practice, but it would also be interesting to hear about the potential of registering such information. Registering the common good assets of Glasgow, such as the Burrell collection and all the other collections, could present a positive picture of the material that people want to access and the number of facilities that people want to visit. People could use the internet to find out that such art treasures are available. That might affect the list of witnesses.

If a regime required local authorities to register such information, financing would be an issue. There is potential for the information to be used positively if people all over the world could access a database of where items are held. That is in the common global interest, particularly on art, which is an issue in Glasgow. People from all over the world visit the Burrell collection but they do not know which pieces will be displayed until they arrive at the collection. If there was some way that we could present the common good assets that our various authorities hold, that would be positive. We could inquire into that.

Another point that emerged from the documentation that we have received is what we do not know as a result of local government reorganisation. Perhaps we might ask COSLA and any of the councils from which we take evidence how big the problem of lost records is. It might be an issue not only for common good assets, but for other matters as well.

Among the papers that have been provided were comments from Audit Scotland, which says that it has examined a number of common good funds over the years. It goes on to identify some of the issues, some of which we have covered: the completeness of the record of what is owned; the valuation of common good assets; securing best value from the disposal of common good land; the allocation of overhead and interest to common good funds; and accounting for the repair costs of common good assets. Miss Mackenzie also raises the question of whether rent is being charged to councils for assets that they rent or use that are owned by the common good fund.

I would like to add Audit Scotland to the list of witnesses and would like to see its reports on the City of Edinburgh Council and Aberdeen City Council. Quite serious allegations are made about City of Edinburgh Council and I did not see an answer to them. I do not want to repeat them now, but I would like to see an answer to that aspect of Mr Wightman's paper.

We should have an inquiry. Michael McMahon is right. There is a general air of mystery about what common good funds are, how much they are worth and what they are spent on. Speculation—founded or otherwise—tends to be more rampant where there is an air of mystery than in the well-audited well-trodden path of local government finance. I would like common good funds to be brought into the main stream and I hope that an inquiry might help us to achieve that purpose.

Are we happy to take evidence from the range of bodies that we have discussed? We will consider an approach paper in due course.

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of today's meeting. I thank all members for their attendance and contributions.

Meeting closed at 15:58.