Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 19 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 19, 2000

Official Report 173KB pdf

---

Petitions

We now move on to the agenda item on petitions. We have never dealt with a petition before, but we have the special advantage of having as a member of our committee the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, John McAllion, so I will be relying on him.

I have asked Martin Verity to explain what our role is with regard to petitions, and the options that we have. John will help us out if needed.

Perhaps John McAllion is the expert on this subject.

Petitions that are received by Parliament are referred to the Public Petitions Committee, which may refer petitions to individual committees or other agencies. Two petitions have been referred by the Public Petitions Committee to this committee. They are listed on the agenda, and the papers are before members.

Members may wish to accept the petitions, not accept them, or refer them to another agency for consideration. They may also look into the subject matter of the petitions by putting them on a future agenda and calling witnesses and so on. Members may appoint a reporter to examine particular issues and report back to the committee. The committee has a wide range of options. The only other thing to point out is that the committee is requested to let the convener of the Public Petitions Committee have sight of its draft response before it goes out. I am not in a position to add anything further.

Thank you, Martin. That was very helpful. Members have received the papers and will have seen the items for discussion.

The easy thing for the Public Petitions Committee to do is to refer the matter to another committee. A principle is at stake. The Parliament expects the committees to take petitions seriously, but that does not mean that we have to mount a major investigation into every petition that comes before us. In many cases, our action might be to refer the petition to another agency, by writing to it and asking for comments. Do you want to discuss the particular petitions, convener?

I was going to go through them after you had finished.

The first petition asks the impossible: a moratorium on stock transfers until the Parliament has examined all aspects of public sector housing in Scotland. I do not think that we will ever be in the position where we have examined all aspects of public sector housing in Scotland. The timing of our inquiry into stock transfer means that we will report by the end of March, by which time no stock transfer will have taken place—not even in Glasgow. We could write back to the petitioners, explaining that and saying that the committee will take the petition into consideration when it draws up its report on housing stock transfer. That would be an easy way of approaching the problem.

That is a useful recommendation. Do members agree to that?

Yes.

In the light of John's previous comments, might we want to re-examine the wording of the petition? Perhaps the petitioner included a qualification that they did not intend. What they want is a moratorium on stock transfers pending answers to many questions. It may be that when we come to write our report, we will say that until we know what form housing benefit reform will take, there should be a moratorium.

I have a point of clarification about the Public Petitions Committee. If we wanted to ask someone to reword their petition, to make their point better, would that be our responsibility or that of the Public Petitions Committee? Is there a legal requirement that we deal with the petition verbatim?

No, there is not. It would be legitimate for us to write to a petitioner explaining that we had a problem with the wording of the petition, as long as we informed the Public Petitions Committee. If the petitioner wanted to resubmit a petition, it would have to go through the Public Petitions Committee.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Presumably we are entitled to take on board the issue raised by a petition, if we think that it has merit, without going through very formal procedures. I am not recommending that in this case, because, as has been said, the petition already seems to fit in with our work.

We need clear guidance on that issue. As John McAllion pointed out, if we examine all aspects of public sector housing in Scotland, we will be here until the next millennium. I accept Robert's point, in that we can take on board the gist of a petition, but we need clear guidance on how to respond. The petition is in the public domain and we need to be clear whether we are discussing the petition or the issue.

I take Robert's point, but we must be clear that we are considering the petition, rather than our interpretation of what the petitioner might have intended. We do not want to be unfair to petitioners in that respect.

I suggest that when we write back to the petitioner, we explain that there was a problem with the wording, but that despite that, we understand the principle behind the petition and that the committee's views on the matter will be reflected in its report. We could undertake to pass a copy of the report to the petitioner.

As John has pointed out, there is one wrong word in the petition. I wonder whether we could write back to the petitioner and say that the problem of the wording should be addressed and that there is a formal process for resubmission. We might be able to say to the Public Petitions Committee that we accept the petition in principle, but that we require a change in the wording—that would be a formal, yet uncomplicated process.

It is not complicated. The Public Petitions Committee will be informed of any decision that we take. If the petition is resubmitted, it will be automatically referred to this committee. The Public Petitions Committee does not consider the substance of any petition.

It is important that we are clear about this right from the beginning. We are setting a precedent.

This committee will decide how it wants to handle the substance of the petition and must inform the Public Petitions Committee, which will accept that.

What percentage of petitions that the Public Petitions Committee receives is passed on? I presume that the committee takes the decision that some petitions are not worth pursuing. What percentage is referred to other committees? I want some idea of the importance that the Public Petitions Committee attaches to the petitions that it refers to us.

Can John answer that?

I do not know that off the top of my head, but I could find out easily. The committee keeps a record of every petition and whether it is referred to another committee. The Public Petitions Committee had a discussion yesterday about individual petitioners—one person from Glasgow has submitted six different petitions on various matters—and we decided that we would try to protect committees where possible. The Public Petitions Committee will exercise judgment and will not flood committees with all the petitions that we receive. There is a danger that individuals could petition the Parliament and invade the agenda of every committee. Part of the role of the Public Petitions Committee is to deal with petitions seriously and sensibly, without interfering with the substance of subject committee work.

Does the committee agree to deal with PE41 as John recommended?

Yes.

The next petition is rather different.

It is much more complicated. If members have read the correspondence, they will know that Darnley Tenant Association and Darnley Estate Community Council already exist. The housing association wanted to set up area committees, but has now undertaken to review its handling of tenant participation. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has investigated the complaint and it believes that the housing association concerned has an effective mechanism for tenant participation. Scottish Homes has also undertaken to review the housing association and its approach to tenant participation.

I suggest that we write to Scottish Homes, asking for comments on the petition. We could also write to the petitioner, informing them that new rights for tenants—the single social tenancy—will form part of the housing bill, which the committee will consider in the autumn, and that we will take on board the views expressed in the petition.

Yes.

We should defer any action until we hear back from Scottish Homes. We must find out whether the points made in the petition are justified. We should reconsider the petition when we have had a reply from Scottish Homes.

Okay.

John McAllion said that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations said that the housing association concerned had an effective tenant participation mechanism. However, the SFHA does not say that. It says:

"It seems that Glen Oaks has a variety of mechanisms for tenant participation . . . It is up to each housing association to determine the tenant participation strategy which is appropriate for their own circumstances".

A group of tenants are saying that they do not think that the mechanism is appropriate or effective. I am concerned that the federation does not seem to want to get involved. We must go over the head of the federation, whose stance is disappointing; we must take the matter to Scottish Homes.

The first page of the petition might go rather far, but it also clearly states:

"We petition that parliament have Scottish homes make it a condition of funding that a Socially Registered Landlord must give its tenants the right to form a tenant or residents association and not promote Area Committees at its expense."

Without knowing the details, I believe that it seems that there is some conflict between the housing association and certain tenants—I suspect a personality clash. A small part of the housing association area is in my constituency, but the matter has not been drawn to my attention as a representative of the area, so I do not know the details. The tenants must have the right to have the organisation that they think is appropriate to their needs. We must ask Scottish Homes to leave it up to the tenants to decide, rather than the housing association.

I have some sympathy with that, following the broad principle of autonomous self-organisation—tenants should have the right to organise themselves as they see fit. There must independence from the landlord. That might be at the heart of the petition.

I agree with much of what Mike said. There is an issue about democracy in housing associations. In this case, the problem might be a personality clash. Someone suggested that a member of the committee could meet the petitioners and find out what the situation was. However, in the first instance, we should find out what Scottish Homes has to say about the matter.

We could do that. We could also refer the matter to the ombudsman.

Scottish Homes is charged with monitoring housing associations and how they implement tenant participation, so we should find out its views on the matter. We have some correspondence from Scottish Homes, but it is not comprehensive. If the committee were to get involved, Scottish Homes might take the matter more seriously.

May I clarify your last comment about the ombudsman? I understand that the ombudsman can deal only with cases that have been referred by MPs or MSPs. Can the committee refer the matter?

I would have thought so, although I would have to clarify that. I am sure that we could arrange that.

The rules are slightly different for the housing association ombudsman and the Parliament ombudsman—the referral does not need to come through an MP or MSP.

I suggest that we write to Scottish Homes and revisit the matter when we receive an answer, as the petition raises an issue that might be significant. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now move into private session for a briefing.

Meeting continued in private until 12:38.