Official Report 88KB pdf
The first petition, PE195, seeks an inquiry into North Ayrshire Council's decision to reduce full-time warden cover in sheltered housing. It was also the subject of a lengthy discussion by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, and the Official Report of that meeting is included in today's papers. At the end of that discussion, that committee decided to remit the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee for more information. In the light of that decision, I suggest that we note the petition and take no further action, as cutbacks are matters for local authorities to decide.
Would we be likely to get additional information on the action that the Public Petitions Committee will take? At this stage, rather than deciding to take no further action, it might be more sensible to put the petition on hold until we have seen what the Public Petitions Committee says. If, after that, it is clear that we should take no further action, that would be the appropriate time to say so, but I would not like to gift it away at present.
The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee has already considered the petition at length. One of the general principles of our committee is that we do not interfere in the workings of local government. The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee seems to have concluded that decisions about sheltered housing should be made by each local authority, and I do not think that the Local Government Committee should become part of an appeals procedure for unpopular local authority decisions.
I fully agree with Bristow Muldoon. At the end of the day, we believe in subsidiarity and local government. Whether we agree with the local authority's decision is not the point. The point is that it should be up to the local authority to make that decision. I believe therefore that we should not take any action. I hope that we will continue to reiterate that principle; otherwise, we will be continually bombarded with petitions that we should not be getting in the first place.
Nobody should second-guess what is on my mind about who does or does not have authority. I am not for a minute suggesting that we take powers back from local government. In fact, I think I am on record as saying that more powers should be gifted to local government.
If Gil Paterson is moving that we take some action, I will come right back at him and say that I am opposed to any moves towards second-guessing a local authority decision. Kenny Gibson and Bristow Muldoon have articulated the principles on which we have tried to work.
Gil, do you want to pursue the matter?
I do. Your proposal, convener, was that we take no further action. My proposal is to delay that action until we hear the deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee.
The question is, that we take no further action. Are we all agreed?
No.
I am confused now, because I should really write down what Gil is proposing. I would rather do it that way. Gil, are you opposing my recommendation that there should be no further action on this petition?
Not exactly. I am amending it. You are saying that we should take no further action. I am saying that we should wait until we see the deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee. That is quite different. I do not want to have words put into my mouth.
Will you read that out, so that we have an amendment?
I am asking that we wait until we receive the deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee to decide what to do.
Gil's position is that we wait until the Public Petitions Committee has deliberated before we come to a decision. Those in favour of that, please show your hands.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8.
Amendment disagreed to.
My recommendation is carried.
That was quite close. Can we have a recount? [Laughter.]
We have to vote on the substantive decision. Those in favour of the recommendation that we take no further action on PE195, please show your hands.
For
The result of the division is: For 8, Abstentions 1.
We now come to petition PE209, which is similar to the previous one, in as much as the petitioners wish to investigate the reasons for the termination of support for elderly care by South Ayrshire Council and consider the implications of that on future community care demands. I thought that the petition was pretty badly worded, as support for the elderly was not terminated totally; only specific lunch clubs were terminated. My view of PE209 is the same as my view of PE195.
Members indicated agreement.
We now move on to petition PE234. We spoke to the Executive and COSLA about the petition and the advice that we have received is that information about expenses must be publicised, but that information about allowances is not publicised in magazines. That is the problem raised by the petition.
My view is that expenses incurred by councillors are a matter of public record, as they are reported annually to an appropriate committee in each council and contained in public documents that individual members of the public are able to access if they so wish. Equally, payments of allowances to councillors under the current scheme are made following individual councils' decisions on responsibility payments. Those payments are a matter of public record, so individuals are able to access that information also.
I agree with Bristow Muldoon. I do not think that we can take any meaningful action in response to the petition, although there might be a change in practice as a result of a local government bill.
As you said, convener, some local authorities, such as Moray Council, do not have magazines. Would our approval of the petition mean that local authorities would have to produce a magazine in order to publicise that information?
That is correct: while most councils might produce magazines, smaller councils do not. Bristow Muldoon is right. Information is usually available in the local press.
Most newspapers publish that information—it is a good annual story for them.
I recommend that we simply note the petition. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We now move on to petition PE56. Members will recall that this petition is from Ian Cantwell. His petition is not about a challenge to an assessor's decision on the value of his land; Mr Cantwell is challenging the conduct of an assessor. We wrote to the Executive on 3 May, asking for further details.
I agree, convener. The conclusion of the Executive's paper ties it all up. Paragraph 7 (ii) reads:
I may have misunderstood the point, but I thought that the petitioner was complaining that there was no independent person to whom he could complain. The note suggests that he can only complain to the assessor's employers. In local government we have an ombudsman who goes beyond the employers, which are the councils. In this case the complaint stops with the employer. Where is the independence?
The issue was that the assessor was not accountable to anyone and that has been resolved. Ian Cantwell was arguing that the assessor was not accountable and the Executive says that he is.
I think that Ian Cantwell was asking for someone like an ombudsman, so that he would not have to take it to the people who employ him.
We need to establish what would happen after the person has had a hearing on their complaint about the assessor and is still not satisfied with what the local authority is saying. It is helpful to clarify that interim stage, but we need to know what would happen next.
If one complains about the behaviour of a council employee, there is an appeals procedure that goes through the council. If someone is not happy with the outcome, they can turn to the ombudsman.
That is right. However, we need to clarify that second stage. If the complainant was not happy with the outcome, they could take the matter up with the local government ombudsman. We will take that back to the Executive for clarification. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to consider a proposed new system for the disposal of the petitions that we have just been discussing. The proposed system would give members an early view of petitions, allowing them to decide in advance of committee meetings whether the petitions warranted full committee consideration or a possible inquiry. That would also ensure that all petitions are seen and considered by committee members. If a member considered a petition to be urgent, they would notify the clerk, who would ensure that the petition was put on the first possible agenda.
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
CovenantNext
Meeting in Private