Public Petitions Committee, 21 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Official Report 267KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Care Homes (PE522)

The first of the current petitions is PE522. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to encourage the Scottish Executive to investigate and remedy the lack of care homes for young physically disabled people in Scotland, including in Tayside. At its meeting of 25 June 2003, the committee agreed to approach the Health Committee with a view to determining whether it would consider the issues that were raised in PE522 together with linked petitions PE551, PE576, PE597 and PE599. Members have received a copy of the response from the Health Committee on the subject of PE522, which is to refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee for further consideration. The Health Committee also agreed to close PE551, PE576, PE597 and PE599.

The committee may wish to note that the Equal Opportunities Committee is currently consulting on the European year of disabled people 2003. It is inviting views on what it should be examining as part of its forthcoming inquiry into disability. We have indicated that, where necessary, we could take on inquiries ourselves, but I do not think that one on that subject fits into a suitable category for us. It may well be that the Health Committee has a busy work load and, although it saw merit in the petition, it did not want to carry out the work itself. I think it would be best to ask another committee to examine the matter. If the Equal Opportunities Committee is conducting some work in that area, we should invite it to take the matter up. We must ensure that our time is used as effectively as possible.

I agree with that proposal. I notice that the response that Capability Scotland issued says:

"In January 2002, the Deputy Minister for Health & Community Care gave an undertaking to the Parliament's Health & Community Care Committee that ‘work will be undertaken to improve our knowledge and understanding of the needs of younger people'".

It goes on to say that, as at September 2003—more than a year and a half later—no results had been published. Are we aware of any results having been published since then? If not, an inordinate amount of time—two years now—seems to have passed since that undertaking was made. We should ask the Executive what became of that work, which might help the Equal Opportunities Committee, as well as allaying some of the fears of the petitioners.

Should we ask the Executive, or should we recommend that the Equal Opportunities Committee do that?

The Equal Opportunities Committee could do that, yes. In any case, it seems odd that nothing has been heard since that commitment was made two years ago. That is not the way in which the Executive usually operates.

We will recommend to the Equal Opportunities Committee that it ask where the information from the Executive is.

The information ought to be provided from somewhere. If £1.3 billion is being spent on the sector, it is a matter of public interest to know that money is being properly and adequately spent. It might even be a matter of interest for Audit Scotland. Although the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities might not be able to provide the information, the Executive should be able to collate information on the subject, given the resources and the amount of money that it is spending in that area.

Is everyone happy with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Solvent Abuse (PE580)

Petition PE580 calls on the Scottish Parliament to recognise the serious problems concerning solvent abuse in Scotland and to introduce preventive safety measures to help combat it. At our meeting on 12 November 2003, we agreed to invite the views of the petitioners on the responses that the committee had received from the Executive, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Consumer Council, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on oil and gas and Shell UK. A copy of the petitioners' response has been circulated. The petitioners state that they have recently petitioned the UK Parliament, calling for a legislative change to be made at Westminster. They also suggest that further action be taken by the Scottish Executive. What do members think of the response from the petitioners?

You will note that Mr O'Brien, the main petitioner, has congratulated Shell on the work that it has been doing on solvent abuse. I have been involved in that work as a member of the cross-party group on oil and gas and I raised the issue at a meeting of the group at which a Shell representative was present. I asked whether the oil industry could inject some kind of component into certain products to give them a very bitter smell, which would deter people from wanting to take them. Shell has done a lot of work on the problem, and it has produced a very good response, which I will share with the clerk. It says that it would not be feasible for Shell and the other companies in the industry to inject such a component up stream. However, Shell said that it would be possible for the people who make lighter fuel to inject such a component at the manufacturing stage further down stream. Shell makes it clear that it might require legislation to do that, however.

I do not know whether that would be for the Scottish Parliament or for the Westminster Parliament to do. However, Shell's letter says clearly that the injection of the deterrent component—a substance called Bitrex—into lighter fuel must be done by agreement with all the industries involved, such as the manufacturers of canisters and lighter fuel. We need to secure the injection of Bitrex through agreement across the industry or through legislation. Shell's letter states:

"In 1995 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs published a report, which led to an announcement by the Department of Trade and Industry that it would seek the co-operation of industry in establishing an industry-led forum to help combat Volatile Substance Abuse. It was clear from the above meeting that such an industry-led forum is vital, with active involvement from the DTI to co-ordinate the activities of the cigarette lighter refill companies in the UK."

It is clear that no progress has been made since 1995. The situation is urgent because many lives are being lost every year. I was present at the meeting of the previous Public Petitions Committee to which Marilyn Livingstone brought the petition.

There is also an issue about the size of lighter refill canisters. Their volume is 250ml—which represents several years' supply for an average smoker—but smaller canisters could be made. It is imperative to get the canister manufacturers involved because the combination of smaller canisters and the inclusion of Bitrex would go a long way to preventing young people from inhaling the canisters' contents. I will give Shell's letter to the committee clerk. We must write to the appropriate manufacturing consortium and find a way of getting the manufacturers to take on board what Shell has said.

I take your point. However, our information is that the petitioners have recognised that the issue is a UK legislative one and have petitioned Westminster to deal with it.

It is obvious that the manufacturers must be well aware of the problem by now, but have chosen thus far to do nothing about it. Therefore, the only way for the problem to be resolved is for Westminster to deal with it. However, it is incumbent on Scottish ministers to seek the views of Westminster ministers and, indeed, press them to produce legislation to make the manufacturers of lighter refills put in Bitrex to deter abusers.

I agree with that. I note that John MacDougall MP has proposed a private member's bill on solvent abuse. Perhaps we could write to him to ask how that is progressing. Compared with a member's bill in the Scottish Parliament, the chances of getting a private member's bill through Westminster is extremely slim. I think that only six private members' bills are accepted every year. It would be interesting to know whether there has been any progress on Mr MacDougall's bill.

So John Scott recommends that we write to the Executive and ask what pressure it is bringing to bear on the issue, and Mike Watson recommends that we contact the MP who has proposed a bill on the issue at Westminster.

We should write to the Executive and ask it to bring pressure to bear and to invite the Westminster Government to produce legislation with a view to resolving the problem.

Are members happy with the recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Rented Accommodation <br />(Complaints Procedures) (PE596)

Our next petition is PE596, on complaints procedures in rented accommodation used by the old and disabled. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to address the alleged serious inadequacies in the existing complaints procedure for rented accommodation that is committed to providing care for the old and disabled. At its meeting on 11 March 2003, the previous Public Petitions Committee agreed to seek comments on the issue from the Scottish Executive, Communities Scotland and the care commission. Those comments were circulated to members. What do members think of them?

I am not sure that private rented accommodation housing disabled people comes under the auspices of the care commission. We need to check that. Is it not organised and regulated facilities, such as nursing homes and sheltered housing, that come under the care commission?

I think that the petition relates to the degree of care of the old and the disabled in rented accommodation. It refers to those who are

"committed to providing a degree of care".

I do not know who that—

Can we have clarification of that? When I read the petition, I did not find it easy. There is a difficulty about whether housing associations are referred to as private. Does Communities Scotland's role in the matter arise because we are talking about registered social landlords? Is the petition about that rather than about private accommodation?

The care commission's director of operations says in his letter that

"the Commission will have a role in the regulation of such services as from 1 April this year"

—that is, 2003. Therefore, according to its letter, the care commission does have the responsibility.

The petition is about

"the existing complaints procedures in rented accommodation committed to providing a degree of care for the old and disabled".

It is about inadequacies in legislation. The care commission says that it has responsibility, but I take it that the petitioner is asking whether the procedures under which the care commission can act are adequate.

I am a wee bit confused. Are we talking about cases that come under Communities Scotland because they relate to registered social landlords? There are private providers who have set up accommodation with a degree of care. What concerns me is whether we are on to the right people.

I think we are. There is an overlap.

Okay.

What do members think we should do with the responses? Are we satisfied that the care commission has a remit and is looking into the matter?

The reason for the confusion is that the petition was dealt with by the previous Public Petitions Committee. If the complainant is talking about cases in which Communities Scotland and the care commission have remits, I am fairly satisfied with the answers.

The care commission makes it clear that it has responsibility in respect of the petition. The petitioner is specific about what she sees as inadequacies and the care commissioner says that he can deal with the petition. That is my reading of the situation.

We should let him get on with it then.

Okay. Are members happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Abandoned Properties (PE602)

Our next petition is PE602, on the recovery of abandoned private sector properties. Bristow Muldoon MSP has joined us, as he has an interest in the petition.

The petitioners call for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to decentralise to local authorities the previously centralised authority that the Scotland Office held under planning legislation to recover abandoned private sector properties. The previous Public Petitions Committee considered the petition at its meeting on 25 February 2003 and it agreed to seek responses from the Scottish Executive, COSLA and the Greater London Authority. Responses from the Scottish Executive and the GLA have been circulated to members for consideration, but no response has been received from COSLA, despite several reminders.

I invite Bristow Muldoon to add his comments.

I have not seen the responses, so I look forward to hearing members' comments on their contents.

The petition was initiated by Dedridge community council, which is in my constituency, but the issue affects several communities in my constituency and I am sure that it affects communities in the areas that other members represent. I am aware of several abandoned properties in the Livingston area that are in a poor state due to fire damage and vandalism. For whatever reason, the private owners choose not to bring them into a state of reasonable repair and the properties drag down otherwise good communities. They can result in structural damage to neighbouring properties and they become a target for vandalism by people who choose to indulge in such activities.

I raised the issue with Margaret Curran before the elections last year and I have discussed the matter in detail with the senior housing manager in West Lothian Council. The view of the local authority is that the procedures that are currently in place are extremely time consuming and would result in several years passing before it could repossess a property.

The sort of thing that the community council is looking for—which I support—is the local authority having the power to give a form of improvement notice that sets a time limit on a private owner bringing a property up to a reasonable state. If that notice were not complied with, the local authority would have the power to apply to the sheriff court to get approval to move towards compulsory purchase. The local authority would then get an evaluation from an independent evaluator, purchase the property at a fair price, undertake the work to bring the property up to a reasonable state and put it into its pool of rented properties. That is the sort of response that I am looking for from the Executive, to move matters forward. I look forward to hearing the responses from the various bodies.

The relevant point in the Executive's response is:

"We do not feel it appropriate for the Scottish Executive to consider removing the requirement for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed by Scottish Ministers."

The Executive also says:

"Since May 1999, local authorities have submitted 14 housing related compulsory purchase orders."

I do not think that we have received an indication from the Executive that it wants to move along the road that you suggest.

I would like some clarification. The problem seems to be the timescale rather than who makes the decision—is that correct? Irrespective of whether the minister has the final say, something being done to streamline the process would allow the kind of regeneration activities that Bristow Muldoon says are needed when private owners abandon their properties. If that is the case, do not the housing improvement task force's work and the proposed private sector housing bill present the kind of legislative opportunity that is being sought to tidy all this up?

I agree with Jackie Baillie that the biggest issue is not who makes the decision, but the years of delay that can pass in the current process. I agree that there would seem to be legislative opportunities to streamline the process. My only concern, based on the convener's report of the Executive's response, is whether the Executive is willing to make such improvements. That would not seem to be forthcoming in the Executive's response.

It is important that ministers have the final say. I am totally in agreement with that; however, I agree with what you are trying to achieve. I am aware of situations in which derelict housing is left and is damaging to the fabric of the area. I am also aware that some local authorities perhaps do not look after their properties as well as they might. The question is who the arbiter is in all this. The decision must go as high as it possibly can, and Scottish ministers should have the final say.

I recognise clearly a number of the points that Bristow Muldoon makes, which chime with my experience in my constituency. In the light of that and of the points that Jackie Baillie made, which I understand and acknowledge, perhaps we could write to the Minister for Communities, asking for the Executive's view on empty homes and about the scale of the problem and the Executive's current policy on the issue. It would be helpful to have that information. I agree that we cannot tolerate properties being left abandoned year upon year with no end to the process. The situation blights communities, as people will not invest in an area and purchasers will not come and buy homes. I very much support the points that Bristow Muldoon has made.

There seems to be a gap between the scale of the problem that Bristow Muldoon reports and the number of applications that the Scottish Executive has received from local authorities. Is there a logjam in the processes at council level, too?

I think that because of the length of time it takes, local authorities do not proceed with the process and they try other means of persuasion to get the property improved. The problem is down to a small number of owners who refuse to upgrade their properties because they may require tens of thousands of pounds to repair the damage. The problem is far greater than is suggested by the figure of 14 properties that the convener identified in the Executive's response. I support Helen Eadie's comments. We should encourage the Executive to identify the scale of the problem by surveying local authorities for their knowledge of the size of the problem, and we should identify whether the Executive intends to streamline the process.

In response to John Scott, my experience of abandoned and derelict properties in West Lothian is that none of them is owned by the council. Every single one of the derelict and abandoned properties that I am talking about is privately owned.

It is a matter of degree. Any decision on what blights an area is arbitrary. Sometimes one wants the decision to be taken at the highest level.

As the petition was dealt with by the previous committee, I seek clarification. Are we talking about houses that are owned but which have been dumped and the owners have disappeared, perhaps because they need extensive repairs? Most people who own a property have some form of mortgage, and the properties can be repossessed by the building society or the bank. Are we talking about cases in which that does not happen?

The circumstances vary but I know of a couple of properties that are badly fire damaged, for example. They have gaping holes in their roofs, the windows are boarded up and they require tens of thousands of pounds of repairs. I can only presume that the reason why no one is repossessing them is that they are fully owned.

Were they right-to-buy properties?

Either that or they were inherited from deceased relatives. Those are the circumstances that we are talking about. The fact is that the properties are so badly damaged that it would take a large investment to bring them up to a reasonable state of repair, and whoever owns them has chosen not to make that investment.

Perhaps the folk are not insured.

Absolutely.

A policy that repossesses something that someone owns has to be applied strictly, so I can understand that the Executive would be loth to decentralise the authority to 32 councils. I see that the average time taken to deal with a compulsory purchase application is 34 weeks. What Carolyn Leckie said is valid: councils are reluctant to get the ball rolling. I agree with Helen Eadie's suggestion that we should request information, but it might also be worth getting information on specific cases from West Lothian Council to discover why it has not bothered to address the problem.

I suggest that the committee corresponds directly with West Lothian Council, because it has been trying to pursue a number of properties. I find it disappointing that COSLA has chosen not to respond, given that the committee first dealt with the issue in March last year. It has had a considerable time to respond to the inquiry.

On Linda Fabiani's point in response to Helen Eadie's suggestion, I say that we cannot take up an individual case with a local authority. We do not do that. Bristow Muldoon's point is much more pertinent, because COSLA has not even responded to the petition. We could ask COSLA once again to comment in general terms, because, regardless of how disappointed we might be with the Executive, we have not even had a response from COSLA and the feedback is not complete without one.

COSLA should have details from across the board.

You would think so.

I was just seeking examples to back up what Bristow Muldoon is saying. I know of examples in my community. One home is owned by an American who has simply gone off and abandoned it. There was a big fire and nothing has been done to the house for at least four years. The same owner has abandoned tenement properties, some of which are totally neglected and are falling into a state of full disrepair. That pulls down the surrounding community.

The Parliament debated private sector housing about two weeks ago, because the Executive has received the housing improvement task force's report. It might be worth asking the Executive whether it has borne the issue in mind when formulating legislation on private sector housing, because it might well fit in with that.

I think that Jackie Baillie suggested asking the housing improvement task force about that.

I agree with that and with the suggestion in our briefing paper to seek the views of Shelter and other organisations about the legislative question. I am interested in whether such organisations want the authority to be devolved to local authorities.

Like Bristow Muldoon, I am extremely disappointed that COSLA has not responded. We should write to COSLA to express our disappointment and to seek a response. We should also consider writing to every local authority to ask about its experience. I am worried about the gap. I do not understand what is happening in local authorities.

I understand what you say. We would not write to a local authority about a specific case, but there is no harm in writing to all local authorities.

The letter from Ken Livingstone mentions the Empty Homes Agency, which I had not heard of.

We have a similar initiative here.

Does the agency have a Scottish equivalent?

Yes. We have an empty homes initiative.

That is not mentioned in the correspondence. Has Bristow Muldoon contacted that initiative about the case?

The initiative does much work in Fife.

I understand that the empty homes initiative, which the Executive sponsored, has ended. It was a scheme under which the Executive made resources available to allow local authorities to purchase empty properties, which, generally, were transferred to housing association ownership. The problem with the empty homes initiative was that it required a willing seller. If someone was trying to sell a property, the council could buy it. However, I understand that, in several cases, sellers said that they would sell their properties only for the full market value, although £40,000 or £50,000 of repairs was required. Obviously, local authorities felt that that was not a prudent use of public money. If a local authority were to buy a property, it would take into account the level of disrepair.

I have the feeling that a bit of work still has to be done on the petition and that we will have to obtain answers from several places. The Empty Homes Agency might be worth contacting. We will write to COSLA, individual local authorities and the Empty Homes Agency.

I see that the Empty Homes Agency is a charity and is different from the initiative that Bristow Muldoon outlined.

To get a better picture, we still have issues to pursue.

Another issue is the proposed legislation on private sector housing.

We will also ask the housing improvement task force for its views.

The London letter says:

"There are nearly 100,000 empty residential properties in London".

Does the Executive or COSLA know the number of such properties in Scotland? Perhaps we should not bother with COSLA, as it will say that it does not collect such figures centrally.

Rather than writing to the housing improvement task force, we should ask the Minister for Communities for her views. I seek Jackie Baillie's approval that that is right.

The housing improvement task force has ceased its work. The minister needs to take the initiative. The Executive needs to be asked whether it intends to rectify the situation in the promised legislation, which would put it behind the eight ball.

We still need some answers. I thank Bristow Muldoon for his helpful comments.

Do members agree with the proposed course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ambulatory Oxygen and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PE648)

Petition PE648 is on portable oxygen and pulmonary rehabilitation. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the national health service in Scotland provides truly portable oxygen and pulmonary rehabilitation classes throughout the country. The committee agreed to write to the Executive to seek its views on a number of issues that the petition raised. The response from the Executive has been circulated to the committee. Do members have any views on the response?

We could ask the petitioner for his views on the Scottish Executive's response.

At first glance, my response was "Gosh, that's great—it's happening." However, if I remember rightly, it was promised before—I think that October 2003 was the date by which it was supposed to happen. I agree with Helen Eadie, and the committee should also perhaps ask in April 2004 whether the target date has been met.

I agree with that point. I am getting representations from individuals who are still having difficulty in obtaining the service, so it is not happening.

I agree with Linda Fabiani's proposal.

I agree. However, the reason why people are having difficulty in obtaining the service is because it will not be available until April 2004. I take Linda Fabiani's point, which is that we should ensure that it is brought in then. Until then, people will face difficulties.

We also need to get the petitioner's response. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Yorkhill Hospital (Centre of Excellence) (PE655)

The last current petition is PE655, which is on resource difficulties at Yorkhill hospital. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the resource and other difficulties currently faced by Yorkhill hospital as a result of its status as the cardiac centre of excellence for Scotland and to consider whether it is appropriate for the hospital to continue in that role. At its meeting on 1 October 2003, the committee agreed to seek the views of both the Scottish Executive and Yorkhill NHS Trust. The responses have now been received and I ask members to comment on them.

Specific information on comparative staffing levels and ratios of particular staff would help us. It would be useful to know what the ratios were before centralisation and what they are now. That would help us to take a view. The petitioners are concerned that the service has diminished. We have not received that sort of specific information in the responses and it is necessary for us to get such information in order to come to a view.

Do other members have views?

We should send the petitioners copies of the responses from the Executive and from Yorkhill NHS Trust and invite them to respond.

Yes. We can see what they say about the responses. The petitioners' response, once we have it, and the additional information that Carolyn Leckie seeks will help us to get a fuller picture. Is that approach agreed?

Members indicated agreement.