Local Government and Transport Committee, 23 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Official Report 260KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

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

---

Common Good Land (PE961)

We will consider three petitions that relate to common good property and funds that are held by local authorities. The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, George Lyon, is with us and is supported by two Scottish Executive officials: Hilary Pearce, who is the efficient government portfolio manager; and David Milne, who is team leader on best value and performance. I welcome the minister and his officials.

As the minister knows, the committee has taken evidence from the petitioners, who are Miss Mary E Mackenzie, David Harvie—on behalf of West Dunbartonshire Heritage Limited—and Sally Richardson. We have also heard evidence from the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland and from Audit Scotland. This is the final timetabled evidence session on the petitions, so after we have heard from the minister we will meet again to discuss our recommendations and responses to the petitioners. I invite the minister to make introductory remarks before committee members ask questions.

I have followed the debate with interest and I acknowledge the value that communities throughout Scotland place on common good funds. The presence of common good assets can be a source of civic pride that binds communities together and creates a link between the generations—our ancestors and our descendants. Communities that are in receipt of common good assets are grateful for the chance to benefit from the gifts that were bequeathed in the past. We acknowledge our responsibility to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to benefit in the same way.

I will summarise our position. First, the common good should be viewed not as a single entity but as a series of individual gifts—I am sure that the committee heard evidence to that effect. Each bequest would, of course, have had its own terms and conditions on the gift's use, disposal and management. The conditions for some gifts are more restrictive than those for others.

Secondly, although decisions about whether and how common good assets can be used or disposed of depend on the conditions that are attached to each gift, the law is clear about where the responsibility for reaching such decisions and managing the common good rests: it rests, appropriately, with local authorities—as it does in relation to other council assets, such as schools and libraries. The basis for the approach is the Local Authorities (Property Transfer) (Scotland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/2499), which was made under section 15 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994. That order provided that on 1 April 1996 any common good property should transfer to the authority that covered the burgh of whose common good the property formed part on 15 May 1975.

It appears to us that the existing legislation is sufficient, given that it makes clear the responsibility that rests with local authorities. A substantial body of supporting guidance and advisory notes clarifies more fully the nature of local government's responsibilities. That guidance includes the accounting standards that are set by the Accounting Standards Board and, in particular, the code of practice on local authority accounting. It also includes the advisory notes that are produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on the principles of good asset management.

In addition, the Scottish Executive has published material that the best value task force produced. It includes statutory guidance on the principles of best value, non-statutory advisory notes on best value in relation to asset management and sustainable development, and statutory guidance on local authorities' approach to the content of their public performance reporting.

The Executive regularly liaises with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Audit Scotland on issues that relate to asset management, financial reporting and best-value policy generally. If it became apparent that local authorities were uncertain about how to fulfil their responsibilities appropriately, we would be happy to listen to their suggestions on how good practice could be built on.

I hope that those remarks clarify the Executive's position.

I understand that the essence of the question is whether more rigorous requirements are needed for separate accounting for common good assets because of the perception that such assets are held for a purpose that is separate from a local authority's general purposes. To what extent do separate purposes exist in reality? I do not refer to physical assets such as a park that a generous benefactor might have gifted in the past and which will remain as a park—we will leave such assets aside and consider just invested funds. To what extent are invested funds, which are not assets that have a designated purpose, held for a purpose that is separate from a local authority's general purposes and competences?

Audit considerations and how such matters are presented in local authority accounts are issues for the Accounting Standards Board. I understand that the local authorities accounts advisory committee, whose core business is development of the code of practice on local authority accounts and which works with the ASB, has agreed to review the accounting arrangements for common good assets, so some work will be done on that.

As the member is probably aware, as part of its relocation policy, the Executive is producing a record of the assets that are held. We have a record of the assets that the Executive holds, but we are gathering information on and recording all the assets that non-departmental public bodies hold. If it were thought to be practical or sensible to extend that to local authorities, that might provide an opportunity to ask local authorities to record the assets that are held in common good funds as a separate part of the register of assets that they hold. That might be one opportunity to provide more clarity.

In some ways, it is for local authorities to decide how to deal with such matters. The local authority is the responsible body that holds and manages the public goods. It is responsible for managing them in the interests of the community when the public goods are held on the community's behalf.

Councils have a power of general competence as a result of legislation that Parliament passed. On freedom to spend and the purposes for which councils may spend money, what is the difference between expenditure that is pursuant to the statutory power of general competence that Parliament gave councils in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 and the power to expend common good funds?

As I said in my introduction, conditions are attached to the use of many bequests. Local authorities are therefore bound by such conditions to manage assets appropriately.

Yes—but that would be when a particular benefactor may have left a particular asset to a council for a particular purpose. There is plenty of other money in common good funds that is nothing to do with that kind of specific bequest.

It may be that any pot of money that is left by an individual to the common good fund also carries conditions concerning how and where the proceeds from that investment are to be spent.

I thought that we had established in earlier evidence that there is no trust attaching to the assets that are in common good funds. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am confident that that is what came out in earlier evidence. If there is no trust, there cannot be a trust purpose, therefore the money cannot be as ring fenced as you suggest.

The approach as we understand it is as the minister has said. If there is any further legal information that I can provide to assist the committee, we can come back to you with that. The terms of a bequest will determine the nature of the controls that restrict how a local authority can use a common good asset. In relation to some common good funds, there may be no controls, in which case there would be a power of general competence similar to that which arises under the power of well-being in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. However, there may be specific trusts that have their own on-going conditions that apply notwithstanding the terms of the 2003 act.

I am not saying that there cannot be a specific trust in relation to particular bequests, however that is not true of the totality of assets in common good funds. Most common good funds are not the product of specific bequests with specific conditions attached to them; they are the inherited or accumulated wealth, over generations, of local authorities or their predecessor burgh councils. So, the bequests argument is not correct as far as the majority of the funds are concerned.

The balance of funds would surely still have to be spent in the best interests of the local community, therefore they would be covered by the duty of best value. They would have to be managed appropriately in the best interests of the community for whom the common good fund was held. We would expect that area to be covered completely by the duty of best value, and it is open to Audit Scotland to examine how that duty is being discharged. I understand that, in its evidence, Audit Scotland did not give any indication that it has any great concerns about the way in which common good funds are being managed and dealt with. If there were concerns about mismanagement or sharp practice, the Executive would acknowledge those concerns and respond accordingly.

I agree with you, minister. It takes us back to my earlier point. Unless we can point to a specific separate and dedicated purpose, what is the difference between a council's applying the fund as part of its general application of assets, subject to all the statutory controls to which you have referred—best practice, and so on—and its management? It seems to me that the case must be made for separate accounting by reference to a separate purpose. If we cannot identify a separate purpose that is applicable only to common good funds, relative to the other powers of authorities, the question must often arise whether there is a need for separate accounting at all. That seems to go to the heart of the matter.

That is a fair argument, which I am sure those who are looking into the matter will take into consideration.

In listening to the evidence on the three petitions, it seemed to me that the most basic problem that they highlight is a lack of local public awareness, knowledge and understanding of common good funds. There has been little local publicity about what common good funds and assets there are and what has happened to those assets. There is a lack of local awareness about the whole issue.

Petition PE875, from Mary Mackenzie, urges the Executive to ensure that all common good assets are

"properly recorded, audited and insured".

From the evidence that we have taken, it appears that the position is patchy throughout Scotland. Therefore, there must be a strong case in principle for publishing a register of the common good funds that are held. Precisely which assets should be included in that register can be debated, but the details of all heritable assets should surely be made public and substantial moveable assets and bequests should be included.

From what the minister has said, I understand that he thinks that the existing system is fine and that local authorities should not be unduly constrained. However, is doing nothing satisfactory? Do you agree that there would be advantages if local authorities were asked to publish a register of common good funds, perhaps through guidelines that were issued by the Executive? People would then know what property had been left to the local authority for the common good. Furthermore, local civic philanthropy might be encouraged if people thought that those who had given in the past were being respected and their generosity was being marked. Would not local philanthropy and local civic pride be encouraged? Two benefits would derive were the Executive to give local authorities a lead.

Perhaps there should not be an absolute requirement to do something within six weeks, for example, but every local authority in Scotland could first of all be encouraged to publish details of their common good assets so that local people would know what those assets are. We could take things from there.

I return to what I said in my opening remarks. I understand that Audit Scotland has said that councils have already recorded the vast majority of common goods. Therefore, it does not think that a problem exists.

When we discuss such matters, we always return to the question of what the appropriate response is. Unless substantial evidence exists that there is a major problem, the proportionate response is to say that the matter is for local authorities to deal with. Under freedom of information requirements, local authorities are of course required to publish information, but they should voluntarily publish information on common good funds in order to ensure that local communities are fully aware of what is held in them, what the money is being used for and how it is being spent. Such information should be made available as a result of FOI requests if individuals think that councils are trying to withhold information from them, although I see no reason why councils should try to do so.

As I said to Mr McLetchie, the Executive is gathering information on and recording the assets that non-departmental public bodies hold. If we decide to extend that exercise and to register the assets of local authorities, it may be appropriate to set up a register as part of that exercise. However, no decision has yet been taken on whether to extend it. Obviously, we would have to discuss the matter with COSLA.

I am not sure that what you have said takes me much further forward. Would it be a good idea for local authorities to promulgate details of their common good assets?

I think that doing so would be in their interests, but the responsibility for doing so lies with local government. I expect local authorities to do that as one of their responsibilities to the communities that they serve.

By what means should they do so?

They should have a sense of duty.

Should local authorities have a debate and then issue a policy statement and a list?

The current best-value regime offers help. Local authorities are subject to public performance reporting requirements under section 13, I think, of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which provides a general duty—the duty does not relate specifically to common goods—on local authorities to report to the public on their performance in a way that will engage their communities. Although the supporting best-value guidance does not specify what local authorities should provide information on, it makes it clear that they should ensure that they know who their stakeholders are, and how much performance information they are required to make available to them.

Alongside that, again under the best-value label, there is the "Asset Management under Best Value Advisory Note", which states:

"Because the level of public investment represented by a local authority asset base is significant"—

assets are such a significant part of local authority investment—

"the standard of asset management within an authority will be of particular public interest."

Within that, the statement about interest and local authority assets generally can encapsulate more specific issues about common good assets.

I am afraid that I just did not understand that at all. I want to know whether, in the Executive's view, local authorities should publish a list of assets. I thought that we were making progress. The minister said that, given that the Executive is publishing a list of its assets as part of its financial husbandry, he believes that local authorities, too, should publish a list of their common good assets. As I said, I thought that we were making progress, but then—unfortunately—the fog descended again.

I am sure that we can write to you, Mr Ewing, to clear your fog. I thought that I had made it clear that the Executive is gathering information on the assets that the Executive, wider Executive agencies and NDPBs hold. In due course, we will consider whether that information gathering should be extended to local government, which might be the appropriate place to create a register of the common good assets—a register that would be included as part of the overall register of local authority assets. No decision has been taken as yet on the matter.

As I said, we have to be careful to ensure that our response is balanced and proportionate. One of the key concerns of local government—which seems to have support, certainly across Parliament—is that the current level of scrutiny and inspection is too onerous. Indeed, the Executive established the Crerar committee to look at that very matter. The Executive will read with interest the committee's views, once you have come to your conclusions on the matter.

Plainly, we acknowledge the work that is involved in all of this. However, if it is the case, as Mr Milne said, that the local authorities have records at the moment, all that we are asking is that the authorities make public those records within a reasonable time. Given that the Executive has decided that its effects should be made public, I do not understand why the minister cannot now say that that principle should also be applied to local authority common good assets.

I think I did say that I would support the disclosure of that information, but Mr Ewing is asking me to introduce regulations and legislation to force that to happen. I said that we should look at the issues involved and decide on a proportionate response. I also said that the opportunity exists for consideration of whether to extend the public sector register of assets to local authorities. It may well be that we will do that. If so, local authority common good assets will be included in the register, probably in a discrete section that is labelled "common good assets". I hope that that fully explains the position to you, Mr Ewing.

I appreciate your personal view, minister, and I hope that it can become the Executive view. Indeed, I hope that all committee members share the view that I have put forward. However, I recall that, as part of a previous committee inquiry in which I was engaged—namely the relocation inquiry that the Finance Committee held some three years ago—a similar suggestion was made. If it takes as long to make progress on this matter as it has taken on that, members will still be sitting on committees and considering the matter when we enter another decade before we make progress. We do not need to delay much longer than a few nanoseconds before we decide that the public has a right to know what the common good assets are. As the petitioners argue, benefits would derive from that. Their view is supported by others.

I should correct you. We currently have a register of all the Executive-held assets, which we are extending to NDPBs and public agencies. You can rest assured that we took cognisance of the issues that were raised in relation to the relocation issue some three years ago.

Petition PE896, by Florence Boyle, on behalf of West Dunbartonshire Heritage Limited, says that there is a need

"to conduct structured and meaningful public consultation before any disposal of listed buildings, common land or related endowments held in public ownership or trusteeship."

The petition is linked a wee bit to petition PE962, by Sally Richardson. These can often be quite delicate and sensitive issues. In the discussions that you are having with COSLA about best practice, are you looking for guidance to help local authorities to engage their communities in consultation on disposal of common good funds?

I would have thought that local authorities would want to engage with their communities if they were considering disposing of common good assets. I expect that consultation of communities takes place at the moment. If it does not, I hope that it will in the future. Under the existing guidance—even under the duty of best value—when local authorities decide to dispose of assets, we expect them at least to take into consideration their local communities' views on the matter before progressing. It could be argued that local elected councillors represent their communities in such matters, which is the fundamental principle behind local democracy.

What actions can communities take—apart from approaching their local elected members—if consultation on the disposal of assets is not taking place?

It is my experience of representative democracy that, if communities feel strongly about assets being disposed of, modified or changed, they should make representations to their locally elected councillors in the first instance, because they have responsibility for that. People can also approach other elected representatives to take the matter up with the council if they feel that they are not being properly consulted and listened to. That is the experience that I have had in matters such as you describe.

That is clearly not happening, which is why we have the petition. What discussions are you having with COSLA on the issue?

As I said, we have received no representations from COSLA for any further measures to be taken in regard to the matter. In all the discussions that we have had with COSLA on various issues, there have been no representations from COSLA for further Executive action in that area.

Would you be willing to ask COSLA about that specific issue?

I am certainly willing to do so; however, I will wait until the committee has published its recommendations. We can then engage in a conversation with COSLA on the basis of the recommendations that flow from your discussions with me and others on the matter.

Okay. Thank you.

From the evidence that has been given to us, I understand that local authorities are required by law to know what assets they have, including those that are in the common good funds. I do not think that there is any disputing that legal requirement on local authorities, but the public should know, too. For me, therefore, the question is whether there is a register of local authority assets that the public can access. From the evidence that we have received, it seems that the 32 local authorities may have 32 different ways of recording their assets. As we are in the business of openness and accessibility in connection with the public, the committee will have to ask, in its recommendations to you, whether the 32 councils in Scotland should have a similar—if not the same—system for recording assets, which would be accessible to the public. They should have that right.

The public elect their local authority councillors to represent them—as has been said, that is one of the fundamentals of democracy. As an individual who lives in Aberdeenshire, I should be able to go to a local authority and say, "I'd like to see X in the accounts," and as good public servants they should be able to say, "Yep, there it is." There is no great point of principle here. Are you saying that you recognise what should happen, but that if you asked the council to do it, it might be too big a job?

What I am trying to say is that one would expect that information to be readily available to the general public through various existing mechanisms, whether they are to do with best value, the accounting process or even freedom of information.

I take the point that such information might be held in 32 different ways, but as a minister I would have to take a view on whether there is a big problem of councils attempting to shield that information, or probity issues about how the common good funds are administered. Do we take a sledgehammer to crack a nut? It all depends on the scale of the problem.

We all expect councils to make such information available to communities and councillors, as part of best practice. If there were a widespread problem with the way common good funds are administered and with the way local authorities record their assets, the Executive would feel the need to take action to deal with it. At the moment, I am not aware of a great requirement for us to take action. Audit Scotland seems to confirm in its evidence that it does not see any significant problem and, on that basis, I am not persuaded that we need to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut at the moment.

Taking that logical approach one step further, if you are saying that you are content that the 32 local authorities in Scotland have systems that allow local citizens, whether they live in Ayr or Aberdeen, to walk into the local authority office and say, "I'd like to see the asset register or the common good fund," and the Scottish Executive is not aware of problems with that system, is it too difficult to ask the Scottish Executive to ensure—it cannot be if you say that there is no problem—that the 32 local authorities have such a system? It does not have to be a single system, just one that satisfies people.

As you know, the committee looks at petitions from the general public and it is our duty to examine them. If you say that there is no big deal with the current arrangements, surely the Scottish Executive can sort out the problem that the petitioners have highlighted.

I assure you that I will look closely at the committee's conclusions and recommendations and we will take appropriate action once we have reflected on them. If the committee thinks that there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed, I am willing to consider whether we need to take further action. I will also undertake to make some general inquiries on the back of today's discussion to assure myself that information about councils' assets and common good funds is indeed available throughout the 32 local authorities.

You made the point clearly that you see no need for regulation at this point and you want to enter into discussions with the various authorities. I will simulate the process that you might follow when you consider the matter. Let us say that we propose a voluntary scheme for the various authorities, after a consultation period, and a number of local authorities say, "Actually, we're not signing up to this," which would continue the theme about which the petitioners have raised concerns. Would such a scenario make the Executive introduce regulation?

It might do. We might consider issuing guidance under the best-value regime. We could use a number of mechanisms.

What I am saying to the committee today is that I will make inquiries of all 32 local authorities to ensure that the information is being provided. I will certainly consider the committee's recommendations carefully and reflect on them before I decide what action, if any, we need to take.

Is there an issue about the potential for fraudulent activity to take place, which would make the case for the approach to be uniform across a number of local authorities?

I think that we would get evidence on whether that was a problem from best-value audit inspections. I have not seen it identified as a problem in any of the best-value reports on local authorities that I have read.

Do you accept that, in relation to a number of high-profile cases of fraudulent activity in local government and other parts of government over the years, it has been accepted at a later date that very few people who carried out audits detected the fraud at an early stage and presented the evidence? In most cases, everybody has said that they did not see any fraudulent activity because of the creativity of the perpetrators of the fraud. Fraudsters do not make their activities clear so that auditors can follow the trail. Should we not operate on the basis that there is possibly activity that must be dealt with? That is the case that the petitioners make.

I can give you an assurance that if there is evidence of widespread mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, the Executive will take action. There is no doubt about that. I am indicating that, as a first step, I will make inquiries around local authorities to see what information exists.

I raise the issue because many of the auditors' activities are intended to ensure that fraudulent activity is kept to a minimum. Do you accept that a more uniform approach, rather than one that is tailored locally, would minimise the opportunities for fraudulent activity?

That may well be one of the matters that needs to be addressed if we find that there are huge disparities and that it is therefore difficult to ascertain what is going on. We will come to a view on that on the basis of our conversations with the councils.

As all members who want to ask questions have done so, I thank the minister for his attendance at the committee this afternoon. The committee will come to its conclusions on the petitions in due course and communicate them to the petitioners and, I expect, to the minister.

---

Home Safety Officers (PE758)

PE758, by Jim Black, on behalf of the home safety committee of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council, is on home safety officers.

The committee has completed its oral evidence-taking sessions on the petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to place a statutory duty on local authorities to employ home safety officers and to provide the necessary funding for them.

I seek committee members' views on the central objective of the petition—and any other views they have. I propose, if—ideally—there is a degree of consensus, to write a letter to the minister to convey the view of the committee. If members have different views, I will try to reflect the balance of opinion in the committee.

I think that the petitioner has failed to make the case for imposing the duty that the home safety committee seeks. There was no consensus among local authorities that what the petition proposes is a desirable course of action and there appeared to be little support for it from the Scottish Executive. It was certainly not clear to me from the committee's examination of the evidence that the creation of the duty and the engagement of home safety officers on a statutory basis would improve safety in any home anywhere. There was no evidence to suggest that that particular structure was any more effective than the partnerships and other arrangements that are in place in local authority areas where there are no home safety officers.

Given the lack of evidence, the petitioner has failed to make his case. We should disagree with the request in the petition and write to him accordingly.

I did not think that the issue was as black and white as David McLetchie has made it out to be. I heard the evidence that was given on the petition when it came to the Public Petitions Committee and thought that there was a compelling argument for considering the matter. The impression was given that a piecemeal process exists. There was clear evidence that home safety officers bring benefits, but it was also recognised that we cannot be too prescriptive.

No convincing arguments have been made in support of 32 local authorities having X number of people doing home safety work. Indeed, the petition did not argue for that; rather, it called on the Scottish Executive to give direction to ensure that a piecemeal approach is not taken. We can ask the Scottish Executive to ensure that no such approach is taken. The finances that would have to be made available for designated home safety officers or for local authorities to share people who have home safety responsibilities would not be particularly burdensome for those authorities. It has been proven that money can be saved in the longer term by ensuring that people are safe in their homes. We should consider those savings.

Other agencies can carry out home safety work—the fire and rescue services and social services can carry out safety checks, for example. However, the petition calls for a guarantee that such work will not be missed by chance—that is its essence. A clear distinction must be made between requiring something to be done and something being done because some people—although not others—think that it is a good idea. Fundamentally, the petitioner seeks clarity. There would be nothing wrong with the committee asking the Scottish Executive to consider the matter.

The home safety committee of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council has the best motives—it sees the proposal as the best way to deal with home safety in Scotland. However, in the light of the evidence that we have received, I agree with David McLetchie. I am not convinced that the proposal is the solution for all 32 councils.

Michael McMahon talked about a piecemeal approach in Scotland, but local government has devolved responsibilities. As long as local authorities fulfil their duties, how they decide to address home safety is far more important than asking the Executive at the centre to tell them that a particular solution is the best solution and that that solution must be progressed. As Michael McMahon said, the petition suggests an approach that is too prescriptive.

The petition system that has been used is good. Evidence was given to the Public Petitions Committee and the petition came to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which took evidence on it. However, I do not agree with the petitioner.

The issue is important—there is no doubt about that. I remember the lady who came to give evidence. She talked about being a home safety officer and the good work that is being done, but I firmly believe that the work can be done in an integrated way. In my area, for example, the fire service, in conjunction with council services and other services, offers advice on home safety. The council's size is undoubtedly important. Councils carry out such work in slightly different ways, depending on their size.

For once, I agree with Mike Rumbles. The approach that has been suggested is too prescriptive. Home safety work can be delivered in various ways. As I said, however, the issue is undoubtedly important.

I agree that the issue is important and that the intentions behind petition PE758 are good, but we are being urged to place a statutory duty on all local authorities to employ home safety officers and to provide the necessary funding. I have difficulty with being prescriptive. Much of the problem for local authorities is that they face lots of legislation and sometimes inadequate funding; the proposed statutory duty would be just another burden.

Although we do not have the hard evidence about which David McLetchie spoke, good work on home safety is going on in local authorities. I have the feeling that all that is needed is a co-ordinating role. We want everybody who works in the field to work together, not to lump responsibility on to just one person. The proposed duty might take away from the current integrated approach.

Thankfully, we have seen a shift in the number of fires, as the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care mentioned. Fire officers have been going out to tell people about home safety and to help them reduce the incidence and likelihood of fires. On balance, I think that we should not be prescriptive in this area.

I commend the petitioners for raising an important matter. Home safety has not been covered anything like as much as it should have been. We can all speak from experience: home safety activity does not exist to the level that it should. In Glasgow Springburn, for example, there is a need to improve home safety activity. However, the employment of home safety officers is too simplistic an approach.

The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 requires every authority to have in place an antisocial behaviour strategy. I would be more in favour of having a local action plan that refers to home safety, which might result in the employment of home safety officers. Such plans could be tied into community planning partnerships and other elements of local government to ensure that we do not take too simplistic an approach and councillors do not say, "Well, we've employed a couple of people, so that solves the problem of home safety." There is a need for home safety to be more integrated with the system. There has to be some form of voluntary regulation to integrate home safety so that the kind of activity that should happen does happen.

My personal experience, from living in my constituency, is that I have not noticed many home safety visits taking place. I am sure that the same is true of other members. We have to talk about that, rather than make home safety something that turns up at a roadshow at the local gala day. We have to go much further. We need to talk about action plans rather than just about employing home safety officers.

The witnesses made a strong case and their enthusiasm for the task was quite infectious. They exemplified what local authorities can do to promote home safety. I notice that the local authorities that employ full-time home safety officers include a fair number, albeit a minority: Aberdeen, Argyll and Bute, Dundee, Edinburgh, Fife, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and the Western Isles. It is interesting that they do and others do not, although perhaps we do not have the complete picture.

I was not persuaded that imposing a legal duty on all local authorities would necessarily contribute to the aims that we all support. That said, however, it is difficult to prove a negative. I guess that those who promote home safety measures day to day, and thereby prevent accidents in the home, would argue that we do not know about the accidents that, but for their good work, would have happened. As it is impossible to prove a negative, we do not know. We do know, however, that other measures are being taken.

The minister passed on a helpful note from the Chief Fire Officers Association on the work that has been done, notably by Lothian and Borders fire and rescue service. It has contacted 121,000 homes, 29,000 homes have had fire safety checks and 29,000 homes have had smoke detectors fitted.

A great deal of work is being done in my area in the Highlands. Individual firemen and firewomen are extremely motivated to take part in such work. I am sure that others throughout Scotland are up for it, too. I can vouch for the fact that they are playing a valuable role. The work that they do could not be replicated by anyone else. Trained fire service personnel, rather than people who work directly for local authorities, are the people to fulfil that role.

I know from work in connection with osteoporosis that in some parts of Scotland, notably Glasgow, excellent falls prevention programmes have been implemented. They are a very effective form of action on home safety, because preventing a fall and a hip fracture often substantially increases the life expectancy of someone who, had he or she broken a hip, would have had seriously impaired mortality.

Many things are being done. I hope that Michael Matheson's proposed bill on fire sprinklers has not been entirely forgotten, as it would seem to be an important possible measure.

I am not persuaded that the proposal in the petition would in itself necessarily achieve the objectives involved. Nor am I persuaded about the number of personnel local authorities would require to employ to be able to say that they have implemented such a policy. Plainly, a great number of extra staff would be required in the larger local authorities. I imagine that that would come at a high financial cost. This is not a criticism of the petitioner, but I am not sure that we could support the measure without having a close look at how much it would cost. I am not sure that we ever got to that point—that is perhaps more a criticism of the minister than anything else.

We can take a number of themes from the contributions members have made. It is clear that everyone recognises that home safety is important and that we want all arms of government to contribute to informing and advising people to reduce the number of accidents in the home, both because of the benefit to individuals who would not suffer injury or death as a result of an accident and because of the wider benefits to society of fewer accidents in the home.

We all recognise and welcome the work that has been done by the fire and rescue service, which Fergus Ewing mentioned. The information that we have is about Lothian and Borders fire and rescue service, but I assume that that is only an example and that similar work is going on throughout Scotland. I spoke recently to some firefighters in Livingston at an open day. They were very positive about the role that they now play in providing advice and installing smoke detectors.

It is clear that the committee is not persuaded that we should put a statutory duty on local authorities to have a home safety officer. It might well be worth having more detailed research done in the future on the rate of home accidents in local authorities that have such an officer and those that do not. We could suggest that the minister tries to get more detailed information on the matter.

It might be worth including in our letter to the minister Paul Martin's suggestion that we encourage local government to have a strategy to deal with accidents in the home and that perhaps the appropriate place for that to be considered would be the community planning process, given that in that process representatives of the council work with colleagues in the fire and rescue service, the police, other council departments and the health service. The process brings together all the people who are affected by accidents in the home and the people who can contribute towards giving people advice to reduce the number of accidents. If we produce a response that draws together all those main themes, will everyone be signed up to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay, we have dealt with that matter. We will respond appropriately to the petitioner and to the minister.

---

Roads, Pavements and Footpaths (Maintenance) (PE855)

The next item is consideration of petition PE855, by Leslie Morrison, on behalf of Kirkside area residents, on the maintenance of local authority roads, pavements and footpaths. The petition has been referred to us by Michael McMahon's excellent Public Petitions Committee. Details of the work carried out by the Public Petitions Committee are included in the clerks' paper on the petition.

Members will recall that we have previously carried out work on the issue of Scotland's roads, although I note that the petition goes a bit wider, as it deals with pavements and footpaths. We had an evidence-taking session with Audit Scotland on its "Maintaining Scotland's Roads" report. We also took evidence from the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland at that time. The most recent information available from SCOTS on the condition of non-trunk roads in Scotland is contained in an updated "Maintaining Scotland's Roads" report, which was published in November 2006 and has been circulated to members.

I invite members to give their views on whether we should carry out further consideration of the issues in the time remaining before dissolution, or whether, given the shortage of time between now and dissolution, we should draw attention to the work that we have carried out previously and the information that is now available from SCOTS in its updated report of November 2006.

I think that we should take the latter course of action. The petition asks us

"to urge the Scottish Executive to review the performance of all local authorities"

in that regard. That is exactly what we have got in the commitment to continue doing that. In effect, the petition's request has been met. I do not see what else can be done.

I always think that more could be done on the issue. I wonder whether it would be worth discussing the latest information from SCOTS with the Executive and to raise some of the many issues that are emerging from our examination of the report.

Frankly, I do not think that we have the time to conduct a full-blown inquiry, so it would be silly to suggest that. Nevertheless, I think that we should hear again from SCOTS. I would like the opportunity to do so in an evidence-taking session.

The evidence that we have acquired through the performance surveys—the audit mechanisms—that are being undertaken in relation to roads and the various papers to which we have been referred suggests that the subject is being kept under review, as Mike Rumbles says. That being the case, I think that what the petition asks for is being delivered.

It is, nevertheless, worth observing that the information relates to roads, whereas the petition also covers pavements and footpaths. It may be that we should ask for councils' comments on pavements. I am sure that we all know, from our postbags, that the condition of pavements is as vexing a subject to our constituents as the maintenance standards of our local roads.

When I read the summary that the clerk kindly prepared for us, which drew attention to COSLA's response, I thought that COSLA's response was extremely unhelpful. It is taking a somewhat dog-in-the-manger attitude in saying that

"a review of councils' performance on this issue is undesirable, as any national review would inevitably lead to comparisons across councils".

Surely the whole purpose of undertaking reviews is to make comparisons between councils. COSLA is entitled to get its retaliation in first and put up all manner of reasons why one council is not comparable with another—there may be good reasons for that—but, equally, there may be councils whose performance is comparable, because of the nature of the communities they serve, the geography of their areas and so on. I was not in the least impressed by COSLA's defence.

Notwithstanding the inadequacies of COSLA's response, I am fairly satisfied that the roads aspect is being kept under review by SCOTS and is being audited by Audit Scotland. We should acknowledge that; however, I would like us to return to the issue of pavements. Perhaps our successor committee will address it.

Members seem to want to address the issue further. Would an evidence session with SCOTS be appropriate? Should we invite oral evidence from anyone else, such as Audit Scotland?

Does SCOTS cover pavements?

We could check that. I imagine that it does. I imagine that transportation officers will cover pavements as well as roads. We can confirm that with SCOTS in advance of inviting it to give evidence. If that is not the case, we can invite appropriate representatives from elsewhere.

We might, out of deference to our bicycling colleagues, consider cycle lanes as part of our roads. There have been a number of complaints about the condition of dedicated cycle lanes, which we could consider relative to other aspects of the roads.

Are you—or is your party's leader—taking the lead in supporting the cycling lobby?

There will be wind turbines going up next week, convener.

Okay. We will have an evidence-taking session before we close the petition.