Public Petitions Committee, 24 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Official Report 261KB pdf

---

New Petitions

First, we have a batch of petitions, PE352 and PE355, which are both from Mr Duncan Shields. Mr Shields is present this morning and I invite him to make a presentation to the committee.

It is normal practice to allow petitioners three minutes to make their presentation. However, because you are speaking to two petitions, it has been agreed that you will be allowed five minutes. After four and a half minutes, I shall indicate that you have 30 seconds to go; you should then begin to wind up.

The Shipman inquiry is only the tip of the iceberg in showing the almost total lack of regulation of doctors' conduct. Doctors make mistakes and errors of judgment and have been shown to act subversively if there is financial gain to be made. Lawyers exploit that lack of accountability by using doctors' reports regularly in the Scottish courts to bias cases heavily in favour of their clients. That can massively undermine the basic human rights of many individuals who bear the brunt of the injustice that flows from a system that is seriously flawed and which causes widespread psychological trauma for children and parents who are separated from one another as a result of that lack of accountability. Because of the pressures that result from such actions, some people may not even survive the loss of the basic human right of contact with their family.

Could anyone possibly believe that, in his capacity as a doctor, Harold Shipman was capable of passing accurate judgment on parenting skills or a child's welfare? However, he was only one of many doctors who use their surgeries as mini-courtrooms, producing character assessments outwith a court of law and remaining virtually untouchable, while the GMC has nothing in place to ensure impartiality, as required by the European Court of Human Rights. There is an inherent bias in such cases when a lawyer requests a doctor's report for the client. Such a request is unlikely to produce a report opposing that lawyer's client, who is providing the fee for that report via the legal aid fund.

There is now a total lack of trust by the general public in a system that gives free rein to professionals—as if that title is all that is required to assure good moral and ethical judgment. The Shipman inquiry showed that the system is seriously flawed in coming to that conclusion. For an individual to face such injustice while emotionally weakened by separation and other serious contributing factors, such as illness, and while there is no accountability, leaves the legal process open to widespread misuse. The system allows unwarranted restrictions to be placed on family contact and uses potentially flawed reports to the detriment of a child's emotional development. Family Mediation Scotland is fully aware of the damage that is regularly done to children's development as a result of those unaccountable influences.

The process, which is blighted by a lack of grievance procedures and disciplinary action, may later be shown to be flawed and to have undermined decisions regarding a child's welfare. In many cases, those decisions are taken by professionals who may have little or no knowledge of a family background on which to form their opinions and who influence such cases heavily from the outset. That also leads to the degrading spectacle of judges and sheriffs treating individuals inhumanely in court, by withdrawing or severely limiting contact with a child. In many cases, that judgment is based on statements that have been produced by a doctor who is unaccountable. Those statements may totally contradict the views that have been expressed by the children involved, which shows lack of sensitivity to a highly emotive issue. The introduction of children's commissioners may assist in the process, by ensuring that the rights of the children are being taken into account.

A doctor, funded by legal aid, can slander an individual in court, but no legal aid is available for the individual to challenge any such report. Nor is there any grievance procedure to deal with that through the General Medical Council, as was shown in the Shipman inquiry. Through that lack of accountability, such defamation can destroy a person's life.

Harold Shipman is likely to have been responsible for more than just taking human life. He was able to influence major decisions on child welfare for many years, probably to the detriment of many children who faced loss of contact with their parent as a result of his subversive influence. Something that the inquiry did not fully document, but which is likely to have happened during the many years in which that doctor practised, is how social services and the courts can be heavily influenced by a doctor's report in child welfare hearings. It is essential for the Scottish Parliament to examine all cases in which a child has been separated from a parent or a sibling because of a doctor's report. In the light of the Shipman inquiry, which clearly showed how massive injustice can prevail, all such cases should be reconsidered. The reports are not accountable. No child should be separated from a parent as a result of decisions that were made under the influence of doctors' controversial reports to courts.

An inquiry is being conducted into legal aid. Part of that inquiry should be an examination of the massive funding that the Scottish Legal Aid Board gives to the top 20 lawyers—I have the figures with me for 1997 and 1998. The amount of that funding that is generated by the payments that are made to doctors for reports should be determined. Such funding allows the long-term harassment of an individual who is at the receiving end of injustice, which can stretch over many years. That harassment is made possible almost entirely because of the influential and controversial doctors' reports.

There should also be an examination of what, if any, procedures the GMC has in place to deal with doctors' role in this area. That body does not appear to have proper grievance procedures to deal with the Shipman case, never mind the use of such doctors' reports in courts.

My second petition, PE355, calls on the Scottish Parliament to examine the regulations and procedures regarding local councillors who heavily influence council departments and allocate funding to those departments, then use reports from those departments in court cases involving clients of legal firms in which they are partners. I know of such a case. Such reports can heavily influence decisions that might undermine an individual's human rights and jeopardise the welfare of a child as a result of that conflict of interest. Family Mediation Scotland views such a situation as potentially detrimental to a child's welfare. Such reports include those that are produced by social services, education departments and housing departments.

I apologise for rushing through my statement, but I was conscious of the time.

That was an excellent presentation. We will deal with the petitions separately.

Petition PE352 asks the Parliament to examine, in the light of the Shipman inquiry, the use or misuse of doctors' reports by lawyers in court actions. We consulted the Scottish Executive justice department about the petition. It argued that any doctor's report that is submitted in court is open to challenge and that, unless agreement is reached, the doctor can be cross-examined on the report and alternative reports can be brought forward. Why is that safeguard not sufficient?

I have been through the GMC's grievance procedure and I have found that it seldom takes action to provide a judicial review of any doctor's report.

The legal argument is that a doctor's report is one of the major factors in determining issues relating to a child's welfare. Even when I produced evidence in court to show that the court's decision, based on the doctor's report, went against the interests of my children, my words fell on deaf ears. I can speak only from personal experience, but the doctor's report was taken as evidence at all times during the complaints procedure that I followed.

I went through that process before the Harold Shipman inquiry. I am concerned by the fact that, in the many cases that the GMC has dealt with—including the deaths of children in the Bristol royal infirmary—it has seemed impossible to get the GMC to challenge any doctor's report.

Is it possible to challenge the report during the court procedure?

That was done but it made no difference to the decisions that were made, despite the fact that contrary evidence was put forward.

Could you have brought a report by your doctor before the court?

The difficulty is that, in a custody situation, both partners share the same practitioner. The doctor decides to make a report in favour of one or the other partner. That situation, too, can compromise a child's welfare.

Were you referring to hospital doctors as well as general practitioners? Obviously, a hospital doctor may have seen the child on only one occasion.

I am talking mainly about the local GP who has some knowledge of the family background, although I do not know whether treating a family's colds means that the doctor is in a position to make assessments of a family's character. Harold Shipman, for example, had influence over similar situations in relation to many families. The inquiry, however, examined only the people who were killed; it did not consider the reports that he might have made. The GMC should have procedures in place to deal with that problem.

Given that the GP will probably not have seen the child very often—because the child has not been around for long—what is the alternative to having GPs produce reports?

There should be procedures in place to deal with situations when it is found out that a doctor's report has adversely affected a decision and had a negative impact on a child's welfare. The GMC should review its procedures, as the report can massively affect the outcome of the court case. I have found my experience of such a situation to be one of the most difficult and trying times of my life. I find it hard to believe that one person's report could affect my life so dramatically.

You suggested that the legal system is open to abuse. Have you specific instances other than your personal circumstances?

Family Mediation Scotland is quite clear about the fact that substantial damage to children's welfare is done by this unaccountable system. As is proved by the present rules and regulations, the doctor is unaccountable. Many children are suffering psychologically because of such decisions and Family Mediation Scotland is picking up the pieces. I have spoken to the organisation at length and I understand that it suggested many years ago that there should be a long-term review of such decisions to determine the effects on the later life of the child.

Who would be in a position to conduct such a review, if not the general practitioner? Ultimately, whose advice does one take in such matters?

I am putting to the committee only the fact that a problem exists, as is clearly shown by the Shipman inquiry. I hoped that the committee would be able to make suggestions about possible alternatives. I would need time to think about alternatives.

We will move on to deal with petition PE355. I understand that you allege that there is a potential for conflict of interest when councillors are also practising lawyers. You believe that such councillors might be able to influence council departments in favour of their clients. You want the Scottish Parliament to examine the regulations that control that. Is that the basic situation?

Yes.

If a councillor had some other input to a case, and was able to use that influence to change things, would not he or she have to declare that interest and step back from any decision making?

They may do—but if it took place in the City of London, I am sure that people would see that as insider dealing. If someone is in a powerful position to influence departments, and then uses those departments' reports to gain influence on court decisions, some aspects of that situation could be considered as conflicts of interest. An example of that would be if someone runs a legal firm and also has a heavy influence on decisions on council reports in another area—especially an area that is connected with a child's welfare. I have spoken to Family Mediation Scotland about that and it is concerned about anyone having such undue influence. It has encountered injustice as a result of such conflict of interest.

Are there specific cases where that has happened?

Family Mediation Scotland did not give me details of any specific case, but it is concerned about anything to do with people having undue influence on decision making on a child's welfare—especially if the child is very young.

Thank you. We will now consider how to deal with your petition PE352. You are welcome to stay to listen to the discussion.

Members will note that it was originally suggested that we agree to copy the Scottish Executive justice department's comments to the petitioner and to take no further action. However, the case that has been made by the Executive—that there are safeguards in court proceedings in terms of doctors' being questioned and alternative medical evidence being presented—does not seem to address the petitioner's concerns. I suggest that, before we take the matter any further, we send the Executive's response to Family Mediation Scotland and ask for its comments.

Absolutely, yes.

Could we pass the Executive's response to the Justice 1 Committee or the Justice 2 Committee at the same time? The response is very bland and it does not tackle the point about the GMC.

At this stage, we would be passing on the response purely for information. We will pursue the issue with Family Mediation Scotland. After we hear its response, we can decide what to do.

Okay.

I agree with the convener. I suggest that we also send the response to Children in Scotland, which has a considerable reputation in policy matters that affect children; I am sure that it would want to give its views. The convener was spot on in saying that the Executive's response does not address the petitioner's concerns.

Do members agree that we should send information to all the places that have been suggested and wait for the responses before considering the petition further?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE355 calls on the Scottish Parliament to examine the regulations regarding local councillors' interests. The recommendation is that we should seek the views of the Scottish Executive and possibly the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issues that have been raised and that we should consider the petition further when we receive their responses. It is also suggested that Family Mediation Scotland should receive a copy of this petition, as it concerns the same area as the previous one.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE354, from Councillor Charles Kennedy, on the removal of acute medical and surgical services at Stobhill general hospital. Councillor Kennedy is here and I think that he has with him Christine McPherson and Lex Gaston, who will answer any questions after the presentation. As usual, the petitioner will have three minutes to make that presentation. Because of the interest in the issue from MSPs who are not on this committee, I will also give those MSPs the opportunity to speak before I open the meeting up to questions from committee members.

Thank you for allowing us to speak to the petition, which has more than 40,000 signatures and comes after five full public meetings in the East Dunbartonshire and north Glasgow area. The average attendance at those meetings was around 500, which gives an indication of the great concern that is being expressed over the consultation that the Greater Glasgow Health Board conducted on the future of acute services north of the Clyde.

That concern is not confined to the public: it comes also from the medical staff. At one time, the medical staff were in favour of reducing the number of acute hospitals from five to three in the greater Glasgow area; but they now agree that that will not work because of the growing population.

We are especially concerned, as members know, about the removal of services from Stobhill general hospital. A current consultation paper suggests the removal of even more services from that hospital. Ear, nose and throat, gynaecology and orthopaedic services are areas that the paper suggests should be transferred from Stobhill general hospital to Glasgow royal infirmary.

The petitioners, and those who attended the public meetings, felt that, although there has been consultation, those who have consulted have not listened to the public. There is a general feeling that something has to be done. We understand that a full business case is to be presented to the Minister for Health and Community Care by this September. That fills us with foreboding. We feel that there is an urgent need to involve the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee, in the hope that it might express the view that a full and independent inquiry needs to be undertaken into in-patient facilities in the Glasgow area. We also feel that, in the meantime, no further consideration should be given to the removal of services from Stobhill until after that inquiry has taken place.

It is fair to say that the people who signed this petition are looking to the Scottish Parliament to protect their interests and defend their rights. There is a feeling—this has been borne out by what has happened—that the current members of the Greater Glasgow Health Board are remote and unresponsive. Gradually, we are seeing the inevitability of the closure of Stobhill as a general hospital. We do not believe that that would be in the interests of the people of the north Glasgow area. We are concerned about the concentration of so many services on Glasgow royal infirmary which, to be frank, is not accessible to a great many people in the north Glasgow area—especially the areas that I represent in Kirkintilloch, Bishopbriggs, my own area of Milton of Campsie, and further afield in Kilsyth, Cumbernauld and, of course, Springburn. We know of instances of some very near fatalities, because of traffic problems and the distance involved.

We are asking the Public Petitions Committee to reflect on the fact that we have gathered something like 45,000 signatures and that we have held five public meetings. At one of those meetings we had only 250 people, but that was because there was heavy snow. We were amazed that anybody came. However, the average attendance at the meetings was around 500. That in itself reflects very creditably on the people in the north Glasgow area. We are all concerned about turnouts at public meetings and elections, but we were getting more than 500 people out to our meetings. I therefore ask the Public Petitions Committee to consider our request that the Health and Community Care Committee consider a full-ranging independent inquiry into in-patient facilities.

Thank you. Paul Martin is here to speak to the petition.

There is a need for an acute services review in Glasgow, but we were promised from the outset of that review that local people's views would be taken on board. In respect of this petition, the point has been made that people's views have not been listened to.

There has been no comprehensive package to prove that what Greater Glasgow Health Board has proposed will result in improvements in health care. We have not been allowed to examine issues such as how long hip operations will take and whether the waiting time for them will reduce if services are moved from Stobhill to, for example, Glasgow royal infirmary. There has been no clear indication of where the acute services review will result in clear improvements in health care. The health board has failed in that respect.

As Councillor Kennedy pointed out, it is proposed to relocate a number of services to Glasgow royal infirmary. The health board has not dealt with simple issues such as car parking. There is a chronic shortage of car parking facilities in the area of Glasgow royal infirmary. It is evident to anyone who passes through Glasgow or is a Glaswegian, as I am, that there are no car parking facilities at Glasgow royal infirmary. I have not seen any proposals or drawings that set out how car parking will be improved.

I appreciate that we are limited by time, but we could spend an entire morning discussing the issues. We asked the health board to listen to local views, but it listens only when it wants to listen and when it hears what it wants to hear. That point has been made clearly today.

Thank you. Cathie Craigie wanted to be here for this item, but she had to leave to attend the Subordinate Legislation Committee, where her member's bill is on the agenda. Otherwise she would have been here to speak.

You mentioned that a full business case is being prepared for September. In correspondence to the petitioners, the Scottish Executive states that the health board has agreed

"not to press ahead with the preparation of Outline Business Cases"

for its

"preferred options north and south of the river."

Has the health board gone back on that commitment?

No, I do not think that the health board has gone back on that commitment. It has said that it will set up a reference group to consider the area north of the river. However, it has been saying that for something like three months and no work has been done. We are still waiting to hear.

As far as we know, the health board is pressing ahead. It has to come up with something by September, because the Minister for Health and Community Care wants to know what the plans are.

A reference group has been established for the preferred options south of the river. That involves MSPs, councillors and the health board. Are you saying that that has not happened for the north of Glasgow yet?

No, it has not.

My understanding from correspondence with the minister is that she still expects a submission in September. For that perfectly good reason, she feels that she is unable to meet with us in advance of that.

The minister should meet you in advance. I have been to quite a number of the public meetings and it is a long time since I have seen such large public meetings in Glasgow on any subject. We must bear in mind that Springburn is one of Britain's six most deprived and unhealthy constituencies. That is stated in the Bristol review and many others. To remove an excellent general hospital from that area does not make sense.

We are faced with the death by 1,000 cuts scenario, like that at Stracathro. We received 25,000 signatures for that petition. There are 43,000 to this petition.

I have seen some of the provisional plans for the ambulatory care and diagnostic unit—ACAD—that the health board proposes to put on site.

At this stage we are questioning the witnesses. We can discuss the petition once we have done that.

Have you seen the ACAD unit plans and what do you think of them in relation to the disappearance of a general hospital?

I will bring in Lex Gaston, who is former chair of the then Stobhill NHS Trust.

We have seen plans for the ACAD unit. Unfortunately, they have been scaled down a bit from the original plans. It has been proved on many occasions that a stand-alone ACAD unit would not be satisfactory for the medical staff. It would be of use only if it were attached to the services that already exist at Stobhill hospital.

We are certainly getting great support from the medical staff on that issue. That has been one of the encouraging features from our point of view.

Are you aware that there is only one ACAD unit in Britain and that it is not a stand-alone unit? It is next to a general hospital.

Yes.

The research that we have done in Britain and America proves that an ACAD unit is successful and useful to the medical staff only if it is attached to a general hospital.

We are no strangers to acute services reviews in Fife. We had one there. I echo the point about public meetings; 1,000 people turned up at one in Fife.

I understand the reasons behind wanting to review acute services, such as the shortage of specialists. My interest lies in the consultation process. I have heard that you held public meetings. Were those meetings organised by the health board or the public? What format did they take?

Initially, they were organised by East Dunbartonshire Council. They took on a life of their own after that. The early meetings were attended by invited representatives of the health board. We are not opposed to change; we are opposed to the suggested way forward, which we think is not viable. Initially, East Dunbartonshire Council supported the meetings, but they took on a life of their own as a result of local feeling on the matter. Representatives of the health board attended two meetings, and they are welcome to come to any others.

So, the health board has not taken the initiative to manage the process of change, inform people about the issues and discuss their views on the matter?

Representations have been made to the council, and the health board was encouraged to take the lead and present its proposals at the early public meetings. It is disappointing that those proposals seem to be totally inflexible and that the health board was not prepared even to acknowledge that people had concerns. According to the most recent consultation paper, as Dorothy-Grace Elder said, even more services are facing death by 1,000 cuts. We are rapidly getting to the stage at which there will be nothing left to keep Stobhill general hospital going.

We held meetings to which representatives of the health board were not invited, to ensure that the issues could be discussed properly without the discussion becoming a slanging match between the public and the health board. Following those public meetings, we invited health board representatives to attend a meeting in Springburn at which all the points that had been raised were put to them. However, we received no satisfactory response.

Paul Martin talked about car parking issues, which have also arisen in Fife. Have there been any discussions about the possibility of establishing a green transport plan? It is crucial to establish how the public can access hospitals if they are not provided with car parking. What transport plans are to be implemented?

I understand that there has been no discussion of those issues. The topography of the Royal infirmary and the layout of the buildings render it virtually impossible to construct more car-parking facilities. It is a common problem that people have to park their cars sometimes a mile or a mile and a half away from the Royal and walk to it. People often say to me, "I was in Stobhill today, and the car park was full. How will all those cars park at the Royal?" The answer is that, unless an underground car park is constructed—which will not happen because of the cost—they will have nowhere to park. That is another serious concern, as Paul Martin rightly pointed out.

You are saying that the consultation process is not working.

I am saying that it is flawed.

How would you improve it?

Consultation must be a two-way process. If people have a different point of view when consultation is undertaken, the fact must be recognised that that point of view will at least be listened to. If necessary, a reasoned argument against that alternative point of view must be provided, but that has not happened. I do not want to use emotive words, but there has been a tendency for health board representatives to talk down to people. My feeling is that a decision had already been made and that the consultation process was a sham. A decision had been reached before the consultation began, which is not healthy in a democracy.

We would like the Health and Community Care Committee to commission a full, wide-ranging review of all aspects of acute services north of the river, to be carried out by someone who is manifestly independent of both sides of the argument. That is the only way forward. The public are very disillusioned by the fact that the health board does not appear to be listening.

For the record, has the health board ever put an alternative plan to you?

No. I do not think that there is an alternative plan—that is the problem.

You object to the fact that the consultation has been confined throughout to a presentation of what the health board thought was right.

Yes. It was described as similar to Moses coming down from Mount Sinai.

I want to be absolutely clear on this point, because the correspondence that we have been shown tells a different story. Has the health board suspended the outline business case for this proposal?

Not that we are aware of.

The press statement accompanying recent press reports about the chief executive resigning in six months said that the health board would complete the report by December.

By report, you mean the outline business case for the proposal.

Yes. However, that is the complete opposite of what is actually happening.

And is there no reference group, as there is south of the river?

No.

The health board has said that it will have to consider a reference group. However, according to Mr Spry, the problem is that because the north of Glasgow has so many community councils and covers such a wide area, such a group would be a nightmare to set up. Although he told the Kirkintilloch, Bishopbriggs & Springburn Herald three months ago that he would look at the matter, nothing has happened yet.

The health board has said that, south of the river, it has suspended the original proposal and will instead present three different option appraisals for three different schemes to the reference group. Is that happening north of the river?

Definitely not.

The health board has claimed to us that it is.

That is certainly news to us. We genuinely have heard nothing to that effect. As I said earlier, I understand that it is full steam ahead for a September presentation to Susan Deacon.

As the MSP representing the constituency that contains Stobhill hospital, I have certainly not been advised of any suspension of the outline business plan.

That sort of misinformation partly explains our frustration.

One of the difficulties with the process is that such important information has not been made available.

If there are no further questions, I will thank the witnesses for their very good presentation. I am sure that the committee is much better informed now than it was at the beginning of the meeting.

A letter to one of the petitioners, Mr A Shearer of 85 Ryeside Road in Glasgow, has been drawn to my attention. The letter states:

"At a meeting of the full Board on 19 December to consider the outcome of the consultation, it was decided not to press ahead with the preparation of Outline Business Cases for the Health Board's preferred options north and south of the river."

Although that correspondence claims that the outline business case north of the river has been suspended, that information has not been transmitted either to the petitioners or to local elected members, which seems strange.

As for the suggested action on petition PE354, the first point is that decisions on such issues are a matter for the local health board, rather than the Parliament. However, I am certainly concerned by the evidence that we have heard this morning. As a result, I suggest that we should agree to seek clarification from Greater Glasgow Health Board about its proposals for services north of the Clyde, and in particular about whether it intends to abandon its proposals and to introduce different options for those services, and create a reference group through which there can be proper consultation on those options. We must make it very clear to the health board that, on the strength of a petition containing 45,000 signatures and the evidence that we have heard this morning, the committee feels that the health board should urgently reassure petitioners that it is not going ahead with the planned proposals.

The health board should at least justify its position. Neither we nor the petitioners are in a position to judge whether its proposals are best. However, if other available options are subsequently discounted because they are shown to be unworkable, it would set everyone's minds at rest. The problem is that the petitioners have been presented with a fait accompli.

We should approach the health board for clarification about what is being proposed and whether it can outline the different options that are being presented. However, that is a matter for the reference group, which will include local people.

I support your views. It is vital that we get clarification of Greater Glasgow Health Board's position. I take your point that it is not for the Scottish Parliament to intervene, but there are 45,000 signatures on the petition. In some countries, a petition needs only 50,000 signatures before it automatically triggers a process that involves Parliament—this petition is very close to that figure. I think that that gives us a mandate to tell Greater Glasgow Health Board that we want clarification of the way forward for the people of Glasgow. It also gives us a mandate to try to get the further information that you suggested, as well as the option appraisals. It is vital that we get that information. The clear message has to go to every health board in Scotland that they ignore the views of the public at their peril and that the Scottish Parliament will not put up with that.

If members feel strongly enough, it is open to the committee to lodge a motion for debate in Parliament. That is within our power. In the first instance, however, we should seek clarification from the health board. Debating an issue in Parliament is the committee's ultimate weapon, but we do not use it immediately.

In the short time that I have been on the committee, a lot of the petitions that we have received have been about inadequate consultation. The underlying problem that we should be tackling is how organisations consult and what notice they take of the views expressed during that consultation. I understand from the petitioners that the consultation was carried out by the council. The health board seems to have done little in the way of consultation. That is an issue that we should pick up, as it is relevant to the committee.

The health board will come back and say that it has consulted, but as there is only one plan it is Hobson's choice consultation. I suggest that the convener tries to put a deadline on the reply that we expect from the health board, so that this business does not drag on for umpteen more weeks and well into the summer.

I regard this case as becoming a national issue. Perhaps we can insert something into the letter to that effect. We have examples of improper consultation, and we do not want that sort of thing happening throughout Scotland. I certainly have no hesitation in saying that this is a worthy topic for future debate, as it could cover the whole Scottish situation with regard to acute services reviews.

I am trying to pull together all the suggestions. First, we will contact the health board and ask it to provide details of the consultation that it has carried out to date on the proposals. We will seek clarification on what it proposes for services north of the river and on whether a parallel group of proposals, such as already exists south of the river, will be made. The proposal for south of the river is to abandon the present proposals and introduce three different options, on which there will be further consultation. If that does not happen in the north, the committee would have to take a very serious view of the situation.

Secondly, we must emphasise the importance of the number of signatures on the petition. The committee will in some ways treat the petition differently from others, because of the strength of its popular support. For that reason, the health board simply cannot ignore it.

Thirdly, we shall ask the health board to reply within a month. I think that that is a fair deadline. I do not think that two weeks would be fair.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE356, is from Mr Hendry Williams on behalf of Troqueer Homeowners Committee. The petition relates to disputes between local authorities and home owners. Mr Williams is here to speak to the petition, as is David Mundell. I invite Mr Williams to come forward. You will have the usual three minutes to make your presentation, Mr Williams. After two and a half minutes, I shall indicate that you have 30 seconds to go. When you have finished, I shall allow David Mundell to speak in support of the petition.

I am chairman of the Troqueer Homeowners Committee, which represents some 60 home owners in the Dumfries and Galloway area. We are asking the Scottish Parliament to intervene between Dumfries and Galloway Council and us, the home owners who have bought their former local authority homes. There appears to be no dialogue or mechanism in place for disputes about repairs on the properties. Last year, Dumfries and Galloway Council undertook a survey scheme of all the properties and identified that structural repairs were necessary.

We are home owners living in properties that have a block of four council properties attached. The council has forced a solution on us, which leaves home owners having to pay out thousands of pounds on repairs to those properties. We want equal rights for private owners and councils, not the one-sided state of affairs that exists at present. The council issued opinion surveys and then ignored the result, as it did not like the findings. It has come up with a solution that suits it best financially. As Troqueer is a traditional housing estate, a lot of the people who live there are elderly. The only way to challenge the council is by costly and lengthy legal proceedings. It is difficult to bring an action to court that involves so many people.

We ask the Scottish Parliament to create a dialogue that allows us to be on equal terms with the council. No mechanism exists for that; if the council does not agree to something, it does not happen. Dumfries and Galloway Council is quite happy for us to be on project groups as long as we do what we are told. People across Scotland will be in similar circumstances. Our petition involves everybody. We ask the Public Petitions Committee to establish a resolution or mechanism to help us.

The petitioners do not seek to have the committee intervene to resolve the dispute at Troqueer; they seek to bring forward a mechanism whereby there can be a dialogue of equals between the home owners and the local authority. No one disputes that legal action in such cases would be possible. However in this situation, an action that is generally known as a class legal action would have to be pursued. That allows for up to 60 individuals to come together to take legal action against a single entity—in this case, the council—if they wish to challenge a decision.

It would be appropriate for the Parliament to reflect on whether that is the appropriate mechanism for resolving such disputes and whether there could or should be some form of arbitration or mediation to allow a discussion to take place between equals. That is the difficulty that arises, partly because in these circumstances the local authority wears a number of different hats. If someone lives in a block of four houses, three of which are privately owned and one of which belongs to the local authority, the usual situation of the majority deciding what happens does not apply. As the council is the housing authority and has certain statutory duties, it is in a completely different position from that of the ordinary owners of the property. Where such disputes arise, it is important to have a mechanism that allows full evaluation of the issues without people having to go down the line of a protracted legal case. I support the petition.

In your correspondence, Mr Williams, you mentioned that the council held a ballot before it made its decision. What form did the ballot take?

The council's original ballot form gave seven options, which varied from doing absolutely nothing with the estate to buying back all the affected properties. Under the buy-back option, the council would do all the repairs and the people who had their houses bought back could either move on or remain as tenants. The buy-back option was favoured by a clear majority of home owners. However, the council disregarded it and went for another option, which meant that home owners had to bear the cost of repairs.

Surely the home owners who are being asked to bear the cost can claim the amount off their buildings insurance.

This has been going on since last May. The first port of call was the home owners' insurance policies, but the insurance companies were not willing to pay out because of the differential between structural repairs and subsidence in the area. However, all the insurance companies sent out surveyors to the home owners' properties. They classed the buildings as safe and sound and said that the repairs that the council required were not needed. The council is totally ignoring what the surveyors said.

Without getting involved in the particulars of your case, do you know of other home owners in Scotland who are in a similar position?

There are some examples in our local area. The council wanted to knock down 16 properties at Kelloholm in Dumfries and Galloway. Councillor Bert Saunders complained and the council relented under pressure. It spent more than £4,000 on each property putting in new windows and roofs, but no tenants could be found for those properties. The council then spent a further £8,000 on each property before demolishing them.

There is another case in Langholm and some cases in Auchencairn. We feel that, when someone buys a home, their home should be their own—the council should not dictate what they have to do. We have no rights, as the council continues to call the shots.

The situation does seem odd.

Yes, it does.

People own their houses and yet the council still calls the shots, as you put it.

I am aware of similar situations in my constituency for owner-occupiers who are living in former council properties. The local council in my constituency offers grants of up to 75 per cent of the cost to owners. Are you being offered grants?

Yes, the council has offered grants of 50 per cent. That money has been transferred from the housing revenue account, which some tenants are not happy about. However, that still leaves us with bills of up to £3,000 to £4,000.

The difference between 50 per cent and 75 per cent is significant. The percentage that councils offer seems to be a matter of discretion, as there is no agreed mechanism.

There is no mechanism whatever.

You said that you were left with bills of £3,000 to £4,000. Is that for each home owner?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The suggested action on petition PE356 is that we seek the views of the Scottish Executive on the issues that have been raised. At this stage, we will pass the petition to the Social Justice Committee for information only until the Executive response is received.

I would be interested to know the position of councils on the issue. I understand that councils can insist that works are carried out on ex-council houses if there are problems—they can make something along the lines of a works order. I would also be interested to find out the position of the insurance companies. If the council has said that the work is compulsory and needs to be carried out, can the insurance company say that it need not be?

As well as asking the Executive to respond to the issues raised in the petition, we shall ask it specifically to clarify the legal position with regard to the council's power to impose costs on owner-occupiers. We shall also ask it to clarify the position of insurance companies and whether they would be liable in such circumstances.

We should also see whether some mechanism could be put in place to resolve the situation. If people's only recourse is to go to law straight away, that is hopeless. We should ask whether there are any plans for an arbitration process.

We shall ask whether the council has given any consideration to plans for an alternative mechanism for handling such cases.

Would there be some use in passing the petition to the Local Government Committee as well?

Housing comes under the remit of the Social Justice Committee.

Yes, but the principle relating to what subsequently happens to bought council houses might concern the Local Government Committee.

We can certainly copy the petition to the Local Government Committee for information.

Would it be relevant to ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to comment? There must be other examples of this type of situation throughout Scotland. As you said, convener, 75 per cent funding is available in your constituency, but it is not available in Dumfries and Galloway. There should be standardisation. That is a matter of general fairness.

I would certainly think so. I do not think that there is any problem with asking COSLA to comment.

COSLA may have a view on the matter. In fairness, I think that Dumfries and Galloway Council may also have a view, which it might wish to give.

We have not had a response from Dumfries and Galloway Council, but we could ask it to respond as well.

Is it possible to mention the availability of 50 per cent or 75 per cent funding in our note to the Local Government Committee, which might be unaware of the variation?

Yes. We could do that. We are asking specifically for comments about the fact that different levels of grant seem to be offered in different parts of the country. We need to find out the legal position on that.

The petitioner would like to say something.

If nobody has any objection, the petitioner may speak again.

Thank you, convener. I would like to add just one point. The council has known about the subsidence in Troqueer since 1983. To my knowledge, that is about the time when the right to buy was introduced. The question that was asked was, "When was subsidence first reported in Troqueer?" The council said that it was in 1983. It is now telling us that it was under no legal obligation to divulge that information to prospective purchasers. If we had known of subsidence in the area at the time, we would not be in this situation now, because no one would have bought their former local authority homes.

I am advised that we must be careful not to get involved with individual cases. We are dealing with the national situation, but we can certainly find out whether there is any requirement to divulge known structural faults to any purchaser anywhere in Scotland. We cannot comment on a specific case.

We feel that this is an important issue, not just for Troqueer in Dumfries, but for every person in Scotland who has bought a former council property.

We shall ask the Executive about that point.

Are you suggesting that the council withheld that information when your properties were put on the market?

Yes.

There is the saying "caveat emptor"—buyer beware. Presumably you had your own surveys conducted. If you are suggesting that the council deliberately withheld that information, that is—

We have to be careful about making allegations in public. If you say any more, you could be getting involved in a potential legal action between the council and the residents and I do not think that we should be doing that. We can certainly seek clarification from the Executive on the legal position.

All that the council said was that it was under no legal obligation to divulge that information.

We shall certainly get the Executive to clarify the position, in relation to not only Dumfries and Galloway Council, but all councils in Scotland.

Thank you very much.

Are the suggestions that have been made acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE351 is from Dr D H S Reid and relates to the ombudsman for local administration in Scotland. It asks the Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the handling of complaints made to the local government ombudsman regarding local authorities. We sought the views of the local government ombudsman on the petition and received a response that notes that Dr Reid has made eight complaints to the ombudsman over a period of 11 years, that none of those eight cases has been the subject of formal investigation and that only three of them have been the subject of an inquiry of the local authority. The ombudsman states that the grounds for not proceeding with consideration of the issues raised in the petition were that the comments did not specify any administrative shortcoming and that the petitioner did not claim a particular injustice.

In response to the statistics that the petitioner supplied, showing that the ombudsman does not pursue many of the cases that are brought to him, the ombudsman indicates that 1 per cent of all complaints received by his office are the subject of formal investigation, while just over 20 per cent are resolved by action by the local authority prior to investigation. The number of formal investigations has progressively declined in recent years as the result of steps taken by the ombudsman's predecessors in seeking to resolve complaints locally. Of the cases that are formally investigated and result in a detailed report, the vast majority result in a finding of maladministration with injustice to the complainant.

The ombudsman also notes that the Executive has recently embarked on a review of his role with the publication of "Modernising the Complaints System". He is satisfied that sufficient reason has been given to the petitioner in respect of his complaint. It is therefore suggested that we pass copies of the petition and the local government ombudsman's response to the Scottish Executive to be taken into account in its current review. It is further suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and to take no further action, as it appears that the Scottish Executive has already undertaken the action that he requested in his petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE353 is from Mr Tom Pitcairn of the Tarff Valley Heritage Group. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to call in for scrutiny the planning consent given for a meat processing factory on the outskirts of Ringford and to initiate steps to change the law that prevents community groups from appealing to the secretary of state in relation to the planning process.

Alasdair Morgan has been waiting patiently for this petition to come up. I understand that you want to speak to this petition, Alasdair.

To set the background, let me tell members that Ringford is a small village off the A75 Dumfries-Stranraer road, just a few miles west of Castle Douglas. The Tarff Valley Heritage Group, as far as I can judge from my contacts with its members, is not the usual load of NIMBY suspects. Nor is it simply a group of incomers who do not want their properties to be reduced in value to the detriment of local jobs. Its members form a fair proportion of the inhabitants of the village.

The group's members felt that, although the proposed meat processing plant was agriculturally based—Ringford is in an agricultural area—it was inappropriate for the village, especially as sites zoned for industrial use were available in the market town of Castle Douglas. However, their main complaint was that, when they went to the council committee hearing, at which they were legally represented, they felt that the arguments that they put forward were not listened to. The councillors gave the impression of being a bit impatient or of already having made up their minds. They did not even feel that their legal representative was given a fair chance to put their views across. In fact, what happened was very much like some of the kinds of consultation that we heard described in relation to earlier petitions. The committee seemed already to have its mind made up on the views submitted by the council officials.

The more general point, which is of greater interest to the committee, is that the petitioners feel that, when objectors believe that they have a genuine grievance, the only course of action that is open to them is to seek judicial review of the council's proceedings. They thought of going down that route but, when they looked at the financial implications, it quickly became apparent that that was beyond their means. They feel that it is more than a bit unfair that, although applicants can appeal to the secretary of state if they are unsuccessful, local objectors cannot. Unless they can find about £10,000 to fund a judicial review, all avenues are now closed to them.

Planning permission has been granted, has it not?

Yes.

Could it be overturned now?

Not as the law stands, although I am not a lawyer—thank goodness.

Neither am I; I just act on their advice.

Can we deal with the first part, which is the one we are discussing—the planning decision to approve the meat-processing factory at Ringford? Under suggested action, it is pointed out that the decision of the council in a planning application is a matter in which the Parliament cannot interfere. In any case, we understand that the First Minister can call in planning applications only before planning permission is granted. In this case, that permission has already been granted. It is therefore suggested that the best that we can do is to suggest to the petitioners that they make representations to the local government ombudsman on their concerns about the way that the council has handled the matter. There might be a case of maladministration, but we cannot comment on that.

We have had many petitions on the issue in the second part of the petition, which is the third-party right of appeal against planning decisions. We passed those petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee, because we were under the impression that it would conduct an inquiry into the matter. However, it appears that there has been a case that might have implications for planning law, which is being brought under the European convention on human rights. The Transport and the Environment Committee has decided not to hold an inquiry prior to the resolution of that case at European level, because the case could have major implications for planning law. The Transport and the Environment Committee will consider the petitions that we have passed to it only once the legal issue has been resolved under the ECHR. However, the committee makes it clear that it is open to the idea of revisiting the matter in future, once the case has been resolved.

It is therefore suggested that we copy the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, for its information only, and recommend that the petition be taken into account as part of any future inquiry that that committee might conduct into the planning system. It is suggested that no further action be taken on the petition. The Parliament must wait until the ECHR case is resolved.

There is nothing else that we can do. It is important that the Transport and the Environment Committee considers the matters subsequent to the judgment being handed down from the European court. As Rhoda Grant said, time after time it appears that people feel that they have not been adequately consulted in the planning process, whether on hospitals or on any other of the variety of issues that come before us.

To date, we have sent well in excess of 20 petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee on the issue—it is an issue of which that committee is well aware.

I respect the Transport and the Environment Committee's view that it would not be proper to consider the matter before the ECHR case is resolved. However, once that case has been resolved, I would ask that that committee address the matter.

I support that view. However, my concern—which I am sure is the concern that lies behind many of the petitions that have come before the committee—is that, while a developer who is refused an application can appeal, the public cannot. We must await the Transport and the Environment Committee's decision. I do not want to add anything to what has been said, but my concern is that that committee should make the issue a key area of activity in the not-too-distant future. I have been a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee since its beginnings and I remember countless petitions on this key issue. If we do not have an inquiry, we will not reflect public opinion.

I suggest that, when we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its information, we make the point that it is the view of the Public Petitions Committee that the right of third-party appeals and planning law must be addressed by the Parliament. We hope that the Transport and the Environment Committee will return to that as soon as the European case has been dealt with.

We are not in any way trying to prejudge the Transport and the Environment Committee's conclusions.

We are saying simply that it should address the issue.

It should examine the issue.

I have not been a member of the committee for long, but I believe that some of the previous petitioners referred to the unfairness of the whole system. While the opposing side has access to advocates, Queen's counsels and so on—everything is paid for—most of the protestors are council tax payers and must fund their own cases, which can drag on for months. I hope that, if the Transport and the Environment Committee inquires into the third party situation, it also considers the lack of justice for the public in opposing planning decisions.

The public must pay for planning decisions twice: through their taxes and when they disagree with them.

That is massively unjust.

There is a case for some kind of public advocacy service that would support third parties who wished to appeal against planning decisions—if they have the third-party right of appeal—but that is not covered in the petition. I am sure that we can bring that issue to the attention of the Parliament.

Is it agreed that we take the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.