Official Report 417KB pdf
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Housing Associations) (PE1539)
We resume our meeting. Agenda item 3 is on public petitions. The committee will consider two public petitions. The first is petition PE1539, by Anne Booth, on housing associations to come under the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002. I believe that Mr Dornan has a statement to make.
Yes. I would like to put on the record that I was a member of the Glasgow Housing Association board between 2008 and 2012—the GHA is now part of the Wheatley Housing Group.
A paper providing details of previous consideration of the petition by the Public Petitions Committee has been circulated for members’ consideration. A number of actions have already been taken by the Public Petitions Committee, including inviting the petitioners to appear before it to make a presentation and to answer questions on the petition. I invite members to consider what action they wish to take in relation to the petition.
As members will know, I put a question to the Scottish Housing Regulator about the issue, and the regulator had no position on it. I am generally sympathetic to the petition, as I pointed out in my question in the additional papers from the petitioner. The proposed Scottish social housing charter is fine and well and I am not criticising it, but it is quite clear, to quote Rosemary Agnew, that
“The Charter ... falls short of the FOISA right, in that it does not provide the same level of access to information to enable public scrutiny.”
I cannot speak for the Government, but the Government is very enthusiastic about freedom of information. I am not clear why the 2002 act cannot be extended to cover housing associations. If there are particular issues in addition to the recommendations that we have about actions, why do we not write to a cross-section of RSLs to get their first-hand views on the matter?
Did you say “a cross-section of ourselves”?
No, I said “RSLs”—registered social landlords. It is getting late in the meeting, convener. I do not know whether it is my speech or your hearing—maybe it is a combination of both. I think that it would be useful to get the first-hand views of RSLs about the matter. To be honest, I cannot understand why we are not supporting the petition. We have, across the parties, supported freedom of information. It should apply to housing associations. If they do not want that to happen, let us hear direct from them what their reasons are for that.
That is fine. It is only fair to point out that a number of registered social landlords have written to the Public Petitions Committee on the matter, so their views are on the record. However, we can consider your suggestion about whether to write to them again.
I am not necessarily suggesting that I disagree with the petition, but a factor that must be considered at a time when public budgets are under stress is that some housing associations, especially the smaller ones, may consider that they lack the resources to deal with the inevitable FOI requests that come their way. That resource might be better spent on providing warm, better houses and so on. As I said, some of the organisations are quite small, so complying with FOI would be onerous for them.
Dave Stewart covered more or less all my points; I absolutely support his views. All I would add is that, were we to take Dave’s suggested course of action of contacting RSLs, we could also ask them to expand on Mike MacKenzie’s point about resources.
It is difficult to argue against the petition. The likely difficulties would relate to implementation of the proposals. Might it be an idea at this stage to cut out the middle of the process and simply engage the Government directly and see what its views are on progressing the matter?
Okay. That is fine.
I apologise for coming back in, convener, but the big issue here is that the Human Rights Act 1998 requires us to take this action. No one disputes what the act says. However, the Government says that there are technical reasons not to include housing associations—or ourselves—in the legislation. The petitioner has provided an answer to that.
I appreciate that we have had information from RSLs. Therefore, I suggest that we ask them to address the point about costs, and that the clerks focus on the organisations that have not yet responded.
We have two suggestions. The first is that we write to a range of RSLs to ask for their views. Most sensibly, it is suggested that we focus on RSLs that have not yet expressed a view, although we could write to RSLs that have provided written submissions and put to them a more focused inquiry.
The second suggestion is that we write to the Scottish Government. Were we to do that, I think that we would want the Government not just to reiterate its previous response to the petitioner, but to respond to the petitioner’s points on its response. I hope that that makes sense. Are we happy to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Another point that is worth considering is that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 is being consulted on. The forthcoming Scottish social housing charter is also being consulted on. Notwithstanding that the petitioner has questioned whether that is a good idea, a formal process exists. Therefore, we should encourage the petitioner to engage in that process, because responding to the consultations is an obvious route for them to go down.
To restate my earlier point, the proposed charter is good and worthy of support. However, as the Scottish Information Commissioner has pointed out, it does not provide the teeth that the freedom of information legislation provides.
Are you suggesting that we do not encourage people to take part?
No, I am not saying that.
I do not understand what your interjection was for, in that case.
The committee always seeks to move forward on a consensual basis. We have already agreed to write to a range of RSLs. We will write to the Scottish Government, asking whether it will take the petitioner’s concerns into account as part of the current consultation on extension of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the forthcoming Scottish social housing charter consultation.
I suggest that we also write to the petitioner, encouraging them to engage with the Scottish Government’s consultation and the forthcoming Scottish social housing charter consultation.
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any other actions to take at this stage? No.
A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)
We move on to petition PE1236, by Jill Fotheringham, on A90-A937 safety improvements. I welcome Nigel Don MSP to the committee.
We have before us an update from Transport Scotland announcing that
“Nestrans ‘Access to Laurencekirk’ study is now complete.”
It states that
“the preferred option arising from the study is an upgrade of the A90/A937 south junction to a grade-separated junction.”
Transport Scotland concludes the letter by stating that it
“will now work with our partners to progress this work further, including discussions around funding.”
I invite comments from members.
I remember in summer 2004 becoming a signatory to petition PE778, which was the predecessor petition to this one. It was closed in March 2005, after the Government gave a series of undertakings about safety improvements at the junction. Those included a speed limit of 50mph and installation of speed cameras. It was expected by the petitioner and others that that would at some point progress to an improvement of the junction. It subsequently became clear that the speed cameras and the speed limit were all there was going to be. The argument has been rehearsed on a number of occasions that there have, since their installation, been no serious accidents. Unfortunately, last month there was another serious accident at the junction.
The news of the north-east of Scotland transport partnership report and its recommendations has been welcomed with delight and enthusiasm by the campaigners and people in the area. However, I am keen to ensure that we do not make the same mistake as we did in 2005 and assume that this piece of good news means that the problem is solved. Funding still remains a serious issue.
Given that the committee has stuck with the matter over a long time, and that I as an individual have done so for even longer, it is important that we do not take our eyes off the ball at this stage. On the positive side, there is an opportunity for the committee to stick with the issue until there really is a solution in place, and perhaps to share in and celebrate that success when it comes.
Do other members have comments? If not, I invite Nigel Don to speak.
Thank you, convener. The matter is dear to my heart, because the road is right in the middle of my constituency.
I am grateful to Alex Johnstone for his comments. The matter has been taken forward on a cross-party basis, which I hope we can continue.
There is a sense in which the consultant’s report tells us nothing that we did not already know. Anybody who lives near the area knows that we need a grade-separated junction. Indeed, the current arrangement of a speed limit and speed cameras was discounted as an option, even before the consultation.
It is also clear that Transport Scotland will not give permission for any substantial planning application anywhere near until there is a grade-separated junction. The work has to be done, and we now understand that.
I agree with Alex Johnstone in that I would welcome the committee keeping the petition open, not least because of the words:
“Jill Fotheringham, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve safety measures on the A90 by constructing a grade separated junction”
I will not be happy until the junction has actually been constructed. Members will recognise that that will not happen in months: it will take years, even if there is a positive move immediately.
I would be grateful if the committee would keep the petition open. The committee does not need to do anything else. The relevant bodies—Transport Scotland in particular, and Aberdeenshire Council—know that progress needs to be made.
Are we agreed that we wish to keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
I want to thank Nigel Don for all the work that he has done on the issue. I know from my previous life on the Petitions Committee that he was an honorary member because he was there so often, supporting this petition.
It is a very good petition and I certainly support keeping it open.
We agree to keep the petition open.
11:35 Meeting continued in private until 12:26.