Petitions
Common Good Assets (PE875)<br />Listed Buildings (Consultation on Disposal) (PE896)
Common Good Land (PE961)
The first agenda item—as it is now—is consideration of petitions PE875, PE896 and PE961, which members will recall are the three petitions on common good property. Members have received a copy of a letter from the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business, responding to the points that the committee made on issues around the recording of common good assets and funds; the valuation of assets; whether there should be additional guidance to local authorities; and the promotion of common good assets and funds to allow communities to have influence over their use.
Do members feel that the minister's letter responds sufficiently to the petitioners' issues? In addition, what should our recommendation be in concluding our consideration of the petitions? In particular, do members believe that new legislation is required to improve the management of common good assets, or could that be adequately covered by guidance to local authorities?
I just want to see progress being made on the issues. I have been enlightened by the information that I have received on the issues since the petitions first came to the Public Petitions Committee, which I convene.
Although the minister does not say that he wants to do exactly what the petitions call for, his letter offers a way of progressing. His suggestion could be a first step, and the issues could be revisited if the unacceptable current situation does not improve. In that case, legislation could be the way forward.
We could give the guidance a chance to work first and see whether matters improve at the local government level such that there is a beneficial outcome that addresses the concerns raised in the petitions.
Michael McMahon's suggestion is the right approach. Regarding registers, the minister says in his letter:
"local authorities are best placed to balance the competing objectives of comprehensiveness on the one hand and clarity, accessibility and cost … on the other hand".
He goes on to say that his letter to local authorities
"invites views on whether more detailed guidance would assist them in … their obligations under Best Value."
The minister is therefore prepared to provide detailed guidance. He adds:
"I am sure officials will advise Ministers after the Scottish Elections"—
whoever those ministers are—
"about the extent and nature of feedback … In addition, COSLA is taking forward separate work to improve the ability of local authorities to manage their assets effectively."
The position is therefore that attention has been drawn to the problem and the Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are trying to do something about it. I agree with Michael McMahon that it is worth while giving them a chance to do that. I am sure that the future Local Government and Transport Committee could re-examine the issue if a solution was not forthcoming.
I concur with Michael McMahon and Mike Rumbles. The topic has had a good airing and has been enlightening for everybody involved, including those who were contacted to make submissions to us.
The council elections will bring a substantial swathe of new councillors into our local authorities and I hope that, during their induction process, they are made aware of the unique nature of the common good funds and of their duty and responsibility to ensure that they are administered properly.
I agree that, if it is brought to our attention at a later date that things are not working regarding good practice and best value obligations, the topic should be revisited.
We do not know what will happen regarding parliamentary committees after the election. However, will this committee leave a legacy paper on local government issues that we think should be examined?
It was not my intention to leave a legacy paper as such, as most of the items that we have considered have been concluded or are about to be. However, our conclusion on the petitions could be drawn to the future committee's attention. That committee will be aware that we have done work on the issue and it will know about our final disposal of the petitions. If it wishes, it could monitor the situation to check that it improves in the way that people want and, if that does not happen, it could take further action.
I do not disagree entirely with the remarks that have been made but, after looking at the precise wording of the letter from George Lyon, the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business, it seems to me that it does not provide a direct response. However, that is not to say that I disagree with many of the statements in the letter.
I will address a few of the points that have arisen during our consideration of the petitions, which has been useful in casting light on issues that have never before been debated in the Scottish Parliament. The committee's initial standpoint was that there should be a clear record of common good assets. The minister's letter states that, in response to that recommendation, he has written to local authorities
"to remind them of their responsibilities to hold records of all common good assets and to make this information available to the public if asked."
However, that is not quite the same as having a distinct register of such assets.
The minister goes on to quote from the useful evidence that we received from Audit Scotland and SOLAR—the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland. In relation to the way in which the records are kept, the letter points out that Audit Scotland stated:
"many common good assets have existed for centuries and these might not have the same form or level of completeness as transactions that have been completed more recently."
Already, we are moving into technical lawyer speak and away from the point of principle. The letter states that SOLAR said in oral evidence that
"information about common good assets could be held in a range of formats, such as Ordnance Survey plans",
which is true, but how would that prevent there being a list of the assets that are marked on Ordnance Survey maps? Creating a simple register that states, "See Ordnance Survey map X," would not place an onerous obligation on local authorities.
My central point, which I argued in response to the petitioners' case, is that every local authority should hold a register of common good assets. It has occurred to me—this may not be the first time that the point has been made—that anyone in Scotland or elsewhere could, under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, ask each local authority for a list of its common good assets. That would be a fairly simple way of forcing the issue. Perhaps that approach has already been tried by people who are listening to this discussion—I see heads nodding. I suspect that, as is the way with FOI, requests were made and the response was that the task would be expensive as it would involve the time of too many officials and would cost more than the permitted limit—a kind of "You'll have had your tea" reply. If that is so, I hope that Mr Dunion, the Scottish information commissioner, is listening assiduously to the discussion and will put matters right if the requests go to appeal. It is only a matter of time before the issue is forced.
It would have been better if we had had a clear response from the minister that, at the very least, there should be a register. That is not to say that I disagree with the points that my colleagues have made about the elections and new councillors having their say. Nor do I disagree with the minister's statement that a review of asset management throughout the public sector should be carried out. However, that is a slightly different point. On that basis, I would prefer it if we adhered to our recommendation that councils should have a register of common good assets, which need not be elaborate or complicated and could be compiled over a period of time negotiated between the Executive and local authorities and their representatives. As a basic principle, we should at least have such registers in Scotland.
I was going to raise the issue that Sylvia Jackson raised about a legacy paper. It would be helpful to ensure that a future committee considers the issue in detail. We have had scope to consider whether legislation is necessary, but it would not be fair for us to consider the introduction of legislation without ensuring that we had interrogated every possible alternative. We have not had time to do that, nor have we had sufficient information from ministers or COSLA on how we can take the matter forward.
However, there is scope to seek greater compliance with the existing requirements to provide information. I am sympathetic to the petitioners in that respect. As Fergus Ewing said, they have asked for legitimate information, but the issue is how it is provided. Providing such information can promote the work that councils are doing through common good funds. Many common assets that are of interest to many parts of the world can be promoted by their work.
We have the usual response from ministers that various groups have identified some of the issues and that they will meet in the autumn to conclude some of the work. There must be greater clarity from the minister about when all the work will be concluded. It is only fair to the petitioners to seek clarification from the minister on that. If the minister says, "Yes, a future Executive should be committed to completing the work at some point," or at least if we can ensure that the next committee seeks that information from the Executive, it will give the petitioners clarity that we have brought the investigation to the conclusion that it deserves.
I point out that the current Executive cannot bind the future Executive on its priorities after the election. If we sought a further response from the minister, I suspect that we would not receive it until Parliament is dissolved. Our best option is probably to note the points that Paul Martin, Fergus Ewing and other members feel are important in a paper that we make available to the future committee. It will be for that committee to decide whether it wishes to pursue the matter further with the Executive that is formed after the election.
I agree with the remarks that have been made and I welcome the fact that the Executive has written to councils about the importance of improving standards of record keeping and the importance of effective asset management.
I will pick up on a point that Fergus Ewing made when he referred to the fact that SOLAR said that records might be held on Ordnance Survey maps. We have moved to a system of registering title of all properties in Scotland on Ordnance Survey maps, so it should not be too demanding to have a proper record and an Ordnance Survey mark that creates a proper title to common good assets, given that our aspiration for all property titles in Scotland is to have a register of titles instead of the register of sasines.
I am disappointed by the minister's response. The purpose of having accurate records is to distinguish between property that is held for common good purposes and property that is held for other purposes. If all assets were held for a single purpose, or were wholly within the statutory powers of councils, there would be no point in differentiating between their common good assets and their other assets. There should be a record of what is common good and what is part of the general estate of local authorities. Perhaps there should be a third category, because as trustees councils have assets that have been bequeathed or donated to them and are held for specific trusts, as set down in the trust deeds.
There are at least three categories of asset holding, of which common good is one. The whole reason for having records of trust assets, general estate assets and common good estate assets is that they are necessary, because a differentiation of purpose applies to the assets. As far as I understand it, that goes to the heart of some of the complaints about the current record keeping. Fundamentally, people are saying that assets that should be in the common good pot are treated as if they are in a general pot and are therefore used for a purpose that might be contrary to the terms of the common good fund.
Unless we distinguish the purposes for which assets are held, it will not matter whether we have all the records in the world. We have to determine whether assets are common good assets or are part of the general estate, and therefore what they can be used for. Councils and councillors should clearly understand the distinction between the two. I must say that, even at the end of the evidence sessions, I was not wholly convinced that that was entirely grasped by the minister or his officials.
Let me try to draw the arguments together. There seems to be broad agreement that the petitioners have raised an important issue and that the way in which at least some councils currently record and manage common good assets is far below the level that we want to apply. The petitioners have identified that, throughout Scotland, a range of local authorities do not have either a good record of their common good assets or appropriate procedures to ensure that, as David McLetchie mentioned, common good assets are used and, when appropriate, disposed of only in accordance with the terms of the common good bequest or other manner by which the council came into possession of the property.
I recommend that we agree to conclude consideration of the petitions but, in doing so, reiterate the fact that it is important that every local authority in Scotland has a publicly available common good asset list. We could also reiterate, as David McLetchie suggested, that there should be a clear statement—whether it comes from the Executive or individual local authorities—that common good assets can be used only for certain functions. That would mean that the public would be aware of what are common good assets and the terms under which the local authority can use them.
Those could be our recommendations. We recognise that the minister has indicated some ways in which the Executive hopes to improve how common good assets are managed, but we will also draw our report to the attention of the successor committee that deals with local government issues, in whatever shape that takes after the election, so that it can decide whether to monitor the Executive's dealing of the issue or carry out further work on the subject. Are members content to conclude consideration of the petitions in that way?
Members indicated agreement.
We will correspond with each petitioner in that regard, and Martin Verity will produce an appropriate report for the successor committee.
Roads, Pavements and Footpaths (Maintenance) (PE855)
Petition PE855, which is on the maintenance of local authority roads, pavements and footpaths, was submitted by Leslie Morrison on behalf of Kirkside area residents. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the performance of local authorities in Scotland in maintaining and repairing roads, pavements and footpaths.
As members know, we have had a long-running interest in the maintenance of non-trunk roads and we took evidence on the petition from the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland on 6 March 2007.
How would members like us to respond to the petition? Again, as we are almost at the end of the parliamentary session, I hope that we can conclude our consideration of the petition today. However, given that the maintenance of roads and of other local government assets, including paths and pavements, is undoubtedly a continuing issue, the report of our conclusion could be made available to our successor committee, so that it is aware of this committee's work. I would expect any such paper to draw attention to the witness sessions that we have held and the evidence that we have taken on the maintenance of local authority non-trunk roads. I invite comments from members.
As you know, convener, I am particularly interested in the subject. We have held several evidence sessions and we have started to move the agenda on, but much monitoring and discussion has still to take place. I endorse your suggestion that the issue is significant and that it should be passed on to the committee that takes over responsibility for local government concerns. As you say, we should highlight what has been done and the ways forward.
Leslie Morrison is to be congratulated on raising this bread-and-butter issue that all of us who are regularly contacted by constituents about the state of our pavements, roads and streets know is a cause of concern and, in some cases, anger. It is also a safety matter. Not maintaining pavements leads to people tripping, falling and suffering serious damage. Many people make fun of pothole politics as if it is somehow of a lower order than high-level policy making, but my impression is that for the people whom we represent, the issue is extremely important.
The evidence that we received from Bill Barker and Graham Mackay of the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland was particularly useful—as SCOTS has been throughout my period on the committee—in its factual specificity and helpful detail about how to address the problem. I was struck that Mr Mackay said that although expenditure on trunk roads has risen, local authorities' budget has substantially fallen. Money has been made available to tackle some of the problems on trunk roads, but local authorities cannot meet their obligations in the way that they would like to.
I was struck in particular by Mr Mackay's evidence to me. When I asked him what the total cost would be of bringing Scotland's roads, footpaths and lighting up to standard, he said that it would be £2,000 million. He also agreed that a programme to tackle that over 10 years would cost £4,000 million. That is the scale of the problem that we face. All Governments—whether the current Executive or another Executive in a month's time—will have to grapple with the problem, which is extremely serious. I therefore concur with the recommendation that we should draw the matter to the incoming Administration's attention. As committee members who represent different parts of Scotland, I hope that we can all convey that more urgently needs to be done to tackle the problems, prevent avoidable injuries and provide safe transportation for people on their local streets, roads and pavements.
I am broadly satisfied that monitoring of the condition of roads and pavements is adequate. The reports that we have received from Audit Scotland and the local surveys that councils undertake show that the scale of the problem is understood and has been evaluated.
Councils have been ranked relative to their performance. Not long ago, an Audit Scotland report ranked my local authority—the City of Edinburgh Council—28th out of 32 for the standard of roads. We hope to correct that situation in a month or so's time. A council survey ranked 37 per cent of roads in my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands as poor or very poor.
In the last analysis, the condition of roads and pavements has been well documented, audited and monitored. We are left with an issue of political priorities that concerns how local authorities apply their budgets and how much weight they give to road and pavement maintenance.
The fact is that the scale of the problem throughout Scotland, which was highlighted in the evidence that we took from SCOTS and other bodies, suggests that road and pavement maintenance has been a very low priority for local authorities in comparison with the other demands on their budgets. My view is that the situation must change because we cannot simply allow the local road network to deteriorate. Sooner or later, councils—regardless of their political complexion after May—will have to attach greater priority to that responsibility, if the situation is not to deteriorate further.
I am afraid that we are talking about a situation in which it is easy for councils, because of competing demands and pressures on their budgets, to postpone the repair of a road for another year or two. When our councils are under such pressures, by and large capital maintenance programmes tend to be deferred, but there is invariably a day of reckoning and that day is arriving. Fergus Ewing is quite right—as I am sure that the rest of us are aware from our postbags, the poor state of our roads and pavements is one of the most common subjects of complaints from constituents. People are demanding action and our councils will have to respond through their budget setting.
Although I do not necessarily agree with David McLetchie's political attack on his local authority, I agree with what he said about local authorities having to decide on their priorities. From our examination of the issue, it has been clear that some local authorities have spent their full grant-aided expenditure allocations on roads and pavements; in fact, in some cases, spending has been well above that level. Some councils have a good record on maintaining their roads—West Lothian Council, for example, has been one of the better councils in that regard in recent years, partly because of its decision to invest more than its GAE allocation to tackle the issue.
I agree with David McLetchie that it is for each local authority to decide what priority to attach to road maintenance. Given that, in general, local authorities have received above-inflation increases in their total resources over recent years, a significant amount of the responsibility must lie with them and the decisions that they have taken. I am sure that Audit Scotland will continue to keep the situation under review.
Road maintenance is an important issue Scotland-wide, in that it has implications both for public safety and for the economy. If the economy is to continue to function well, we must ensure that our entire road network, not just our trunk road network, is well maintained. I expect our successor committee to continue to take interest in the subject and, to help it to make progress, we should draw its attention to the evidence that we have received from SCOTS and the work that Audit Scotland has done.
David McLetchie mentioned local authorities deciding to postpone investment when their budgets are under stress, but I remind him that one such occasion was when the Conservatives were in power—that is when much of the backlog built up. Equally, I remind my colleague Fergus Ewing that the Scottish National Party's proposal to withdraw £1 billion from local authority funding would put council budgets under stress, with the result that, if Fergus Ewing got his way, they would find it all the more difficult to invest in roads in the years ahead. Thankfully, I am sure that the electorate will come to a different decision.
Let us stick to the petition. The election campaign is coming up in the next five weeks, so we do not need to hold such debates now.
You want to take the politics out of politics.
I agree with the convener that the backlog has not built up overnight.
With regard to David McLetchie's comment about the additional money that councils have or have not made available, the fact is that it has not dealt with the huge backlog that Fergus Ewing highlighted and which will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to clear. That is the problem that our successor committee will have to address.
I omitted to say earlier that, as politicians, we tend to focus on cost rather than on people's capacity or ability to carry out additional work if they are entrusted with more resources. If this budget were to be increased from about £250 million to £500 million, it would mean that twice as much work would have to be done. Can the industry deliver that? The fact is that, instead of having to deal with peaks and troughs, it wants a long-term, secure, continuous flow of work. Indeed, according to, among others, Alan Watt from the Chartered Engineering Contractors Association, that is one of the industry's key demands.
As far as the legacy paper is concerned, it might be relevant to point out to those who succeed us that when money is allocated they need to examine not only the figures but the capacity of the industry and local councils to deliver the greater volume of road and street improvements and pavement repairs that we require. Moreover, no matter who is in charge, the next Executive, perhaps very early in the next session, will have to come up with a long-term plan to ensure that those who engage local authority roads engineers and workers, and people who carry out work on trunk roads—very often both have contractual relationships and co-operate to solve the problem of local authority responsibility—know that there will be a secure and guaranteed increase in funding. In fact, they should know that as soon as possible in the next four years.
I do not want to go on all afternoon—after all, I have a lot to say a bit later on—but I should point out that Dr Malcolm Reed, the head of Transport Scotland, told me not so long ago that there is no preparation pool in Scotland for trunk road projects. If, like the A74 project, the proposals for the Aberdeen peripheral route are taken to the Court of Session by fanatics and if the project has to fall as a result, the real victims will be the thousands of people throughout Scotland who rely on getting work from such projects, because there is nothing to fill their place. Continuity of work and the industry's capacity are as important—if not more so—than the headline allocation. It would be easy to say to local authorities, "Do 50 per cent more," but local authorities could just as easily say to us, "How? Where are the people to do all this work? Haven't you thought this through?" As the industry and local authorities have made clear, this is a real problem, and I hope that it can be included in our legacy paper.
I suggest that we conclude our consideration of this petition by writing to the petitioner, drawing attention to the work that we have already done with SCOTS and to the Audit Scotland report. We should also highlight the points made by Fergus Ewing, with which I agree, on the requirement to take account of the capacity to deliver this work and the need for forward planning over a period of years.
We will also draw the matter to the attention of the successor committee with responsibility for transport issues. I suppose that it could also fall within the local government remit; it all depends on whether our successor committee has the same combined role. In any case, we will recommend that the matter be examined by the committee or committees with responsibility for transport and local government issues. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.