Public Petitions Committee, 27 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Official Report 299KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Housing Stock Transfer (PE829)

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE829, from Mrs Anne Ayres, on behalf of the Carntyne Winget residents association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the impact of the housing stock transfer on Scottish communities. Anne Ayres is here to make a brief statement in support of her petition. She is accompanied by James McCullagh and Robert Marshall. After your opening statement, we will discuss the points that you raise.

Good morning. I am here to present to the committee, on behalf of our community, notice of why we believe the housing stock transfer to local housing associations has not worked and how that has affected our community. Because of the type of construction of the houses we live in, which are Winget houses, we find ourselves looking to Glasgow Housing Association Ltd, our new social landlord, for help and guidance with our housing problem—a problem that affects 700 GHA tenants and 290 home owners. Instead of receiving the expected assistance, we have come up against a wall of non-co-operation and misinformation from the company. Not only is that difficult to understand, but the policy has cultivated within our community fear and distrust of the GHA.

We have concluded that the GHA is failing in the duties that were given to it as part of the housing transfer deal in a number of ways, which I list as follows: lack of democracy, transparency, accountability, understanding, compassion, effective consultation processes and co-operation. Although we are an underfunded association, we have on behalf of the community had to search out possible alternatives to demolition. We have done so successfully, but providing such alternatives should not have been our job—it should have been the GHA's. Should not it have considered the alternatives and used a competitive tendering process?

We have had to issue a monthly news bulletin at our own expense to keep the community informed about what is happening. We have had to provide for proper public meetings for debate of the issue; again, that is not our job. We have throughout the process attempted to consult the GHA, while it has hidden behind a public relations agency. It appears to be making judgments based on a financial agenda that has no regard for the social or psychological demographics of the community, which concerns us greatly, because we are speaking about people's homes, lives and futures.

The GHA carried out one social survey but, when it did not get the result that it wanted, it appears that it simply disregarded it. Ninety-two per cent of the residents want to stay in their homes in their community, but the GHA does not elect people from the community; it appoints people who are not always known to the community and people who do not represent, or even know, the views of the community. However, the GHA refuses to speak with a democratically elected association that has been elected by the community solely for the purpose of saving our homes. We find that disconcerting.

We know that we will not agree on every single item, but at the moment there is little willingness to work towards alternatives other than demolition, even though both we and the GHA know that such alternatives exist. It concerns us that the GHA appears to have a single-focus agenda. As a community, we have lost confidence in the GHA and in the idea of the housing stock transfer's being for the benefit of the community. We are strongly of the opinion that the GHA has not handled the post-housing transfer process in line with Government expectations or thinking.

Today, our petition to you is to make the GHA accountable, if only to assist Carntyne in Glasgow to survive as a good mature community, and to make the GHA explore with us every option that might allow us to save our homes. We ask respectfully that the committee call the GHA to account on behalf of the community that we represent.

I have worked with Anne Ayres and the Carntyne community, as have other MSPs and councillors. I congratulate members of the community on the hard work that they have done with very limited resources. I have pictures of the houses that the GHA wants to demolish; I shall pass them round so that other members can look at them.

Paragraph 4 of the briefing on the petition states:

"In November 2003, Glasgow Housing Association accepted a recommendation from Keystone Tenant Managed Homes that no more houses should be let on the estate."

Were the tenants consulted on that recommendation? What is the current situation with the houses that are not being let?

Do you mean the houses that are empty?

Yes. The briefing states that in 2003 the GHA entered into an agreement with Keystone Tenant Managed Homes Ltd not to let any more houses. Was the community consulted?

No. We were never consulted about that. The GHA will not speak to us.

You also sent out a pack, which I mentioned to the clerk. The pack contains a 1999 report by Glasgow City Council that says that the Carntyne Winget houses were not going to be demolished. Has the GHA commented on that report?

In 1987, the Winget label was put on the Carntyne houses, because something had happened down in England and every Winget house was labelled. In 1990, the council published a report by Tom Lucas, which stated that different agencies had been involved in looking into the situation and had concluded that the houses were fine.

Has the situation altered since then?

No.

You said that the GHA has not commented on the report and that the houses should not be demolished.

When the GHA took over, there was a big propaganda exercise to the effect that Carntyne was crumbling and falling apart. There was in the newspaper a photograph of one house and the head of housing for the area. That spread fear into the community; everyone was terrified. Twenty per cent of our people are old people who have put every penny that they possess into their homes. Carntyne works: it is a good community that is not crumbling or falling down. There was a scare campaign going on, but we knew that our houses were not crumbling so we sought out engineers who could come in and help us. We—not the GHA—sought out those engineers.

I was going to ask about that. You sought out the engineers.

Did the GHA consult the community about how it was carrying out the appraisal of the Winget houses? You mentioned the traffic lights system.

Yes, there was an appraisal. The housing association brought in Hilland Ritchie Consultants, which brought in T L Dempster Ltd. It went round all the doors, asked many personal questions and tried to offer people new houses, which did not exist in the community. The survey showed that 92 per cent of people were happy and wanted to stay in their houses in Carntyne.

After that, we were subjected to the traffic lights system. The clerk of works came out with big long spirit levels and went round all the tenants' houses to see whether there were bulges in the walls or anything like that. They branded the houses as red, amber or green, which terrified the older people. The housing association organised meetings—not a public meeting for the whole community, but meetings for small groups. We all got letters telling us to go along in groups to the meetings.

If a house was graded as red, it was in a bad way. It is possible that other people came in after that to look at the red houses. If someone's house was graded as amber, they had a wee bit more time. If it was graded as green, they were all right for a wee while. We have challenged the GHA all the way on everything that it has done, and it keeps moving the goalposts. Our information tells us that all the red houses bar two suddenly went back to amber. No work was done, so maybe God is answering our prayers. The two houses that did not go back to amber were the two that the GHA had opened up for examination.

I appreciate your coming here and the work that you have put into the petition. I represent a different part of Glasgow, which contains many local housing organisations that are in the same position but have not had the problems that you outline. I am struck that you say that there has been no transparency and no attempt to consult people. As you say, consultation is an integral part of the housing stock transfer. Keystone will have a management committee: how are the community representatives for that committee selected? I think you said that they were selected rather than elected.

Keystone should be open to everyone in Carntyne to join; by paying £1, people should be able to join and get a share certificate. I tried to do that but got a letter saying that I could not join until I had been before a committee. I was singled out and told, "No, I'm sorry. You'll have to come in front of so many people from the committee before you can join." That did not mean that I would be able to join; it meant that I was to go and be assessed by a committee.

Was that not to join the committee, but just to join the tenants' organisation?

I was to do that just to get my share certificate. I was told that I would have to go in front of people from the committee before they would even consider me as a Keystone member.

I had not heard about that. It seems to be wrong.

Well, it happened to me.

I want the committee to write to Keystone asking it to explain that behaviour.

The management committee should be open to everyone.

In the area that I represent, the housing organisations send out newsletters and have public meetings. When there is a major change, they inform everybody and they usually do a press release. There is a big change on-going in Castlemilk at the moment and the housing organisation there has issued a press release about it—it has not just notified local people. In the case that we are considering, practice seems to have been completely the opposite of that. Are there no newsletters?

Occasionally, we get newsletters after the fact, informing us of how great the housing association is. We asked the association to come to both of our public meetings to see whether it could help the community and try to calm it down. At the most recent public meeting, we wrote to everyone involved, including Keystone, the head of our local area and Michael Lennon. Keystone delayed for a couple of weeks, then quickly sent a newsletter to everyone, then wrote to us to say, "Sorry, we don't need to come to your public meeting. The information is in the public domain."

That is worrying behaviour. To follow up on my previous question, how are the community representatives on the committee of Keystone Tenant Managed Homes chosen?

It all happens behind closed doors. There is Keystone, and there is Carntyne Winget residents association. I have a letter with me from a resident who managed to get on Keystone, or one of its committees, behind closed doors. He was summoned and told that he must not tell anyone outside what was happening. How can people represent their community if they cannot speak to people about their views and let them know what is happening?

Minutes of the management committee meetings should be in the public domain.

I know, but the resident whom I mentioned was told that he must not reveal anything that happened.

Do you have copies of the minutes?

No.

Could you get copies of the minutes?

Yes, probably.

There are certainly a lot of questions to follow up. The last issue that I will raise is a matter that Anne Ayres mentioned in her opening remarks. She mentioned a social survey, which she said produced the wrong result so the GHA tried again. Can you tell us more about that?

The traffic lights system was used after that.

What was the purpose of the social survey?

The social survey was conducted by Hilland Ritchie Consultants, who employed T L Dempster. They went round the doors and asked a lot of questions. They asked whether people worked, whether they wanted to stay in the area, what size their house was and who lived in the house. They asked a lot of personal questions. They asked whether people would like a new house, although no houses were being built in the community to give to anyone. Ninety two per cent of people said, "We like it here. We want to stay here. We have a community that we love and we are happy. There is 2 per cent policing and people wait 20 years to come here. It works and Carntyne works." That was the result that they got, so they had to publish it, which is something else that we have mentioned. After we spoke to the press, the GHA had to make a statement and publish the figures: 92 per cent of people wanted to stay.

After that, they brought in what you call the traffic lights system.

Yes. We got the traffic lights system then. Two focus groups were organised. Hilland Ritchie, who were brought in by the GHA, organised a meeting for the people of Carntyne. Some people, including me, went along. When you went in the door you were given a raffle ticket, which was put in a box. Hilland Ritchie had an entourage of architects who work with them. There were to be 20 people in each group, but Hilland Ritchie said that they could take only 18 people because there was already in place a chair for each group. The chair was chosen behind closed doors up at the GHA on Edinburgh Road and one other person was already selected for the groups. There was no democracy. People were placed on the focus groups. If a person's raffle ticket was picked, they were on the group. There were 20 people on the group, but only 18 people could be chosen from residents because the chair had already been put in place by the people at Edinburgh Road and someone else was placed by the people from Edinburgh Road. There was a "rebuild" group and a "retain" group. I do not think that the GHA got the results that it wanted from that. The last meeting was held last week; that is the process finished. We got all the information from the groups about what was happening.

Were there any concerns about the condition of housing in Carntyne when the houses were still owned by Glasgow City Council, or has the matter arisen since the stock was transferred to the housing association?

Secondly, I know that I am asking you to speculate, but what is the reason for the actions of the housing association in respect of the condition of the houses in Carntyne?

I am here to speak for the people in Carntyne. We feel that the agenda is demolition of the houses. We are on a prime site, if you want to put it that way, for housebuilding. No matter what it comes up against, the GHA seems to be trying to demolish our houses, build new ones and privatise part of the development. Perhaps people would end up getting new houses, but there are no new houses and there is no room for new houses. There is nothing like that in Carntyne at this stage. We feel that the GHA's agenda is just about demolition. The GHA keeps changing the focus. Whenever we challenge it, it changes the focus and brings another matter in, so we keep moving. The GHA always muddies the waters, if I can put it that way.

Were any problems identified when the houses were owned by Glasgow City Council?

The Winget label was applied to the houses in 1987. As far as I understand it, mortgages were still being given for them from the council. It has been said that nobody got a mortgage after 1987, but that is not true—people got mortgages from building societies. In 1990, a report came out that said that the houses were all right; I have given the committee that report by Tom Lucas. All of a sudden we were settled and happy. On many occasions money that should have been spent in the community was diverted elsewhere. When the stock was transferred to the GHA, there was suddenly all the propaganda. All of a sudden we were told that we would be losing our homes, that Carntyne is crumbling and that we have great problems.

It has come to our attention that £33 million has been set aside for Carntyne Winget housing. We worked that out as being £47,000-odd per house for 700 tenants. The evidence that I gave the committee is frightening; it shows that although we can get our houses brought up to standard by engineers for under £20,000, Hilland Ritchie estimated the cost at £66,000 for some houses, including a lot of cosmetic stuff. The focus keeps changing. Our focus is on saving the community; let us deal with the cosmetics after that.

The Glasgow Housing Association keeps focusing on the cosmetics and the consultant from Hilland Ritchie says that there is a shortfall. We know from what engineers have told us that it costs under £20,000 to fix the houses and bring them up to standard. I spoke to the consultant from Hilland Ritchie a week ago and he kept saying, "No. Even the house owners don't have enough money. Even if you could get a grant, £20,000 is the limit. You won't be able to save your houses for that kind of money." The cost is estimated by Hilland Ritchie way up at £66,000, compared with under £20,000.

I have just looked at some of the photographs that Sandra White passed round a moment ago. Many of the four-in-a-block houses look really good, but a number seem to have structural problems, such as damp and so on. When the houses were labelled as Winget houses, was that because there was a fundamental structural problem with them?

I will pass over to Bob Marshall, the engineer, to answer that.

The question of Winget houses was brought up in 1987, but the problem occurred in England, not in Carntyne. Just after the war 60 years ago, a building system was introduced that consisted of constructing buildings using what is called a ring-beam. The floor is a ring-beam and the middle section is a ring-beam; they are connected by metal rods that interlink. In England one of the buildings bulged at the front and buckled. The Government subsequently investigated and said that it would not use that system any longer but, given that the houses would not fall down, would let them continue to be used until the end of their lifetime.

The Carntyne association asked me to consider the residents' predicament, because they were making inquiries but were not getting information. Engineering in housing has moved forward since 1987—we are working on affordable houses that have steel structures and which we are able to build and make available to the public for less than £60,000. It seems crazy to knock down housing stock that is well able to be repaired using modern technology.

If you walk around the Winget housing estate, you will see houses that are worse than those in the photographs. That is down to the building system. When one builds using a ring-beam, the concrete block that is used is 18 in sq and is placed on the base. The next block slots into that and the next one slots into that, so we end up with a grid of criss-crosses. If the building is not maintained, water gets in and bursts through the space between the concrete blocks. It looks terrible; if you look at the worst-case pictures of Winget houses you will see that that is the case. All the cracks run vertically or horizontally along the beams. They are not structural problems; they are problems to do with lack of maintenance by Glasgow City Council. If the council had maintained its buildings properly, there would never have been water ingress.

When we were asked to read the report we said, "Maybe the Glasgow Housing Association is correct." That was our first refuge. We then went to find out what the Glasgow Housing Association was examining. We came up with something called the Curtins report, which was commissioned in the late 1990s—1998 I think—on Winget housing for the former Glasgow District Council. Winget association got a report from the Curtins group. Curtins Consulting Engineers plc is a very large organisation. It reported back to Glasgow City Council stating that nothing was wrong with Winget housing that maintenance would not repair. A copy of that report can be accessed by committee members.

We are talking about the same steel pin problem that caused big slabs to fall from tower blocks. Although Winget housing had a question mark over it and needed to be watched, the photographs that have been supplied to the committee show that some of the houses have been repaired and look rather nice. They have insulation problems, similar to the problems in Easterhouse, Hillington and other places where houses were built without inter-house insulation, but residents have learned to live with those problems. They have learned to stop making noise at 9 o'clock, helped by good neighbour agreements, which is how the problem has been handled to date. Anybody living in a Winget house would have a problem if their neighbours stamped about—I live in a four-apartment house in Hillington, so I know what I am talking about.

My company took a fresh look at the problem. It is a modern engineering company that has built thousands of houses all over the world, and is currently contemplating building 20,000 rapid-build affordable houses in Sri Lanka for the Sri Lankan Government.

The Winget houses in Carntyne are repairable. In a worst-case scenario, insulating inside and outside the house to an insulation value of 0.17—twice as good as current insulation standards—a block of four houses could be repaired for £40,000, which is £10,000 per house. One of my company's sister companies has submitted a bid to the GHA via A Balfour and Company to carry out such repairs. We have offered to build a prototype and a pilot, and that is being considered by A Balfour, the GHA and Hilland Ritchie. We do not know whether they want a demonstration, but we will hear from them in due course.

I will produce chartered engineers' signatures to verify what I am saying. The important point for the committee to understand is that the houses are repairable affordably. There is no reason to take them down.

I am not making any judgment on what Mr Marshall has said, but I will play the devil's advocate. The photographs that have been sent round show that some of the houses look quite bad, although it appears that many thousands of pounds have been spent on roof renewals and the installation of double-glazed windows. Some of the houses look well but others show signs of dampness and water penetration. In such circumstances, housing experts and architects often say that it is cheaper to demolish and rebuild, and get a better home at the end of the day.

One of the key Executive programmes, operated in partnership with the private sector, Scottish Gas and others, is the warm deal insulation programme for residents with cavity wall insulation problems and other problems. Has work under that programme been undertaken in the Carntyne area? The programme is a major step forward in helping to provide warmer homes, as part of the programme for government.

I will take the questions in reverse order. We approached the solution for Winget housing understanding clearly the insulation needs. My company is currently cladding half of Glasgow using its own insulation systems. It has already done work for Glasgow City Council and the GHA. Almost every company that clads a building with new cladding systems, which also waterproof buildings, uses systems provided by my company. We manufacture the systems in our factory in Glasgow. Other companies do not see our name, but they use our systems.

When we clad a house, we put a steel frame outside and inside and insulate both so that the energy saving is 25 per cent. We put two walls in and pin them together; we sandwich the existing wall, which ceases to have any function because the entire house is now held up by a steel girdle. To insulate the house, the steel girdle is then clad in the same way as houses are all over Glasgow and, from the outside, it looks like a brand new house because it is harled and finished in that manner. The only penalty that the owner pays is that the inside of the house loses 20mm and the outside width expands by 60mm, so the window ledge will increase on the inside by 20mm. Otherwise, it is not possible to tell that the house has not been newly built.

I am grateful to you for that technical explanation, but my question was about the cost-benefit analysis of demolishing a house to rebuild. You have given a good description of the technical side of it, but what are the economics of doing what you describe versus pulling down and rebuilding?

I answered that in response to a previous question, but perhaps you did not pick up on it. We have provided the GHA with a fixed quotation for repairing a four-in-a-block set of houses of £40,000. That is £10,000 a house, which is a long way short of the £40,000 about which the GHA is talking. That quotation is fixed and comes from a reputable company; we can guarantee it and deliver it.

I have a question for Anne Ayres. Keystone Tenant Managed Homes no longer lets homes in Carntyne. Until it stopped, was there a demand for homes? Was there any problem with letting?

If you are asking whether there was any problem with people getting homes in Carntyne, the answer is no, because people were coming into Carntyne and renting houses.

So there is a demand.

Yes, and there is still a demand; people still want to come to Carntyne to live. There always was a demand and people were always coming in. The GHA stopped that and started to allow the houses to lie empty.

It is a waste of public money if houses are lying empty and unused.

There seems to be no doubt at all about Mr Marshall's figures. At £10,000 per house, there is no argument about the cost compared with new build as long as we end up with a reasonable house. What is the capital valuation of the houses after the repairs have been carried out? What is the lifespan of the houses from completion of the repairs?

In the quotation that we provided to the GHA, we confirmed that we have Building Research Establishment certificates. Anyone who wants to mortgage a house will go to an insurance company, which will go to the BRE and ask whether the house is fit for mortgage. The houses that we repair are fit for a 30-year mortgage and have a lifespan of more than 60 years after repair. We guarantee that by insurance.

Did Sandra White want to ask another question?

I am happy with the responses to Helen Eadie's and Phil Gallie's questions, as I wanted to ask about the valuation.

Mrs Ayres, I have one question before we recommend what to do with the petition. You said that there was an agenda to privatise—I think that that was the word that you used. By "privatise", do you mean taking the current stock and handing it over to a private company or do you mean emptying the houses to give them over to a private developer who would develop new housing on the ground?

I believe that the GHA wants to demolish Carntyne. It might rebuild part of it for some Carntyne people, but I believe that it will also privatise a part of the area with private developers to bring in more money for the GHA.

So the houses would simply be given to a private company to run in the private rented sector.

We believe that part of the development would be done in that way and that some houses might be rebuilt for people, although I cannot really say what will happen.

Bob Marshall has spoken. We have two engineers on board with two different designs for the GHA, which is important. The top engineer in Britain has submitted a design to the GHA, so it has plenty to consider. I am told that they are waiting for the GHA to okay a pilot scheme. Similar prices have been agreed. It should be remembered that the pilot scheme will take in everything—from the largest thing to the smallest thing—that could go wrong and so the costings will be overestimated. However, people are still coming up with the same prices.

Mr Marshall can say something before we discuss what to do with the petition.

If it would help the committee, I would be happy to print out and send the bid documents, drawings and other things for members to consider so that they can see what we are saying.

Having that information would not do any harm. It could help our considerations.

I would like to clarify matters. Anne Ayres mentioned privatisation. Does she mean that houses will be demolished and that the land will be built on? Furthermore, engineers have submitted bids. Has the GHA commented on the bids from Bob Marshall, Adams Engineering and the others? Has the GHA been accommodating in letting people into houses to examine structural aspects?

What do you mean by structural aspects? Are you asking whether the GHA's engineers have been into the houses?

Has the GHA been accommodating in letting engineers who have submitted bids go around houses?

The engineers have been taken into an empty house and have been allowed to look at it. Hilland Ritchie Consultants did that. We are not all engineers, but members of the committee are peers of the people in the GHA and, if they look at the figures, they will see that they are figures for knocking down the houses and building new ones. A consultant from Hilland Ritchie Consultants has admitted that it would be dearer to put up new houses—when I spoke to him two weeks ago, he mentioned a figure of in the region of £100,000 by the time that all the extra costs are added. We think that the figures have been overestimated by £60,000. For example, the list that has been provided shows a figure of £4,800—almost £5,000—to fix a garden the size of a postage stamp. Even if it does so after we are here, will the committee consider those frighteningly high costs? There is a big case for decantation. The top-line figures stop at a certain price that is not too high, but the costings can jump from £17,000 to £57,000, which is frightening and needs to be questioned.

Phil Gallie may ask one final question before we discuss recommendations.

I have an observation to make rather than a question to ask while Mr Marshall is here. I presume that if the residents were successful and there was a determination to go ahead and repair the houses, any repair work would be put out to tender. If that happened and Mr Marshall's papers were passed to the committee, they would become public information, unless they were held confidentially. I wonder whether Mr Marshall could mark any papers that he sends us as confidential, given the possibility of future tendering.

That is entirely a matter for Mr Marshall. If he wants information to remain confidential, he will have to instruct the committee about that. If papers are provided as evidence, they could go into the public domain.

I can answer that fairly simply. Robert Marshall Associates is a firm of design engineers. The systems that we use are used by Powerwall Systems and other companies and it is extremely unlikely that Robert Marshall Associates would ever bid for the contract. One of our sister companies, Powerwall, provided the bid and would want its information to be kept within the committee. As this is a closed committee, I presume that that is what will happen. The matter is not of particular concern, because when the building—

I should clarify that this is not a closed committee. Phil Gallie asked whether certain information could be made available, but information that you send to members of the committee can go into the public domain. If you want information to remain confidential, you must specify that and mark the information as confidential, so that it can be kept out of the public domain on the ground of commercial confidentiality. I must make it absolutely clear that this is not a closed committee. Everything in the committee's briefings that can go into the public domain will do so.

Everything that I say to the committee can go into the public domain, at the committee's discretion. We are hiding nothing from anybody. Indeed, my preferred route for the Winget houses would be for us to assist a local company by providing encouragement and training in utilising the systems. That would create employment in Carntyne. Through the Construction Industry Training Board and Glasgow Metropolitan College—the new college of building in Glasgow—we have arranged for special courses to be run should that ever happen. We would ask local companies whether they wanted to make a bid to be involved in the repair of Carntyne houses and, if they did want to be involved, we would be happy to train them to utilise the system.

I invite recommendations from members on what to do with the petition.

The discussion has been interesting. In the interest of ensuring that we maximise the information that we have before we come to a view, can we send a copy of the Official Report of today's meeting to Communities Scotland, the Scottish Tenants Organisation, Shelter Scotland, the Property Managers Association Scotland and the Scottish Executive, and ask them to consider the issues that the petition and the discussion raise and to give us their views?

I agree with Helen Eadie's suggestion. However, I suggest that we do not write to the Executive yet, because Communities Scotland is an executive agency and can speak for the Executive. If the worst comes to the worst and we have to write to the Executive later, so be it, but a letter to Communities Scotland should cover the matter now.

I also want to know the views of the GHA and Keystone Tenant Managed Homes. Although we cannot get too far into the specifics of the case, the way in which those organisations are operating—or not operating, given what we have heard—gives me great cause for concern. We need answers to the questions that have been raised.

I was going to mention the GHA too, so I concur entirely with what Mike Watson has said about Keystone and the GHA. Can we also ask the GHA about the £33 million that was apparently set aside? Anne Ayres said that the money was earmarked for the Winget houses.

We can ask about that.

The committee has been given a lot of technical detail. I am sure that Keystone's management committee has reasons for its decisions. Can we ask what research it carried out and what its proposals are for the houses, given that they are not currently being let? For example, can we have the costings for new build or repair, if such costings have been produced? Given that we are talking about a public body, such information will not be commercially confidential.

Absolutely. We will write to the organisations with specific questions. Mrs Ayres is indicating that she wants to comment.

Do you want to know where I got the figure of £33 million from?

You can hold back on that until we get a response from the GHA. Thank you for bringing the petition to the committee. When we have received responses from the organisations, we will inform you about them and take the matter forward.

Will you get all the engineering reports?

We will ask all those questions.

Thank you for letting me speak to the committee.

---

Public Libraries (PE831)

The next new petition to be considered this morning is PE831, by Catriona Leslie, on behalf of Portree community council. The petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on public libraries to ensure appropriate provision in rural areas. Catriona Leslie is here to make a brief statement to the committee, which will be followed by a discussion. I thank her for coming along.

Thank you for allowing me to attend today's meeting to speak on an issue that is close to the hearts of people in Skye. Highland Council is insisting on closing Portree's very successful public library, which is in the centre of the village, and incorporating it into the proposed new high school, several hundred yards from the centre of the village, along a main road that is very exposed to the elements. We understand that the Public Petitions Committee may not be able to intervene in individual cases such as ours, but we hope that, even so, by bringing our problems to its attention we may help to prevent other communities from suffering the same fate.

The removal of the public library from its current central position in Portree will not only inconvenience a large number of regular users, but will have a detrimental effect on shops and businesses, which already suffer from loss of trade due to the new out-of-town supermarket. Currently, the library is within easy walking distance of hotels, cafes, banks, shops, the medical centre and other facilities. That enables residents, people who work in the village and visitors to use its services quickly and conveniently. Primary school children use the library for study after school, and parents do not have to worry about them crossing a busy main road, which they would have to do in the proposed new location. People arriving in the village by car or public transport can combine a visit to the library with other activities. Many use it as a meeting place and somewhere that is comfortable, welcoming and free, where they can catch up on newspapers, meet friends before going home or wait for a bus.

Combined school and public library services may work well in smaller communities, but we believe that a one-size-fits-all policy should not be applied and that the needs of each town or village should be assessed with full regard to its individual circumstances.

In larger schools, there are bound to be conflicts of interest regarding such matters as opening times and opportunity for quiet study. In addition, security issues are raised when several hundred members of the public go in and out of a school each day. Recently, we have seen that two community schools in the Western Isles may have to ban members of the public during school hours in order to comply with national guidelines on security. In those schools, the library and swimming pool are not open to public use during the school day although, until now, the canteen has been a shared facility during school hours. The director of education in the Western Isles has stated that such schools would not be permitted today, yet Highland Council is insisting on shared facilities in many of the new schools that it plans to build.

When a school is in the centre of a village, it might be more acceptable to share facilities, but in cases such as ours in which elderly or disabled people will have to use cars, taxis and buses to reach the library, many people will just cease to use it. The average visit to a library takes only seven minutes. How many people are prepared to get on a bus for a seven-minute visit to a library and then wait for up to an hour to get home again? Moreover, it would simply not be practicable for a worker who wanted to visit the library in their lunch hour.

In tourist areas such as ours, many visitors use the library and its internet facilities in the summer months, which increases pressure on space. Such an attraction is important for visitors, but they are much less likely to visit the library if it is some distance from the village, especially in bad weather—as members might know, we have quite a lot of that weather in Skye. In addition, people on cruise ships or coach tours would not have enough time to walk to the school to use the internet or to look up something in a book.

Even the nicest teenagers can be noisy, clumsy and intimidating en masse, and many older and disabled people and people such as my sister who have limited vision can find it intimidating to make their way through a crowd of lively teenagers to reach the library. We understand that, in some areas in Highland region where the public library has been placed in a school, the mobile library has had to be reinstated to accommodate people who are reluctant or unable to go to the school.

Many of the high school pupils in Portree who use the library after school hours are adamant that they would not go back to school in the evening if they wanted to use the public library. The new public library in the centre of Stornoway has been a huge success. In that case, a conscious decision was made not to put the library into a school, with excellent results.

We are aware that funding is probably behind the policy to incorporate public libraries in schools. As an article in The Herald has pointed out, cutting back on library spending is one economy for which Scotland will pay dearly in diminished quality of life. The country that housed the world's first Carnegie library ought to know that in its head and in its heart.

I think that you have already answered some of my questions. However, as far as transport, particularly for elderly people, is concerned, when I was in Portree a couple of weeks ago I did not see too many buses going back and forth. I wonder whether you can tell us more about that. Secondly, will you comment on the statement in our briefing note that the facilities will be open

"some 365 days a year for up to 15 hours per day"?

At the moment, we have what is called the village bus, which, because it transports children to and from school, operates at fairly limited times of the day. Approximately once an hour, it goes around the village and out to the Aros heritage centre.

I should also point out that there is a little walk up to the school, which anyone with a disability will find difficult. The bus will not drop people where the children are dropped, because on the plans for the new school—I must not go into them, but they are horrendous—the bus dropping area will be turned into a play area during the school day. As a result, people who get off the bus will have to walk up to the library in the rain and wind. When they come out of the library, they will have to wait perhaps an hour for a bus to take them home again.

When I spoke to the director of education about that, he said, "Oh, well, you can just lay on minibuses." However, he did not say where the money for that would come from. In any case, a minibus with only two passengers is not economical.

I am sorry—what was your second question?

Our briefing note says that the facilities will be open

"365 days a year for … 15 hours per day".

I cannot quite believe that. After all, schools close for school holidays, and we also need to consider certain safety aspects as far as the kids are concerned. How many hours will the facilities be open?

In the early stages of discussions about the school, the director of education said that the library would be open for the whole of the school day and in the evening as well. I tackled him about that after a planning meeting the other day and he said, "Oh well. Opening hours will have to be timetabled." To me, that suggests that the library will not be open for the whole of the school day.

The current public library is not open for the whole of the school day, but it is open to a certain timetable all year round. People know that the timetable will not change because of school holidays. The facilities in Ullapool and Gairloch are often cited to us as being very successful, but the opening hours there are very limited during school holidays.

We have been given many guarantees about the library that we know will not happen. As a result, I am sorry to say that we now do not believe any of the guarantees. We were told that the new library would be three times the size of the existing library, but in the current plans it is approximately one and a half times the size and will also incorporate the school library. I have not done the sums, but there is a net reduction in space, quite apart from the net reduction in the numbers of people who might use the library.

A difficulty that members may have with the petition is that the issue is really one for the local authority. As you said, we should not consider such issues as having a one-size-fits-all solution. Every community is different and that is why local authorities take the decisions.

I am looking desperately for some way of widening the argument so that the Scottish Executive could become involved. The only one I can think of is that the Government is, I believe, in favour of community schools. Community schools are all embracing, covering issues such as libraries. Has Highland Council sold the library project as a community school project, in line with Scottish Executive policy?

Yes. The council has told us that it is Scottish Executive policy. In our opinion, the council has totally failed to consult people properly. The community council devised a questionnaire to put in the library to find out what people thought about the project, but the questionnaire was banned. We were told that it was biased.

We have asked time and again for a public meeting so that people can at least ask council officials what will happen. However, the council will not hold such a meeting. We had 700 signatures on a petition asking for a public meeting, but the council paid no attention.

The role of a community council is to sound out public opinion and to ensure that the public are well informed. In my view, there is a statutory requirement on councils to fit in with community council requests if the purpose is to inform the public and to seek public opinions. However, you are saying that Highland Council will not co-operate with your community council; it will not even allow the details of your petition to be placed in the public library.

The council has decided that the library project will happen and that it does not matter what anybody thinks. That is the impression that we get. It is the council's policy.

To a certain extent, the council blames the Scottish Executive. It says, "This is Scottish Executive policy and we must follow it." However, we find it hard to understand how Stornoway can get away with it but we cannot. Stornoway decided that it did not want its library to be out of town but that it wanted it in the centre. That library is working really well.

Our current library building is old. It is in what were originally a supermarket and a garage, and it has problems. However, an alternative site, which is equally central, has been offered free of charge by a local hotel in exchange for the site of the current library. A local architect has drawn up plans that could incorporate the library with the museum service, which is also severely underfunded and cramped away in little corners. The council has not even bothered to come and look at the plans. It is completely blinkered.

I appreciate that there may be nothing that the committee can do to help us. However, nobody else has listened, so we have come to you. The plans for the school will go to the Scottish Executive very shortly for approval. Because Highland Council will have to ask itself for planning permission, I believe that the application has to be approved by the Executive. We do not know whom to approach to ask for at least some more time or for something to stop this great thing rolling on without any proper consultation. A lot of people feel uninformed. If a public meeting was held and we were told what was happening, people would at least know what was going on.

Even when we held a march in the village, people came up to us and asked what it was about—they had not heard. We have written to the local paper and have done everything that we can, but, as you know, community councils do not have money and we cannot afford huge campaigns or a referendum, such as Dingwall held on its high school, although Highland Council paid no attention. Indeed, the same thing is happening in Dingwall: its public library is being moved into the school, even though the residents of Dingwall do not want that any more than we do.

I understand that Highland Council has consulted on a public-private partnership to build around 10 schools in the Highlands. I wonder how much consultation there has been on the specific issue that you have raised of incorporating community facilities into the proposed new schools. What sort of consultation has there been on the specific issue that you are complaining about? You have made a strong case against incorporating the library into the school—or a new school—in Portree. Have you had the opportunity to make that case to Highland Council? If so, how did it address the concerns that you raised?

Before I was on the community council, I wrote to John Farquhar Munro—it is sad that he is not here—and Charles Kennedy about the library aspect, which is the subject with which I was first involved and in which I was first interested. Their replies enclosed the same letter from Bruce Robertson. It does not matter to whom one writes, the same letter comes back. Sometimes, the paragraphs have been moved, which can be done on a word processor, but the letter is the same. Highland Council has never approached the community council to discuss the matter.

In the early stages, there was a small advertisement in the local paper, which said that there was to be a meeting about library provision. The advertisement did not say that the library was to be moved into the school; the subject was simply library provision. Seven members of Portree community council went to that meeting and made firm objections to what was proposed. Similar meetings were held in Uig and Dunvegan. Nobody attended the meeting in Uig and three people attended the meeting in Dunvegan, yet that is what Bruce Robertson has called public consultation. All it was was somebody in a room to whom people could talk; it was not a meeting.

A public meeting was then held in the school on the whole school proposition. I was unable to go to the meeting, because I was away, but people who went to it said that about 250 people were there. No questions to the general meeting were allowed to be asked from the floor and people were divided almost instantly into separate groups and given presentations. At the end, people were selected—I am not sure whether they were elected or selected—to go on a steering committee, with different aspects of the village having representation. No one was chosen or invited to take part as a library user and no one was chosen because they were on the community council. One lady who was chosen to be on the steering committee is on the community council and is a part-time librarian, but she was selected because of her interest in the youth problems in the village. On one occasion, when she spoke about something to do with the library, she was told, "You're not here for that." She was also reprimanded by her superiors in the library for having taken part in our march and for participating in the petition. They said that, as an employee, she should not criticise Highland Council in public.

I am surprised to hear those last remarks, which seem to be a throwback to a bygone age. I have a couple of general questions. How far is the proposed site of the new library from the existing library?

It is not that far. It is probably less than a mile; it might even be about half a mile. The issue is not the distance. If one is in a village and the rain comes pouring down, one can pop into a shop or doorway, but there is no shelter at the proposed new site.

So it is quite outside the village and not in the suburbs.

Yes. Where does a village begin and end? It is closer than the supermarket, but it is not in the central part where everything is apart from the supermarket and the school.

At what stage in the process is Highland Council with the proposal?

The proposal was put into the outline planning permission for the new school—it involved demolishing the old school and building a new school with a public library and swimming pool. At the beginning of this week, we had the proper detailed planning application and we were told that the petition was not relevant because the application had already been passed in principle—we could not say at that stage that the library must not be incorporated.

I see. The proposal for the school has gone ahead.

Yes, and the school is to contain the library.

Are you proposing that the school should go ahead on the proposed site but that somehow the library should be detached and another site found for it in the village?

We certainly think that the library should be detached from the school. We would also like someone to listen to us about the problem of the school and the existing site, which is far too small—that is one reason why the library is not the size that we were originally told that it would be. The building is to be right next door to the existing school, which will go on being used, so, as you can imagine, the children will have to live, work and try to study on what is effectively a building site for two or three years.

We have had that happen in Glasgow and it is a considerable problem.

It is absolutely horrendous.

In response to a question from Campbell Martin, you said that you have written to your elected representatives but that you have not had an adequate reply. I am surprised that John Farquhar Munro is not here to deal with the issue.

We have had replies from our elected representatives.

What have they said?

They have asked Bruce Robertson, our director of education, for his comments and have just sent us copies of his letters. I did not hear it, but earlier this week John Farquhar Munro said on the radio that he was concerned about the situation and the lack of consultation. At least he has stated his worries in the public arena.

Will you be seeking a meeting with him to try to get his support?

I was hoping to see him today, but he is not here.

The petition states:

"We have been told by Highland Council that it is Scottish Parliament policy to incorporate Public Libraries within schools."

I think that you must mean Scottish Executive policy, but, nonetheless, the policy is not exclusive; it is an option. You have also given us the example of the Western Isles, although there is probably an aversion to taking on people from the Western Isles for various reasons, all of them positive.

My serious point is that there can be an exception to that policy; it is an option. The proposed approach can be taken and no doubt there are places where it is suitable. You are saying that it is not suitable in this case and that Highland Council ought to accept that. Are there any other examples in the Highland Council area of a new school or library being built recently and not being under the same roof?

Not that I can find. The schools that have been built most recently are those at Ullapool, Gairloch, Drumnadrochit—Glen Urquhart High School—and Ardnamurchan and they all incorporate the library. We have been to look at Gairloch and Ullapool, where the school rolls consist of something like 200 kids. That is a completely different ball game. In Ullapool, the school is much more central.

I am going to visit the school in Drumnadrochit next week. I understand that the school gets to use the library for two days a week and the public get to use it for three. The library is not open to both at the same time and the community has asked for the mobile library service to be put on again. The same thing happened in Fortrose.

Presumably the new library would not be an alternative to the mobile library. Is there still a mobile library that serves the many outlying areas on the Isle of Skye?

There is, and that service will continue for the outlying areas. Our problem is that people who live in Portree will find the new library difficult because of the timings, the distance, the weather and the sheer inconvenience.

There is concern that the library may be inaccessible to the general public during school hours for the reasons that you have given us.

That is of deep concern to us. The librarians tell us that, because of the spread of the island, the library is used most between 11 am and 4 pm, which is precisely when it will have to be closed for security reasons.

It can be appropriate to develop community-use schools—in my area, such schools have been developed powerfully over the years, although I accept Mike Watson's point that such schools are not appropriate in every instance. What has concerned me most this morning are two issues, the first of which is the style of consultation. It is appropriate for the committee to be part of the discussion about your representations to Highland Council. Most people would argue that it is not enough to place a small advertisement that says, "This is about provision of libraries." There should have been a fuller explanation—for example, a press release outlining exactly what kind of debate there would be. That would stimulate people to go along and it would avoid a situation in which just seven people turned up. There is a real issue there.

The second issue that concerns me relates to Mike Watson's point about the part played by your elected representatives. I get the impression that all that has happened to date has been an exchange of letters with Charles Kennedy and John Farquhar Munro. There do not appear to have been any meetings between Highland Council and your elected representatives, encompassing yourselves as representatives of the community council. Will you clarify whether that is the case?

We have never had any meetings of that kind. Charles Kennedy and John Farquhar Munro have written to Bruce Robertson about the issue and they have sent me his written reply. There has never been a chance to sit round a table and no one has ever offered to come to the community council to explain their position. Scottish Water and the local housing association have taken the trouble to come to the community council to explain exactly what they are doing and to allow us to ask questions, but there has been no similar approach from Highland Council. Every time we have asked for a public meeting, we have been told that we might be able to have one once the plans are available. Such a meeting has never happened. I asked Bruce Robertson for a public meeting after the planning meeting and he said that that might be possible. However, it is too late—or it looks to be too late. The plans have gone through.

Convener, I suggest that we get views from the Scottish Library and Information Council, the Scottish Executive and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Do other members agree that we ought to ask Highland Council for its views on consultation, because that is the general issue that arises from the petition? It is important that we ensure that every consultation, whether it concerns Greater Glasgow NHS Board or whomever, is appropriate and fully engages the public. Although consultation does not mean that we will accept the views of every community, at least it should be meaningful. I encourage Catriona Leslie to press Charles Kennedy and John Farquhar Munro to seek meetings with Highland Council on behalf of her community. If people do not get satisfaction after they have had correspondence with any organisation, they have to escalate matters and take things to the next stage, which would involve an MSP in this case.

Councillors have not been mentioned, but I would have thought that they would have been the initial link with Highland Council. Do they sit on your community council? What contact have you had with them?

Our councillor has been to one community council meeting in the past year. When I asked him in a public meeting whether he agreed that he should perhaps be representing the opinions of the people of Portree, he replied, "I am allowed to have my own opinion." He was elected unopposed, but he will be opposed at the next election.

That is good. I agree with Helen Eadie's suggestions. We should write to Highland Council. The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Library and Information Council have been mentioned, but Balfron High School has also rejected a similar plan. We are talking about guidelines; nothing is set in stone and there are examples of people rejecting the idea of having a public library in their school.

We have been told time and again that having the public library as part of the school is an essential part of the package and that, if we rock the boat or ask for something different, we might not get a school at all. That is blackmail.

We will write to the organisations that members have suggested that we get in touch with and will let you know what the responses are. I do not know your councillor and I do not know what his politics are or anything to do with the situation, but the code of conduct for councillors that the Scottish Parliament introduced under the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 does not allow a councillor to state publicly their opinion on a planning matter. If they do, they must absent themselves from any decision making. I must therefore say on the record that the councillor whom you mention might simply have been complying with the code of conduct. If the councillor was acting within the code, he was acting absolutely appropriately.

He said that he had to withdraw because he had stated his opinion before the most recent planning meeting. However, he stated his opinion in the press before the outline planning meeting but did not absent himself from that meeting.

We are not here to pass judgment on the councillor; I just think that it is important that we get on the record the fact that there is a code of conduct that he has to abide by. We will keep you informed of the responses that we receive and will ask you for your comments on them as we try to make progress on the matter.

Thank you. I am grateful for the chance to speak to somebody about the issue.

---

School Building (Funding) (PE832)

Petition PE832 is also by Catriona Leslie, on behalf of Portree community council. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate the use of public-private partnership funding to build new schools and to urge the Scottish Executive to provide adequate public sector funding for local authorities, which are better placed to meet the needs of the local community, to build new schools. The petition originates from the petitioner's experience in Skye, where the petitioner feels that PPP funding is being used as a quick-fix way of building new schools that do not sit well with existing architecture, do not have proper regard to the long-term viability of the building and do not involve any consultation with the local community.

The Finance Committee undertook an inquiry into PPP generally in 2002. It examined existing PPP projects, including the Glasgow schools project and Balfron High School, to test the evidence that was beginning to emerge. The committee sought to establish the advantages and disadvantages of PPP as a method of procuring large-scale capital projects and it published its report on 2 October 2002.

We could sit here and have a political and ideological debate about PPPs and so on, but I do not know whether there is anything that we can do with the petition.

I agree that we could argue all day about the benefits or demerits of PPP. However, the petition raises an issue that was raised by the previous petition as well—consultation. Could we, in response to the petition, ask the Scottish Executive what proposals were brought forward in response to the Finance Committee's 2002 report to ensure that there is appropriate consultation with local communities and how that is being monitored? We probably all know of areas across Scotland in which members of the public are still complaining about the lack of consultation on proposals.

That is a good suggestion. Do members agree to follow that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (PE828)<br />Food Supplements (European Directive) (PE738)

Our final new petition is PE828, on food supplements. The petitioner, Fraser McNaught, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the implementation of the Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/278) will not prevent consumers from accessing health supplements and herbal remedies that are beneficial to their health.

The food supplements directive is intended to harmonise the market of vitamin and mineral supplements throughout the European Union and to ensure greater quality and information for consumers. The subsequent Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations 2003 detail a positive list of substances that can be used in supplements that are sold over the counter. The sale of substances that are not included on the list will be prohibited. The regulations are due to come into force on 1 August 2005.

Members will note that PE738, which is similar to PE828, is also on today's agenda. Are members content that we link the two petitions?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE738 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the voice of consumers of vitamin and mineral supplements is heard as the European Commission prepares to set maximum permitted levels as part of the food supplements directive and to consider all options, including a derogation, that would give Scottish consumers access to the vitamin and mineral potencies that are currently available.

At its meeting on 19 January 2005, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the response from the Minister for Health and Community Care and to get an update on the outcome of the meeting between the petitioner and the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, which was due to take place on 30 November 2004. A response has been received and has been circulated to members.

The petitions concern a topic in which I have always had a close interest. I note that the European Court of Justice came to a view but that that view will not be finalised until June, because there has been an appeal against it. I also note from the papers that the Advocate General has stated that the basis of the directive is legal and that it would be valid if the deficiencies that he outlines in his pronouncement on 5 April were dealt with. His opinion is not legally binding on the rest of the European Court of Justice judges and the final ruling of the court is expected in June. Perhaps we ought to keep the petitions open until we get that ruling.

We could contact the minister for an update on that situation. Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Obviously, we will send the minister any new information that is contained in the new petition to add to—or should I say supplement—the information that was given in the first one.

That concludes our consideration of new petitions.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—