Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Official Report 472KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Wind Turbine Applications (Neighbour Notification Distances) (PE1469)

Agenda item 4 is consideration of two new petitions. As previously agreed, the committee will take evidence on one of them—the first, which is PE1469, by Aileen Jackson, on neighbour notification distances for wind turbine applications. Members have a note by the clerk, the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, the petition and the submission from Scotland Against Spin.

I welcome to the meeting the petitioner, Aileen Jackson, and Graham Lang, who is the chairman of Scotland Against Spin. I invite Aileen Jackson to make a presentation of no more than five minutes.

Good morning. Thank you for inviting us both here today. For the past 29 years, I have lived with my family in a farmhouse near the village of Uplawmoor in East Renfrewshire. Until three years ago, we had no reason to be involved in planning applications. A telephone call from a friend in the village changed everything. Our immediate neighbours—farmers, and our good friends for 26 years, whom we spoke to daily—had submitted a planning application for three wind turbines only 280m to the south of our house. They had never mentioned it to us.

On checking the online planning applications list, we also stumbled across a five-month-old application for a neighbouring community’s wind farm, only 1km to the east, with four turbines of 120m in height, which by the developer’s own admission would have a significant effect on our property but about which we had not been informed. On the same planning list, we also discovered an application for two more turbines 500m to the north. That meant that, in total, nine turbines surrounding our home could have been approved without our knowledge.

We were astonished to discover that local authorities have no statutory obligation to notify residents of a development as life changing as wind turbines unless the application site is closer than 20m to a neighbour’s boundary. We were informed that other means of notification exist but, like the majority of rural residents, we only occasionally bought our local newspaper and we never thought of checking the back pages for planning applications, had no reason to visit our local library and never scrutinised the council’s weekly online planning list—although we do now.

One of the most common complaints made in representations that are submitted to planning departments is, “No one told us. We found out only by accident.” Unfortunately, by the time that people find out “by accident”, the deadline has passed and it is too late for their representation to be considered.

A wind farm or even a single turbine development cannot be compared to a house extension, the erection of a garden wall or even the erection of a telecommunications monopole. Turbines are big and can be monstrous; unlike pylons, they rotate and they are louder at night than during the day. No one wants to live close to them.

Turbines situated near businesses such as those in the leisure and tourism industry can have a devastating effect, but smaller-scale developments, which are often sited even closer to properties, are not subject to the same level of assessment by the planning authority as their larger counterparts. In-depth local knowledge is therefore required in order to scrutinise the often misleading information that an applicant submits.

I consulted planners from East Renfrewshire Council and Planning Aid for Scotland, and everyone seemed to agree that the current 20m neighbour notification distance for wind turbines needs revision but that the potential increased cost to local authorities must be a major consideration in any proposed change in legislation. As outlined in my petition, I suggest that any residential or other property that is within a distance of 10 times a turbine’s overall height of the proposed development site must receive notification of the planning application, whether it is for a single or multiple turbine development. That modest change would not financially burden a local authority should it be reluctant to pass on the increase in administration costs to the applicant and it would notify those most affected, who would, I hope, spread the word to others.

I suggest that all other means of notification—newspaper advertisements, council websites and library exposure—still be used, as it must be borne in mind that in some cases there still might be few properties within the notification distance, and some of those properties’ owners might be the applicant’s friends or family. For that reason, I would also like the committee to consider that, should fewer than 10 properties be directly notified under the proposal, the 10 properties not in the applicant’s ownership that are nearest to any turbine development of any scale should receive neighbour notification. That would deter developers from submitting applications for sites just outside the notification distance in order to avoid detection—and, yes, that does happen. Members have no idea how wily they can be.

Depending on the local authority, between six and 10 objections are required for a local development to be considered by a planning applications committee, as opposed to a decision being made under delegated powers. As the planning process benefits from public engagement, which allows officials to prepare accurate reports and councillors to make informed decisions, it seems reasonable that at least 10 properties be directly notified to facilitate responses and, should there be objections, that they be given a hearing by a planning applications committee.

All that is very much in the spirit of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, which was a reforming measure that you passed in this Parliament. Under current planning legislation, too many people are being denied the right to become involved in the planning process for a type of development that could have a major impact on their lives for many years.

Thank you very much for speaking to your petition. I have a couple of questions in order to summarise my understanding of it. In effect, you want to have more democracy in the system of approval, or otherwise, for wind turbines—is that correct?

Yes.

You mentioned evidence. I understand the situation in your area, but is the issue a problem throughout Scotland?

Yes. We have looked at applications throughout Scotland and the approach seems to be the same no matter where people live.

Have you done any research into the approval process in other European countries?

Yes. We tried to find out as much as we could on Europe, but we could find practically nothing on the internet, so we had a look at England and Wales. Wales seems to defer to Scotland and to refer everyone to our legislation. In England, the situation is a bit woolly and the approach depends on the county that people live in, as they are all different. Apparently, neighbour notification in England is determined by who would be directly affected by the application, the application’s potential impacts and the application’s type and scale. It is up to the planning officer in the area to make the decision on that. We need something more concrete in Scotland rather than something as vague as there is in England.

Obviously, Scotland has the bulk of the areas that are good for wind turbines. Are you saying that it is difficult to point to good practice from other parts of the United Kingdom or Europe?

There is absolutely no good practice anywhere. The simplest and fairest idea that we could come up with is that the 10 nearest properties should be notified.

Scotland sets a high benchmark in its policy on how such matters are considered. I have looked at a number of applications in different locations. My initial submission illustrated one in Fife and I have made a supplementary submission concerning another application at Lunanhead in Angus. I do not know whether that has been made available to members yet, but I hope that it will be after the meeting.

There are unintended consequences. The policy or guidance does not consider wind farms or wind turbines; as Aileen Jackson said, it considers dwellings or houses, garden walls and other small developments. In such cases, neighbours would be caught by the present 20m criterion. However, if members look at the supplementary evidence that I have submitted, they will find that properties that are within 20m of a track to a turbine have been given neighbour notification, whereas properties that are nearer to the turbine have not. That does not make sense. We want a system that is manageable, affordable and sensible.

So that I am clear, I ask whether you are suggesting that the costs of the additional notification should be met by the individual who makes the application.

There is always that possibility. The applicant meets the cost of the advertisement when the application is made. In the past, individuals who made a planning application did the neighbour notification, but that was changed on, I think, 3 August 2009 through legislation to make that the competent authority’s responsibility. However, something is falling between two posts, and people who have an interest are being excluded. That is where the democratic question comes in.

To play devil’s advocate, would your proposal cause delays in decisions on wind farms because an increased number of individuals would have to be consulted before a wind farm could go ahead?

I do not see why it should. At present, neighbours who are very close have to be informed but, in a rural environment, few neighbours are closer than 20m. If the applicant does not have to inform anyone, they still have to put an advertisement in a local newspaper, so there is still some sort of neighbour notification. It would not take long for an administration officer in a planning department to work out how many people would need to be notified under our proposal. There would possibly be only 10 properties. That would not cost much and it would not take long to work out.

Good morning, Ms Jackson and Mr Lang. It is true that we have guidelines. You question how acceptable the 20m threshold is, and I have some sympathy with that position.

Ms Jackson has gone through the fact that not everyone has a computer and so on. Is there a community council in your area? Is information on such matters shared on a community basis or is it communicated by word of mouth?

11:00

I will give an example. In the case of the wind farm that I spoke about in my opening statement, which is 1km from my house, the application was for four 120m turbines. Our community knew nothing about it, because the local authority failed in its statutory duty to inform our community council. It was only by accident that I stumbled across the application while I was looking at the planning applications list. Not one of the 500 people who live in our village knew about it.

What action did you take?

When I discovered the application, we got a group together and we leafleted the village to let—

That is not what I meant. What action did you take against the council, if it did not meet its statutory obligation?

We could not take any action against the council. We pointed out its failure to inform us and it apologised. That was all that we got from it.

The application was given consent. It could have been given consent without anyone in Uplawmoor knowing about it or being able to object to it, had I not fallen across the application.

It is appropriate that our consideration of the petition follows our consideration of PE1383. There are guidelines that say that no wind turbine should be erected within 2km of the nearest household. The scale of a proposed wind farm—whether it involves a single wind turbine or 20 wind turbines—must be a factor, but those are the guidelines. Did you discuss that with the local council in relation to the application to which you refer?

Are you asking about the 2km setback guideline?

Yes.

That is rarely adhered to. If a wind farm developer can meet the noise requirements, they will put turbines as close to people as they can get them.

Scottish planning policy mentions a setback of 2km from a turbine, but everything must be judged on its own merits in planning terms. If the developer can establish that there will be no significant adverse effects from noise or shadow flicker on someone who is, say, 800m away from a turbine, the 2km setback will have been addressed. The developer will have shown that their proposal is sufficiently robust that the 2km setback does not really apply.

Chic Brodie asked about community councils. To my knowledge, most community councils get a weekly update from the local planning authority on applications in the planning authority area, which includes the community council area. I imagine that they look at those documents, but that does not necessarily generate a wider distribution of the knowledge. Unless someone happens to go to a community council meeting—or reads the minutes—they are unlikely to be made aware of anything that is discussed at it, so it is not a catch-all situation.

I take that point, which underpins the argument that community councils are not as robust a mechanism as they might be.

How closely do developers work with the community at the pre-scoping and pre-planning stages? That question is for Mr Lang, in particular, because I know that he has experience of that. Do developers take an interest in the impact that their developments will have on communities? I suspect that the position varies.

Obviously, developers like to work closely with communities if they can, and perhaps the first thing that they do before submitting a proposal as a planning application is meet community groups, whether they be community councils or other interested focus groups in the area, to outline not only their proposal but, more important, the community benefit. That kind of softening-up approach is standard practice. The first thing that people know about a wind farm coming into an area—of course, we are talking not just about wind farms—is the developer making an announcement and encouraging people to come to a forum to discuss what everyone could do with the community benefit should planning permission be granted.

First of all, I should say that the petitioner is known to me.

It is ironic that we are discussing wind turbines with all these high winds blowing about us; the dashed things would probably all be switched off because they do not work in such conditions. Of course, this petition is not about the benefits or otherwise of wind farms but about neighbour notification. What is 120m in old money?

Do you mean in feet?

Yes.

It is about 360ft.

Can you think of anything else that is 360ft tall to allow us to visualise that kind of height?

What size is Big Ben?

So it is like Big Ben being put up 20m—perhaps the width of this room—away. Under the current legislation, something as large as Big Ben could, without any neighbour notification, be erected 20m from someone’s property boundary—or where the people at the back of the room are standing.

That is exactly right.

That is the essence of this petition. I have to say to Mr Lang that I cannot think of a 120m high garden wall. It would be a very exceptional wall; indeed, I do not think that even the Berlin wall was 120m high. The committee has also been asked to consider the establishment of a national tree; again, I cannot think of a tree that is 120m high.

Irrespective of the debate about the merits and demerits of wind farm technology, that is not really the essence of the petition. The fact is that, since 2006 the 20m threshold has not featured in any legislative consideration or discussion of neighbour notification issues. Your point is that, given the height of these things in relation to properties, 20m falls way short of the threshold at which it would be reasonable to give someone proper notification of such a development.

Yes. The 20m threshold would be perfectly acceptable in an urban environment because it will apply to things such as conservatories and walls. Indeed, in a town or city, 20m will catch quite a few neighbours, who can pass the information on to others. However, in a rural environment, it is very rare that anyone lives within 20m of your house.

Are you proposing some sort of formula with regard to the notification requirement?

Yes. We felt that if the threshold—certainly for the bigger wind farms—were 10 times the overall height of the turbine, that would catch quite a number of people. For example, with the development near our house, such a threshold would have covered 14 properties, including my own; those properties would all have been notified. Even with 20m, 30m or 40m high turbines, very few, if any, people would be notified, so we felt it fair that the 10 nearest properties should always be notified of a development, no matter the overall height of the turbine.

You have submitted the petition because people in the community feel slightly cheated by the system. I have to say that I do not think that the system was designed for this; after all, the terms of neighbour notification were probably established before wind turbines were a major development consideration. Nevertheless, the essence of what you are proposing is to ensure that people whom any reasonable person would probably think ought to be notified would be notified.

That is the essence of the petition.

We need to make a distinction between wind farms and turbines that farmers put up for their own use on their own land, and wind farms that are put up by developers. We are talking about individual farmers putting up one, two or three turbines for—in essence—their own use, mostly. As you said, convener, developers engage with the community via public evenings, and will set out maps and so on with information about where the turbines will be.

That is not necessarily the case. Although most developers have public days and inform the local community, ours did not. The wind farm in Uplawmoor is a wind farm for the Neilston community, and was advertised by the developers as Neilston community wind farm. Leaflets were left lying around in Neilston, but people from Uplawmoor who happened to pass through took no notice of them because it did not say Uplawmoor on the leaflet. We thought that we should not bother complaining about a wind farm for Neilston, because we live in Uplawmoor. It was not until I discovered the application and examined the environmental statement that we realised that Neilston community wind farm was in Uplawmoor, not Neilston. We were never consulted by the developers.

You are not talking about that development in your petition, are you?

That is the one that I mention that was a kilometre from my house. It is a community wind farm, which means that it is owned by developers and the community, so it is slightly different from most.

I am also talking about single turbines that are owned by individual farmers; I think that the 10 nearest properties to those turbines should be notified.

If that same farmer were to put up three or four chicken sheds, which would be a hell of a lot noisier than a wind turbine, would you get neighbour notification of that?

No, because it would be an agricultural development, and farmers have development rights in relation to those, which means that they do not have to notify anyone about them. Also, a chicken shed is not the height of a turbine, and does not rotate. Further, chickens tend to go to sleep at night—the lights go out and they go quiet—whereas turbines get noisier at night.

As a farmer’s daughter, I can say that sometimes chickens go to sleep at night and sometimes they do not.

To follow on from what Jackson Carlaw was saying, it is a no-brainer. I do not think that what the petitioner asks for with regard to the notification of nearby properties is unreasonable. We should seek further clarification from the Scottish Government on the matter.

It is important to draw a distinction between wind farms and the farm applications that are inspired by the feed-in tariff. Not all applications on farmland are made by the farmer; many are made by speculative developers who pay rent to the farmer and take most of the income for themselves.

The most important thing for us to do today is to drill down to the essential unfairness of the matter, which is—as I make clear on page 3 of my submission—that the policy quite clearly talks about buildings, not wind turbines, being erected on farms and estates. Wind turbines were in the frame when that was written, but they were mostly on wind farms, the development of which would be accompanied by a lot of publicity and information. We are talking about smaller developments by farmers, which can be built 200m or 280m from someone’s house without any neighbour notification.

I prefer to forget about the 10 times height and say that the owners of the 10 nearest properties to any wind turbine development should be informed. That is quite simple.

11:15

Miss Jackson commented that there is nothing you could do about the council. Could the committee also ask the Scottish Government about sanctions when the rules are not adhered to? If no action can be taken once such a situation is reached, that seems to be wholly inappropriate and unfair.

That is a good point. Thank you.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the petition. Perhaps I should declare an interest, in that a current live application from a public utility company to build 10 turbines on land that is sandwiched between two of my family’s farms did not require notification from the local authority. My family first knew about the application when it appeared in the local newspaper.

Community councils have been well covered by the committee today. What advice did you get from Planning Aid for Scotland regarding your suggestion about notifying the 10 nearest properties? Were the officials supportive of that or did they advise otherwise?

Yes, they were supportive. Their main concern was the cost to the local authority. That was why it was suggested that maybe we should tone down the proposal slightly. We would have liked more neighbours to be notified, but we have to take into consideration that the local authority might have to cover the cost and the extra administration. So we felt that it was reasonable that at least some people would be informed, in the hope that the information would be passed on to others.

I declare an interest in the issue with neighbour notification. The first I knew that the farmer whose property borders my garden was putting up a wind turbine was when work began. The turbine was erected over a weekend and it impacts on me visually every day. It sits high on a hill overlooking the property and I can see it out of my kitchen window. Therefore I have concerns about the 10 neighbours notification issue and whether that means the 10 neighbours who would be most directly impacted by a single turbine or wind farm that was constructed.

Do you have any idea what the cost would be, either to a local authority or a developer, of issuing 10 notices to neighbours in the vicinity of a proposed wind turbine or wind farm?

You mentioned your experience first and asked about the 10 neighbours notification issue. On the question of impact upon neighbours, topography has quite an effect on the visibility and impact of a turbine. In my experience it would be fair to advise not to assess what people think the impact would be, but simply to see who are the nearest neighbours and contact them. I cannot remember your question.

I asked about the estimated cost of issuing 10 notices.

I do not want to make predictions; I would prefer to ask the local authority for a cost estimate. I do not know what the figures would be. However, I do not think that the cost would be unaffordable, in view of the experience of people on both sides of this table. It is important to consider unforeseen consequences. Those who passed the legislation that I mentioned earlier in 2008 did not think about the proliferation of small wind farms, or that the feed-in tariff might inspire so many wind turbine projects.

We are short of time, so unless members have urgent points I suggest that we move on. This is an interesting and thoughtful petition. We need to ask the Scottish Government for its view. As always, I ask committee members whether they agree with that or have additional points.

Given that the matter is a local authority one, we should consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Do members agree to seek the advice of the Scottish Government and COSLA on the merits of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I thank Aileen Jackson and Graham Lang for coming today—your evidence has been very helpful. As you see, we take great interest in your petition and will keep you up to date with developments once we get responses from COSLA and the Scottish Government. The committee will suspend for one minute to allow our witnesses to leave.

11:20 Meeting suspended.

11:24 On resuming—

---

Evictions Due to Underoccupation Deductions (PE1468)

The second new petition is PE1468, by Mike Dailly, on behalf of Govan Law Centre Trust, on evictions due to underoccupation deductions. Members have a note by the clerk, the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing and the petition. I welcome to the meeting Jackie Baillie MSP, who has an interest in the petition, and I invite her to speak to it.

Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for the time afforded to me; I will be brief.

Our positions on the bedroom tax are well rehearsed and a majority in Parliament are certainly opposed to it. The petition must be viewed in that context. When members stood for election to Parliament, we did so for different reasons. However, we are all here to exercise power. The truth, for me, is that if we are opposed to a particular tax or policy initiative and if it is within our gift to do something about it, we should exercise our power and not simply turn around at every opportunity and blame Westminster for it.

The petition invites us to exercise our power in a particular way with regard to legislative protection for people who fall into arrears as a consequence of the underoccupation element of the bedroom tax. I think that members will recognise that seeking to make anybody homeless carries a huge cost not only for the public purse but for the individuals concerned. I think that the figure that was quoted was a cost of about £24,000 to rehouse a homeless family, so it clearly does not suit the public purse to go down that route.

The petition’s proposal would deliver a consistent approach across Scotland not just for local authorities but for registered social landlords. Indeed, many local authorities have transferred all their housing stock, so it is imperative that the same approach is taken by different sectors. Some of us have argued that the approach should be accompanied by financial assistance. There are various estimates of what that could be.

Whatever people’s position, the petition gives us something to consider, which we should do with some urgency. I note from the clerk’s paper on the petition the suggestion that it would be appropriate for the petition to be moved on to the Welfare Reform Committee. I support that and hope that this committee will do that quickly.

I thank you again for coming along and speaking to the petition.

As Jackie Baillie indicated, I have been approached by Michael McMahon, the convener of the Welfare Reform Committee, who asked that we transfer consideration of the petition to his committee, which, as Jackie Baillie said, makes a lot of sense, given that committee’s remit. I invite suggestions from members, who I know have all taken a great interest in this important petition.

Good morning, Ms Baillie. We all—well, perhaps not all—sympathise by and large with the situation that the petition describes, for which certain local authorities have taken decisions on a non-eviction policy. Is there a conflict of interest with regard to the petitioner and the Govan Law Centre Trust in terms of the actions that might be pursued? I do not have the answer, so I would like clarification.

The petition rightly addresses issues for people who will be directly affected by the bedroom tax. What the petition proposes might mitigate some of the impacts, but the consequence would be that a burden would be imposed on the public purse. Clearly, we do not want evictions, and they should be fought against. What does Ms Baillie think the implications would be for the public purse if we were to pursue the suggested policy?

What is clear and has been argued across the piece is that welfare reform will have an impact on repairs and maintenance budgets for housing associations and local authorities. That would be the case whether the petition’s proposal was implemented or not. Arrears are more likely to arise, not least because the UK Government has taken the view that individual tenants should have their housing benefit paid directly to them rather than to the landlord. There are genuine fears about arrears accumulating as a consequence of that.

Leaving that to one side, I think that local authorities, irrespective of their political complexion, have by and large tried very hard to ensure that there is sufficient in their housing revenue budgets for repairs and maintenance. I know that some have added to those budgets because of the new situation; others have looked to the discretionary housing payments that are provided by the UK Government and have topped those up by the maximum of one and a half times extra. There is a real argument that that is insufficient based on anecdotal information about current demand, so the Welfare Reform Committee may want to look at what the demand for discretionary housing payments actually is.

11:30

Local authorities recognise that the cost of evicting people ends up being borne by the public purse. I have given the committee the figures; rehousing a homeless family, at £24,000, will cost the public purse far more.

Without a shadow of doubt, this is not a campaign about non-payment. If you speak to the petitioner, you will know that they recognise the responsibilities that local authorities and housing associations have. People are still in debt today as a consequence of poll tax arrears, so non-payment is not the purpose of the petition; the petition’s purpose is, in very limited circumstances, to achieve protection on a consistent basis across Scotland. I hope that we all aspire to that.

It has been suggested that the petition be moved on to the Welfare Reform Committee, which is probably the most appropriate place for it to be considered.

I understand why you might want that to happen, but I would like more information before we talk about passing the petition on. I do not think that we have got all the information that we require from the petitioner.

We have talked about local authorities. There is also the position that housing associations are taking in relation to the matter and the point that Jackie Baillie rightly made about direct payments. At the most recent meeting of the cross-party group on social enterprise, the convener of the Welfare Reform Committee talked about £800 a fortnight being paid directly to one tenant who said, “There’s no point in giving me that because I’ll drink it before the next lot comes round.” I understand the aspiration, and we certainly share your compassion around this particular issue. However, we must look at tenants as a whole and ask a lot more questions of the petitioner before we consider passing the petition to the Welfare Reform Committee.

Before I open the discussion up to further questions, I remind committee members that Jackie Baillie is not the petitioner, so I will not countenance her being asked to answer on behalf of someone else. The committee agreed not to invite Mike Dailly to the meeting. Maybe we should have invited him so that we could have asked him those questions.

We must consider whether we want to continue the petition and have a debate on it, which is perfectly proper, or whether we should refer it to the Welfare Reform Committee, as its convener has requested. The first step is to decide whether to refer the petition, which would be perfectly appropriate. If we decide not to do so, it is then open to us to have a full debate on the issues. We need to get that right, first.

It would be unusual for us to refer a petition without taking any further information. The petition identifies a theoretical provision, but in so far as it is potentially a reality it is a concern. I do not think that any committee member would want anybody to suffer an eviction as a result of section 69 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, as opposed to the so-called bedroom tax. Nonetheless, the first and most appropriate action for the committee would be to follow our normal practice and seek the views of the Scottish Government on the implications of the petition and the issues that it raises. I recommend that we also consult COSLA and the Department for Work and Pensions; I would like to know what estimates have been made of the likelihood of evictions occurring in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK as a result of the provisions of the 2012 act.

Jackson Carlaw is correct that our normal practice is to do a bit of homework before deciding to move a petition on. It is unusual to get an early request to transfer a petition, so I did my duty by ensuring that everyone was aware of that.

I would be very surprised if the Welfare Reform Committee has not already discussed the implications of the introduction of the legislation by the UK Government. Like other members, I am keen to seek further information before we pass the petition to any committee, if we decide to pass it on to a committee.

Jackie Baillie has raised some clear issues. The issue of the £24,000 cost of dealing with a family eviction is very emotive and it is worrying when such figures are quoted for local authorities. That presupposes that local authorities will move to evict someone who falls into arrears because of the legislation. It will be up to local authorities to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

However, I have wider concerns about the changes that are coming through from Westminster under the welfare reform legislation, as this is just one of a number of changes that the UK Government has proposed. The question is whether the Scottish Government or local authorities should be asked to pay for welfare reform changes that are made by Westminster, and how far they can afford to offset the impact of welfare reform policies from Westminster. Members must ask themselves whether it is the duty of the Scottish Government or local authorities to continue to pay for proposals from Westminster that impact most severely on those on the lowest incomes.

Other benefit changes are about to come forward, including the cut to the maximum level of benefit that will be payable to a family. Although the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland have attempted to offset the worst impacts of some of the changes, the difficulty is that their budgets are restricted. If we continue to use those budgets to offset the benefits changes that are coming from Westminster, we are denying the inevitable—that the Scottish Government and local authorities might be asked to continue to pay for changes that are coming from Westminster. We must find the best possible method of protecting the people of Scotland against the benefits changes. It is not always a remedy to ask either the Scottish Government or local authorities to step in and bear the brunt of the costs.

There has been a suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government, COSLA and others. I suggest that we also write to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, because the point has been made this morning that many of the organisations that provide social housing in Scotland are housing associations and co-operatives. It is only right to ask those organisations about the impact of the provisions, along with others that have come from Westminster on things such as the housing benefit cap. There are serious concerns about the on-going financial viability of housing associations if such changes to benefits keep on being made. Some housing associations operate in the most vulnerable communities in Scotland, and the changes might have the severest impact on them.

Another concern around the underoccupation issue—sorry about this, convener—is the availability of alternative housing. I have said previously that I find it somewhat mystifying that the same political party that introduced the right to buy introduced the underoccupation benefit cut that many benefit claimants are facing at present. Those of us who were around just over 30 years ago and dealt with the right to buy issue could have foreseen a situation in which a subsequent Conservative Government would penalise people for living in social housing.

I am convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which held an inquiry into how the homelessness legislation was working 10 years on. Evictions are not the main cause of homelessness. The petition states:

“Govan Law Centre defends a high volume of eviction actions in Glasgow”.

Maybe it does, but that was not my experience when we took evidence in Glasgow. Eviction is the last resort for all the housing providers that we interviewed and took evidence from and I am not sure whether that sentence in the petition is true. As I said, that was not the experience of the committee. As John Wilson said, it is important that we get the views of the SFHA, because in other parts of the country eviction is utterly the ultimate action. I am not sure that what is said in the petition is correct and I do not think that we should go further without taking more evidence.

A number of members have suggested that we follow normal practice and seek advice from the Scottish Government, COSLA, the DWP and the SFHA rather than refer the petition to the Welfare Reform Committee at this stage. Can I confirm that the majority view of the committee is to take the petition forward?

Members indicated agreement.

I note that, as a committee, we did not ask for Mike Dailly to be present today and also that some emotional concerns have arisen. I want to ask whether housing is a matter for the Scottish Government, as the petition is about a housing matter. It is also about welfare reform, which the Welfare Reform Committee is dealing with, so why not refer the petition to that committee? I am thinking about the duplication of work.

It is right to say that the Welfare Reform Committee has discussed the issue. My experience is that the normal practice of this committee is to do a bit more digging and investigation before referring a petition. That is a fair comment about the custom and practice that we follow.

But time is of the essence.

I hope that we would be able to pursue—[Interruption.] Sorry, does Jackie Baillie want to comment?

Perhaps I can make a helpful suggestion. If the committee is going to investigate the issue further, then that is what it will do. However, it struck me that there were questions from Chic Brodie and Maureen Watt that only the petitioner could clarify. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have the petitioner here to provide that clarity when the petition is next considered by the committee, because I take the point about time marching on. Perhaps that would be a helpful way of dealing with the petition.

That is a reasonable point, but I raise the issue of the conflict of interest. As is pointed out in the petition,

“Govan Law Centre defends a high volume of eviction actions in Glasgow, and specialises in the prevention”—

Ms Baillie screws up her nose at that, but the promotion of the petition when there is potential—I am not saying that this will happen—for the petitioner to benefit from the action that is taken is quite an important issue and I seek clarification on that. I am not saying that the petitioner should not be here, but I seek clarification.

Here was me thinking that I was being helpful.

I understand.

I will bring Jackson Carlaw in, but I am conscious that we could spend the next couple of hours debating this. I want to concentrate on what we agree on, which is that we will continue the petition to seek advice from the four groups that I mentioned earlier. I want to confirm that before we open the discussion up, because we could have a two-hour debate on a couple of points of law, which we are not here to do. Do we agree to take that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

My second point is that there has been a helpful suggestion that we have Mike Dailly along to the committee. Although we did not feel that that was necessary last time, there is an old cliché that, as the facts change, so do our opinions. If the committee would find that useful, I have no objection, but I want to sound out all the committee members on that point.

I am always very grateful for noises off-stage contributing to our consideration of the action that we might take. However, the purpose of writing in the first instance is to inform us further as to what we will then do. It would be premature to invite anyone along in anticipation of what we might do on receipt of the information that we have now requested.

If members want any information from the petitioner at this stage, the clerk can write to Mike Dailly.

I agree that we should hold off inviting the petitioner until we have some information back from the four organisations we have agreed to write to.

I am sorry about this, convener, but I would like to add a fifth suggestion, which is that we ask the clerks or the convener of the Welfare Reform Committee whether they have considered this change and, if they have not done so, what their timetable is for doing so. Although Anne McTaggart is quite right that the Scottish Government is responsible for housing, it is not responsible for housing benefit. The Westminster Government still has control over the benefit system on which the people of Scotland rely to survive. The wider question is whether we can continue to allow Westminster changes to impact so severely on the people of Scotland.

Do members agree that we should contact the Welfare Reform Committee? It has discussed the issue, but we should get a detailed timetable from it so that we can avoid any duplication. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I know that this is a difficult area, so I thank members for keeping on about this particular issue. Finally, I thank Jackie Baillie for making a contribution as an honourable non-member of the committee.