Local Government Committee, 07 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 7, 2000

Official Report 280KB pdf

---

Petitions

We have three petitions to consider about which members have received a note from Steve Farrell, who is the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee.

The first petition, PE75, is from Mr Frank Harvey and calls for all circuses involving live animals to be banned. We also have, as annexe 2, a procedural note, and members know about the motion in the name of Tommy Sheridan, which has been signed by Gil Paterson—who has left the meeting—Kenny Gibson, Donald Gorrie and me.

I suggest that there are two courses of action: one is to note the petition and take no action and the other is to write to the Executive seeking clarification on its policy and whether it is to be reviewed.

I was the first member to support motion S1M-445, which is on an issue about which I feel quite strongly. However, there is a slight flaw in the petition, as Mr Harvey calls for an immediate ban. If there were an immediate ban, animals might be put down. Although I would like circuses to be banned, I think that there should be a lead-in time of at least a year, and possibly two years, to ensure that a decent home can be found for the animals and that they are not put to sleep. That is the only caveat I would add. I think that we should refer the petition to the Executive for comment.

I agree. When I was on Renfrewshire Council, this issue won cross-party sympathy.

Are we agreed that we should write to the Executive seeking clarification on the policy and that we should stress in the letter that the matter is one of immediacy?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE88, is from the Northern College Christian Union and is on the subject of section 28. I take it that members are aware of what the petition calls for. I suggest that we advise the petitioners that the evidence that has been taken from a wide range of Christian and other religious organisations has formed part of stage 1 of the consideration of the bill. I further suggest that we pass the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and to the Equal Opportunities Committee. They can use it as written evidence for stage 1 of the bill.

The clerk has just advised me that we might simply inform the petitioners that a lot of evidence has been taken and that they could be part of that evidence-taking process.

Will we just stick the petition in as evidence?

The clerk advises me that the petition cannot be used as evidence. We will say to the petitioners that evidence is being taken and that the form of the petition could be changed to have it included as written evidence.

We should let the petitioners know that we are in the middle of a process and cannot make a decision about a petition until we have finished our deliberations. All Churches and religious organisations are well represented in the evidence-taking process. Are we agreed that we will write to the petitioners to that effect?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE90, calls for the Scottish Parliament to take a range of steps to provide Aberdeenshire Council with the means to continue to provide the high-quality public services that it currently provides and to implement an independent review of local government funding.

I suggest that we write to Aberdeenshire Council, pointing out the committee's comments on the McIntosh report relating to an independent review of local government finance. We should point out that from May of this year, this committee, along with other service committees, will be consulting formally on the budget for 2001-02. Such a consultation has never been carried out before and will allow us to examine closely the local government budget and other budgets.

I am a bit concerned about the fact that the council has moved away from the position of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, although I appreciate the fact that people are concerned that there has not been an independent review. I think that we should advise them to read the McIntosh report and our comments on the report.

I agree with much of what you say, but I think that the situation in Aberdeenshire is quite immediate. We should be more sympathetic and express our support for the council's position. I understand that it is taking the cuts—or savings, as the new politically correct term would be—to a judicial review. Although it is one of the most prudent local authorities in Scotland, it is still shedding 250 jobs.

There is great concern in the north-east that the Scottish Executive is neglecting people's interests. It will not be appreciated if we write back to them and ask them simply to read the McIntosh report. We should say that we are broadly in sympathy with the lack of overall funding for local government and accept that the issue must be addressed.

We should reach that conclusion by having a debate on local government finance instead of through our support for Aberdeenshire Council. Some of the arguments in favour in Aberdeenshire have implied that urban areas and the central belt have been handed huge amounts of money at the expense of rural areas. I refute that. In the debate on local government finance, I made it clear that there is a very strong case for Glasgow to be treated fairly in the settlement. However, any discussion about the different areas should be in the context of a review of local government finance. I will be most unhappy if our agenda is driven by one council's decision to submit a petition. Because of last week's debate, we are all aware of the issues that affect Aberdeenshire Council. We should take a more measured view of the problems in particular areas.

The problem is that, since the council submitted the petition, the Parliament has had a debate on local government finance. Although it would not be useful for the committee to reopen that debate, I take Kenny Gibson's point that there is an immediacy about this matter and it is not enough merely to reply by saying that we are in favour of a review and send the council our response to the McIntosh report. As the convener suggested, we could tell the council that we will be much more involved with the construction of the budget next year; furthermore, we could send the petition to the Executive. Although the Executive is not very enthusiastic about the points that the council has raised, it would be reasonable to let it know that the council has submitted this petition. Although I would love to have another ding-dong about local government finance, I am not sure it would be all that helpful.

I do not know whether I want to re-open the debate myself. I am not saying that rural authorities are being discriminated against; it appears that all councils are being discriminated against and are having to make savings and cuts and to increase council tax. Perhaps Donald Gorrie's suggestion is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue now.

I agree with Johann. I do not feel able to take a view on Aberdeenshire Council. The committee should not express a definitive view on the council's financial situation. Furthermore, it would not be helpful to home in on that council, because other local authorities have their own views on budgets and how local government finance is developed. It is appropriate to deal with the matter by analysing the whole way in which local government works. Furthermore, it might be helpful to say that the committee recognises that there is a broad range of views in local government that local government finance should be examined in far greater detail.

We should not comment specifically on Aberdeenshire Council's position; I do not have the information to reach a conclusion about its position in relation to other local authorities. If we come down in favour of Aberdeenshire on the basis of no—or limited—information, we might find that we have 31 more petitions next week.

Are you waving at me, Colin?

I will wave at you privately.

My goodness.

Donald Gorrie has made the best suggestion. Whatever the outcome, we should recognise that this is an indisputable indication of the urgency and despair felt by the council.

That might suggest that no concern is felt by councils that have not put in a petition. I would not want to detract from the impact of hearing that 32 councils want an independent review of local government finance. There is a consistency in what councils say about the way in which moneys come from the Executive. The convener of the Local Government Committee gave that message clearly to the chamber.

The petition reflects a certain problem, but there are others. I am sure that the Executive is aware of the problem, although I have no difficulty with alerting it to the fact that Aberdeenshire has felt the problem to such an extent that it has petitioned the Parliament. In our response, we should highlight the consistency of concern across the country in relation to the matter and say that although we do not comment on specifics, we have made it clear that we would like an independent review of local government finance.

There is a problem with the idea that one council out of 32, which submitted a petition, should be seen as a special case. Each authority has different circumstances that will cause certain problems. We have to acknowledge that. That is the issue that the committee has tried to raise.

We recognise that every authority comes under particular pressures, depending on its make-up, its geography and its social problems. Taking up the matter because this is the one authority that has decided to put in a petition and saying that it is a special case would be entirely different from addressing the problems of local government finance.

We should be commended on our initiative. As Colin said, the petition displays an element of despair. The council sees us a possible route to getting a more positive reaction from the Executive. We have to acknowledge that.

Every authority we have visited on our tour has said that it has particular difficulties and has raised those difficulties with us. Aberdeenshire has taken this approach, whereas other authorities have approached us directly, face to face. We are all aware of their particular difficulties, having visited the authorities or having had their written responses to our consultation. We have to address this as a local government problem rather than as an Aberdeenshire one.

We could conclude the matter by agreeing that the petition epitomises the financial despair that all councils currently feel.

Despite what the Executive said in the debate last Wednesday.

On at least two occasions, Kenny has tried to use this to have a go at the Executive. However, I recollect that, in last week's debate, he did not make an alternative proposal.

Our position is that we are legally unable to lodge an amendment to a statutory instrument. When the order comes before us, we must either accept or reject it. That is why the Opposition did not lodge an amendment. It would help if Bristow updated his knowledge of the Parliament's procedures.

The Minister for Finance asked the SNP how much extra money should be put into local government and where it should come from, but as usual the Scottish National party refused to answer.

The answer is independence, but we will not go into that.

Can we move on and make a decision about the petition, which has nearly caused a riot.

When I said that we should refer the council to McIntosh, I did not mean that we would send it a curt letter suggesting that it read our report on McIntosh. I take Donald Gorrie's point about that. It is also worth saying that the 2001-02 budget will be closely considered over the next year. Donald also suggested that we refer the petition to the Executive. There is nothing in standing orders to stop us doing that. Do you wish us to do that, with the proviso that this is a route that Aberdeenshire Council has taken?

We would just pass it to the Executive for information. We are not making a comment on the council's case, but it would be useful for the Executive to know that the council has taken that step. I would be concerned if we sent if off to the Executive saying, "You must address this question."

It would be for information only . If Aberdeenshire tells other councils, the Executive might find that we have to pass on 31 petitions for information, but that is fair enough. That might not be all that harmful to the Executive. Do members agree that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.