Local Government Committee, 12 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000

Official Report 209KB pdf

---

Visits to Councils

The next item on the agenda is the proposals for further visits to councils. Members have a report on this. I hope that everyone will agree to additional visits to North Lanarkshire Council, Scottish Borders Council and Western Isles Council. Reasons for those additional visits, which I think are appropriate, have been supplied. If anybody has anything to ask about that, please feel free to do so now.

North Lanarkshire Council has had specific problems, following the decline of traditional industries, although that decline has occurred in other areas. I would like to draw a comparison between the situation in north and south Lanarkshire, as both areas sit on the periphery of Glasgow.

Scottish Borders Council has established a working group to carry out a self-review of political management structures. It might be interesting for the committee to consider how those structures are being addressed, what that review is about and what the results have been. It might be interesting as well to examine political management structures in the context of a non-aligned, rural council.

A visit to Western Isles Council has been suggested to examine another island, which is different from Shetland. There has been massive unemployment up there, and there are problems that are quite different from those in Shetland. It might be useful for the committee to compare and contrast the two councils and to consider the high level of unemployment, the impact of the Gaelic language and the culture of the western isles.

As members have no specific questions, I ask the committee to agree to those extra visits. I also ask the committee to notify me if there are to be any changes to the list of those who can either make the visits or act as reporters, so that the visits can be arranged, having spoken to the people concerned and to the clerks. Sometimes people's diaries change, and they find that they cannot make a particular visit, although they would be able to undertake another, and that, therefore, they cannot act as reporters. It would be helpful if the committee could give me that leeway. Does the committee agree?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a question on the practicalities of that, specifically the dates. Colin Campbell and I are expected to visit both Clackmannanshire Council and Western Isles Council.

We are dealing with that. Craig Harper is looking into the matter. There was some doubling up when we added the three other councils. I ask you to allow Craig and me to deal with that, as it is a housekeeping matter.

Does that mean that the visit on 4 February to Scottish Borders Council might not go ahead? Are all the dates flexible? I have to make decisions today about 4 February.

We will deal with that at the end of the meeting, as a housekeeping matter. I do not want to waste the official report's time and our money discussing such things now.

We now move on to the reports from the councils. The first is from Highland Council, and the reporter is Donald Gorrie.

Gil Paterson, Bristow Muldoon and I had a good visit. We were all impressed by the council, and we spent the afternoon with some very sparky youth groups that are doing very good stuff.

The council has provided a written submission to the committee. Several individual points were raised, which I do not think would register in our overall Scottish considerations, but which are important to the authority. At some stage, the committee should work out a mechanism for dealing with those specific points. We should be oiling the wheels between the councils and the Executive.

For example, Highland Council thought that the crofting unit that is based in Edinburgh, which employs 15 people, should be somewhere in the Highlands. In a small way, that would obviously help the population there. The specific point was made that the council would like to experiment with videoconferencing for committees, but that the law does not allow it. The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 requires that all committee members must be present at meetings. The issue is whether we could address that and change the situation.

The council had a specific grumble that there was no Highland councillor on the board of North of Scotland Water Authority and no Highland councillor or Highland resident on the board of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. It thought that that situation was rather poor. We should have a mechanism for dealing with such issues.

Overall, the council is genuinely decentralised. I am sure that we have all experienced somewhat fictitious decentralisation. Like some other councils, Highland Council has a problem with a growing population. The financial settlement does not make allowance for that fact. The councillors were bitter about the disastrous ward boundary changes. They thought that best value was too prescriptive. The council agrees targets with each area committee and the arrangements can vary. For example, one village did not want street lighting and therefore did not get it. The decentralisation that the council has achieved, including 24 service points, costs 1 per cent of its budget.

The council believes that the financial rules do not recognise the additional costs of rural areas. I must apologise to members as I have left out some words in the second-last paragraph of my submission. It should read:

"The time spent by one social work team on travel is equivalent to the work of 1.5 FTE staff."

There were other examples. Meals on wheels costs five times as much in rural as in urban areas and day care costs 1.5 times as much.

The councillors mentioned that water purification charges were a major problem for the food processing industry in the Highlands. They did not offer any solutions to the problem. I think that they wanted some financial help.

Many points had been covered in the written submission. They mentioned the need for a financial review. They are against having a directly elected council leader and a cabinet system, which would not fit in with their decentralised system. They feel that responsibility allowances should be spread as widely as possible as they allow people who would not otherwise be able to become councillors to do so.

The council's youth work was impressive, particularly in involving young people in the management of some of its projects.

Does anyone who was on the visit to Highland Council want to add anything?

The councillors were sceptical about changes in the electoral system that would increase the size of wards. That concern was related to the geography of the area. They said that if a multi-member ward were set up in Sutherland, it would be possible for a villager in the extreme north-west to be represented by somebody who lives up to 100 miles away.

Another issue that was important to them was how changes in the electoral system would affect independents. Highland Council has a large number of independent councillors and no party has overall control. The councillors wondered whether it was essential that all councils in Scotland have the same electoral system. They suggested that large areas that are sparsely populated might need different arrangements from those that are suitable for urban areas.

Donald Gorrie's report was full and I do not know if I have anything to add.

The issue of transport costs came up when we were talking to the councillors and the young people. It was felt that the costs had implications for the ability of people to travel to large centres of population. The young people felt somewhat deprived in terms of being able to function socially. Two young people relied on the services of another person to get to Inverness to go to discos and other such things.

As Donald said, the level of involvement of the young people was impressive, particularly in the drug forum. They almost had control of the forum and seemed to be very switched on and critical of ways to publicise the facts about the misuse of drugs.

Members of this committee appear to have talked to only four councillors, yet there are 80 members of the council. How representative were the views of the councillors? Who did they represent, given that there is no administration?

I think that they were all independents. David Green is the leader and Alison Magee is the deputy leader, but they come from widely different parts. The other two were chosen because of their areas of responsibility: one was the spokesperson for children and young people and the other was the chairman of the working with communities group. One or two other people had been asked to come but were unable.

In our business, we are being conned all the time, but I did not feel that I was being conned on this occasion.

I just wondered whether the four people represented the council or themselves.

I got the impression that they represented the view of the council. The structures in the area were inclusive and I do not believe that there was a con. It was refreshing.

I am not saying that there was a con; I was asking for clarification.

Donald, your submission says that area committees have local discretionary funds. Do you know what those are worth? Are they granted on a per capita basis? Obviously, there are situations where the local discretionary funds can be derisory.

The council is trying to decentralise control of as much of the budget as possible. Jamie Stone, who was until recently a councillor in the Highlands, might be able to clarify this, but I understand that a significant amount of money is given to the area committees, which can spend the money as they see fit. If they want to spend the money on wheelie bins and not on grass cutting, they can.

The money is not just for cosmetic things at the fringes, I assume, but for more fundamental things. Perhaps Jamie can help.

Sorry, Donald, but you are wrong. Until May, the grant ran at around £3,000 a councillor.

Is it set on a per councillor basis?

Yes, per councillor, although they do not have the freedom to introduce wheelie bins. I am sorry to contradict you, Donald—I feel that I am teaching my granny how to suck eggs.

I think that the councillors were mostly speaking for the central part of the Highlands. Had Caithness councillors been represented at the meeting, we might have heard a slightly different story. It is all very clever of me to have 20:20 hindsight, so I will shut up at this point.

Donald Gorrie partly touched on this in his report, but the question of changing the legislation to allow decision making by videoconferencing was pushed very strongly by the councillors. Given the geography of the Highlands, some of the councillors live far from the council's headquarters in Inverness—perhaps three hours' driving time. When the committee considers the Executive's legislation—or if we produce an interim report on McIntosh—we should highlight that issue as one that the legislation should address.

The Executive must deal with another issue that arose at the meeting—a number of the council's committees are extremely unwieldy, with perhaps 40 members. I suspect that that makes for difficult decision making; indeed, the council's convener recognised that and the council is reviewing the issue. The matter must be examined urgently.

Particularly as the members are all independents.

Did any of the councillors suggest that the local authority boundaries should be altered, as the area of Highland Council stretches from Caithness right down to Fort William? Were any views expressed that perhaps the council was too unwieldy, or did the councillors think that it was the right size to deliver its strategic objectives? Was that issue discussed?

The councillors said that, at the time of local government reorganisation and the establishment of the Highland Council, many members who had a district council background felt that the council was too unwieldy. However, most of the councillors now believe that the structure of the council is right and would not want substantial change. However, there was an undertone of opinion within the council that it should be split up.

One concern is that there is no competition during elections in many of Highland Council's wards, because many people who would like to represent their community cannot afford to give up a full-time job in order to travel two hours to council meetings and two hours home. That is one reason why many meetings are decentralised, but the sheer size of the council area makes it difficult for many people to stand who otherwise might wish to. Those people who were elected are obviously those who stood for election, and so they might have a vested interest in not seeking competition.

We discussed that issue and Donald Gorrie pursued the fact that it was a bit unhealthy that a number of wards were uncontested. I do not think that we got a satisfactory response to the questions about people not being able to stand because of the time involved. Perhaps the political parties, rather than the councillors, should consider this issue—even if parties do not win seats, they should ensure that there is competition in the wards. Ultimately, it is not in the interests of many of the well-established independent councillors to encourage competition.

Kenny Gibson raised an important subject. The councillors gave two reasons why they believed that people did not stand, or why there was no competition in wards. First, the culture in the Highlands is such that, if someone is doing a good job, people will not stand against them because the area is sparsely populated and the society is close-knit. Secondly, a large number of people are employed by local government, which militates against them standing. If the rules on those eligible to stand in council elections were relaxed, people such as teachers and so on would be able to become involved in the political process.

Thank you—that was a good report. Although the foreseeable timetable and agenda is tight, part of the reason why members go on these visits is to highlight issues that might need to be considered later, such as videoconferencing and the eligibility of people who are employed in local government to stand in local government elections, which the McIntosh report deals with. When we collate the evidence that we have gathered, I will consider which areas the committee should pick out and give attention to, either as a short report or to obtain further information.

The next report is on East Renfrewshire Council; I am the reporter. I found the visit interesting, as the council has a cabinet system. In a previous life, one or two members of that cabinet had been opposition members and I found it interesting to see them working closely with the cabinet as a group to make changes in the areas that they represented. Their way of working included constructive criticism, discussion and, in some circumstances, compromise. It was interesting to see how they were prepared to sit around the table and make decisions that would help service delivery.

As members will see, the report is quite thick, so I will pick up on just a couple of issues. Whenever I go out on these visits, I am asked about the power of general competence. Some councils seem to think that if they dig deep enough, they will find that that power exists and that change can be effected, while others view the situation differently. East Renfrewshire Council saw the power of general competence—if it had such power—as allowing it to devolve power in terms of delivering services in a different way.

The council commented that it was unfortunate that McIntosh could not consider local government finance. It thought that finance was too complicated for the public to understand. I thought that it was too complicated for the council to understand—certainly, it is too complicated for me to understand. However, I assured the council that this committee would, at some point, consider local government finance, with the proviso that that did not mean to say that the council would automatically receive more money.

As a small local authority, the council found it not only difficult to get money but time wasting, as officers have to spend their time making bids for challenge funding and for money for this and that. A lot of officer time was spent on that work, with few results; even where there was a result, the work still tied up officials for a number of months. However, we should remember that East Renfrewshire is a small council.

As I said, the cabinet system was interesting, as it enabled people who would usually be making political points to sit round the table trying to agree. However, the council is reassessing the system; once that work is concluded, it will inform the committee about any changes that are to be made.

Councillors were concerned about the legal requirement to have three Church representatives on an education committee. That creates problems for a cabinet system that has no education committee. Their solution was to call in Church representatives when education issues were discussed.

Councillors believed that they were less involved under the old system, which gave them less power but created more bureaucracy. They were also keen to talk to us about the scrutiny role of committees, which they felt had to be both clear and constructive.

The council thinks that there will be a move to proportional representation, although it was insistent that there should be a link between councillors and wards, which is what most people are saying. The council favours an alternative vote system; if such a system is not implemented, it would be happy to return to first past the post. It saw community planning as the way ahead, with local authorities taking a central role in terms of facilitating and so on.

The council has a corporate strategy for young people—we attended a log-on cafe, which was good when we were there, although Kenny Gibson may wish to say something about it later. It believed that the covenant with the Parliament was absolutely necessary. It was committed to it, because it felt that if such a covenant did not exist, the Parliament would suck up the council's power. Those are some general comments about the visit—I would be more than happy for Kenny or Michael McMahon to add to them or to answer any questions.

I was impressed with East Renfrewshire—it is an innovative council. The three parties that are represented are willing to work together for the betterment of the local authority. The councillors are all very taken with the executive style of administration—it is good to note that they are trying to involve those who are not part of the executive and who are involved in the day-to-day running of the council. The council's size—there are only 20 elected members—may mean that such a system is more appropriate. However, we should take serious note of what is happening in East Renfrewshire as a possible model.

I went to the log-on facility with my seven-year-old son a few days later. As a member of the public and a local resident—as opposed to an MSP—I did not consider it that impressive. The facility is expensive—I think that it costs about £300,000 a year to run—but I was not particularly impressed with it. However, that is an aside. What is important is that the council genuinely welcomes the involvement of the Scottish Parliament and wants to use any opportunity that the Parliament gives local authorities to try to improve the way in which they are run. Trish Godman has alluded to the power of general competence—the council was enthusiastic about how it could consider different areas of operation.

On the operation of electoral systems, it is interesting that no council wants a reduction in the number of elected members. All local authorities seem quite happy to use whichever system is most appropriate to their specific interests—I am talking about individual interests as much as party interests. Many of the SNP councillors whom I met feel the same way. It has to be borne in mind that there are big social divisions between the Barrhead end of East Renfrewshire and the Newton Mearns end. The alternative vote system that the councillors propose would mean that, of the 20 councillors, about 16 or 17 would be virtually guaranteed continued representation on the local authority. When we consider these matters, regardless of which political party we are speaking to, we have to bear in mind any personal vested interests.

The visit was interesting; East Renfrewshire Council represented a tremendous contrast to the other local authorities that I have visited. We may want to return to it, perhaps in a few months, once the executive system has bedded down further and has been tweaked by the council.

In every local authority, we find that nobody shows any interest in directly elected provosts. Keith Harding will say that it is in the Tory manifesto that Tory councillors do not want them either.

I have read the report—were there any Tory councillors there?

You cannot get more Tory than Iain Drysdale. [Laughter.]

I had been going to make a similar point—innovative and enthusiastic are two words that describe that authority, which had made many changes and seemed to be receptive to new initiatives. Because of that, I was struck by the fact that it was so against electoral reform and so opposed to the idea of the elected leader. That came across strongly from all the political parties. I am not sure whether that was to do with the parties looking after their own backs, as Kenny Gibson suggests. It seemed to be a cross-party approach, in an authority that could see that there might be an advantage in making changes in some areas.

Overall, the council thought that it was best to leave things as they were. However, if it were to go down any proportional representation road, the alternative vote system is the only one that it would accept. It had experienced some of the practical difficulties of the cabinet system, but had also witnessed some of its advantages. It was worth listening to its views on that. I was struck that an authority of that size had identified that the cabinet system worked. However, it could see that, because of logistical difficulties, the system would not work in larger authorities.

As East Renfrewshire is not afraid of change—it has implemented a lot of changes—its opposition to PR and its concerns over cabinet systems for bigger authorities are worth listening to.

When you say that the council would favour the alternative vote system, do you mean AV without any top-up?

Yes. That is not one of the three systems recommended by McIntosh.

Is the innovative and harmonious relationship between the parties a result of the lack of SNP councillors on the council?

Bristow, please.

Not if this committee is anything to go by. [Laughter.]

How many members are in the cabinet?

Five. There are also five shadow members, which means that if a cabinet member wishes to put forward a proposal, the shadow—a Conservative—will meet the member and try to hammer out a common view. If they cannot do that, there is a division.

Are the cabinet members all from one party?

It is a Liberal-Labour administration. I think that the cabinet is made up of four Labour members and one Liberal member. The five opposition members are all Conservatives. Ten members are involved: the five cabinet members and the five scrutineers. In addition, the 10 members from Labour, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the one independent member form the back bench, so to speak. At the moment, the cabinet is trying to get those 10 more involved in the process—

By doing away with the whip?

No, they are trying to involve them more—

The council has a general ethos of trying to be inclusive. The chair of the audit committee, which scrutinises the cabinet's financial affairs, is the Conservative leader.

Is there a whipping system? If so, where do the public come into play? I ask that because I could not quite work out how another council operated the cabinet system.

There is a whipping system, if you like, but it is not generally implemented because most things are done fairly consensually. The council tries to hammer things out, rather than go to a vote. Everybody knows the balance of the council, so it has gone beyond the stage of pushing things to a vote for the sake of having dissent and so on recorded. The council is genuinely trying to achieve things. Although East Renfrewshire is an area that might be considered to be politically polarised, it is not. I have known some of the councillors for years. Trish Godman has been a regional councillor and knows Iain Drysdale well.

The fact that it is a small council means that its attitude is, "Let's get on with it and, where possible, try to bury the differences. Let's ensure we have a council that is run in the best possible way." I do not know how Michael McMahon or Trish felt, but I was refreshed by the council's approach.

Although the council is in favour of change, it is not in favour of change to the electoral system, because the members may not be there personally to implement the change in the system. One always has to consider how any change affects individuals directly. That does not mean that they would not be innovative in other areas. I am sure that, if we could give them a cast-iron guarantee that they would still be there four years later, they might be in favour of changing the electoral system. Vested interests always have to be taken into account; that is true of our party as much as it is of any other.

I have two questions. How big was the change from what went before—if you happen to know that, convener—and how difficult was it to bring the change about?

The change was marked. When the council got together for the first time and considered what had gone before, it was quite clear that it had to make some substantive changes if councillors were going to make any difference to the lives of the people whom they represented. There was a feeling that there was not much of a link between what went on in the council chambers and the way in which services were delivered.

The council decided quickly that, because of its make-up, it would collapse if it did not act consensually. It therefore opted for an inclusive system. The council is also going to review the system, even though it has been up and running for only six or seven months, because the technical aspects, as well as working relationships, are needing tweaked. As Kenny Gibson said, the aim is to include back benchers and spokespersons in a much more direct way. It was clear to the council from day one that it had to do something imaginative, and that is what it has done, as far as I can see.

Although the council is run by a Labour-Liberal administration, the Conservatives have not sought to obstruct the executive. Rather, they have adopted a constructive and positive approach and engaged with it. With such a system in an authority of such a size, it takes two to tango. The opposition has to be willing to work with the executive and not to oppose simply for the sake of opposing. It is refreshing to note that that has happened in East Renfrewshire. Perhaps I should not say that, because Keith Harding will probably phone up the Conservative group there to say, "Put the boot in, lads." [Laughter.] However, his party has certainly helped to make the system work effectively, at least as far as we could see.

You made two additional points in your text that I think we should pursue. The first was about studying the amount of management time and expense that is devoted to private finance initiative or challenge funding bids. That is a major issue that a number of other councils have raised with me.

Secondly, we should remember that there is a lot of knowledge among local government officials and councillors. Local government officials know far more about many things than people in the Scottish Executive know. There is a big pool of people on whom we can call for good advice.

Those points are well made. We would certainly want to consider the amount of time that officers spend on challenge funding or PFI bids and what results from that. They seem to be saying that they spend a lot of time on it and that that time is not always productive.

To sum up, the three of us found a very innovative council, which was not afraid of change. Michael McMahon's point—that although the council is not afraid of change, it feels that two proposals in the McIntosh report would not work—is well made. The size of the council may mean that it would not be happy with PR anyway. I enjoyed my visit and would be keen to go back to see how the system has been changed, what faults were found in it and how it has been adjusted.

We now move to Sylvia Jackson's report on her visit to Aberdeen City Council.

I went with Kenny Gibson and Jamie Stone, who will, I am sure, have some points to make. We had a very interesting time. The visit concerned housing repairs and the roads department, if I remember correctly. We found it difficult, as is the case with most visits, to fit everything into the day, given the various discussions that were involved.

The material that was originally sent by Aberdeen City Council was fairly comprehensive. It was, perhaps, not as comprehensive as the report that we have just heard, but it contained most of the points that were elaborated on when we visited Aberdeen. I will pick out one or two of those—members will see that there is considerable similarity with points that have been made already this morning.

One important point concerned the power of general competence. As was said earlier, the council felt that it could do much more itself—take more initiatives and arrange things differently—if the power was extended.

The council was very positive about community planning. Although it had not been involved in the first round of community planning, it had managed to get the idea under way. It thought that community planning was important in terms of seeing the big picture and developing partnerships, about which the council was also enthusiastic. The council thought that, with regard to environmental issues, a case could be made for devolving greater responsibility to local council level. A lot was said about looking to Europe for examples of further devolution in that area.

The council was quite scathing about guidelines, which it thought were similar in most respects to capping. It talked about the effect of the gearing principle and the difficulties that it had with that. It thought that there was far too much ring fencing and that it needed more control over its priorities and planning. We have received that message from elsewhere. The council thought that there were particular problems in Aberdeen: because it is an affluent area, building land is quite expensive. The council described how American, Dutch and other businesses demanded a high-quality infrastructure that was difficult to deliver in some cases.

We were told that Aberdeen had difficulties because it did not receive any European funding. The council contrasted that with the situation in Dundee.

The council had changed its committee structure, largely because ward changes had reduced the number of councillors and it was felt that the previous system could not operate with fewer councillors. The change has allowed for a more joined-up approach within the various areas. The material that was sent previously lists the committees that have been established, and members will see that they cover broader community services than was previously the case. The council was very positive about developing the committee structure. It thought that this was the first phase and that further moves would be made later. It was very enthusiastic about the standards committee, as it felt that it was important that there should be a scrutiny role to ensure best value. The council members and officers talked at length about that in the first part of our meeting.

We then talked about whipping, selection of candidates and so on. A sharp distinction was made between party-political issues and issues that the council as a whole can take on. I am not sure that we moved too far with this discussion, but we talked a little about voter turnout. The council felt that that needed to be addressed, but it was far from convinced that changing over to a form of PR would increase voter turnout.

The council commented on the number of MSPs who were demanding to be given more information about various services and so on, and said that its work load was increasing at a phenomenal rate—I suppose that we need to take that on board. Like all council leaders from whom we have heard, the council was not in favour of directly elected council leaders.

Finally, we returned to the issue of community planning, which the council thought was a key issue. It has a number of important initiatives, such as "Imagine . . . Aberdeen", which involved 900 people in a consultation exercise to project what Aberdeen will look like. The council was keen to pursue other initiatives to consult the public more. It also thought that civic education was a key issue and that it should be carried out more widely than just in schools.

The council was very positive about its relationship with the Scottish Parliament, but not so complimentary about the role of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Indeed, I think that the council wanted to replace COSLA with the Local Government Committee.

The distinctive nature of Aberdeen quickly became apparent—the people we met see themselves as pretty different from people in the rest of Scotland. There is a great pride in the city.

I want to emphasise Sylvia Jackson's point about COSLA. The council did not like COSLA at all—the invective was colourful at times.

There seems to be a struggle of ideas within Aberdeen City Council. I got the impression that a number of councillors want things to stay as they are and have always been, but two or three others are much more innovative and perhaps frustrated that their colleagues are not as far-sighted as they are. I do not know whether Sylvia Jackson noticed that difference in attitude.

I think that Kenny Gibson is right.

There seemed to be a tiredness about some of the councillors. It was as if they were ground down by the whole process of having to meet us, although, of course, they were very courteous. Some very old-fashioned views were expressed. One member of the administration, Councillor Lamond, suggested that the best way to resolve local government finance issues was to go back to the poll tax.

I was not so impressed with Aberdeen council. I got the impression that there was a fear factor among the councillors—as if we had gone up there to caw the feet away from them, rather than to work in partnership with them. I hope that our visit reassured them about that. I think that we got through to them that we want to work with them, rather than against them.

I have nothing further to add to Sylvia Jackson's very full report.

Are there any questions?

I have an observation rather than a question. It strikes me—from looking at the list of names of people present at the meeting—that none of the council officers were women. We may want to consider that point when we produce further reports. I know that at one time in Aberdeen, certainly within the Labour party, there was a lot of interest in equal opportunities and in work to develop the involvement of women. It would probably be useful to break councils down by gender. Much credit has been given to the Scottish Parliament because it increased the representation of women, but my anxiety is that things are not shifting in the same direction in councils and that the work that was done to increase equal opportunities and so on is not developing as it did. I do not know whether the convener can give me details of the balance of representation within Aberdeen council.

It will be worth considering that general point once we have collated all the evidence.

I know that the issue of collaboration with neighbouring councils is particularly important in Aberdeen and Dundee, where the city boundaries are very tightly drawn. A great problem is that a ring road for Aberdeen would go through the Aberdeenshire Council area rather than Aberdeen. Did the council raise the issue of collaboration, for example, over housing?

Yes, but I cannot remember what was said about the issue.

In fact, the council did not mention collaboration with neighbouring councils. The politics of the area are interesting. Aberdeen has a Labour administration, but none of the 68 councillors in Aberdeenshire represents the Labour party. I think that Aberdeenshire has a Liberal/independent administration. I do not know whether the councils do not co-operate as much as they did because of differences in political ideology. The only area in which the council referred to co-operation was the gritting of the roads—we visited garages for that. More widely, it seems that co-operation is fairly minimal.

One issue that Aberdeen City Council raised, which also affects Highland Council, and with which it is hard for the powers that be to come to terms, is the additional costs that are incurred by blossoming areas. The tendency is to help poorer areas because it is fairer to do so, but development creates a lot of cost for the council. We will have to tackle that issue some time.

I think that you are right.

I will make a statement on behalf of members: I assure COSLA that the Local Government Committee has no intention of taking up its role, and I do not think that that will happen in the future. Perhaps that should be recorded in the Official Report.

That is unanimously endorsed.

I thank members for their reports. I found the contrast in the visits interesting.