Local Government Committee, 01 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 1, 1999

Official Report 146KB pdf

---

McIntosh Report

The first item on our agenda is the McIntosh report and the consideration of priorities for this committee. My feeling is that everything is, in a sense, up for grabs. There is nothing in the McIntosh report that I think we should not discuss and there is nothing that we should hold back on in setting out our priorities this morning.

I am putting this to members of the committee to find out if they have any thoughts. On the day we discussed the McIntosh report, we divvied up the things that we think will go through with a modicum of discussion and, I hope, a lot of agreement. The next tranche is the subjects on which we think we need more information and on which we want a bit of debate and decision-making. We also need to say where we think there might be some controversy. We should start with the easier of those first. The clerk has provided a subject grid with the papers.

This may be an obvious point, but we want to fit some of the discussions we have about the McIntosh report in with discussion and decisions elsewhere. Some of our priorities would, presumably, be determined by the timetables that have been put in place elsewhere and by whether matters are being progressed early. At the briefing meeting, there did not seem to be any clear timetable for consultation on some aspects of the report. The Kerley committee is clearly working to a fairly strict timetable. I hope that we will discuss what needs to be discussed in time to put it before the groups who are progressing these issues elsewhere.

Kerley must report by February 2000. Part of the McIntosh report deals with ethics. There will be an ethics bill and it might be introduced sooner than that, so we must be aware of what other committees are doing.

There is consultation on general competence and so on, but we have not been given a timetable for that. It is important that we have our deliberations before conclusions are drawn. That may mean that we need to move things around slightly.

Yes, that is right. We must be aware of that.

I am sorry that I was not here for the Scottish Executive report at the committee's previous meeting, when my point might have been raised. There is now an advisory panel—I hope that that is the correct term—that will support councils in looking at different ways of conducting their business. There is also the leadership group, which will look at management generally. How did the discussion at the previous meeting go on how we relate to those two groups and the Kerley commission?

There is a leadership forum, there are the champions for change and—I am getting them all mixed up—there is Richard Kerley's group. That group will examine proportional representation and councillors' remuneration, among other things.

We felt that we should not be doing two things at once. We should wait until the Kerley committee reports and consider the whole issue. However, I am not sure that we have time for that approach. The only group that has a deadline on it is the one that is due to report in February 2000.

I would like to ask a little more about the advisory panel. I understand—I hope I remember yesterday's paper correctly—that the panel will get to work soon. That means that cabinet systems will be a priority area for us.

That is an important point. Last week, I pointed out that the Kerley committee had been appointed without the involvement of this committee and that we were not sure what criteria had been used for the appointment of members to that committee. We read in the paper that the leadership advisory panel is being chaired by Alastair MacNish—another appointment that was not brought to the attention of the committee.

If the Executive sets up such committees, it should consult this committee to enable us to assess the criteria on which people are chosen. We have set a timetable that will be thrown out of kilter by the fact that, as Sylvia suggested, we will have to liaise with the leadership advisory panel as well. We do not want to have too many balls in the air at once. We need to know exactly what is going on so that we can feed comments back to the relevant committees.

That is fair enough. I take the point about finding out about developments through the press.

I am not good on procedure, so I would like some advice. In the Parliament, Wendy Alexander said that she was going to produce a new paper. Will we have any input? I should have thought that we would, given the relationship between the Executive and the committees. Will it be normal practice for a minister to consult the relevant committee before producing an official response?

Should we give evidence to bodies such as the Kerley committee? It would be slightly peculiar for it to give a report to us after having heard evidence from us. I have strong views on the subject that I am happy to give to anyone at any time.

I understand that the Executive report, which Wendy Alexander mentioned, will be out sometime after mid-September. I was given no indication that we would be involved in that but we have asked the minister to speak to us around that time. I would be surprised if the minister spoke to us about something that was not yet public, but I take your point. We can write to the Executive and ask about the points that you have raised.

Richard Kerley was keen to come and tell us what he wanted to achieve and how he was going to achieve it.

Will we produce a document containing this committee's official response?

No. That would be in the part of our report that deals with proportional representation. We would say that we have considered his recommendations and made decisions based on that.

I know that ministers are worried about Cabinet confidentiality, but if we want to influence decisions we will have to take part in the process at an early stage. Once the Government has printed a document that says, for instance, that all councils will sit around circular tables, it will be hard to change its position if we believe square tables are better.

I take your point. I am happy to write to the minister to ask for clarification, if that is what the committee wants. I will do that.

I return to the point that Sylvia and Kenny were discussing. We may find out about the programme that is envisaged when the Minister for Communities comes to speak to us, but we have agreed to invite Richard Kerley. I am flagging up the fact that we should invite someone from the advisory panel as well, so that we can speak to them and find out exactly what the proposals are for that panel. An appropriate time might become more obvious later, but it should be as early as possible.

Convener, I would like you to confirm that the last time we met you kindly offered to take the matter of Richard Kerley and the make-up of these panels back to your conveners meeting. Can you confirm that? In our own group there has been interest—concern might be too strong a word—about the way such things come about. Often, as you know, we read about them in the press before we know about them. Have you made approaches to your fellow conveners on that matter?

We have not had another meeting since I spoke to you.

I am so sorry.

I have noted that matter. I am sure that I shall not be the only one to raise it at the next conveners meeting. Conveners will meet only about once a month; the group met the day before we spoke. I have not met the other conveners again.

The specific issue of Kerley has been highlighted, but there is a general point to be made about what exactly the procedure is when such committees are established. We made the point before that the names for the committee of inquiry appeared before the Parliament to be endorsed. Whatever the procedure is, it would be helpful if there was only one procedure and if there was some transparency surrounding the criteria according to which people are selected for such positions.

Absolutely. I agree with that. In the meantime, I shall write to the minister and pass on these comments directly, and I shall bring the matter up at the next conveners meeting. I do not think that I shall be the only convener to do so, as the same issue seems to have arisen in other places.

I apologise for not mentioning the panel membership of the advisory group that will, according to today's press release,

"advise councils on the review of their decision making and policy development processes and the working practices which support those processes. In addition, the Panel will provide advice to Ministers on the outcome of the reviews councils undertake".

The McIntosh report suggests that an independent body should do that. I understand the value of that, but I take the point that the committee is making—that we read about it in the press or find out about it second hand. I shall provide committee members with copies of that press release so that they can see who is on the panel. The panel is quite large and wide-ranging. I do not know when it will provide some kind of comment.

Convener, I agree entirely with what you say, but I hope that, from an early point, this committee will not be merely reactive. I fully understand why the Executive does what it does and why McIntosh recommends what he recommends, but I hope that the point will be made that we are proactive. We should be able to present a paper regardless of what other groups say. That is how I understand our remit, and I hope that it is the case.

Yes.

If Richard Kerley is coming to see us early, that should be tied in not only with Alastair MacNish's committee but with the Electoral Reform Society. People may not know these systems inside out. McIntosh has suggested that we examine specific systems, so it is very important that we know exactly what we are talking about in great detail. For example, I know that Donald is an expert on the single transferable vote. It is important that we get a presentation to explain such things in great detail, so that members of the committee can ask specific questions on how such systems would work in practice.

A report is being prepared for us. I think that it would be wise to read it before anyone appears before the committee. I do not object to having those things happen together, or to having one follow the other. That is a very good idea. They are complex systems, and if there is to be a change—or no change—we must be absolutely sure that we know what we are talking about.

We all know roughly how they work, but it will give us an opportunity to ask specific questions on the working of the system and on the pitfalls.

What I suggest may mean that everyone is so busy talking to everyone else that nobody ever does anything, but there is an issue here that affects this committee. Local government delivers education, social work and, to some extent, transport, which come under other committees' remits. Has there been any discussion about sensible liaison so that we co-operate and do not get overburdened by everybody else's minutes or reinvent the wheel?

It has been recognised that the work of some committees, such as the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, impinges on the work of every other committee. I am sure that the clerks will start to filter things out, and we must do the same. We have to be aware of what is happening in education, community care and health. Some of that will come out at the conveners committee, but there will probably also be a system whereby members such as I will attend other committees to listen to discussion on parts of their agenda.

Donald Gorrie is absolutely right: committees have to work together rather than in isolation. In a sense, we could be involved in housing, social inclusion, community care, health, education—the whole gamut of services that are delivered.

Arising from what Donald said—it is something that concerns us all—the more I look at the issue of our committee work, the more the time element concerns me. For example, in the Rural Affairs Committee, some of us have been talking at length about sheep, whereas my concerns are on the tourism and financial issues that cross our bows. Has there been any discussion among conveners or with the Executive about time management and time allocation? I suspect that that is a problem that will hit us quickly and hard. With the best will in the world, I do not know how we can deal with McIntosh et al once a fortnight or once every three weeks.

The discussion at the conveners committee was a first look at the timetable. Some adjustment went on. There was certainly a feeling that some committees will have to meet on Monday afternoons. For example, the Subordinate Legislation Committee, of which Bristow and I are members, will meet on Monday afternoons because 30 November, which is a Tuesday, is a holiday, and on another occasion the convener will be away on a visit. We will see how the system works and then move around. Some committees will meet once a fortnight. We might consider that further into the programme. We have a slot between 9.30 and 12.30 on a Wednesday; it is entirely up to us what we do with it. We can be here, we can be outside or we can decide to meet every fortnight, or whatever. We are not here next week, but that was in the programme. It is early days yet, but you are absolutely right; many committees will not get through their agendas and will have to pick up at a later date.

There are so many things in the committee system that have to be worked through that we need to remain focused and prioritise what we do. The first priority for us is to examine in some detail the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government. We are all anxious that they fit together well, that we do not end up sucking power up from local government, and that the relationship does not break down. There is always a danger that the committee structure is a set-up in which everybody talks about everything all the time, but nothing moves forward. Although we would like to talk about everything all the time, we need to be very clear that the first stage for us has to be responding to the key elements of McIntosh, as has been said already. There will be highways and byways, but everything we do should be focused on McIntosh. Therefore, it is important that people should not just be here but should go out and about a bit—perhaps using alternate Wednesdays to do that.

Donald Gorrie made a point about the different committees' subject areas and the way in which they link into local government. A useful way in which we could look at that would be in terms of new committee structures, or evolving committee structures that take on board the integrated and holistic approach at council level. That would link in with the approach the advisory panel is taking. That is important for us, but we should stay focused on the bigger picture, as Johann Lamont said.

I agree completely with Johann Lamont. We must ensure that our priorities are the same as those that are being identified out there in the wider world, particularly by local government. There is great anxiety about how McIntosh will impact, and that is why it is very important that what Johann Lamont suggested is taken up. There have been years and years of instability in local government and this is the big chance for us to set things right. We want to do things systematically, not rush them, and to prioritise. We should ensure that our priorities are the same as those that have been identified by local government. We must look at things from the outside looking in, rather than us looking out.

Can we move to doing that—trying to prioritise our work? Given what Johann Lamont and Kenny Gibson have said, can we look at the grid of subjects that has been prepared for us and discuss how we would like to prioritise them? The clerk has prepared a list of all the subjects that we have said we should examine at an early stage.

Last week we had briefings from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Arthur Midwinter, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Everyone stressed that an independent review of local government finance is the number one priority. Everything else is structured on that. We know the Executive position on that—Jack McConnell has made it very clear—but it would be remiss of us not to look at it independently, even if we cannot finally make any suggestions that are different from the Executive's.

The committee must take this subject on board and go out and seek the views of all interested parties to see whether there is a way in which we can make local government finance more autonomous. I suggest that that is an absolute No 1 priority. The second priority would be proportional representation, because so many councils are concerned about how they will be affected by it. The Kerley committee will report fairly early; that is another thing that we must get a handle on. The third priority I would suggest are the issues surrounding general competence.

Those are the three priorities that we should look at because they are the three areas that local government, from trade unions right up to chief executives and elected members, are most concerned about.

Does anyone have any objection to that, or any comments to make?

Only to add that although I agree entirely with what Kenny Gibson is saying, I wonder if he is not—understandably—zeroing in on the revenues methods for councils. As a committee, we might lose track of capital.

It is all tied together.

Yes, but there are ways in which rules can be changed. Section 94 on capped and current revenue is boxed into a current financial year. With a tweaking of the rules that would not cost the public sector borrowing account anything at all, that could be changed to allow councils to carry over from one year to the next and therefore amass a fund for a given project. That, in my experience, would help with capital programmes. It is something that I have explored in the past and I believe that we can be proactive there.

Those are three very important issues that we should be pursuing vigorously. If we could also identify issues on which there is not controversy but which we could try to ensure that the Government pushes forward, that would be helpful. Also very important are the terms of the covenant between the Scottish Executive and local government—that is about the relationship and who writes it and how we progress with it. I think the three things that Kenny mentioned are the three most important issues but we could also, without spending too much time on them, make progress with other issues.

It is not that I disagree, but were you listing those in order of preference, Kenny?

Yes—because I do not know if we can do them all. We will have to touch base with all those subjects, but if we are gonnae try to do it in a systematic way, then those would be the priorities.

I would not disagree on the importance of those three issues but suggest that, given that Kerley has a fixed time scale and that finance might take longer to look at, we should prioritise PR.

I am concerned that we do not duplicate the work of the Kerley commission and take evidence from exactly the same people and produce two reports. This committee should take a view on what Kerley produces but we do not need to do that in advance, we can allow Kerley to take evidence and take cognisance of the report when it is produced. I share the concern expressed about the commission being set up without reference to this committee. However, as it has been set up we do not gain any advantage by duplicating work.

That is right, Bristow, but I am thinking about what Donald said and what Kenny said about putting ourselves in their shoes. Those are the three areas we must look at—there is no question about that. Whether we prioritise in that way is something we can think about. We have to be able quite early on to tell the people who are running councils and delivering services which things they are doing that are really good and that we support, and that, like them, we do not have a great problem with certain parts of the McIntosh report. We should do that to give confidence to them. Our relationship must be good and we have to start building it up.

I take the point about finance, PR and general competence—those are the big issues. I am aware of the overlap with the Kerley commission. We talked about that at the beginning and it seemed to me that what was being said was that we will wait, look at the report and then we will make some decisions. But Kerley has to report in February 2000 and by that time, even if we speak only to the Electoral Reform Society, we should have some idea about the different forms of PR and how that would affect things if implemented.

As to a problem of separate reports, I do not see us dealing with McIntosh in that way. It is a package and our report has to be a package—we should not separate off PR or finance. We may be able to deal with PR alongside Kerley because, although we will take cognisance of what he finally says, it will be part of a bigger report for us.

There is another issue on PR. The Executive has moved on to look at alternative PR systems but a significant body of opinion would prefer to look at other ways of improving involvement in local government elections without moving to a proportional system. We have to recognise that as a legitimate strand, particularly in local government, and recognise that that view is articulated fairly effectively in certain quarters and is more than just not wanting change because change is bad.

On the question of finance, there are two separate stages. There is a need for this committee to engage in a discussion with the Executive about its decision not to go out to an independent inquiry, because there is no doubt that, if we are reflecting the views that came to us in the briefing, there is a strong feeling that it ought to have done. The first stage is to explore why the Executive took that decision and see if there is any movement on it. We have a responsibility to reflect what seemed to be a remarkable consensus across all the people who were briefing us that they felt that this was a difficulty with the Executive's position.

That is the first stage. Whether or not the Executive maintains that position there is a separate stage about us informing ourselves about the broad finance issues that Kenny has referred to. Having the Minister for Finance and the minister responsible for local government coming gives us the opportunity to engage in a political discussion with them about why that decision was made and whether there is any movement on it. We could examine the substantive finance issues after that.

I do not look on it, as Kenny said, from the outside into this committee. I do not think that proportional representation is a major issue in councils. I think that we should await the outcome of the report that is coming in. I agree that there is concern about finance.

A major concern of the councils is about how they are going to work with us. I think that we should look into the covenant. Councils also want to know whether they can get involved in the legislative programme. I think that we should discuss those issues and go out and talk to the councils soon.

I agree with Johann that if we can persuade the Executive to conduct a proper financial review that would be the best thing, so we should try that first. If the Executive will not do that, we must explore what mechanism there is and funds there are for us to do it.

Perhaps an even more contentious issue will arise this autumn when the Executive announces its allocation of money to councils, which, according to the comprehensive spending review, will mean quite a lot less money for a lot of services so there will be a huge howl from the councils. I have had meetings with my party colleagues on various councils who have flagged that up as a major issue. Is this a legitimate area of our remit? Should we reflect the views of councils and lobby for local government to get its fair share within the restricted budget of the Scottish Executive?

When I put my priorities down I was thinking on the same lines as Keith. I think that councils have high expectations of the Parliament and the relationship that they can have with it. On policy, for example, what is coming out about community care and how they are going to reorganise themselves, there is an innovative feel in councils at the moment. We have to take hold of that and work with it, so I second what Keith is saying and Kenny's similar comments earlier.

Am I not right in saying that the Executive is looking to consult on, for example, a covenant with local government, which may resolve some of those issues? It is difficult, because this is like an octopus with tentacles going in all directions and it is difficult to pin everything down.