Local Government Committee, 05 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 5, 2002

Official Report 364KB pdf

---

“Renewing Local Democracy: The Next Steps”

Agenda item 3 is the white paper on renewing local democracy. I invite the witnesses to make any points that they want to make before we move to questions.

I want to make a couple of qualifications. The SOLACE executive saw the draft written submission that members have received on Friday of last week. The submission is incomplete in a number of areas and there was discussion on a number of points. Members must bear with us. The submission will change on a number of points before it is completed, although the changes will not be huge in terms of substance or tone. There are points to be refined further before the paper is submitted to the Executive in response to the consultation.

We welcome the white paper, but we are concerned that the matter has taken such a long time to reach the point at which decisions might be made. We want to make a plea that decisions on issues such as members' remuneration should be expedited as quickly as possible. Those issues have been discussed since the McIntosh report, which was begun before the Parliament was formed. Three or four years is a long gestation period. We must try to get on with things and break through the logjam. The Executive and the Parliament must take some decisions because frustration is beginning to appear.

We have tried to bring out some of the positive aspects of the paper, but there is disappointment and frustration because the white paper raises issues that have been the subject of extensive and repeated debate. There is an expectation that matters will progress and that the questions will not be asked one more time.

In one part of your written submission, you welcome the decision not to reduce the number of councillors, and in another part, you criticise the Executive—many of us do that from time to time—for not giving any reasons for rejecting Kerley's proposals for reducing the number of councillors. Will you explain more fully why you welcome the Executive's decision not to reduce the number of councillors? You talk about the council in East Renfrewshire, which is run on an executive model. Do you envisage a time in the near future when it may be appropriate to reconsider the number of councillors?

You have put your finger on a point that colleagues in SOLACE discussed at some length last Friday. The wording of the response will change in due course. Most members of SOLACE welcome the declaration that there is to be no further major review of local government boundaries or functions at present and welcome the decision not to have a cull of councillors, as I think Kerley called it.

The criticism of the Executive is not logically inconsistent with that welcome. It points out that, although Kerley put forward the argument for reducing councillor numbers, we cannot detect a logical or convincing reason why that argument was rejected in the white paper. We are not saying that we accept the argument for reducing councillor numbers; we are pointing out that, although the recommendation was made after Kerley consulted local authorities and other interested parties extensively, the Government sidestepped giving a response to that recommendation in the white paper. I hope that that clarifies the situation.

I was not criticising you.

I know that you were not.

It was just a point that I picked up. Do you envisage that all councils will eventually be run on an executive model, as in East Renfrewshire and other areas?

We have been through that point with the MacNish panel—the leadership advisory panel. The need for a different, diversified approach to local government in Scotland to reflect the needs of individual councils comes through all the time. The last piece of research that I saw stated that about six or seven councils had adopted the so-called executive model. Others have streamlined their more traditional committee systems. It is horses for courses.

Perhaps, as experience is gained, more councils will move towards the executive model. I do not think that that can be guaranteed or taken for granted. Perhaps somewhere in the bones of your question is the issue of whether there is any link between the internal management structure of councils and the payment or salary levels that councillors are granted. Perhaps the line of questioning is heading towards that point.

On the leadership advisory panel, Alastair MacNish made the point that further modernisation of the decision-making structure requires modernisation of the allowances system. I am sure that Tom Aitchison agrees that we will not make progress on modernisation of the decision-making structure unless we reform the allowances system. There is something fundamentally wrong with the basic allowances system: two thirds of Scotland's councillors get a special responsibility allowance, which is simply a reflection of the inadequacy of the basic allowance. That causes huge confusion about roles and responsibilities.

Somebody else will ask a question about that, so I will not elaborate on it. I know my views on the matter. Having been a councillor for 10 years, I think that councillors should get proper remuneration.

I will raise a few points about removing barriers and getting more young people into council work. What can be done to remove barriers to young people standing, such as a lack of interest in or knowledge of political issues, or the tradition of uncontested wards in some areas?

Although we are discussing local government, political parties nationally have a role to play, but perhaps we should put that issue to one side for today. The question brings us back to remuneration—whether employers should be obliged to grant time off for those members of staff who wish to stand for a council and what support can be given once a person is elected to a council.

You mentioned encouraging young people to stand. The question takes us to encouraging women to stand and the support that should be provided for child minding and duties of that ilk. Support services for council members vary considerably throughout Scotland. Some councils provide excellent support and others struggle financially to make councillor support a priority because of other priorities. Development in such areas will assist in encouraging more people to stand for councils. It would not guarantee that more would stand, but it would be a positive step forward.

Have you discussed with private sector employers or other public sector bodies career breaks and secondments, for example?

SOLACE has not initiated such discussions. We could respond more fully by reference to our individual responsibilities in Fife and Edinburgh. Some employers have been excellent. Large employers might consider having a member of staff who is a councillor a good reflection on their companies or organisations.

As the committee probably knows, the Minister for Finance and Public Services is holding a roadshow on the white paper. A longish discussion has been held among the Lothian authorities about whether employers should be obliged to take a member of staff back after that person ceases to be an elected member. A relatively young man who works in the information technology industry said that if he was out of the industry for four or eight years, his skills would be gone by the time the employer was due to take him back, so that proposal was not necessarily considered a major step forward.

What matters is the support that can be given to a person who is thinking of standing for election. That takes us back to salary. If remuneration were reasonable for the average elected member—if such a thing exists—that would ease the burden on a person who was quite young and was trying to build a professional or business career alongside a political career. If the job was anchored by a decent salary and pension provision, that might help someone to make a better-informed choice.

As I mentioned, I became a councillor in 1964. I recall that organisations such as the NHS allowed employees far greater latitude to play their part in public service than many private companies did. I was fortunate in some ways, but I had to work extra hours and sacrifice holidays. Some were worse off than that. People who worked in factories and in industry were not allowed to enter committee rooms or council chambers until they had got rid of their dungarees. They had to have suits hanging in cupboards somewhere. At that time, doing the job was difficult for many people. I strongly support awarding salaries and pension schemes. However, a difficulty arises with pay structure when we compare large councils such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen with the very small councils.

Will our witnesses say a little more about citizenship legislation?

Tom Aitchison is right to emphasise the need for a decent salary and pensions. Rosemary McKenna was a councillor in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council; she had had a teaching career. Giving all that up—a decent salary and a decent pension—and taking a chance on being elected is a pretty difficult choice. Tom Aitchison was right to say that large employers tend to adopt fairly good practice, but practice is inconsistent. I know of councillors in Fife who work for small employers and are put under considerable pressure.

We need the right to participate in council work to be enshrined in statute—in citizenship legislation. As we say in our submission, employees have time off to participate in the children's hearings system, but not to be a councillor. That contradiction seems odd.

Would you like to add to what you said about the role of political parties? The Scottish Parliament provides an example of the involvement of more women. Do you have any other thoughts on that?

No. I do not especially want to go there, unless you want me to.

We will come back to that.

As you said, we are talking about encouraging young people and women to become involved. I know how that is organised in the major political parties in Scotland. As our paper says, the most recent survey said that the average councillor was aged 53, male and white—all those relatively stereotypical attributes. To change that, we can remove some institutional barriers in local government. Political parties must think about how they choose candidates. They must widen the profile. Ethnicity is another obvious consideration. The political parties must try to ensure that councillors reflect to a greater extent the composition of local communities.

During the silver jubilee celebrations in 1977, I lied to the Queen—I admit that. My party had gained power in Glasgow—that was unusual for us—and I was the leader. The Queen asked me, "How many women councillors do you have?" I did not have a clue, so I said, "Seventeen, Your Majesty." We later discovered that the number was 12, but I felt that it was better to give the wrong answer than no answer at all.

I do not know how Keith Harding will follow you.

Perhaps he does not want to.

Kerley recommended that councils should review their business arrangements to facilitate the involvement of more councillors who have other responsibilities. To what extent have councils' reviews achieved that aim? Apart from implementing the measures that you outlined in your submission, does the Executive have any other role to play in achieving that aim?

Sorry, I missed the last part of your question.

The question is how far you feel you have gone in reviewing your business arrangements—for instance, by having some of your meetings in the evening, when child care facilities might be more available, rather than during the day. We are thinking of such support in much broader terms. That is the type of issue that we mean when we talk of examining business arrangements.

Since reorganisation in 1995 and 1996, most councils have tried to modernise their business arrangements—to use the jargon—to reflect the needs that you refer to. Evening meetings are an example of that. From a structural point of view, many councils, including my council, have opted much more for area-based committees. I know that that is also the case in Fife. The question to ask is whether that trend requires to be accelerated and, if so, how that should be done, as we have been discussing.

Councils have a genuine desire to support their elected members, wherever they can. In a sense, the elected members are what determine the quality of a council. We have a huge commitment to the public to support elected members. As I have said, several councils have put a lot more money into councillor training and IT support for elected members, which makes their job easier to do, both in the office or from a more remote location. Those are two practical examples of support—child care is another. Such support is beginning to be given across Scotland. The white paper asks whether a bigger push is necessary to knock down some of the remaining barriers, to make it as easy as possible for people to stand for council and to allow them to play a meaningful role when they are elected as councillors.

The other dimension to that is how we can better support councillors once they have been elected. In our submission, we make the point that the way in which councillors do their jobs varies considerably. Some councillors deal with complaints from the beginning of the process right to the end, whereas others intervene only if the complainer has used the council's complaints procedure to the full. A detailed analysis of how councillors do their constituency job has not been carried out.

We articulate the potential that exists for supporting groups of councillors—for example, by having a worker to support four or five councillors in an area. That would make the job less demanding and more attractive to someone who wants to combine being a councillor with pursuing another career.

There is an interesting point to make on that subject, although the committee might think that I am being a bit fanciful or adopting a bit of a blue-sky approach. A year or two ago, the Scottish Leadership Foundation published a report that made the point that Douglas Sinclair makes—that much of councillors' time tends to be taken up with complaints on behalf of constituents. If we could manage to make authorities much more efficient in the future—I am using coded language for making much greater use of new technology—complaints would not have to go via individual councillors but could be dealt with more directly.

That would free up elected members for exercising the wider community leadership role that Douglas Sinclair mentioned. Such a role relates not only to local authority work, but to the wider community planning partnership, which involves trying to achieve a balance between leadership, advocacy and other kinds of decision-making roles. That poses other questions. For example, if some or all elected members are to take on that role, how in turn will they be supported and remunerated for it?

That might even offer some help to MSPs in their constituency work.

Who knows?

Iain Smith will ask about electoral reform.

You would be disappointed if I did not raise the issue of electoral reform. One of the big issues in the McIntosh and Kerley reports and in the responses to them was the councillor-ward link. In your submission you refer to

"a strong identifiable and direct link between the Councillor and his/her constituents."

What do you mean by that and do you think that that link is stronger in single-member wards or in multimember wards?

I think that SOLACE will probably masterfully avoid coming out in favour of a particular voting system. Our executive held a straw poll and some hands went up for the retention of first past the post and others went up for a proportional representation system.

In attempting to answer your question, I might contradict what I said about the advocacy role of members. There is a strong feeling in SOLACE that the person who is identified with the local ward has a strong profile. I know that I am, in part, ducking your question about whether that is stronger or weaker under the single transferable vote system or any other voting system. However, there is concern that a reform of the voting system might make that profile less understandable to the community at large and make the picture overly complex.

After what you have just said, I am reluctant to press you on this next point. Kerley obviously placed a big emphasis on the first two principles that were recommended by McIntosh—the councillor-ward link and proportionality. Do you agree that those are the two key issues? If so, do you agree with Kerley that the STV system best supports those principles?

I agree that those are extremely important criteria. I shall try to give a frank answer to your question. SOLACE accepts the fact that having a Scottish Parliament that is elected by proportional representation makes it logically and intellectually more difficult to sustain an argument for the retention of a first-past-the-post system in local government. The question would be asked: what is so distinctive about local government? Nonetheless, there are some differences and I do not think that SOLACE would come out in support of the STV system as the recommended voting system for the future. Some individual members might support it, but the organisation as a whole would take the view that it is not core to what we would like to put to you and to the Executive in due course, in our response to the consultation paper.

Our job, as chief executives, is to make whatever electoral system is in place work. What that system is is a matter of political choice.

Our minds are exercised more by the experiments south of the border and in the recent Stirling by-election to increase voter turnout at local government and other elections. We state in our submission—or perhaps it is another paper that I have—that our understanding is that a PR system might increase the vote by 5 to 7 per cent. That is an argument for considering PR seriously. However, postal voting and other means of making it easier for people to vote might have a greater impact on the turnout and, therefore, the support that is given democratically to councils and members of the Scottish Parliament.

I want to press you further on the councillor-ward link. I recently had the privilege of observing the Irish elections. We spoke to several people—politicians, academics and election administrators—who believe that the single transferable vote system and multimember wards increase the link between the members and the community because there is competition for places. Do you accept that such a system might improve the situation?

That is a fair point.

I would not dispute that.

Let us move on to the issue of the representation of women and black and ethnic minorities. Point 10 of your submission states that the additional member system of the Scottish Parliament fails to address that issue effectively. I know that some of the issues are not connected directly with the voting system and that party-political selections and other procedures may come into the equation. However, do you think that an STV system might result in greater representation of minority interests than would be secured by a first-past-the-post system or an additional member system?

In theory, yes. If the voting system is changed, most political parties will rethink their strategies for selecting candidates. Almost inadvertently that might open up opportunities for more women and people from different cultural backgrounds to be considered as candidates. I am not saying that that is the rationale for the change; however, if the change is made, there is a kind of dislocation, which opens up opportunities for new blood to enter the political system.

There is a growing recognition in local government that, despite what we say, the Parliament is more representative of Scotland than local government is and that there is not a long-term future for that situation. Local government has to become more representative of all our communities—we make that point in our submission. The issue for the Scottish Parliament to determine is the way in which that can be achieved.

Your submission makes several points about the problems that have resulted from AMS, particularly in relation to multirepresentation—people are represented by councillors, MPs, constituency MSPs and list MSPs. Do you think that STV and multimember wards would cause more confusion among the electorate or would that system help to clarify the situation?

This might be a slightly bureaucratic point that we are making but, as chief executives, we receive correspondence from three or four different political parties or members of Parliament on the same subject. Perhaps we have to learn to live with that as part of the price of a modern democracy in Scotland. I am not sure that the general public would be confused under STV—we need to discuss that further. There would be a hiccup when the system was introduced, given that two or more members drawn from the same large STV ward might pursue the same issue. That does not sound right; it is not the best use of resources or the best way of tackling problems. However, that might be a transitional issue, which will be resolved when the new system beds in—only time and research will tell. At the moment, there is a sense of frustration among colleagues who have been dragged all over the place by different people on a similar issue.

Some might argue that having many different levels of representation would increase competition among politicians, therefore giving the public better representation. Politicians can no longer afford to be complacent—we cannot sit back with a safe majority.

In my experience in Edinburgh, not too many councillors can sit back and be complacent. I take the point about competition—a market philosophy might have some unforeseen benefits.

I wonder whether "competition" is the right word, when what we are talking about could be seen as unnecessary duplication. That is what it seems like on our side of the table.

I was going to ask about that. The Scottish Parliament has protocols, but it seems quite obvious, certainly from the information that I receive from list MSPs—your comments seem to confirm this—that those protocols are not working. Do you think that there should be stricter protocols under a multimember ward system?

That would be useful. Without stricter protocols, competition would be inevitable, with the result that constituents would get the same answer five times. I do not see the point of that. That is also an issue between MPs and MSPs; I get the sense that some MPs do not recognise that devolution has really happened in Scotland.

Perhaps we will not go into that.

I served in a multimember ward in the days of the Glasgow Corporation. We had three members per ward in those days and I sat with Teddy Taylor and a Labour councillor called Tom McAlmont. We worked well together. However, the neighbouring ward had three Conservative members—or Progressives, as they were called—who were always at one another's throats. It is also true to say that in my party, years ago—I dare not say that it is true today—women were the worst enemy of women candidates. Women on selection committees in the Tory party often vote against women. However, I will come to my question. What is an adequate basic allowance?

Personally, I do not think that £12,000 is adequate. I tried to engage my colleagues in discussion on the issue last Friday—unfortunately Douglas Sinclair was unable to attend. If you are familiar with the local government salary scales, you will know that £12,000 is more or less the bottom entry point for GS1—a general grade—office workers. It is not a terribly good signal to our community that we value, in a certain sense, a councillor at the same level as a low-paid GS1. However, if we are to pay what seems to the public a large amount of money, that will provoke a backlash. When we discussed the matter on Friday, my view that about £15,000 to £20,000 was an appropriate rate for the job was supported by most of my colleagues who were present. That amount has a better feel to it and might begin to break down barriers.

This may be a difficult question, but how should the allowance be determined? Should it be according to the number of hours involved or in comparison with other public sector roles? It must be difficult to equate the roles, because there is no real comparison between the chairman of a planning committee of a major local authority, such as Edinburgh or Glasgow, and the chairman of a committee from a small rural authority. That is the problem. Should the number of hours involved be brought to bear? Should comparisons be made with other public sector roles?

Eventually, a national review body should take responsibility for setting salaries and/or allowances so that the issue is taken out of the hands of people locally. It is difficult for local elected members to be seen to be setting their own schemes.

In response to your first question, I was talking about a flat-rate salary for every elected member in Scotland. Beyond that, we are beginning to talk about how to measure and reward the responsibility that is associated with a particular portfolio. Hours spent at work are a possible measure but are not a complete measure. We talked last week about how, if people apply for a job on a quango, they may have to devote three days a week if they are the chairman, but a day and a half or a day a week if they are an ordinary member of the committee. There are milestones and measures that could help. You will know from your background in local government that the number of hours worked does not necessarily equate to the level of responsibility.

If the committee wishes and if it has time, I can tell members about my council. We have a reasonably well worked out scheme, which has a scientific basis. I like to think that in due course we can take that scheme to a national body, although not necessarily for endorsement. If proper principles are followed in putting a scheme together, a top and a bottom salary level can be created. The top should probably be a salary equivalent to that of a member of the Scottish Parliament for lord provosts and council leaders in the big councils. Different bands of responsibility can be factored in between the top and the bottom.

You have answered the first part of my next question, so I will deal with the second part of it only. Would independent local panels be more able to take account of local circumstances, such as the size of wards or even the structure of councils?

That is an interesting point.

The first part of my question was whether we should have a national body or some other body.

Edinburgh and Glasgow are unique in this respect. A number of business people in the city are gobsmacked by how little councillors are paid for the duties that they undertake. That is not to say that members of the public will not argue the opposite—that councillors are overpaid and get lots of money.

I suppose that the answer depends on who is on the panel. If a business group was on the panel, it would probably argue for an appreciable increase in the current salary or a new salary level. People who are drawn from the community might have to recognise that there is a price to be paid for democracy. If we want to attract good-quality people to local government in future, the figure of £15,000 to £20,000 that I am talking about is not unreasonable. I know that beyond that the responsibility element will kick in, but I am talking about the basic proposed salary at the present time.

We may have touched on my final question, but should remuneration for all councillors in senior positions—not just council leaders—be linked to MSPs' salaries and be banded by population and financial turnover? That would bring in the big local authorities as opposed to smaller local authorities.

Personally, I go along with that. Some colleagues believe that the pressure of being the leader of a relatively small council is just as great as being the leader of a large council—that may or may not be true. Our salaries as chief executives reflect population size and the scale of activity, so logic says that those criteria should also apply to council leaders and senior members of councils. I go along with your suggestion.

Leaders, conveners and provosts would prefer these things to be set objectively and nationally. One of the criticisms that could be made of the consultation paper was that it asked councils to consider setting salaries themselves. I do not think that that can be done; salaries must be set independently and objectively.

I have spoken to a number of councillors in Glasgow from all parties and one of the issues on which they have strong views is a pension scheme. Some councillors provide lengthy service and they want a pension scheme like the one in the Parliament, although I do not know whether that is possible.

You started to talk about support for groups of councillors. Can you give us more detail on that?

I have always been struck by how councillors do their job and by the very different perceptions that they tend to have of their constituency roles. Even senior councillors whom I know get engrossed in dealing with constituency complaints from beginning to end, despite the support that exists within the council to help councillors with the complaints procedure. On the other hand, some councillors will say to their constituents, "Have you exhausted the council's internal procedures? If not, please do so. If you are still unhappy, come back to me." There is much inconsistency in how councillors do the job. It would be helpful if we were better able to clarify the job.

MSPs have support, but I acknowledge that it would be unsustainable and inappropriate to give councillors one-on-one support. For example, in North-east Fife, the council could provide someone to do a lot of the initial investigation of constituency complaints for the three or four councillors in Cupar. That person could put all the papers in front of the councillors, who could then make a judgment. That would remove from councillors some of the administrative dross, such as telephone calls and so on, that makes life pretty demanding. It seems to me that councillors' work-life balance—and possibly their work-work balance—would benefit from that approach, because it would allow them to have a life in which they can do other things.

We should challenge the view that being a councillor nowadays must be a full-time job. However, if it is not to be a full-time job, the support mechanism, the salary, the pension and the whole package needs to be in place. We should not examine only one aspect. It would be fine to get salaries and pensions sorted out but, if work pressures remain demanding, how will we create an environment that allows for a councillor who accepts that the salary and pension are reasonable and who still wants to carry on doing a part-time job? It would be worth carrying out some fairly detailed research into that.

Douglas Sinclair was primarily talking about councillors' local constituency role. Over the past two years in Edinburgh, we have moved towards establishing an executive, with seven scrutiny panels and six local development committees. The executive is well supported through chief officers, including me, and is regarded as the primary decision-making vehicle in the council. However, the scrutiny panels, some of which are chaired by opposition parties, are looking for more dedicated support and research support. I am not talking about the committee clerking role of the past; the panels want officers who have an enabling role and who can chase up information and do background research.

Those issues are also beginning to emerge on the local development committee side. I get the sense that they want not so much a chief executive for each parliamentary constituency, but someone who can chase up complaints, make sure that information is transmitted back into the main organisation and be a fixer who gets things done. Members in Edinburgh are increasingly saying, "We are trying to do a meaningful job, but we require support to do that job." We want to give them that support, but it comes with a price tag and councillors will have to juggle—as MSPs do—front-line services and the demands that go with them with the support services that are required. If we are to take democracy seriously, we will have to find a means of cracking that problem. We should treat elected representatives as important people in the community by giving them reasonable support to do their job locally and/or through the council as a bureaucratic organisation.

I will follow that up with an obvious question. If you are considering providing research support, would you take the adventurous step of making that support available across the political boundaries that exist between councillors? Alternatively, as happens at the Scottish Parliament, are you envisaging a much more political researcher role?

There are a couple of responses to that question. In the City of Edinburgh Council, I have tried to resist the argument that the scrutiny panels should have dedicated staff who support the scrutiny function only, because that would fragment the organisation. Douglas Sinclair, other colleagues and I have been trying hard for years—probably for a lifetime—to build so-called corporate organisations.

I envisage a clear development opportunity for middle managers, who could work to support a scrutiny panel for a year or two. That would allow them to gain experience of working with elected representatives. They would not leave their day jobs, but such roles would enrich their experience.

Douglas Sinclair mentioned Cupar. I do not know whether the councillors in Cupar represent more than one political party, but he made an interesting point—I refer also to Mr Young's point—about whether members from the same political party could cope with such a proposal. The opposite might be true: councillors who are not from the same political party might get on better. I take the point that there are relationship issues, to an extent. We can build structures until we are blue in the face, but things will not change. As I judge the mood at the moment, political parties want their information to be contained within their political groupings, rather than shared among groupings.

Support for constituency work would be a lot easier if information were shared. The public are not interested in politics; they want solutions to problems.

I have the same feeling. As a list member, I feel divorced from a specific electorate, which I have not felt previously in politics. That is a disadvantage of PR, although Iain Smith might not see it that way.

I have never supported the list system. It is a compromise that is needed for proportionality. Let me know if you want to join the campaign for STV in the Scottish Parliament.

Since 1847, there have been 300 different methods of which only half a dozen are workable.

Before we break up, I want to finish by returning to one area of questioning. Have you approached the Executive about additional resources for support or training for councillors and, if so, what was the response?

No. However, as is mentioned in our paper, we have made a commitment to producing another paper on the idea of the improvement function, to which Leslie Evans and her colleagues referred. The improvement function aims to improve the skills of employees and councillors. That is the appropriate area in which we can explore the issues further.

Thank you. That is excellent.

In the white paper, the Executive acknowledges that many councils are making their processes more accessible to the communities that they represent, but it would like to encourage other councils to share best practice. How do you see that being developed? How can councils share best practice?

My reply to that question will be a variation on Douglas Sinclair's remarks about the improvement function. Best practice is a huge issue for Scotland. We need to do a lot more to share best practice and we are trying to do that through SOLACE. Chief executives have fantastic information at our fingertips and people can come along and cherry-pick that information because, at present, we do not put that information together. SOLACE is trying to take strides towards changing that so that we can build on the well of experience that sits in local government.

If we were to move towards an improvement function, one of the possibilities would be for some sort of clearing house to be set up, because that would create greater awareness of who does what in Scotland. That would give us a greater opportunity to learn from each other, rather than reinvent the wheel time after time—a process that has costs attached to it. Douglas Sinclair is working hard on the improvement function. In due course, we will be able to give a full response or provide a summary for the committee on how we see the function working in forthcoming years. We will submit a separate paper to the Executive.

I would like to add a quick postscript. Last week, Andy Kerr announced a tranche of money in round 2 of the modernising government fund. One of the interesting things to note was the number of local authority consortium arrangements. As Tom Aitchison said, there is a willingness not to reinvent the wheel, but to work together. That is particularly the case with information and communications technology. The rigidities of local government reorganisation are beginning to loosen up.

If we go on for much longer, the discussion will become a fireside chat. We are going to have to say goodbye to Douglas Sinclair.

We have more questions for Tom Aitchison. They are similar to those that we asked all the SOLACE witnesses, but we would like to benefit from his expertise on the City of Edinburgh Council in particular. He might have something to add that would give us more detail about what is happening in Edinburgh.

I could say a couple of things that might help in that respect. The City of Edinburgh Council has 58 members of whom 31 are Labour, 13 are Liberal Democrat, 13 are Conservative and 1 is a Scottish National Party member. I work in a multiparty environment, whereas colleagues in other parts of Scotland tend to work in environments in which one party dominates.

Every councillor in Edinburgh receives a special responsibility allowance. I will leave details of the scheme with the clerks, if that is of interest to the committee. The leaders' allowance is set at 100 per cent—the Lord Provost gets more than that for other reasons—the so-called cabinet members are on 75 per cent, scrutiny chairs and local development chairs are on 50 per cent and a large number of members are on 25 per cent.

Members might think that that does not look right and that it is an abuse of the system—how can every single member carry a special responsibility? I take that point in part, but the City of Edinburgh Council is trying to be inclusive and to acknowledge, as I said in my opening remarks, that each political party brings a lot to the council. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the opposition members, as well as those who are in power in the administration, carry responsibility. The question of SRAs is important for the City of Edinburgh Council and for all other councils.

I was asked earlier how much elected members should be paid. The bottom SRA is about £6,000 and when that is added to the basic allowance, councillors get about £12,000 or £13,000. Even if we followed the Kerley recommendation and went for a basic salary or allowance of £12,000 or £13,000 we would not immediately financially disadvantage a quarter of the council members if they were no longer to receive a special responsibility allowance. The more we increase the allowance beyond that, the greater the number of people who would not be financially disadvantaged, if under a revised scheme the number of special responsibility positions were more restricted than in the current Edinburgh scheme. It is important for committee members to have that relationship at the front of their minds when considering remuneration.

It was said that we need to tackle the question of pensions for council members. There are two broad models for that. Either we pay enough to allow the individual member to make his or her provision for a pension separately from the local government scheme, or we try to find a means by which elected members can join the local government pension scheme. I am not an expert on pensions, but the City of Edinburgh Council and SOLACE are examining those two options as part of their final response to the white paper. Pensions are a real issue for councillors.

SOLACE feels strongly that severance arrangements should be in place for councillors who have given long service. I heard about a councillor in the north-east of Scotland who is in his 90th year and who has given 50 years of continuous service. He would leave with nothing at the moment, which does not seem to be morally right. We are trying to bring new blood into councils. Perhaps we should have some sort of transitional arrangement for those who have given 12, 15 or 20 years' service. That is worthy of much more positive action than the white paper contains.

Two years ago, the City of Edinburgh Council employed John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde to model different voting systems in relation to Edinburgh. As things stand, the big loser in Edinburgh is the SNP. It polls just less than 20 per cent of the vote, but has only one seat. In those terms, the party is grossly underrepresented. From memory, the Labour party polled about 33 or 34 per cent in 1999, but has 31 out of 58 seats.

We have tried to model a system that is based on STV constituencies of three, four or five members. I will leave the research on that with members, because it tries to redress the balance. A city such as Edinburgh would probably always have a hung council. It would be hard for any party under a PR system to win outright in Edinburgh—that is the nature of the beast. Either I can leave the details of that with the clerk for the committee to examine in due course, or I can go into more detail now.

It will be useful if you leave the details with us.

The situation in Edinburgh is interesting. In Glasgow there is only one Conservative councillor, one Liberal councillor, two SNP councillors, Tommy Sheridan, and about 70 Labour councillors. There is no chance of the administration changing. Even with PR it might be difficult, but at least it might be a step forward to get greater representation. Even some members of the Labour party in Glasgow think that, although not all of them.

You suggested that a new system could be established whereby a national committee sets a basic salary at a reasonable level. How do you see the special responsibility element—extra salaries for leaders and committee chairs—being set? Would that be done through a local committee, or would it require national endorsement?

I think that I said earlier that both the entry point—whether it is £12,000, £15,000 or £20,000—and the top of the scale could be set using comparison to the salary of an MSP. That would give a top and a bottom. It creates a cap. The City of Edinburgh Council would be in that category. The Lord Provost and the council leader would be on the same salary as an MSP. There are questions in Kerley about quotas—whether a fixed number of councillors in a council should draw down an SRA. I do not think that that would work. I have a council of 58 members. My neighbouring council, Midlothian, has about 18 members. The numbers game does not work easily. This goes back to an undercurrent of this afternoon's discussion, which is that we should trust local government to handle the matter maturely and properly.

Such a system might work if a scheme were drawn up locally by a council and implemented when it was judged by a national body to be reasonable. Once a scheme was in place, there would be a need to amend it from time to time when, for example, control of the council changed politically and its internal structure changed. I am not certain whether it is in the SOLACE submission or the City of Edinburgh Council one, but it has been suggested that once the scale is set, annual salaries could be inflated in relation either to the local government pay award or to the pay award for members of the Scottish Parliament.

We are told that in New Zealand the total resources that are available for remuneration are set by a national body. Local authorities then determine the details of the scheme, within certain guidelines. That seems to be more or less what you are suggesting.

Yes, although what I suggest is slightly different in that I argue for as much discretion as possible within a test of reasonableness. I hope that councillors would act properly and would be aware of how they will be perceived by the general public. If they went crazy with allowances, that would require some third-party intervention.

I have been in New Zealand and I know the scheme to which the deputy convener refers. It is not easy to determine a national quantum such as that. If, after the election next year, my council is hung and the Lib Dems form part of the administration, they will want to change the current executive style of government. I guess that they would want to go back to a so-called streamlined system. If that change was beginning to happen and by-elections were to change more the political situation, we could bounce around regularly, which is not good for local government. There must be a set of principles and a general awareness of the cost of such changes. There must be reasonableness to make the system work on the ground.

Is New Zealand a special case? A former council colleague of mine, who went to teach in New Zealand, was in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. She told us that teachers' pay scales there were extremely low compared with here. Are there any examples of responsibility payments in the large English cities, excluding London, which is a special case? Are there examples from places such as Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham? Do we know what payments they get?

I have with me a paper that was produced for a London authority recently. It argues for slightly less than the Kerley level. An example that springs to mind is Cardiff, which became a cause célèbre some years ago. Cardiff has a joint Lord Mayor and council leader; it is one and the same person—Russell Goodway. He was initially paid about £66,000 or £67,000, which caused a lot of newspaper comment in south Wales and in local government and the press nationally. Eventually, after reconsideration, the salary was reduced. I think that it is now about £50,000.

I believe strongly in the role that cities have to play in our national life and, in particular, our national economy, although I would say that, would not I? I know about the kind of burden that a city council leader carries; it is potentially huge. In Edinburgh, the leader is responsible for the council budget and a suite of local authority companies; for example, we own 90 per cent of the local bus company. We have businesses worth probably £1 billion or more, about 18,000 to 20,000 employees and massive political visibility and accountability. I do not think that a salary of £40,000 or £50,000 is inappropriate for those responsibilities.

I gather that the National Assembly for Wales recommends remuneration levels in Wales. Would you like the Scottish Parliament to have a similar function?

I have always argued for maximum discretion for councils—we are big businesses. I am not arrogant enough to believe that we can sort out all our problems—we cannot. We are in a partnership with Parliament and the Executive, but we need to move away from the 1980s and 1990s control mentality of parts of national Government towards local authorities. A question for national Government is posed by the famous McIntosh expression, "parity of esteem". The task is to decide what that expression means and how local discretion that reflects local circumstances can be reconciled with consistency throughout Scotland. An independent pay review body might be able to straddle those two requirements.

I have a final general question. Will you outline briefly the recent changes in the City of Edinburgh Council's political management arrangements and how that has affected the work loads of councillors in different positions?

The first part of the question is easy to answer, but I am not sure that the second part is as easy.

Edinburgh council was like the vast majority of Scottish councils in that we had a traditional committee system that probably originated in Victorian times. We had education, social work and transport committees. I think we had about 13 or 14 major committees and about three or four times that number of sub-committees. That was the situation after the 1999 election.

We now have a single-party Labour executive of 13 members. As Peter Daniels said earlier, when we meet to discuss education business there are three church representatives at the meeting and two from the teaching profession—from the Educational Institute of Scotland and another teaching union. We have seven scrutiny panels that are organised around thematic structures, such as children and young people and development of the city. Labour councillors chair some panels and Conservative, SNP and Lib Dem members chair others. That is a genuine attempt at inclusion.

The panels have the power to call in executive decisions within five days of a decision's being taken, which freezes the decision until the call-in process is discharged. The panels can also undertake what we call commissioned reviews that are based loosely on the Westminster Parliament select committee model. The panels can examine in depth several topics by calling in witnesses, as the Local Government Committee is doing today, and by working out policy recommendations for the full council as a corporate body.

The third strand, to which I have referred a couple of times, is that we now have local development committees—LDCs—that are based on the parliamentary constituencies in Edinburgh. There are six, but there will be five when the current review concludes. The fourth strand, which is sometimes forgotten, is the regulatory side of planning, building control and licensing.

On the second part of the deputy convener's question, I suspect that the work load of some people in the Edinburgh council executive has not diminished; rather, it has increased in the past year or two. A member can choose how actively to pursue his or her particular portfolio, but the work load of the key positions of leader and deputy leader has increased a lot in the past couple of years.

The system is generally supported by the Conservative group. However, the system is not liked by the Liberal Democrat group, which feels that it is alienated from the mainstream work of the council. I think that its members feel that their only route into that work is through the scrutiny panels and the LDCs. However, the Liberal Democrat group feels that there is not the same degree of specialism as there was under the old committee system, in which a member could be, for example, an expert in transportation or social work.

I do not think that any member's work load has diminished because of the new system. Probably, work loads have generally stayed the same, but they have increased for a large number of people.

Thank you. I believe that members are happy not to ask further questions. We have exhausted everybody. Thank you, Tom—you can go.

It has been a long day.

Meeting continued in private until 17:38.