Official Report 142KB pdf
We now move to a discussion of the briefing paper on the local government and Scottish Parliament covenant and joint standing conference. The first page gives the background, but the second page sets out some issues for consideration. Do members want to comment on the role of Parliament in relation to the covenant and the conference? The first question reads:
One of the few clear things in the Scotland Act 1998 is that the Parliament has powers over local government in Scotland. I do not regard this as an issue, quite honestly.
The matter has been referred to Carol McCracken, who is the director of clerking. She will give us the legal advice, and we will proceed from there.
The most important thing is to establish the mechanism that is to be adopted for choosing the members to represent the parliamentary side of the joint standing conference. We should do that early on, if possible.
Are there any other comments on that paragraph? We will wait to hear what Carol McCracken has to say and take it from there.
Are we just asking the question, or are we answering it?
We are just asking the question at the moment. These are the questions that have come up.
So, we are not deciding on the mechanism.
No. We are just posing these questions.
Who is going to answer them?
That is for the Parliament and local government, not the Local Government Committee. That is where it gets confusing.
So there would need to be a parliamentary debate, or some appropriate body in the Parliament would have to decide whether the Parliament was going to discuss this matter and take a view on it. We could furnish such a debate with a report containing our views on the way in which it should be done, but it would have to be for the Parliament to decide. Would the Parliamentary Bureau decide that, or would it be considered committee business?
Perish the thought.
The recommendation that there should be a covenant and joint standing conference flows from McIntosh, but we do not have to wait for the full action to proceed with McIntosh. The appropriate way for us to deal with this would be for you to discuss with other conveners a way of taking the issue forward. This committee should act as the lead committee in examining the content of the covenant, and we should invite the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for discussions. Some of the other committees of the Parliament may also want to comment on the covenant.
Bristow Muldoon has put forward a proposal. Does anybody disagree with it or want to add to it? It could be a way forward. We can make inquiries about it and address the matter on a committee day.
This is a complex matter, concerning the prospective role of the other committees and the way in which they will be represented on the joint standing committee. If the matter was progressed, that would be the main issue for you to discuss, would it not?
Yes. I can take the matter to the conveners liaison group, but Bristow Muldoon's idea of addressing it on a committee day is good, as it must be addressed by the Parliament at some point. That would allow conveners of other committees to contribute as appropriate.
The wider issue is raised of the cross-representation of committees. Without being defensive and territorial, I feel that several committees are trespassing on what is basically local government ground. It could be argued that this committee should be represented on the body that is to be set up to examine the issue of teachers' pay, in response to the findings of the McCrone committee, as local government has to pay up.
Yes. That is correct.
That is what I was trying to get at. We should recognise that the issue is complementary to our role in considering local government.
Yes. I agree with that. Do members have anything else to add on issues for consideration?
As long as the Parliamentary Bureau has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter—ever—I am in favour of the suggestions. [Laughter.]
I am the reporter to the COSLA/Local Government Committee group. It would be helpful if two other members were willing to act as reporters when I cannot attend the meetings of that group. The group usually meets on Friday. The three, or two, of us would not attend together; only one would go and report back. Whoever took on that role would meet more people from COSLA. It would be good for committee members to go out and do a bit more than sit around the table discussing things. If anybody is willing to take on that role, they should let Eugene Windsor know. Johann Lamont and I will take it in turns to attend those meetings anyway.
I volunteer.
I volunteer as well.
Kenny and Donald have volunteered.
We have a pool of talent.
Albeit a shallow pool. No, actually we have oceans of talent.
We are all big fish in a small pond.
On page 3 of the briefing note, COSLA asks for the draft material to be passed to conveners of the subject committees. We have talked about that, and the committee seems to agree that the conveners should receive information about what is going on. The suggestion is that
There are two recommendations in paragraph 5:
What timetable has been set for receiving that clarification?
I do not know.
It was suggested earlier that the matter is quite straightforward.
I am told that that clarification should be received before the summer recess.
I would have thought that COSLA would want the matter to be progressed as quickly as possible. I am not sure what clarification is required. Is it simply whether we are allowed to arrive at an agreement with another body about the way in which we will work together? Is it about protocols such as those that we will develop with Westminster? Is it not about this committee, but about the Parliament?
Because no such agreements have previously been entered into with outside bodies, legal clarification is required on whether the Parliament has the competence to enter into such an agreement. I do not think that there is any indication that it does not, but we need to confirm that before we can move on.
Are you satisfied, Johann?
No.
It should not hold us up a great deal, but I agree with Johann Lamont. If we were seen to be pushing the issue, that would show local government people that we are serious about it.
We can find out how long it will take, and we can push the matter. For the moment, does the committee agree to the recommendations?