Official Report 120KB pdf
All committee members have been provided with the Executive summary of the McIntosh report, at the back of which Eugene Windsor and Craig Harper have kindly provided us with examples.
It is a question of who drafts the first draft—whether we do or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities does, too, and we then compare drafts. We must do something. It is for the Parliament, not the Executive, so it is our baby.
Does anybody object to the principle of the agreement? No. We have established the principle, but the question stands: who actually drafts it?
In all instances, we should be the first people to whom those issues come for discussion. We should put forward our recommendations thereafter.
To the Parliament?
Yes.
We will continue as we said we would. This is a non-contentious recommendation, but we have a role to play in implementing it. We will stick to calling it non-contentious, but we will have to consider how to play our role—we will come back to that. Kenny suggested that we consider it, make some decisions and put them to the Parliament.
In the interests of progressing the matter on the basis of equality with local government, we might want to speak to the appropriate people—presumably COSLA—so that we arrive at a consensual view on how to manage the process. I do not want us to take total ownership of developing the ground rules for the covenant, as we are trying to ensure that we work together.
That would contradict the purpose of McIntosh.
We might have expert advisers, too. Eugene will have to get used to speaking up—he has just whispered in my ear again—but that was what he said. That advice sounded good coming from me, but it came from Eugene and I cannot take any credit for it.
Who would select the parliamentarians?
I suggest that, logically, members of the committee would make up the parliamentary half of such a joint conference, although other people could be invited.
Are there any objections to that suggestion, although it is extra work?
There will not be any objections here, obviously—[Laughter.] I would not want to speak for the whole Parliament.
On page 15 of the McIntosh report, issues are raised about the role of the Local Government Committee. We might want to come back to the issue. While it might be non-contentious, we might need to consider the parliamentary side and how it is selected.
We seem to be tying ourselves in knots. We should consider which recommendations are contentious, which are non-contentious and then decide how to approach them if we agree that there are no political issues. Local government is not just about COSLA—the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, Unison and various other people have an interest.
I agree, although it is fair enough for members to comment on how they wish to progress the matter. Colin, did you wish to comment?
No—that is fine.
Questions arise from the second recommendation, such as: who will select the parliamentary side of the joint conference? Will members of the Local Government Committee be chosen, or is it a matter for the Parliament to decide? However, we do not think that the recommendation is contentious.
As long as we are kept advised about what is going on, before the public are.
Therein lies the problem.
There is a slight problem, which was raised earlier. The McIntosh commission did not know whether there was going to be a Local Government Committee when it made the recommendations. Does the third recommendation need to be broadened so that it includes the role of the Local Government Committee, as well as that of ministers?
Fair point.
So there is a triangular agreement.
We agree in principle. The recommendation should be extended.
We obviously believe that that should be the case.
The thrust of all the briefings that we received was that that should happen, but the Executive has asked for further consultation. There might be some contention, depending on what members of the committee feel. Remember that we asked to meet the ministers to establish the grounds for their unease; what the Accounts Commission for Scotland said this morning was interesting. There is another side to things. I do not know whether that makes it contentious, but the matter will not be resolved immediately, especially as it has gone out for further consultation. We need to know what the timetable is for that consultation. We could raise that with the minister.
I agree with that, and I imagine that the committee is generally supportive of the recommendation. One of the points that the Accounts Commission made outside this meeting—as you did, convener—was that part of the way to answer the Executive is to build up the picture of the areas in which local government would want to use those powers. That might be highlighted to the Executive, to reassure it. We should flag that up as an issue around which there might be some debate, and invite specific representations on it. Also, as Johann said, we should raise it with the minister.
We feel that there is adequate provision in existing legislation to do most of those things anyway. We would like more evidence on what local councils would like to do—what we could expect them to do—before we are convinced.
Is this contentious or is it not? I think not.
Politically it is, in as much as we would not support it.
Well, that is all right then; it is contentious. [Laughter.] There you are—there's a quick reaction.
There are always two sides to a coin. As was said this morning, councils have a lot of power within existing law—they might even have the power for which they are asking. Perhaps it is down to how individual councils use it and how much they are aware of it. It might become a contentious issue because some members of the committee might not support it, but we definitely need more information. One way to get that is by speaking to the minister, but we must also speak to councils. They must give us examples of where, if they had had the power of general competence, it would have made a difference in the delivery of service.
Local authorities might not have a list of areas in which they would want to be involved if that was implemented—it is almost a chicken-and-egg situation. People might not think about it because they might be concerned that it is ultra vires. Further consultation might be a wise step, although we are in favour of a power of general competence. It would help the debate if people knew in more detail why we were going down this road.
Councils might be surprised when they find out just what their powers are at the moment.
Could we invite Mr McIntosh to gives us his arguments, as well as COSLA? The commission was obviously convinced of the need.
So we would have COSLA, to represent the councils?
Yes. It would move things on if we wrote to both McIntosh and COSLA and asked for arguments on the recommendation.
Do you want to write, or do you want to have them in?
Have them in.
Any dissent to having them in?
Certainly not.
At this rate, the inquiry will take us five years. [Laughter.] Some of us have only four years.
Many people would find that contentious.
The Executive might find the proposal contentious, but I know that that view is not shared by members of the committee, by the SOLACE, by COSLA and by Unison. We believe that there should be an immediate review, which would also give the Executive an opportunity to explain in great detail the strictures under which it is working. Perhaps the results of such a review might be more contentious than having the review in the first place.
The report recommends an independent inquiry, which it would not be if we were involved.
I wonder whether going through the recommendations saying which are contentious and which non-contentious is the best approach. Although we have to know the elements of the report with which we agree, we need more information about certain matters before we can decide on the contentiousness of a recommendation—even though we might be clear in our own minds about that. We are still inviting people to brief us on and provide evidence about such aspects.
That is why we need to go through the recommendations line by line, as I said at the beginning. There will not be many areas where we will be able to say, "That's fine. We can go with that," without more information. We need to prioritise because the clerks will have to organise committee agendas and invite people to speak to us if we do not want written information.
Perhaps a better way to make progress would be to say that local government finance is a big issue for the committee, rather than simply to accept the recommendations.
But the committee needs to decide how to deal with McIntosh's recommendations. I do not think that the Executive would have a problem with the committee investigating all aspects of local government finance. However, McIntosh recommends an independent inquiry, which we would not be.
I am trying to say that, by considering the whole area of local government finance, we can return to the question whether an independent inquiry is needed.
That might be part of your own recommendations.
It is fairly obvious that an independent inquiry is needed, and I have not met anyone in local government who says otherwise. Although there might be a big argument about the outcome, we should instigate such an inquiry, which is what everyone in local government wants us to do. Before today, I did not think that that proposal would be contentious.
It is clearly a contentious issue if the Executive has said that it does not want such an inquiry. Although we could agree on a whole range of issues, we might be the only people to do so and organisations and bodies external to the committee might still find such views contentious.
I agree.
I would hate to predict the outcome of an argument with the Executive. The committee could examine the matter, but the reason for an independent inquiry—rather than anything else—is that McIntosh perceived that the public believe that it is better not to have too many politicians looking at such matters.
Johann and I are not ruling out an independent inquiry. We agreed at a previous meeting that we would begin to look at local government finance as a whole. The Minister for Finance, Jack McConnell, will be at our next meeting. As Johann says, the matter is contentious—Jack McConnell is coming because we want to investigate further. It is not to say that we will not have an independent review at some point.
The matter is certainly contentious, because we agree with the Executive. An independent review would create too much turmoil at present, but the committee should look at finance. An independent review would bring about too many changes in local government after all the turmoil that it has experienced in the past couple of years. At this stage, the Executive's line on the matter is correct.
I support the committee having a look at the issue. It is a little bizarre that in some cases we complain that too many independent reviews are being set up that are outwith our remit, while in the one area in which one has not been set up, we want to set one up.
We are saying that it should be an independent review because that will reflect the views of McIntosh and people in local government. We want to represent the views of local government on the issue. That is why we take the view that an independent inquiry should be instituted—if Jack is coming on Tuesday, we should be able to put that to him.
In our discussions with ministers, which might extend to our meeting with Ms Alexander, we should try to persuade them to have an independent review or at least understand their reasons for not having one. They might persuade us that it is not a good idea. If the Executive will not have an independent review, we can discuss what form of review—if any—to set up. It is a three-stage process, but we have to talk to ministers robustly first.
That is exactly what I was going to say. You are right—McIntosh recommends an independent inquiry. Arthur Midwinter, the chief executives, the unions and COSLA have all said the same thing to us. However, for parity, we have to listen to what Jack and Wendy say. I do not expect Jack to say, "Don't worry. We're going to do this, this and this and everything will be fine," but at least he will have the opportunity to put his position—and his reason for it—to the committee. The same goes for Wendy.
Efficiency and cost-effectiveness are not neutral terms. We should recognise that we are asking local government to do something quite complex. It would be interesting to consult practitioners who have developed best value, to find out how complex the process is. Achieving cost-effectiveness may go beyond the remit of local government because the process concerns the well-being of communities. If we have a social inclusion agenda, the process should go beyond crude pound signs.
Such points will be raised when we start taking evidence from councils and other bodies. In principle, however, may I take it that we do not have a great problem with this recommendation?
My understanding is that this recommendation is designed to ensure that local government is considered as the vehicle for services. If a social inclusion agenda were being considered, we would want to try to ensure that local government is considered as a possible vehicle for that.
As there is some concern about the terms efficiency and cost-effectiveness and their effect on communities, could we have it on the record that we will return to this subject? There is a concern that stock transfer, for example, may not depend on efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The community aspect has been raised, too, and perhaps it is not well represented by the terms efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
I do not disagree with that.
Having a review of the rules and arrangements is not contentious, but the outcome may be. Should we consider the likely outcomes, or just accept that there should be a review?
This is a major subject and the committee should get involved in it. There are two sides to this argument and we will be coming to the other one—electoral systems—shortly. When it comes to electing a council and getting more people to take part in local democracy, nobody would object to any drive towards improving turnouts by simplifying the system or improving access to it.
Michael McMahon has suggested that there should be a review, and Bristow says that perhaps we should conduct it. Are there any other views?
There certainly should be a review. What I am not sure about is how many of the points are covered by the committee that is chaired by Mr Kerley. We do not want to duplicate his work, so we may want to let that committee get on with it. It is certainly considering a four-year term, but I do not know whether it is dealing with electronic voting.
Mr Kerley is examining electoral systems, but not the mechanics of getting more people to vote.
He is dealing with how to get better councillors and the question of four-year terms and whether they should coincide with parliamentary terms. I am not sure whether he would be considering postal voting; perhaps we should clarify that. I am all for having a review, but I do not think that we should duplicate the work of another committee.
Item 7 contains many practical suggestions on electing councils. I assume that somebody is beavering away to produce a paper that could be the basis of a review, rather than our having to do everything. If somebody is developing that work, we could comment on it and add to it.
Some of those questions will be answered in Wendy Alexander's report on the McIntosh commission later in September.
I have no problem at all with item 7. Johann, Michael and Bristow are right in saying that we want to make recommendations, but I do not believe that there are any real points of contention. We need to discuss how the recommendations can be implemented in practical terms. We certainly want a four-year term, but I agree that the second part of item 8 might be more contentious. However, we accept what the McIntosh report recommends.
On 14 September, the Sunday Herald reported:
We are discussing something that was in the papers three days ago. As I have said, this will end up making the committee a laughing stock. We are getting not the cherry picking, but the dismantling of McIntosh. We will end up with something that is not related to the document that we debated on 2 July.
We can certainly take that up with the ministers, Frank McAveety and Wendy Alexander, when they come here. You have a point.
We will support anything that will increase the number of people voting. We agree with item 7 but, on item 8, we believe that local elections should be held at a different time to the Scottish Parliament elections; that is contentious, but I think that the SNP agrees.
We agree.
I could not hear; did you say that elections should be held at separate times?
Separate times—local elections on local issues.
It seems that there is a group act on this question, but I have reservations. The enthusiasm that arose because the elections for councils and for the Scottish Parliament were held on the same day could be compared with the low turnout for the European elections, which were held later. We could find that not as many people turn out if we hold local and Scottish Parliament elections separately.
Surely, if we get the issues in item 7 right, the factors under item 8 will not be important. Other countries in Europe that have local elections and national or regional elections on separate days have much higher turnouts than we do even for Westminster elections. As McIntosh suggests, elections should be held midway between parliamentary elections so that people—as Keith rightly said—vote on local government issues, and do not go to vote on something else only to notice another ballot paper or two that they feel duty-bound to fill in.
Kenny has made a good point about how items 7, 8, 9 and the others are linked. It is worth exploring this a wee bit further.
On voting on local government issues, I think that we underestimate people's ability to distinguish between the two sets of elections. I observed at the count after the recent elections that some areas voted for me in the Scottish Parliament elections but voted for an SNP councillor in the council elections. People were able to distinguish between the two sets of elections and to vote for individual candidates. The biggest argument for holding elections on the same day is that it is far more likely to result in a bigger turnout because of the media coverage and the party campaigning.
I agree. People seemed to vote how they wished. Voters understood the ballot papers much better than officials knew how to count them.
It would be interesting to consult people within local government and at a Scottish level. Views on this are almost instinctive. My impression was that holding elections on the same day improved local government turnouts because parliamentary elections had a higher profile. People may have been able to focus on the fact that there were different layers of government, but that there was partnership as well. Equally, there may be an argument that holding elections on the same day confused people. Neil McIntosh has stated his view; it would be interesting to know how he came to it, but it would also be interesting to know what other people think.
I do not want to re-invent the wheel. We should examine how other countries in Europe achieve high turnouts. The issues that are covered in annexe A of the Executive's summary of the McIntosh report will help us to achieve a higher turnout than we had at the previous local elections.
It is clear that having two ballots together is not a disincentive. The evidence is that it improved the turnout for the local government election. However, we will need to determine whether people were confused about what they were voting on.
Obviously, the issue is contentious. How do we resolve the contention in this committee? We have agreed to speak to people about electoral reform and we should wait until we have listened to evidence from many more organisations before we continue. We should let it be known that we will deal with the issue soon and that we will be gathering information until then.
Does everyone agree that there should be a four-year term?
That might come out in discussion.
I do not think that anyone favours a three-year term.
I do not have a problem with four-year terms, but we might discover problems when we consult people.
I agree that a four-year term would allow for long-term planning in the local authority. I also agree with Donald Gorrie's comment that we should find out what is within Kerley's remit.
In our informal briefing, someone suggested that we should examine the electoral system. One suggestion was that a certain number of councillors would be elected in the middle of the four-year period but would serve for four years. The idea was that that would help continuity. However, it might be worth pursuing the variations on that model.
The next section of our discussion is on the electoral system, about which Richard Kerley is concerned. He has e-mailed me to say that he would like to speak to me—I assume that he will accept an invitation to talk to the committee.
I am happy with the procedure, but I hope that we can review it. If we are restricted, that may not turn out to be a particularly productive way of pursuing a minister on individual questions. We must all agree a process, but I understand that you want to set a pattern, convener.
I am happy with that. Today, the presentations were slightly longer than I had hoped. We should learn from that. Three people were giving presentations, so we ran out of time. My proposal is intended to allow everyone to contribute. I agree that members should be allowed to pursue an issue. However, I do not want members to leave the meeting feeling that they did not have the chance to ask their question because a previous questioner had been making a speech.
To be fair to those asking the questions, including me, I do not think that we expected the answers to be as long as they were.
I will give you that, Kenny. The answers were all in three if not four parts.
I take on board what Johann said. I felt that I could have asked a load of questions. Now that we have met representatives of the Accounts Commission, we will know better how long is required. There are some aspects of the Scotland Act 1998 which prevent the Scottish Parliament from examining in detail council tax fraud and housing benefit fraud, for example. I wanted to ask a number of questions on it, but I was restricted to one.
As I said, we have the opportunity to ask people to come back. I would be interested in doing that if there were particular issues that members wanted to pursue.
Meeting closed at 12:28.