“Renewing Local Democracy: The Next Steps”
Okay comrades, we will now return to phase 2 of our inquiry on renewing local democracy. This is the last opportunity that we will have to take evidence before we report.
We welcome the committee's adviser, Oonagh Aitken.
We have before us again Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services. We also have Leslie Evans, who is the head of the local government constitution and governance division of the Executive, and Heather Aitken, who is a policy officer in the same division. I welcome them all. They have all been at the committee before.
I ask Peter Peacock to make an opening statement, and then the committee will ask questions.
I will take a few minutes to set out a number of the Executive's thoughts and proposed actions. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to do that today. I appreciate that the committee is moving towards the end of its inquiry.
I will provide the committee with some indication of the outcome of the consultation on the local government white paper "Renewing Local Democracy: The Next Steps". I will also remind the committee of the initial response that we made to the outcome of that consultation on the subject of electoral reform back in September, and finally I will provide a fuller indication of our intentions on the other issues included in the white paper.
The committee will recall that the local government white paper was published on 27 March. The consultation on the document finished at the end of July. We received a total of 1,075 responses. I am very grateful to the individuals, councils and other organisations, including the Local Government Committee, which took the trouble to respond to the consultation.
As we wanted to ensure that the consultation covered as wide a range of groups within the community as possible, both Andy Kerr and I—together with officials—held meetings to discuss the issues raised in the white paper with councillors, the business community, trade unions, equalities groups, and community council associations. A summary of the document was also made available in seven ethnic minority languages.
Of the responses, 890 dealt solely with the issue of electoral reform and supported the introduction of the single transferable vote. More than 700 of those responses were as a result of a pre-printed postcard campaign. A further 66 responses, which dealt with a number of the issues covered in the document, also supported the introduction of the single transferable vote.
In broad terms, the remainder of the responses to the consultation showed that there is considerable support for the changes that we propose to make to encourage more people to stand for election to councils and for the introduction of a salary system and the provision of pensions for councillors.
The changes that we intend to make to the existing system of capital consents were also welcomed. We dealt with the legislation on that matter earlier in the meeting. There is clear support for the introduction of a function to support performance improvement in local government.
I shall say a little more later on about the outcome of the consultation on the white paper and in particular about the detail of the responses on remuneration and associated matters.
I mentioned that we undertook a series of consultation meetings with councillors and other interested groups throughout Scotland. There were relatively few surprises in the outcome of those meetings. There was little or no consensus on the issue of electoral reform. There was, however, significant support for the changes that we propose to make to encourage more people to stand for election and for changes to the way that councillors are remunerated. There was strong support for the changes that we are making to the legislation on capital consents and considerable interest in the introduction of an improvement function.
The key message that came out of the meetings with councils and was supported by the written responses was the need, at the very least, for a clear statement of intention, preferably some early decisions and, ideally, early action on the issues rehearsed in the document.
We have listened to what has been said to us and we are keen to respond positively. We have, of course, consistently made clear our commitment to making progress on electoral reform, both in the partnership agreement and in the white paper.
Although there were supporters of no change, in respect of considering a system of proportional representation the responses to the consultation showed that a significant majority was in favour of the single transferable vote system.
We therefore announced in September that we would publish a local governance bill before the end of the parliamentary session. The bill will include the single transferable vote as the alternative to the first-past-the-post system for local authority elections. The bill will be available for a decision by the new Executive following the May 2003 Scottish Parliament elections.
We also indicated in September that we would in due course announce to Parliament our intentions on the other issues included in the white paper. That is why I will today set out the issues that will be included in the local governance bill when it is published early next year.
As well as providing for the introduction of the single transferable vote, the bill will bring the minimum age for standing as a councillor, which is currently 21, in line with the voting age, which is currently 18. It will repeal the legislation establishing a salary threshold for politically restricted posts within local authorities, while retaining the provisions that identify specific posts as politically restricted. It will amend the current legislation so that council employees no longer have to resign on nomination as a candidate, but only on election as a councillor. It will reduce to three months the period during which former councillors are unable to take up employment with their council after their period of service comes to an end. In order to ensure transparency and maintain clear boundaries, we will retain the current 12-month period for politically restricted posts and for those councillors who have been involved in the appointment of council staff.
We will abolish the current system of basic and special responsibility allowances and provide for the introduction of remuneration based on the payment of a salary supplemented by a limited number of additional payments to reflect some members' additional responsibilities. We want to introduce some independent elements, such as a remuneration panel, which would be involved in deciding on the detailed arrangements for a remuneration package for councillors. We want to permit a pension scheme for councillors to allow future service to count for pension purposes.
I would like to say a little about our intentions regarding the bill that is to be published. The level of detail included in the bill will vary according to the subject covered. The provisions on the age of standing as a councillor and on political restrictions are relatively straightforward and will be set out quite clearly in the bill. Those are issues where our policy intentions were set out in the white paper and were broadly endorsed by the responses that we received. About 90 per cent of the respondents commented on the issues and supported the Executive's approach on the two issues that I have just referred to.
The provisions that introduce a single transferable vote are not so easy to express in legislative terms. They will be set out in some detail in the bill, even though some of the detail on procedures will be set out in the secondary legislation. That is the approach taken in the Scotland Act 1998 to elections to this Parliament.
The position on a remuneration package to replace existing basic and special responsibility allowances is quite different. On those issues, we intend to take general powers in the bill and specify the detail of the schemes to be introduced in secondary legislation thereafter. That is not unusual. Indeed, the current legislation on councillors' allowances is expressed in that way. Parliament will, of course, have the opportunity to contribute to the detail of that at the time when the secondary legislation is laid before it. There is another important reason why we are adopting that approach: there is still a significant amount of work to be done on the detail behind our decisions to change the current remuneration package.
The consultation responses in that area were far from clear cut. We need to get it right and in order to do so we shall need to take account of the views of a number of people. We want an independent input into the process and we need to keep an eye on affordability questions. To help us develop our thinking on the detail for those areas, we intend to set up a working group of officials and others to consider detailed options for a suitable remuneration package drawing on expert external advice. The work of that group will be used to inform the decisions that the new Executive will have to take. We are still considering the make-up and terms of the panel, but we shall announce details shortly.
A number of other issues were raised in the white paper, and I should give the committee an indication of our intentions in those areas. One of those key issues was removing barriers to council membership. Some of the provisions that will be included in the bill will assist in that area, but there is more that can be done. To ensure that we have an established baseline from which to measure progress made, my officials will be commissioning research on the candidates standing for election to councils in May and those elected to serve. That research will cover basic information such as age, gender and ethnic background. It will also cover councillors' previous employment and whether they remain in full or part-time work once they have taken up the role of councillor.
We will be speaking to COSLA about establishing a working group with councils, equalities groups and political parties to make progress in the run-up to the 2007 elections. We will also be working with COSLA to prepare non-statutory guidance on defining politically restricted posts.
Engaging the community with the work of councils is another issue raised in the white paper. There are a number of strands in the overall impetus to involve the community at a greater level. As you well know from current deliberations, the Local Government in Scotland Bill includes provisions for community planning and for best value, which will help councils to tailor their services to meet the needs of the community. Involving young people in the work of government is important if we are to encourage them to be more active citizens and more active in citizenship.
The committee will have heard evidence from councils that many have active and successful youth forums and involvement programmes. That work clearly ties in with that undertaken by the Scottish youth parliament and YouthLink Scotland, both of which receive support from the Scottish Executive.
Career development training for councillors was another element of removing barriers to council membership raised in the white paper. We see that as part of the overall improvement function and recognise that innovative work on the matter is being carried out by councils, particularly by Scottish Borders Council. I also understand that Fife Council is conducting some interesting research on the levels and kind of support that elected members need to help them to carry out their job effectively and to make best use of their time. Both initiatives represent examples of good practice that we would want to encourage and see reproduced elsewhere.
We invited views on the case for a new service to help local authorities improve their services by learning from each other and from other bodies in the public and private sectors. Such a service could offer a range of options for the exchange of good practice, including benchmarking against local authority performance throughout the United Kingdom and more widely, peer review and shared training and development for members and officers. I am glad to say that the majority of respondents supported the introduction of such a service, and we are keen to proceed with it. We have set aside some resources to support it and want to see it up and running by the end of 2003.
There were a variety of views about the best way of structuring and organising those services, and we plan to discuss those detailed matters further with the key stakeholders in the local authority world before introducing specific proposals. Much has been done on developing work on renewing local democracy, and we recognise that much remains to be done. A good start has been made and we will continue to listen to what people have to say. The evidence already taken by the committee has proved a valuable source of material, and we would welcome any further evidence from the committee.
I hope that I have set out clearly where the Executive is planning to make progress. I would be happy to answer any questions, with the assistance of my two officials.
Thank you. I want to ask about removing barriers to people becoming members of a council. We have evidence that shows that a lack of provision of child care and respite for carers contributes to those barriers. What priority does the Executive give that? What kind of assistance would you consider giving to councils to develop proposals?
As you said, an underlying principle that we have discussed for many months and on which the committee has taken evidence is how to get a wider cross section of people involved in local government. One noticeable feature of local government is that it tends to be male, white, middle aged and middle class. There is a definite requirement over time to have councillors better reflecting the balance of their communities. With that in mind, we have to look at a range of factors as part of that, including salaries and the remuneration package, training, better job descriptions, better recruitment systems in political parties and better support. Issues such as child and respite care are also part of the fabric that we need to examine.
As I sit here today, we do not have specific proposals for how we want to move forward. However, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we plan to sit down with COSLA and others to examine the package of issues on which we need to make progress to see what they are and what support may be required in the process. I do not rule out making progress on child and respite care, because such issues will be critical in attracting into councils the people that we want to see and ensuring that certain people are not debarred.
You said that you do not have any specific proposals. However, do you agree that a public information campaign on the roles of a councillor and a local authority would be productive? Could the Executive be involved in such a campaign?
Indeed. In relation to the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary and council elections, we are planning much more active advertising about the election systems, partly because of comments made by this committee in the past, as an indication that we want people more actively involved in democracy at a voting level. Equally, we must explain more clearly, persistently and consistently what councillors do, how vital they are to the running of their communities and the particular demands on them. We must also examine what those demands are and how councils structure their business to make it easier for people to participate. I do not see a problem in principle with the Executive's becoming actively involved in supporting such campaigns.
Can I assume that the campaign will say that there are three votes?
That is the firm intention, convener.
I am glad that the minister started off by calling it the local governance bill. I believe that at the very beginning, it was suggested that the Local Government in Scotland Bill could be called the local governance bill. I welcomed the minister's comments, particularly when he mentioned that he would be pleased to see any evidence that the committee might have. I am also pleased to hear the minister say that the councillors' basic and special responsibility allowances are going to be considered and abolished.
You mentioned that a working group is going to be set up to consider the basic and special responsibility allowances, or a new salary for councillors. You also said that that would be supplemented if they had additional duties. What is the time scale for setting up the working group? Will the working group be committed to seeing fairness across all councils? Will there be a cut-off point for salaries and money for additional duties?
We all know only too well that responsibility allowances are only taken up by councils of a certain political persuasion. I wondered whether that was part and parcel of what the working group might be considering.
You now understand why we did not call the Local Government in Scotland Bill the local governance bill; that title was being kept for the proposed bill.
On the general question of salaries and remuneration, we concluded that the present arrangements clearly do not work in the interests of local government, of individuals or the communities that are being served. That is why we want to make a change.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, although there was almost universal support for a change throughout the consultation, there was very little consensus about what the nature of that change ought to be. We want to set up the working group to take all the evidence a good deal further and to bring in an independent element.
Politicians at the Scottish Parliament and local government levels are all concerned about being in any way engaged in deciding their own levels of remuneration. The consultation gave us a strong sense that having an independent element in that would be in everyone's interests, so that local councillors were not seen to be setting their own salaries or salary schemes. That is why we want to explore that in much more detail.
As to time scales, we want to start that work fairly soon. We are thinking about the composition of the working groups and who we want to involve. We want to ensure that all relevant interests are represented around the table, and that the independent element that I mentioned is included. The intention is that the work will certainly be finished in time for the new Executive to make decisions about the details when it is elected in 2003.
You asked about cut-off points. There are two parts to that. Some councils currently give special responsibility allowances to virtually all their councillors. Practice varies between that and the giving out of comparatively few special responsibility allowances. The levels of those special responsibility allowances vary enormously across Scotland, from a few hundred pounds in some cases to around £30,000 in other cases. Again, we want to try to get a feel for the best levels and quantums or amounts within particular councils. I do not mean that in terms of the total volume of cash, but the number of posts that might be affected.
We suggested that a mechanism similar to a remuneration committee is quite attractive and we want to make provision for that type of approach. One of the reasons that we suggested that is that, as well as considering individual salary levels that might be appropriate, it might also be able to consider particular schemes that a particular council wanted to propose in relation to the number of posts that ought to carry additional responsibilities. We know that that is bound to vary between councils because of the nature of the areas that they serve, and the kinds of structures that they have. I do not believe that there will be a standard scheme for Scotland. There might be some standard principles about the basic salary levels, but the numbers of posts that carry additional responsibilities might vary from council to council. We want that further work to consider those issues in detail.
Within that framework, we will also consider your point about opposition parties. After all, it is legitimate to ensure that opposition exists in any council—indeed, in any democratic setting—so that it can function effectively. The Scottish Parliament has its own rules about that and I fully expect that any further work will consider the question of how we properly support opposition parties to allow them to carry out their job effectively.
I welcome the minister's statement on the issues that he wishes to include in the forthcoming local governance bill. I want to draw particular attention to the proposal to reduce the age at which people can stand for council election from 21 to 18. When I was first elected to Fife Regional Council in 1982, I was the youngest regional councillor in Scotland and remained so for eight years. Anything that we can do to encourage younger people to get involved would be good.
Whether young people want to become involved is another matter and is perhaps the thrust of my question. How do we get young people to become engaged enough in the democratic process that they would want to stand for council elections? The committee has heard about initiatives such as the Angus youth congress and the Highland youth voice that encourage young people to become involved in politics. Would the Executive consider evaluating such initiatives and disseminating best practice on those matters to other councils?
On Iain Smith's first point about being the youngest regional councillor in Fife, I recently met a councillor in another part of Scotland, who was the youngest in his council. I think that, even 20 years on, he is still in that position, which rather indicates the problems that we face in trying to enrich the situation.
Iain Smith made an interesting point about evaluating certain initiatives, and we will consider that suggestion. I and many of my colleagues are impressed by much of the effective work that is going on across Scotland to encourage young people to become actively involved in local decision making and to make them feel that they are part of the community. They feel that they can influence events that affect them, their peer groups and their future. We hope that such work will be carried out more consistently across Scotland. As we are putting resources into those initiatives, it would be quite helpful if we could evaluate them.
There is a new spirit abroad and young people are now participating in decision making. I am very encouraged by what I have heard about the levels of participation in certain areas. Indeed, there have been stories of young people queueing up—believe it or not—to vote in parliamentary elections. However, we must ensure that the routes from that into more formal politics are connected up and that youth parliaments, youth forums and other mechanisms embrace all aspects of young people's society, not just the most articulate and confident elements. That is a challenge for everyone, and is perhaps an area where evaluation would help.
We must listen to young people much more about what we should be doing at council level to ensure that they remain actively interested and participate in local democracy in order to influence their community over a long time. That is a major challenge for us all.
The new community planning powers will be key in that respect. How can we involve young people and youth groups in the community planning process? Moreover, creating youth panels and youth parliaments obviously costs money. What sort of funding streams might be available to local authorities that wish to develop such schemes and young people's participation in the community planning process?
We have put more resources into the mechanisms that I mentioned. The Executive is trying to concentrate its focus on young people and on what used to be called youth work, but now manifests itself in a whole variety of forms. For example, we have put money into YouthLink and other new structures to encourage a whole range of activity for young people. We are sympathetic to the idea of funding such initiatives. In fact, the Executive has contributed funding to the Scottish youth parliament, and local authorities, health boards and other organisations have put money into the youth parliament in the Highlands that Iain Smith mentioned.
As a framework, community planning naturally lends itself to engaging with young people. Community planning is about sorting out a vision for an area, signing people up to that vision, participation by people from all different parts of the community and identifying the contribution that people can make. There is no reason why there should not be special discussions with youth parliaments or forums, for example about the community plan for an area, and no reason why there should not be a youth community plan so that people will look at the structure of community planning through the eyes of young people as well as through the eyes of adults. Community planning opens up scope for such opportunities and is an important vehicle for giving young people a formal place in decision-making structures.
I welcome much of the minister's statement. The committee will welcome many things in it—the intention to bring the age for standing as a councillor down to 18, for example, will make a huge difference. I welcome the intention to amend the current legislation so that council employees no longer have to resign on nomination as a candidate, but only on election as a councillor. That will make a huge impact on allowing people to stand in areas such as Fife, where there is a unitary authority that employs many workers.
I welcome much else in the minister's statement and what he said on salaries and pension schemes in particular, which will help to bring more folk into local government. However, I have some questions. I agree that we need to involve young people, but does the minister intend to consult employers in Scotland? Part of the problem is that many people wish to stand for councils, but find it difficult to do so because employers put obstacles in their way. Such obstacles cut out many people who might like to stand.
When can we expect the local governance bill to be published? If all the elements that the minister mentioned have the support of the Cabinet and the Executive, is it now the Executive's policy to support a single transferable vote system or will there be no comment on that? When can we expect to see what the minister is going to put on offer?
I have clearly indicated today what we are putting on offer, but I will pick up on points that you have made. I welcome your general support for the many initiatives that we have announced on the back of the recent consultation. It is important that we achieve as much consensus as possible across the political parties on proposals that will enrich democracy in general and local democracy in particular and that we work on a common agenda.
You asked about the role of employers, which is important. We have had discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations, together with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and COSLA, about what employers could do to support employees to get time off for council activities. An interesting matter that arose in initial discussions was the lack of understanding about the nature and role of a councillor. That lack of understanding was quickly clarified. That employers do not understand such matters is revealing and is an impediment to their assisting their employees to participate.
For many years, in the nationalised industries in particular, there was strong encouragement for people to stand for councils. Generations of steelworkers, post office workers and railwaymen were active in Scottish local government. Sadly, because those big industries do not exist in the same way any more, that flow of people does not come through. Notwithstanding that, we need to think about ways in which we can encourage people from small businesses to get time off. That is extraordinarily challenging, given the nature of the way in which councils currently work. That is one of the reasons why we need to encourage councils to examine how they do their business, so that they are not the province of only those who have enough time to be there most days or each day. There should also be a role for people who have full-time professions and who can make a contribution to local decision making. All of that needs to be taken forward in further discussions.
As to the timetable for matters, first of all, of course the Cabinet supports the measures in the bill; it would not be coming forward if the Cabinet did not. The Executive's policy has been clear from the outset: we are committed to making progress on the question of electoral reform. We indicated in a statement in September that the local governance bill would be available to the new Executive to make decisions after the 2003 elections. As to the actual timetable, one is never precisely sure how long drafting a bill will take until one gets into the details. Our firm intention is to have the bill in the early part of the new year. Whether that means towards the middle or the end of January, or whenever, we will just have to wait and see. It is our intention to publish the bill early in the new year, and certainly before the end of the parliamentary session.
My main question is on education for citizenship. We have had a lot of feedback on that issue and as you said, there are many initiatives, such as youth councils. How can we keep a handle on all those developments so that we can take a coherent approach? For example, initiatives to do with the curriculum and schools come under education, while others come under local government or social justice and inclusion. If we are to move forward coherently, we need to examine how best practice will be advanced.
My second question is on proportional representation and what you said about STV. A long time ago, someone asked about multimember wards and the electorate's view of how they operate. I remember asking whether we could gather evidence from areas in which the system is in operation, because the councillor-ward link is one of the main issues that has been raised. Have you started to collect evidence, or are you planning to collect it as part of the development of work in that area?
On education, I take the point that strands of initiatives run across the Executive and local government, and that we need to make sure that we are as joined up as we can be. Major discussions go on in education about the structure of the curriculum. I know from my days in education that some people argue that active citizenship is at the heart of preparing people for the future. It is obvious that views move on that issue over time. Our officials in the local government division are working with our officials in education to ensure that we take a joined-up approach. We would be happy to come back to the committee with further information on what is happening. We take the point that has been made.
We want to ensure that our approach is comprehensive, not piecemeal, so that the work that is done in schools is complemented by what happens in councils generally and by what happens with young people in the wider community through all the different channels. We will consider the matter further.
We are aware of evidence—much of it anecdotal—on people's approach to multimember wards, from past practice in Scotland, way back when multimember wards existed. We will also gather information from other areas that have PR systems.
All the evidence on how electorates behave in relation to voting systems, including the evidence on the complexities of running two different voting systems on the same day as was done in Scotland, is that the electorate, wherever it is, copes extraordinarily well with those apparent complexities. People are capable of working out the system and of forming views on it. We will happily share with the committee any intelligence that we can gather on that issue. We have not gathered much information yet, but we will gather more.
Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. My question was not so much about how the electorate deals with the system as about how the electorate feels about having a number of councillors in one ward and deciding who they should go to. Are people happy about being able to go to more than one councillor?
At present, we have no evidence on people's perceptions of that matter.
I will expand on Tricia Marwick's point about encouraging more people to come into local government and the relationship with employers. The employment world is changing considerably and I am not convinced that full-time employment is not compatible with being an elected councillor. However, I am sure that a number of people in Scotland have either lost their job or had their career damaged through being a councillor. I welcome the minister's comment about the discussions with business organisations, which will allow both sides to understand the difficulties. The more discussions there are on that matter, the better.
It is extremely important that we diversify and broaden the range of people who come into local government. Perhaps the working group that is to be set up could consider the establishment of best-practice protocols to allow people to be seconded from their employment for three years. Such a measure might allow more people to become involved in democracy. Many employers are becoming more interested in social responsibility, part of which involves encouraging and sustaining democracy.
Many councillors find support difficult. We have taken evidence on the different levels of support that councillors in Scotland receive with, for example, administration and information and communication technology. Should there be an agreed minimum level of support? Induction is another area of support. When people are elected, they must be given help to understand their role. That will become particularly important if, as we hope, more young people become involved in local government.
Elaine Thomson makes a number of interesting points, including a fundamental point about the belief that being a councillor is incompatible with having a job. That issue is desperately important. I hope that being a locally elected representative will never be incompatible with having a job because that would exclude a huge range of people. Whatever system comes out of our discussions, it must provide scope for people to have a part-time role if they so choose and if the electorate trusts them to have that role. However, we recognise that a significant number of councillors choose to give up a lot of time to their ward.
Although councillors often give up their jobs, it would be wrong to design a system that excludes people automatically simply because they have a job. The system must allow people to retain their jobs. The move that some councils have made, to an executive structure with back benchers who perform a different role, might continue to facilitate a system in which different councillors give up different quantums of time. Although I fully accept the point that Elaine Thomson makes about how the pattern of employment has developed recently, we must always protect people's ability to make some contribution to local decision making at the same time as being in full-time work.
That ties in with the point that Elaine Thomson made about the potential for secondment into local government. The present system does not give people the ability to make a life choice of the sort that she described. The new system should take account of that. People ought to be able to say that, if they were elected, they would like the chance to do such-and-such for a period of years and to make a proper contribution at a particular level. The system tends to militate against that, which means that people cannot choose to make a big contribution to local government. We must find the right balance. The group that is considering equalities issues will want to consider how we can ensure that certain people are not excluded by the remuneration structure for councillors that we adopt.
Elaine Thomson made an important point about support for councillors. Best practice should be shared and there should be a shared expectation of what is available. I remember that when I first entered local government in 1982, I had a battle about the level of support for councillors. I am sure that other members who were councillors before they became MSPs have similar recollections. The existing councillors thought that it was great that they got some headed paper on which to write letters to constituents. I do not wish to be in any way dismissive of what they were doing, but the newer generation wanted Dictaphones and computers or access to people who could type. After a huge battle, I ended up with a filing cabinet, which took me no further forward.
Since then, a number of councils have developed extremely strong support systems. There are secretariats for councillors, as well as computers, e-mail systems and all the normal support that one would expect. We must share the best practice and ensure that it is rolled out across Scotland, so that people can get the support that they require.
Although it is right that there should be an induction process once a person has been elected, it is more important that people should have clear expectations of what will be involved before they are elected. The political parties must be involved in that process, because they select the candidates. As I have indicated, we want to engage with the political parties to ensure that they understand that such considerations should form part of the selection process. We want to avoid people discovering once they have been elected that the job is not what they had thought it would be.
In the very unlikely event that the new remuneration system comes through before next May, when I will stand down as a councillor, I had better declare an interest: I am a member of Stirling Council.
The McIntosh report and the Kerley report recommended increased remuneration for councillors, which could be financed by reductions in the number of councillors and in the number of SRAs. You have already indicated that you are against a reduction in the number of councillors. Will the initiative be self-financing or will additional resources be allocated to councils to meet the increased cost?
We have not been withholding the provisions until Keith Harding retires. We have made it clear that we do not think that there is a case for a cull—that was the term that was used at the time—of councillors. In comparison with European standards, Scotland has fewer elected representatives than many other societies. Although it might be hard for some people to believe that, it is true.
It is too early to say whether the proposed increase in remuneration will be self-financing or whether it will require additional funding. We want to spend much more time examining the right level of remuneration. There is a balance to be struck. Some councillors might qualify for additional payments because of the heavy responsibilities that are involved in leading their councils or in running major committees or departments. As we go through the exercise, we will keep an eye on cost. The proposals will not be underwritten by a blank cheque. Local electors would not respect us for doing that, nor would local councillors, whose decisions show that they recognise that there is a limit to how much local communities will accept politicians being paid. We will have close regard to costs overall.
The bill's provisions are not insubstantial, taking into account the basic allowances—although they are not hugely generous, by any standards—the addition of special responsibilities, and the number of those special responsibilities, and the continuing practice of attendance allowances in some places. We need to assess the proposals once we have taken into consideration the independent element and once we have got a better feel for the structure. Only then will we establish the final costs. There is no blank cheque; this will be done sensitively and sensibly so that we can find the right system that will benefit and enrich local democracy in the way the community wants.
I turn to the issue of educating for citizenship. Would you be in favour of there being a separate civic education element to curriculums in primary and secondary schools?
I will not make up education policy on the hoof at this committee meeting—and it is a while since I had responsibility in the education department. Citizenship is a strongly recognised feature of the education system, and it is of growing importance. During my time as Deputy Minister for Children and Education, there were significant discussions about how to enrich such features of education.
We would need to come back to you about what the current thinking in the education department is, but the principle of ensuring that young people are equipped to deal with the society into which they come—and all that that means in relation not just to rights, but to responsibilities, to how society operates, and to how young people can make their distinctive contribution—is central to the thinking of people working in education.
The evidence that we have received suggests that there is a lack of involvement on the part of some local authorities with local communities, whereas in other areas there is a lot of involvement with local communities, although the facilities and resources supplied by councils for those communities have often been insignificant. Does the Executive have any ideas about the best way to involve local communities? Have ministers thought about observing best practice or bringing best practice from the Executive to local authorities, thereby benchmarking local authorities' practice in involving local communities?
We have, to some extent, already had this debate in relation to the Local Government in Scotland Bill and to community planning, the involvement of local communities and the reporting mechanisms.
As Sandra White indicates, practice varies enormously throughout Scotland. Some councils have gone to enormous lengths to find new ways of engaging with local communities in different parts of their areas, or in their whole area, as a means to improve the quality of life in those areas.
There is an increasing recognition in public life that it is not possible just to do things at the centre, send out diktats and expect the world to change. People must be engaged locally, bearing in mind the improvements that they want to take place in their communities. Giving some ownership of that to local communities is part of how that can be done.
We do a whole range of things, through social inclusion partnerships, listening to communities programmes, community councils, community associations and tenants groups. There are a range of ways in which the Executive and local councils engage with their communities.
I have no problem with looking again at how best practice can be brought out and applied more widely. I know many people who would welcome that. The spirit of the improvement agency is all about identifying good practice early in whatever area of local government work it applies and ensuring that it is rolled out across Scotland quickly, so that all councils will be achieving the standards of the best as quickly as possible.
We were given evidence that some councils did not have expertise on planning issues, and thought that it might be a good idea if local authorities provided funding for experts to be consulted. That would assist councils not just in planning but in other areas. Will the Executive take that idea on board? Will ministers be agreeable to local authorities funding groups, or to an independent adviser advising groups to look into certain issues of interest, with less emphasis on funding?
I am aware of such practices. I recall that there used to be an organisation called the Planning Exchange. I do not know what happened to that organisation—although committee members are hinting that it still exists—but its purpose was to give advice to community groups on technical issues such as planning.
I am also aware that local enterprise companies and councils have funded feasibility studies and various initiatives that local communities have applied for so that progress could be made on particular issues. There is a range of grant systems to support all of that, so I have no problem with the idea in principle. In fact, such things are to be encouraged where they help local communities make the progress that they desire. Obviously, not every idea or plan will get backing, but I have no problem with the idea in principle.
I have two questions, one of which follows on from Sandra White's question. First, the committee has discussed this issue with various other groups, but what is the minister's view on the best mechanism for passing on the good practice that might operate at the council or community council level?
Secondly, we took evidence from the Welsh Local Government Association, which is setting up an equalities unit in order to widen access. The unit will deal with issues to do with race, gender, disabilities and language. Are there any plans to establish a similar group in Scotland?
To answer the latter question, of the couple of working groups that I mentioned, one is dealing with remuneration but the other is looking at how access and participation issues can be taken forward and that will involve equalities groups. We very much hope that that working group will pick up the themes that are being pursued in Wales.
One reason why we are promoting the improvement function is to allow for a better exchange of best practice. We want to create a kind of brokerage of best practice between local authorities and other parts of the public sector, so that they learn how their business can be carried out more effectively. If we look at the issue from a community point of view, local authorities—and, indeed, the voluntary sector—already have events and do things that allow community groups to come together to share experience about practices that they have pursued and found successful.
Of course, it often happens that, for some of these issues, voluntary organisations or community groups want to meet completely outwith the context of the local authority so as to exchange information about how to manage and change their local authority's point of view on an issue. Therefore, the voluntary sector also has a responsibility for that.
I remember organising events for all the community councils in my council area when I was a council leader. A couple of times each year, or perhaps on one big occasion each year, workshops provided people with the opportunity to exchange experience and views on how things happened and on how they could work more effectively. A whole variety of techniques should be available. I hope that, when we get the improvement agency going, it will help with that.
We received evidence from the Improvement and Development Agency, which was positive about its work in developing effective induction and development programmes for councillors—if I may return to that subject. Is the minister in favour of working with organisations such as COSLA to set up a similar organisation in Scotland? How might we ensure that councillors attend such programmes? I think that that is where the problem is, but if the minister has the answer to that, he has won a prize.
We have followed the work of the IDeA closely and have been impressed by some of the work that it does. We very much want to learn from the IDeA's experience in developing a similar agency to meet the particular requirements that we have in Scotland.
I am sure that, rather than reinvent the wheel, we will be able to use some of the materials that the IDeA has developed. For example, we are especially interested in peer group reviews, whereby councils would be reviewed by professionals and elected members from councils in other parts of the country. Such peer reviews have in fact been undertaken by a number of councils in Scotland. That is based on an IDeA model, which we want to see encouraged. In fact, one function of the Scottish agency that I mentioned will be to promote such activity.
On the question of how one can get councillors to attend induction processes, the convener may have given the answer. Part of the responsibility lies with the political parties. I know that, in my party, informal contracts are struck between the candidate and the party, whereby the candidate undertakes to do certain things, failure to do which would be a factor that would be taken into account at an appropriate point during reselection. Political parties have some responsibility there.
The most telling thing would be to ensure that the induction is relevant to the needs of the councillor. If it is seen to be relevant and to improve councillors' ability to do their jobs, that is the best advertisement to make people turn up. The challenge for the instruments that we have discussed is to ensure that the induction is relevant and that people will benefit from it.
There are no more questions. However, I want to make one plea. Elaine Thomson mentioned councillors being allowed time off when they work for commercial companies. I want to make the same plea for public bodies, because it is a case of "Physician, heal thyself" as in several public bodies, it is extremely difficult to get time off to attend to council duties.
In the white paper, we flagged up the need to remove the barriers to the participation of people from other parts of the public sector. We have come across situations where, in exactly the way that you mention, participation has not been encouraged. The responses to the white paper were positive; people wanted us to move on that and we fully intend to do so. As far as we are aware, a legislative requirement is not necessary. As ministers, we can handle the matter through non-departmental public bodies, the health service and so on. We plan to take some action on that issue.
Thank you very much. The committee will now move into private session.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—