McIntosh Report
We now enter the formal meeting, colleagues, and I welcome the public who have slipped in quietly at the back.
We are going through the McIntosh report recommendations and trying to group them. At the end of the informal meeting, we finished at recommendation 7. Members will have a copy of the decision—recommendation 7 was the last one on which we decided.
I am sure that we had a discussion on 8.
Recommendations 7 and 8 are together.
We had the committee report on it—I think that we should go straight to 9.
Okay, we will go straight to recommendation 9, which deals with the electoral system. It is the bit that the Kerley committee will examine. How do we see it in relation to our programme?
I think that this one should be pulled back for further discussion. The Conservatives believe that unless we can maintain the link between the councillor and his or her ward, we should not change the system. It would be a good idea to wait until we have had the presentations that are scheduled for early October on the various systems that are available before we make a decision.
Perhaps I could offer a clarification. We are discussing which recommendations are contentious and which are not. The electoral system is a contentious issue, but there may be aspects of it that are less so.
For example, "in 2002" in
"with a view to legislation which should take effect in time to govern the next council elections in 2002",
which is the recommendation for a review on proportional representation, is a bone of contention.
I hope that if we decide that there should be a change in the system, it will indeed be implemented in time for the next elections. Does everyone on the committee agree with that—rather than wait six or eight years? In her letter to the committee, Wendy clarified that we
"were bound by the Partnership agreement to make immediate progress on electoral reform."
It would be daft if, after we had rushed into this, some people thought that we should not implement any of the recommendations in time for the next elections.
It is largely a question of practicality. It depends on what sort of electoral system we eventually agree on. If there was a substantial difference about, say, boundaries within a local authority area, there would probably be a need for some form of boundary review. That can take a considerable time and be quite contentious in each area.
We cannot necessarily come to a conclusion about it, Kenny, until we know where we are going with the form of the local government election system.
I cannot agree with that. If we agree on the system by next summer, we could have two or possibly three years to implement it. The boundary changes for the recent elections in May were implemented in a much shorter time. It was done in conjunction with the Scottish parliamentary elections. A boundary review would be seen as a stalling exercise: the system is broadly agreed on.
Bristow or I might not accept it, but we may achieve consensus in the Parliament. It would be ludicrous for us to have to wait another eight years before implementing this reform.
I understand Bristow's point, but Kenny is saying that if we reach a conclusion there is no need to hold back. That principle would apply everywhere. It would mean our moving on instead of putting the issue on the back burner, as we have done in the past.
It is always a good principle not to put the cart before the horse. We might not be able to say for certain that the electoral system that we choose can be implemented within Kenny's preferred time scale. I would like to have a new system in place for the next election, but saying that we have decided to work towards that before we have examined the electoral system and taken consultation—so that we know what the implications of any change are—is to put the cart before the horse. There may be practical difficulties in the way of changing the electoral system in time for the next elections. We should take our time and make the right decision.
Time scales should not be an issue when dealing with matters of principle. Any change should be implemented in the time it takes to implement it effectively, ensuring that all factors have been considered.
I suspect that I am not in a majority on the committee on this question—perhaps all the contention lies with me. However, I would not want us to spin this issue out—if I kept talking for long enough, we would not get a decision by the next election. If a consensus is building around a particular electoral system and it is feasible to put it in place, that should happen. However, it is unnecessary and unhelpful to have a preset timetable for that. We should agree the principle before implementing it in the most effective way.
I want to return to some points that were made previously. I suggest that the electorate's ability to hold a member to account—in other words, to be able to remove them—should be added to the criteria set out in the bullet points on page 5 of the report. There is a reference to the councillor-ward link, but a councillor may hold his or her position by virtue of being on a party list. That means that if the council is doing one thing and the local community wants it to do something else, the member can disregard the community because, under the proportional system, it is not the community but the party that decides. Accountability, along with proportionality, is one of several issues that have to be balanced.
It has never been clear to me what is meant by fair provision for independents. Independents should have representation that reflects their share of the electorate.
We spoke before about the importance of the coherence of electoral systems. We must make a pragmatic judgment about whether different electoral systems operating at each level of government will enhance or damage our democracy. We may decide that that enhances and enriches democracy, but equally we may decide that it increases disaffection.
We must recognise that this is the real world and that we cannot simply pick the system that we like best or that is in our party's best interests. We want an electoral system that will enhance local democracy and make it more likely that people will participate. We need to study the impact of having different electoral systems—even if they are all proportional—for European, Westminster, Scottish and local elections. That is not to say that we should not change the electoral system, but the issue needs to be addressed with the people who are promoting particular systems.
With regard to the time scale, I would have thought that we could reasonably say that any change should be introduced without avoidable delay. We all know that the system can delay things endlessly. I understood that Kenny was saying that we were strongly against that, and that there should be vigorous progress.
I agree that it would be a mistake to tie ourselves to an arbitrary date. If we choose a system that involves lots of boundary provisions—which the system that I have suggested will not—we should allow time for the boundaries to be properly drawn. Last time, the boundaries were not properly drawn. In my view, the boundary commissioners for Scotland should all be put in jail.
With regard to Johann's remarks, I am not sure where we stand. I presume that the Kerley committee has been told to go ahead on these five bullet points. Some of the points that Johann made were quite fair, but a single transferable vote gives the voter more power to throw people out and a fair deal for independents. This is not the time to argue such points specifically; my point is that I am not quite sure where we stand if we adopt criteria that differ from what the Executive and the McIntosh commission have given the Kerley committee.
You are right: that is not in the bullet points and there was no such comment by McIntosh. On the other hand, we are examining the report and, if we agree, part of a recommendation could be that we hold members to account in a way that is over and above the system of proportional representation.
We will be accountable at the next general election. That might not come soon enough for some of the electorate, but it will always be hanging over us in one way or another.
There is a great deal of meat in this issue, and we could talk about it for a long time. We have the five bullet points, and it would be interesting to know if there is anything there that is contentious in principle. Michael said that he wants to keep the councillor-ward link. I do not think that anyone disputes that in any way, shape or form, although there might be other ways of approaching the issue, Johann. Does anyone have a problem with proportionality?
The debate is really about competing principles and priorities. We all have the election ahead of us—you are quite right. However, as Kenny said in an earlier meeting, the people who determine whether a list candidate stays or goes are those in that member's own party. In any electoral system, a poor turnout and electoral disinterest put more power in the hands of local parties. Even in a hugely active democratic process, a list system, if there is one, is determined by the parties and it is far more difficult to shift somebody.
I am not saying that that is the principle by which, above all else, every electoral system must stand or fall. Nor would I say that proportionality is the one principle by which we must stand or fall. When we are discussing electoral systems, as well as the principles we must examine the practicalities of how it pans out and what is delivered locally. No one would say that it is a matter of right and wrong: this is good, this is bad. There will be strengths and weaknesses in every system, and I would be interested to hear more of the argument about what the single transferable vote can do.
When I was a councillor, my party put me on the list and the people had no choice about whether they would get me or somebody else as their council candidate. There is a similarity between that and the position of people on the list. With the best will in the world, a candidate could be in a list and not get elected because the people in a particular area did not want that candidate. I understand what Johann is getting at, but I do not altogether agree.
Before a candidate even gets on to a list, they must get past the party's interview panel. We can argue over the democracy of that. The Dennis Canavan situation is the one with which people are most familiar.
We are not supposed to be rewriting the McIntosh report; we are supposed to be considering what areas we can agree on. The McIntosh commission took more than 700 submissions. Having considered those submissions, it seemed to think that there was no reason why a new system could not be in place by 2002.
If we want to achieve anything, we should aim for that date. The referendum on the Scottish Parliament was held in September 1997 and we managed to hold elections under a completely new system 20 months later. We are talking here about elections that are 32 or possibly 44 months away. I see no reason why we cannot implement the changes by the necessary date.
Should we deal with that now or should we wait until we have the Kerley report, which will include evidence from a range of sources and consider all the questions about the review of local government and what sort of electoral system should be brought in?
The Kerley report will contain the views of all the political parties and it will undoubtedly express views on all the criteria set by the McIntosh report. It will also produce recommendations and estimates on how long the introduction of a new system should take.
We could discuss those issues, but much of that discussion could be wasted depending on what the Kerley report says. We will not have to wait very long to see the report. I think that everybody agrees that once we have agreed our position, we should implement it as soon as possible. We need not necessarily set ourselves arbitrary targets at this stage.
I accept Kenny's point about the changes for the Scottish Parliament elections, but the changes made to that system did not involve boundary changes. The Westminster boundaries were used for constituency members and the European constituencies were used for list members. That was straightforward. There could be a need for significant boundary changes depending on the system adopted for elections to local government.
Whatever we say now is just warm words until we have seen what the Kerley report recommends and what arguments have been put forward from the various corners.
I must apologise—I was just looking for agreement with a view to legislation being introduced for the next elections. I was not trying to open a debate on the subject. I would say, though, that the boundary changes required for the previous local elections were made in less than three years.
As Donald says, those changes were problematic.
We are in danger of making heavy weather of this exercise. In referring to what I said previously—is distinguishing between contentious and semi-contentious the best way to proceed?
As Keith mentioned—and as I have said—we must go briefly through the main points if we are going to gather information on a subject such as this. We can then move on, knowing that we will return to certain issues for fuller discussion.
I agree, although I was enjoying the discussion. We were beginning to get our teeth into something and I did not particularly want to stop members.
Another reason for doing things that way is that Eugene, I and others must produce a programme to present to members of who and when we visit and of who visits us. That programme is quite loose, but it allows us to go through all the recommendations, and that is not a bad thing.
I accept the points that members have made. This is not the right place for that detailed discussion. Donald's point is favourable—that we should implement recommendations without avoidable delay when we have all the information. We will listen to other groups.
I take it, then, that we can say that recommendations 9 and 10 are contentious.
I suggest that recommendation 11 in annex A is also contentious. Some electoral systems are included there, but we have added to those the first-past-the-post system. We should add any others that members can think of. We will invite people to come and speak on that subject, unless members feel that it will not be contentious.
I think that there will be considerable discussion on that point.
There will.
Recommendation 12 says:
"The legislation governing the Local Government Boundary Commission should be reviewed with a view to providing greater flexibility in determining ward boundaries."
We have said more or less the same thing today.
I do not think that the proposal is controversial; most people will agree with it.
Do Keith and Sylvia agree?
I agree—I do not think that a review of the legislation would be contentious.
Although the boundaries themselves might be contentious, the principle that they should fit communities better is not.
It would be contentious—although not necessarily bad—to start to redraw authority boundaries.
I do not think that that proposal is on the agenda.
So we agree that there should be a review.
Before we move on, I want to return to the previous meeting's minute on the report's third recommendation. We seem to be discussing more and more the Scottish Executive's relationship to the committee. At the previous meeting, we made the point that any agreement should include the Local Government Committee as well as the Scottish ministers. However, that point was not included in the minute.
This is just an outline. The preceding recommendation about the standing joint conference was made in principle and we thought that we should be on that as well.
I am just alluding to the minute.
We will put that point back on the minute.
The 13th recommendation concerns the conduct of council business.
Committee members are agreed on that.
If everyone turns the page, do they find that they have recommendation 28 instead of 14?
No, because we photocopied the missing page.
Very smart. For all of us?
No. We thought it was a conspiracy against us, because Colin had a copy by Gil and I didnae.
The 14th recommendation says:
"Councils should give particular consideration to formalising the political leadership as an executive, but should also be able to consider other options."
We were not happy with that proposal at the start, but the fact that other options can be considered opens the issue. We think that local authorities should decide on what is best for them, so we do not have a problem with the proposal.
It would have been helpful if the proposal said that. As worded, the proposal demonstrates a clear preference for one kind of organisation, even though other options can be considered. The Local Government Committee could point out that the committee is not as prescriptive as that. Local authorities should be able to make their own decisions if they can justify that a certain organisation is best for them, that it works and that it is transparent.
I took the proposal as being non-prescriptive, although McIntosh expresses a preference in the report. I am not unhappy with the recommendation, as long as councils are not heavily leant on to do things to which they are averse.
This is not a particularly contentious issue. However, when Neil McIntosh comes before us again, we can clarify what was meant by the recommendation and by paragraphs 106 to 110 of his report.
The 15th recommendation says:
"We do not consider that it is necessary at present to legislate to permit delegation to a single councillor nor direct election of a council leader; but we consider that the latter option should be kept in view, in light of developments which may take place elsewhere in Great Britain".
There was a consensus among the people who gave evidence to McIntosh that there should not be directly elected council leaders. I support that view. Broader-based election is a very healthy concept and should continue. Although I agree with the first half of the proposal, I am not so sure that I want to keep the option open.
We discussed that at party level, and we were unanimously opposed to the idea of directly elected provosts. The only person I know who is really keen on the idea is Frank McAveety—I am sure that that was the case on Glasgow City Council when we discussed the matter there. I see no reason why we cannot keep the matter in view as there will be directly elected mayors in England. We do not have a problem with number 15 as it is worded here.
Does anyone have a problem?
We support the recommendation, because it was one of our manifesto commitments that where people want directly elected provosts they should be allowed to pursue that course. So there is someone else, apart from Frank, who supports the idea.
Do not tell him that.
No one at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities meeting where it was discussed—apart from Frank—advocated it, that is for sure.
We move on to recommendation 16, which reads:
"The political parties should review their advice to local parties on the application of the party whip to council business, so as to ensure that it is not applied inappropriately or indiscriminately. Councils should incorporate in their standing orders rules to the effect that where whipping is applied in council business it should be declared at the commencement of the relevant discussions and minuted for public information and record."
All the ex-councillors say no. [Laughter.].
We do not disagree with the sentiment.
It is unenforceable.
We agree with the philosophy behind it, but you could say, "There is no whip" and then, coincidentally, all the members of one party could vote the same way. There is a difficulty there.
Depending on the electoral system, this issue might be important for the freedom of local members to represent their communities and the ability of local communities to put pressure on their representative. I am not so naive as to think that there can be a system without whipping—a political party requires that—but there needs to be a space for councillors who represent communities that are so small that it is possible to be accountable at that level.
If there is sensitivity about how the whip is applied and parties are encouraged to discuss openly how they manage their business, that will be a good thing for the public interest. Local members will have the space to respond to local people and, perhaps, some of the cynicism that arises when a whipped representative has been lobbied but cannot do anything will be dispelled. Being in favour of the recommendation in principle is about right; recognising and managing it is more complex. Nevertheless it is useful to have that kind of discussion.
All parties could learn not to apply whipped votes as often as they do. Many local government issues are not necessarily matters of contention between the parties. Each party could reflect on that. Declaring the application of a whip is not a bad idea: it would give the public an idea whether a councillor is voting a particular way because of a party political decision or a personal decision. That would add to a community's information by which to judge the performance of their elected representatives and whether they reflect the views of that community.
The recommendation is correct. I recognise what has been said about the principle being in the gift of the political parties to deliver, but the parties should take these messages on board. There is undoubtedly a lot of cynicism about the way in which local authorities take decisions. If we are to build up their reputation, this recommendation is a good step forward.
You cannot legislate for what people do in private. I am sure that we all have our own anecdotes. I remember one occasion when a gentleman in another party seconded a motion. When he went to the loo some colleagues went with him, and when he came back he voted against the motion that he had seconded. [Laughter.]
You cannot honestly legislate for that. You can, however, minute the occasions on which whipping occurs, as it says in the second sentence. Also, it would help if all party groups' standing orders were public documents. That would give some protection to the sort of councillor that Johann was talking about who is fighting for his or her local people. It could give such a councillor some support in standing up to any over-enthusiastic whips in their party.
A lot of people here are talking like old party hacks—
In the nicest possible way.
In the nicest possible way, of course.
Some of us who have a few years behind us know that whipping in local government is a fairly new phenomenon relative to 30 years ago. In different parts of Scotland whipping was not the norm; it was abnormal. I do not see why we cannot produce directives to make the situation more transparent. I have been a councillor—there are one or two other former councillors around this table—and woe betide you if you go against the party whip. What I like about the suggestion about minuting when whipping occurs is that the public would have the opportunity to question the party leader and the councillor. On such occasions, councillors may be voting against the wishes of the community or of the whole council.
As someone who does not come from a local government background, I always used to assume that there was a whipping system in place. If one assumes that, one's judgment is based on that assumption. We are talking about moving from the status quo to something else, which might cause confusion. It is obvious that there is a whipping system in local government when party organisations are at work. Is the recommendation going to be as effective as people would like? How decisions are arrived at is fairly clear at the moment. Another system might cause confusion and people would have to have access to more information than they do at present. How can that information be guaranteed?
Just anecdotally, I come from a council and have some years of experience in which whipping was unknown and impractical; trying to get any decisions through the Highland Council was like herding cats. That poses questions about democracy and the role of officials, which are issues the committee may want to consider.
I have one underlying concern that I want to flag up at this stage. The bullet points give indications to local authorities, and whether or not we agree to the recommendations they will go through. Who is the watchdog? We give these indications, but who is going to look at authority X and authority Y and say, "They're not doing what we recommended about whipping or elected areas"? You will recall that the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 said that there will be a scheme of decentralisation within the 32 authorities in Scotland. Who has ever looked at that scheme and what it does in different authorities? I just caution at this stage—I know that it is an overarching point but we need to bear it in mind. I do not want to use the word police because that gives entirely the wrong message, but who reviews it? Who goes back to see what is happening?
Following on from Jamie's point, while there are procedures that one would want to see being used, many of the bullet points here relate to flexibility. It is important to distinguish between those two things. We said at an earlier meeting that we would try to examine authorities with best practice, which should include ensuring enough flexibility to meet particular needs, such as size and geographical area.
On whipping, while openness and transparency are important, the other big issue is consensus, which can lead to further discussion that would allow us to hear different points of view. Taking whipping away may mean more agreement. The whole idea behind McIntosh is to move towards a more consensual approach. Perhaps Gil can tell us whether he found that there was more discussion and agreement when there was no whipping.
Before I was elected, I was used to independents, although most councillors attached themselves to a political party. Everyone on the borough council, as it was then, worked for the community, not as a political force. What is invidious in the present system—Michael alluded to this—is not strictly the whipping, because some form of whipping will always take place, but the part played by the Executive's policy and resources behind doors, which has a knock-on effect on back-bench council group members. That is downward pressure from the people running the council on to ordinary councillors. Whipping becomes unbearable when it leaves no room for ward members to be flexible.
We must remember that political parties arose out of a recognition that independent people of good will do not necessarily deliver the change that is wanted. Over time, many things have been run by independents. However, they did not necessarily promote the interests of the people whom I, for example, would want to support.
The fact that there are issues about whipping does not mean that we are arguing that political parties should not operate inside local government, which is somehow nicer, more consensual and safer than other aspects of political life. In a lot of cases, local government is a lot harder, because people are making difficult decisions that have a direct impact on people's lives.
I have made the case for people being more relaxed about how whipping operates on individual issues. However, it is legitimate for the electorate to have a general expectation that the person whom they elect, who purports to be part of a political party, will pursue the political programme of that party. If there is no whipping, people could use the party ticket. We do not know what people will do once elected. Everybody could be done a disservice. That is the other side of the argument.
It is incumbent on groups within the political process to ensure, as was pointed out earlier, that individual members of a party have the freedom to participate in decisions. The only gain from being in a political party should not be that members are whipped, but that they are involved in the political decisions that define what the whip will be. The politics of the situation need to be opened up.
On monitoring, we said early on that we did not want the Scottish Parliament to operate as some kind of police force or judge of local government. We are setting up structures for debate and dialogue between layers of government. The hope is that bodies will share the role of monitoring what individual local authorities do, through a joint covenant, a standing committee or another forum. We do not want to end up in a position where one sits in judgment of the other. The responsibility must be shared.
Johann's point, which follows on from what Jamie said, is important. We must emphasise that there is partnership between the Parliament and local government. This is not a case of "Big Brother is watching you".
As Sylvia said, best practice is important. When I was in Glasgow, if there were 18 items on the agenda, we would probably agree with the administration on 16 or 17 of them and would only argue over one. There is probably a lot more consensus in councils than the public realise. If there are strategic issues to debate, a meeting may last two hours, but at other times there is broad consensus and agreement can be reached within a few minutes.
Whipping is important, because we do not want a situation such as they have in America, where everyone effectively represents their area rather than their party. They have a lot of pork-barrel politics, as it is called. That is why what Johann said is important. At the same time, we do not want the farcical situation that arises when a school faces closure and the local councillor abstains on the vote while everyone else votes for the closure. Then, when the next school comes up for consideration, the person who has abstained on his own school closure votes for that closure while the local councillor abstains. That makes the system ridiculous. We are just looking for a correct balance.
I am happy to hear a more detailed discussion, but that is the sort of matter that we will have to examine when we visit councils, because best value is involved and questions will arise on how individual councils conduct such matters.
For example, on the regional council and on Glasgow City Council, my concern was about an executive which met, made a decision and was then tied to that vote. We never knew whether an executive of 17 had voted 9:8; we did not receive that information. That situation can be difficult if you are unsure about the matter or feel that you do not have enough information. There are issues around that that can perhaps be examined.
On Jamie's question about who is the watchdog, Johann is right. The covenant, the joint conference and the leadership forum are involved, over and above the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which should really be looking at the matter as well. There are also the formal positions of bodies such as the Accounts Commission. Again, people do not want to feel that all those groups are watching their performance.
Many such questions will arise once we start to visit councils or when council officials come to our meetings and we hear how they conduct their business in terms of whipping. Recommendation 16 is difficult because political parties take their own positions on it. I do not think that it will be terribly contentious, but we will probably want a bit more information and debate about how councils deal with the matter.
Does anyone have comments on recommendation 17? I do not need to read it out, because members all have a copy, thanks to Craig Harper. Members of the press do not have a copy, but they look as if they do not care.
I certainly do not have any disagreement with it, which is what we are supposed to be talking about. It recommends
"organising the business so that a wider cross-section of the community could realistically consider taking on the responsibilities of council membership"
and that is very important. If you ask 100 members of the public what the council does, you get 100 different answers and, probably, very few of them are right because there is an education problem. There is no reason why someone should not visit a school for an hour, once a year, to talk about what the council, or the Scottish Parliament, does. Civic education does not have to be time-consuming. Such visits could try to generate interest and let people know about what they are expected to vote for for the rest of their lives and about the organisation that gathers in their council tax and so on.
With regard to
"taking on the responsibilities of council membership"
and altering the set-up so that a wider cross-section of people can become involved, we have to accept that some people are prepared to make financial sacrifices while others are not. It would be quite helpful if council meetings took place at a time of day that allowed people to do a bit of their job and then attend the meeting.
The council that I came from held all its meetings during the day, so unless people were retired, self-employed or paid by a very understanding employer, they could not be councillors. The council's physical organisation discounts large numbers of people. The counter to that was that evening meetings would be difficult for the officials, but time off in lieu, or flexitime, is a possible solution. If we want more people to become involved with the councils, we have to be a little less prescriptive.
The solution to that problem does not lie solely in the way that councils organise their business. The problem should be dealt with by giving people greater rights to be elected councillors. Moving the meetings to the evening is not necessarily the answer, because that would solve problems for some people and create problems for others.
Some sort of basic civic rights should be included in legislation to enable people to take part by being councillors. By and large, such rights have been eroded during recent years. In the past, people were more able to take up such roles, but gradually the role of the councillor became more demanding and the number of organisations that would allow people to become councillors became smaller all the time. We need to examine the whole question and not just put the onus on the council to hold its meetings at a time that allows people also to keep a job.
I do not think that recommendations 17, 18 and 19 can be taken in isolation; they are all interconnected. Best practice may be in place regarding the timing of meetings, but if the level of remuneration to councillors means that professionals are not attracted to the posts because they would be financially disadvantaged, the exercise is wasted. A job description must include indications of the time that must be committed to doing the job of a councillor effectively. If there is not a decent remuneration package accompanying that, it will not be possible to encourage people to stand for election.
The backdrop to this is that the reform of local government—when we created all-purpose councillors—set the system back. The responsibilities of councillors, whether district or regional, doubled as a result.
Michael is right to say that those three points are interrelated. When I changed from being a district councillor to being a unitary councillor in the Highland region, I had a tremendous amount of responsibility. I also had a big area to cover. We had almost to become latter-day medieval princes in that we ruled a chunk of land that was so big that decisions were often delegated to the councillor.
The poor pay that went with that resulted in the general public becoming even more discouraged from entering local politics. Single mums, people whose employers are not helpful about employees standing for council, sole traders and shopkeepers are discouraged.
I have seen blokes with welding torches on oil-rig construction yards whose employers paid lip service to supporting those employees who wished to stand for election to the council. However, they could not stand for election because there was no flexibility in timing of meetings, which is vital.
I have heard officials say that they would not attend meetings in evenings and that that would be out of order, but flexitime is the right approach.
Colin sent out a strong message about that. The longer that people are discouraged from standing for local government, the more a basic part of local democracy will be undermined.
I accept the excellent point that recommendations 17, 18 and 19 be taken together.
If, as I hope, the pay and conditions package indicates that it is possible to become a full-time councillor and to receive due remuneration for that, that it is also possible to be extremely worth while as a part-time councillor, it will be necessary to produce two job descriptions. There would be one for full-time councillors so that they could deliver that for which the public is paying, and there would also be a description that would explain what is expected of part-time councillors.
As a member of the Scottish Parliament I hesitate to sit in judgment on anyone's ability to be flexible and to participate. We have high ideals about the Parliament being family-friendly, but I am not sure if that is being delivered, as a result of the pressure to be seen to be committed and hard-working. Perhaps that is a personal view, but I think it is an area that should be explored.
A clear tension is now developing over what we want locally. There is a drive towards a kind of professionalism and huge responsibilities in some of the jobs that we are asking some of our council people to do. We are asking them to make immense decisions that have a huge impact on people's lives. If they are to be a match for, and able to work with, the officials, they must be briefed and given huge amounts of time.
That is only one side: the job descriptions and pressures. On the other side, there should be an opportunity for people who are working to participate in local government, partly because they bring a different view from that of professional politicians. One of the strengths of a professional politician is that they have a lot of time in which to address what they think is important. They do not necessarily have a nodding acquaintance with what the rest of the world feels, however. If someone is working and acting as a councillor, that feeds and strengthens the decision-making process. The difficulty arises when folk are working and are trying to manage that as well. I should here declare an interest, as my husband is a councillor.
One way in which we could deal with that problem would be to have meetings at night, although that would go against any family-friendly conditions that we might want to promote. There is no easy answer. I have often heard councillors say that they have organised a meeting for half-past 11, at which time people cannot participate. Equally, if meetings are during the day, others are excluded and that important voluntary aspect of being a councillor is denied. That is something that we might want to explore further with councillors.
We might also consider whether councillors have experienced a drive, locally, towards people being forced to give up that kind of work full time, and whether measures have been taken to include people who are holding down full-time jobs at the same time.
Yes. We are dealing with the three recommendations together—fair enough. However, we have more questions to ask, and we need more information. Within those three areas there are specific comments to be made.
All councils should produce a job description for members. I agree with Donald that there should be a full-time job description and a part-time one. That may also link to the next recommendation. It says:
"Remuneration for councillors should in future be subject to independent review."
People who work full time would get a different salary from that of those who work part time. We agree with that, in principle. That kind of thing will come up again in discussions with councillors. There is a lot of talent out there that councils could use, but those people cannot participate because of work commitments or because, as Jamie said, the times of meetings are wrong. We will come back to that, and will get more information about it when we visit councils.
Let us move on. Recommendation 20 states that
"Scottish ministers and COSLA should jointly address the issue of the provision and resourcing of future arrangements for member training and personal development".
I take it that that means councillors. Does anybody have any objection to councillors being trained?
It is like any other job: people should undergo an element of training. I hope that political parties do that before the elections; we certainly do. Such training should be flexible, as it is not always easy for people to travel around the country for it. Most training might have to be in-house or brought in from outside, especially as there might be specialised training. Such training should include some of the things that other councils do, so that councillors are not focused only on how things are managed in their own authority.
Recommendation 21 suggests that
"COSLA should draw up a mutual protocol of understanding, governing the relationship between elected members and officers."
Do members have any problem with that?
I am now going to elaborate my point about independent councils in which there is no whipping. The danger of not having whipping is that over-mighty officials can end up steering through policies and procedures that are official-driven rather than member-driven. The formalisation of the relationship between officials and members could clear the decks and get rid of some practice that is close to the wind.
Is everyone happy with that?
It would need to be done in conjunction with bodies representing the officials.
Yes.
It does not say that.
It needs to be said.
Recommendation 22 states:
"Subject to appropriate safeguards, employees other than the most senior and those in politically sensitive posts should be permitted to stand for election and to serve as elected members."
It does not say "stand for election in another council", so one can assume that it is referring to the council for which employees work. Are there any comments?
This is one of McIntosh's more important recommendations. The exclusion of people from standing for election to local authorities has been damaging to local government in recent years. I recognise that the director of a department should not be allowed to stand for election as a member of a political party. However, the fact that no one who works for a local authority can be elected to it prevents a huge swathe of the population from standing. In most areas of Scotland the local authority is the biggest employer by some margin; to place thousands of people in each local authority area outside the democratic process is fundamentally wrong. We have to set a cut-off point, but it should be fairly high up in the policy-making process.
Is there not a conflict of interest if an employee is working for the council for which he is standing? We do not believe that the case for a relaxation of the rules has been made.
Contention.
I will ignore that red rag. Perhaps we need to add that each local authority should have a code of conduct, which would stipulate that if, for example, an employee worked for the education service, they could not serve on the education committee. I seek guidance on this—others may be able to counter the point that I have just made. Do members see where I am coming from?
The rules could exclude people from sitting on a committee that was setting out their pay and conditions or dealing with other matters that related to their work.
Keith said that the case for a change to the rules had not been made. He would say that, because his party is responsible for the current situation. Under the old system, people could still take part in the democratic process by standing for a district council if they were employed by the region, or vice versa. With unitary authorities that is impossible, because the majority of people live in the area covered by the authority for which they work. That is the case for reform.
This is not a direct question to Keith Harding, but one aspect of the rules should be clarified. We have just talked about partnerships in local government. Local businesspeople can deliver services on behalf of a local authority. It is possible for a local businessperson whose work is mostly for a local authority to stand for election, even though a janitor at a local school who is totally reliant on the authority for his income cannot. Why are local businesspeople allowed to make money from local authorities and stand for election, whereas local authority workers cannot?
Under the existing legislation, a businessman would have to declare a financial interest, but would not be allowed to vote in the council.
On the budget. He would be allowed to vote on other matters.
Why could not a local employee declare an interest?
It would affect every part of his working life, so he could not participate fully, could he?
I will move on. I will ask Johann and then Gil to speak.
I also believe that this is an important issue. We sometimes concentrate on what might happen to people in the professions who might want to stand for councils but who cannot because they are employed. However, there are instances of people working for one authority and being an elected member of another. There is far clearer discrimination on the grounds of class and gender. Women are more likely to work in the public sector and in low-paid jobs. They are less likely to be able to travel to another authority to work in order to be a councillor in their locality. We should legislate against such discrimination.
We will end up excluding people from participating in local government because they happen to be in low-paid jobs and are more likely to seek work in the public sector. Their voices are as valid as any others and are of great significance to the local community.
It is not a matter of letting anybody stand. There would have to be a code of conduct. People would have to declare interests and so on. The current system discriminates and weakens the ability of local authorities to represent the broad spectrum of local opinion in a local community, even at the simple level of making it easier for women to participate in the democratic process.
It has seemed strange to me recently that one part of society is taken out of the equation, particularly in rural areas, where, to square the circle, people would need to be paid full-time wages to be a councillor. I would like to see that happen, but frankly I doubt that it will.
Discrimination on the basis that someone works for the council is a silly situation that should be rectified soon. It could be a janitor or a teacher, who might have a standing and a role to play, but who, despite being of service to the community, is excluded. Many people in professions such as teaching give so much to the community, and to discriminate against them is wrong. That must be corrected.
The argument that teachers, social workers, cleaning ladies or janitors would somehow falsify the council's position or develop their own career at the council's expense is ludicrous. However, there has to be a bar against those in the most important or sensitive positions taking part in the council, and there should be a code of conduct.
It is far better to have these matters in the open. If it is known that councillor X is a teacher, it is known where he or she is coming from. It is more insidious when there is gossip, when people say that so-and-so got the job as a janitor because he is friendly with such-and-such a councillor. Such a demoralising allegation of corruption could be made. If the matter is open and above board, allowances can be made for what the councillor says.
In the large rural areas, the present system removes a large percentage of the potentially politically interested group. That is extremely damaging to democracy, and we should strongly support recommendation 22.
I add my weight to what has already been said. We have discussed big rural authorities, but let us examine small rural authorities. Orkney, with a population of about 20,000, has a high proportion of people working for the council. I phoned the SNP in Orkney a year ago to ask how we were doing with the selection of candidates. I was told that we were not fielding any candidates. When I asked why not, I was told that we had 60 members, 50 of whom worked for the council. The rule excludes a colossal proportion of people who know and care about local government. It is insulting to suggest that those people would be corrupt or mismanage affairs.
Local government employs 294,000 people across Scotland. A huge pool of experience and expertise is being excluded. That is undemocratic and a breach of human rights. The situation is ludicrous and cannot be defended any longer. That is why I agree with the proposed change. We have said much about enticing people into local government. The people who are most interested in it are those who have worked for local authorities for 10 or 15 years.
The change would also stop the jiggery-pokery of teachers who sit on one council being offered jobs in a nearby authority of the same political persuasion, so that they can remain teachers. That discredits local government more than a change in the legislation would.
Kenny is right. Many of the officials who work for local councils have an absolute commitment to public service—in some instances, greater than that of elected members.
The next section is headed, "The voice of the people". We will take recommendations 23, 24, 25 and 26 together. The final section is entitled, "What should happen next". I expect that we will finish that in time to take a five-minute comfort break, when we can stretch our legs or run round the block, as Kenny did last time. We will then reconvene to hear the Minister for Finance.
Jamie, you wanted to say something?
When you are ready, convener.
I thought that you were going to sing or something.
I will if you want me to.
No, we will have that in the break.
Recommendations 23, 24, 25 and 26 deal with community councils. Recommendation 23 states:
"The system of community councils should be retained and should be regarded as a valuable asset to the democratic life of Scotland."
Recommendation 24 states that there should be a review of community councils and suggests that local councils should provide them with different types of support. Are there any comments?
I welcome the call for a review, because I am not convinced that community councils should be given such a prominent role. They can be valuable where they are effective, but in all too many cases they are neither effective nor representative. The relationship with local government of community councils, local voluntary groups and tenants and residents associations must be examined in its entirety. I am not convinced that community councils are the best way and should take the lead. I am not saying that that is not the case, but it is important that they should be reviewed.
I came into politics through parish-pump politics and community councils. When I was first elected to a community council, in Kilbarchan, we actually held a ballot—with ballot boxes—because we had managed to get sufficient nominations to need a genuine election. That set us up on a democratic footing.
There is much to be said for community councils, which make an important contribution to people's political education. What has happened to community councils over the past 20 to 25 years—since their inception—is that the amount of power available to them has diminished incredibly. As a result, people have become disheartened and walked away.
I was lobbied at a filling station before the previous election by somebody who knew who I was—even though I did not know who he was. He was a member of a community council and was upset about the fact that the amount of money that was available to it had decreased steadily over the years. The only money that the council had to spend was that which it had raised itself, which made things difficult.
Community councils are about the devolution of power and responsibility from local councils. I know that they are not all perfect and that they are sometimes made up of the same wee cliques of activists who pop up in every organisation in an area. We know the people who are like that.
However, the best community councillors are underrated; and we should look at rectifying that throughout the country. Importantly, it would suck people into the democratic process.
I agree with what Colin says—I, too, came up through community councils all those years ago. He is right to say that many examples of best practice are not recognised.
Michael rightly referred to other community groups and I accept his well-made point, but it is worth remembering that community councils are enshrined in legislation and have been—if my memory serves me correctly—since 1973.
The suggestions in the bullet points on the paper would help to underpin community councils. I would like to flag up consideration of electronic and postal voting.
There are self-perpetuating oligarchies which represent the worst practice in councils. The same bunches of people vote themselves back on to the councils each year. They often see themselves as a sort of kangaroo court, which is there periodically to hammer to a stake and burn the local unitary council member.
One way round that would be to give community councils more responsibility. Those powers should not be prescriptive but should allow the councils to buy into some sorts of service provision. I have seen examples of community councils taking over landscaping and looking after flower beds in remote rural parts of the Highlands, for example. Often that has been cost-effective and the relevant authority has given financial support.
Community councils can apply to local enterprise companies and can buy into other methods of fund-raising. Many small communities throughout Scotland have town-centre flower displays that are maintained by community councils. There are other opportunities—community councils can look after public toilets. Some of our 32 authorities have hard-pressed revenue budgets.
I take issue with what Michael McMahon said—the point of community councils is that they are, by law, the bottom level of democracy, but I have seen some imperfect examples and we should recognise that the system is by no means perfect.
Perhaps other members will not agree and will shoot at me for this, but I will test the water and say that I feel that the McIntosh report is slightly weak on whether community councils could buy into some form of service provision. No steer is given for that.
You made an interesting point about toilets. When all the public toilets were closed in Glasgow, offering community councils the chance to manage them was not considered.
It is horses for courses.
Yes, but the idea was not considered, which would have been helpful.
I would like to follow on from what Jamie said. The paper says quite a lot about having more meaningful consultation. It mentions resources but perhaps does not go as far as it should in specific areas, although the sentiments are right.
Other forums are not mentioned. We all know about the emphasis on community councils, but there is no mention of area forums, civic assemblies or citizens juries and the roles that they could play. We need to extend our consideration to the whole civic scene if we are to hear the voice of the people.
In case members think that I was trying to come down on community councils, let me say that that is not the case. There are good community councils, and where they are effective they should be welcomed. However, there is a perception that that is not always the case.
In some areas, tenants associations, residents associations and strong voluntary groups provide the most effective way of doing things. It is not right to assume, as the McIntosh report does, that community councils are the most effective way to do things, although, as Jamie pointed out, they might be enshrined in legislation.
Legislation could be widened to put other organisations on the same footing as community councils, so that people could be represented in that way. We should not assume that community councils are the best system. I was not having a go at community councils but was emphasising the review.
I accept that. Henry McLeish has done good work on the youth parliament, and I am surprised that McIntosh said nothing about it.
The role of community councils will be different in different areas, but they can play an important role. I am not convinced that they represent the lowest level of political participation: they often agitate for specific things, but they do not always pull people into the democratic process. I do not know whether McIntosh was naive, misguided or just optimistic, but I cannot see how we will engage with disaffected young people by giving them a vote in community council elections. There is an argument for them being given the vote, but I am not convinced that that would make a difference if it were only at community council level.
Perhaps the first stage in engaging with young people would be to give credibility to organisations that they have organised or to give them support in developing structures that would give them influence at local level, whether that was youth committees in local authorities or youth parliaments. They would not be brought into the political process by being bolted on to a community council structure that saw them as a problem. One of the items on the agenda of community councils is discussion of the problems that young people pose for them.
We must be imaginative and ask young people which resources and support would allow them to engage in the democratic process. Giving them a vote in community council elections seems to be a rather mechanistic solution and would not work.
I cannot think of anything that I would like less than to go to my local community council meeting.
McIntosh emphasised the fact that the role of community councils should be considered in a wider context. One of the criticisms of McIntosh in the press was that he put too much emphasis on this section of the report. However, I believe that he is trying to get us to focus on revitalising the sector.
The difficulty in Glasgow was that many community councils were allowed to plod on for years. When the council put much effort into trying to make the community councils in Glasgow more sustainable, the number dropped from 109 to 65, not because the council was unsuccessful, but because it was successful: many community councils that did not produce minutes or meet regularly were wound up. The ones that were left were given more training and support—not as much support, at least financially, as they would have liked, but it was a good first step.
McIntosh was trying to build on such a process by thinking of ways to encourage local participation, which can lead to other stages of political involvement such as joining a party or standing for election. He was not being prescriptive or suggesting that community councils were good and voluntary groups or tenants associations were less important. He was highlighting the fact that community councils are statutory bodies and that that should be taken into cognisance.
Having a connection with community councils is important, and they could play a greater role in the political process. However, we should remember that other organisations operate at local level; we should respect them, too. It is dangerous to think that there is only one way to regenerate the democratic process, as that might exclude people who are working in non-statutory areas. That is not McIntosh's intention, but it is the danger.
I once lived in an area where there were elections to community councils, which is not necessary in many cities because of the level of participation. Theoretically, community councils can make people interested, but that is not the case in many places because people choose other methods. We can generate local community interest in a variety of ways, not just through the formal structure of the community council.
I do not disagree with the convener's comments about community councils, but it seems that other things have been missed out. I am sure that we broadly agree with many of McIntosh's comments about community councils.
It will be interesting to engage with community councils and to ask councillors about such bodies. McIntosh has probably zoned in on the point because a legislative process is involved. At one point in my area, there were five community councils—although that figure has since dropped to two—and the thought of a 16-year-old having a say would have made the councillors faint. They dealt with building applications and if anyone asked about the people in those buildings, they said that that was nothing to do with them. They also thought that the council was a running surgery, but I soon sorted them out on that.
Community councils have great potential for involving other community groups such as tenants associations. Kenny is right to say that opening out involvement will give people the notion of doing something political, which can only be good. No doubt committee members who have not been councillors will be really interested in this subject.
They will be going to meet councillors.
Yes, and ex-councillors will not.
The McIntosh report refers to other groups such as area forums. However, apart from saying that there should not be conflict between groups, the report does not sufficiently emphasise that the roles of those organisations should be examined. When we set up organisations, we think that good things will just come out of happy chatter. Such organisations will take a long time to evolve; what is important is the relationship between the community council and other civic forums, including the groups that Michael McMahon mentioned. There might be examples of good practice in the areas that we can examine.
The time is now 3.45 pm and Jack McConnell is due in the committee room at 4.15 pm. It might be best to stop at 4.05 pm to stretch our legs for five minutes and think about what we will ask—or not ask—Jack.
Recommendation 27 states:
"Parliament and local authorities alike should give further study to the development of civic education".
I do not think that that proposal is controversial.
The next section of the summary covers McIntosh's comments on how we should pursue the implementation of his proposals. He recommends that councils should be committed to the self-review process by 1 January 2000 and should have completed their reviews by the end of that year. Councils seem to have no difficulty with that proposal and are keen to sign up to the joint conference within the suggested time scale. It is up to councils to take the initiative.
What about recommendation 29?
Will recommendation 29 be implemented by existing organisations, or will it require a new organisation?
That is a good question.
If a new organisation is required, can we have a say about its membership?
On first reading, it sounds as if a new organisation will be required. The recommendation states:
"The panel should include strong representation from local government, both elected members and officers, and a strong independent element".
Nothing like that has yet been set up.
There is a panel with local government and independent representation, but not with members and officers. Would Donald like us to find out what the Executive thinks about that? Perhaps he could ask Wendy Alexander about it.
How the panel operates is important. Everyone agrees that councils cannot say, "Ach well, we reviewed ourselves and we are great," and leave it at that. That would not be in the spirit of the recommendations. However, there is the question of the authority of the panel, who the members are and what their agenda is. Will they believe in local authorities being allowed to do their own thing within the parameters of good practice?
The recommendation implies that the councils are sitting a test and are either validated or are not at the end of it. I hope that it will be carried out in a spirit of co-operation and with the belief that councils are capable of carrying out a self-review. The panel should be a support service rather than an examination board. I should like to know how we define "a strong independent element" rather than somebody with a line to punt.
Perhaps we should set up an advisory panel to examine all the advisory panels.
Do members want to pursue that or to wait until Wendy Alexander comes, when they can ask her?
You should pursue it, and if we are not satisfied with how you have pursued it, we can ask Wendy.
The recommendation states:
"a panel of advisers should be appointed, by Ministers jointly with COSLA and subject to the approval of the Parliament".
That is interesting.
McIntosh did not know that there would be a Local Government Committee. If the commission had known, I am sure that that recommendation would have included the parliamentary Local Government Committee.
McIntosh says at one point that he does not know whether a local government committee will be formed. He would have refined his recommendations if he had known that there would be a parliamentary Local Government Committee. Frank McAveety is coming next week, so we can ask him about the matter.
The underlying issue is whether we are best judged by our peers or by an independent person who knows nothing about local government, as if they were from outer space, but who is wise and sensible. I choose judgment by our peers, as a good cross-section of forward-looking councillors and officials would judge their colleagues well. Somebody might know all about running airlines, but not understand local government.
The House of Commons is littered with people who are whizzos in their own policy area but have made a hash of things as politicians. If someone is used to an area where they say jump and everyone jumps, it can be a problem to come into local government.
If we liken this to the monitoring in higher education, there is always the first stage of deciding what to monitor. Johann mentioned the operational aspect. The document states that the scrutiny should be done sensitively, but that does not come across in the recommendation. One of the worst things that could happen in terms of moving forward in partnership with local government would be if the panel seemed like an external body that made its assessment in the worst kind of way.
We will discuss the issue with Frank.
The last recommendation is that we take McIntosh as a package.
We agree with that, but it is undoubtedly contentious.
It would have saved a lot of time if we had said at the start that we had to take it all as a package or reject it.
Would anybody like to comment on what we have just discussed, or on any other issue?
Colin, who takes longer to get to the bathroom than the rest of us, is advocating a longer interval.
I will suspend the meeting for about 10 minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—