Procedures Committee, 23 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 23, 2002

Official Report 270KB pdf

---

Local Government Covenant

The third item on the agenda is the covenant between local government and the Scottish Parliament. No one is going to pitch the paper to us, as it is primarily for information and discussion. If members wish, we can convey our views on the paper or on cognate matters to the Local Government Committee. Such a covenant was envisaged when the Parliament was first established; it has now arrived on our agenda and we are entitled either to approve it or to suggest something different.

I was a member of the Local Government Committee when the covenant began its tortuous route. However, it has developed a good deal since then.

The covenant sees—if I have read it correctly—the Local Government Committee as the contact between local government and the Parliament. Although that contact is important, other committees such as the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Social Justice Committee also have a lot of dealings with local government. Either those committees make visits to local government, or local government visits the committees. That important point needs more recognition.

We must also address the technical issue of the three councils that have opted out of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It could be argued, "Well, that's tough," but the councils could be represented if necessary.

I did not think that the covenant contained any threats to the involvement of other committees. However, if there is any such dubiety, we should make it clear that other committees regularly consider local government activity and services—or perhaps we should say public services that are delivered or mediated through local government. It is perfectly appropriate for all committees, including this one, to relate to local government. For example, I can envisage the committee promoting some of the CSG principles to and through local government. There should be no suggestion that there is any limitation on the involvement of other committees.

I do not think that we are entitled to say that local councils must be members of COSLA, although it is convenient for us if they are. We have to acknowledge that there must be some way of reflecting the views of councils that are not COSLA members. Even in the preparation of our work, there has been an issue about whether we should deal with individual councils or with COSLA. We are squaring the circle by talking to COSLA but also dealing with councils that have had points to make themselves. The Parliament must recognise COSLA and individual councils.

There are four bullet points in paragraph 18 of the covenant. Although no procedures are involved, I wonder why the second bullet point seeks

"observer status for COSLA at meetings of the Local Government Committee".

In effect, anyone has that status, because individual members of the public can go along to committee meetings. I do not know whether that reference in the covenant just means offering a parliamentary invitation to COSLA to come along to meetings. However, it is meaningless in the context of committee work.

I wonder whether it is the Local Government Committee equivalent of ethnic minority representation on the Equal Opportunities Committee. There might be times when the Local Government Committee would like to have someone from local government to advise committee members or to give them information. I do not know whether that is the intention.

Definitions are the issue. There is a difference if someone is involved in committee work.

I know, but given that no one can be involved with committee work in that way, the nearest equivalent might be to invite an observer. I do not know whether the intention is that the observer would be invited to give advice to the committee in the same way as an adviser does. If that is not the intention, the bullet point is platitudinous—if COSLA wants someone to go to a committee meeting, that person can go. For all I know, COSLA does that. It is for the Local Government Committee to tighten that matter up, if it feels that that is appropriate. It does not cause me great concern.

There is no procedural issue. Why does the committee not afford observer status to a teacher, for example?

When we respond by letter, we can ask politely what is meant by "observer status".

We have been asked to consider the covenant from a procedures point of view. Committee conveners will consider it from the point of view of education or transport, for example. Our duty is to examine the paper in the context of the standing orders and the status of the Parliament, to analyse the practical impact of the proposals and to outline the choices to committee conveners.

Politically, I support the covenant, but my concern is that we are the only people who are—and should be—examining the issue from a housekeeping and caretaking point of view. I look at the clerks when I make that point, because I do not know what work has been done on the consequences of implementing the covenant as it stands. There may be no procedural impact; the only impact may be on the Parliament and the Executive in relation to policy matters. If there is no procedural impact and the issue is just political, I am not sure why we have to consider the covenant.

That is a fair point and the issue may merit some analysis from that point of view. I throw into the ether the complaint—or at least the pointed comment—that was made at our public meeting in Hawick by the only Borders councillor who came to the meeting. He was critical of the principle of the Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee inquiring into Scottish Borders Council's education service. I do not remember whether he used the word "patronising", but he gave the impression that the Scottish Borders Council's view was that what the Parliament had done was not appropriate.

The covenant seems to talk about equal respect, but what does that mean? Does it mean that we should not investigate local authorities or does it mean that, if a local authority does not like something that we are doing, it is entitled to investigate us or to take evidence from us? I do not know what the practicalities would be. Perhaps that is part of the issue that Fiona Hyslop raised.

Those points are important. I agree with Fiona Hyslop. Two levels of reality testing need to be employed. One is technical. It is to cross-check the covenant against the Parliament's standing orders, if that has not already been done. The other concerns the convener's point about asking what the covenant means in practical terms. Rather than commenting on it in any detail at this stage, perhaps we would be better putting down a marker to note that any observations and recommendations that flow from our CSG inquiry, which could have a bearing on the operationalis—

"Operationalisation"—it is a Scottish expression.

I thank the convener—operationalisation. Our observations could, in turn, have a bearing on how the covenant is translated into practice. By necessity, that will have to come later. I am not sure about the stages in the process and what has to reach the finishing post first, but we could indicate that some of the evidence that we have taken and some of the issues that we are considering are relevant to the question of the Parliament's relationship with local government. In due course, we may form certain views on that. Given the level at which the document is pitched, some of its aims and aspirations could be expanded.

The covering letter mentions that the covenant has been approved by the Parliament's legal office, although it is not absolutely clear what is meant by that. One assumes that the Local Government Committee and the Parliament's lawyers undertook that check on a bilateral basis along the lines that were set out by Fiona Hyslop. We will check that.

The covering letter sets out the Local Government Committee's hope that the covenant will become

"a topic for committee business"

and the subject of a motion in the Parliament. Do we know when that will happen? With my business manager's hat on, I understand that the business managers hope to find a local government slot after committee business on the finance report, so I do not expect that the motion will be lodged immediately. It would be helpful to find out the time scale, as that would allow us to fit in any work that we have to undertake before the motion is lodged in the Parliament.

We can do that.

Fair point.

Recently, I have been reading a lot of material on the subject. I refer to the points that were made by Donald Gorrie and the convener. If the line from the Local Government Committee were that it would consider the matter but not take it further, that would be interesting. That would take us to the issue of whether the Local Government Committee is the lead committee on the subject. If the Local Government Committee says that it does not recommend something, does that mean that the subject is dead? The Procedures Committee or another committee might think, "Hey! That is a good idea. It might be worth considering." If that happened, would that mean that those committees could get around the Local Government Committee? Issues have been raised on the ownership of ideas and whether an idea has to go through a particular channel.

On the practical implications for the Procedures Committee, paragraph 16 states:

"There will be opportunities for local government to bring to the Parliament's notice matters on which local government wishes to see legislation introduced or existing legislation amended."

At the moment, the Parliament is in the middle of considering the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, which affects local government. Executive ministers and other members lodged amendments on Friday and yet we are to vote on the bill tomorrow. Some of the amendments will seriously affect local government, so local authorities should have an opportunity to make an input. The covenant supplements other evidence that we have received that the later stages of bills happen far too quickly.

The statement in paragraph 16 reads to me as though local government wants to say, "Hey! We would like the Parliament to pass a bill on special educational needs," or, "Hey! We would like the Parliament to amend the existing law on the disposal of waste." It does not appear to me to be a bid for better opportunities to influence legislation that is already going through the Parliament. Perhaps that is something that local government should have asked for and that we ought to have conceded. Perhaps we should suggest that time scales for handling bills should afford local government an opportunity to make an input to the stage 2 process.

We have received evidence about that, so it might be remiss not to respond to it.

If the time scale for approving the covenant is fairly relaxed—there is no reason why it should not be, given that the covenant has been discussed for a considerable time—that would afford us the opportunity of feeding back issues that we have identified for comment. I do not know whether the intention is to adopt the covenant as it is, or whether the covenant is open to amendment. We might be able to tease that out.

Stage 3 is involved, as well as stage 2.

You are quite right. That is true.

The date 5 October 2002 is given on the bottom of the document. That must be a misprint. It is a case of going back to the future.

You are talking about your TARDIS again. The last time that the TARDIS was mentioned, it got us in all the diary columns.

I was not responsible for mentioning the TARDIS.

Yes you were.

Was I?

You were. You should ask Stephen Hutchinson. Official report staff had it up on the wall of their office when the official report was based at Parliamentary Headquarters. That is how long ago it was. That was the most epic thing that had ever happened.

My God. I am getting older than I think.

It was all Mike Russell's fault—we can probably all agree on that.

The correct date must be 2001.

Are there any other points? In that case, I thank members very much for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 12:16.