Official Report 137KB pdf
Members have been provided with a briefing paper—LG/00/4/2—that shows our future work plan. I intend to go through it and to spend some time on section 3, which deals with future business. We will reach an agreement on the summary of recommendations given in annexe 1, and members may comment on the timetable in annexe 2. Sections 1 and 2 give some background to what we have done so far.
Our plan seems to be that we will not meet for a couple of weeks. To give ourselves a wee bit of slack, and to avoid having to have two meetings in a week, as we did last week, perhaps we should bring some of the discussions forward, rather than wait until other items land in our lap. Instead of cancelling the meeting on 1 February, as is proposed, we could have the final discussion of McIntosh. We are tied up almost until June, but if we bring the discussions forward and have an additional meeting, we will not have to have two in one week, because we will always have one in reserve.
Part of the reason for suggesting cancelling the meeting on 1 February is the extra time that the committee has put in this week and last week. This is a matter for the committee, but it was felt that cancelling the meeting on 1 February still meant that the committee could easily manage the business as laid out in the timetable.
I certainly do not want to move a motion on this, but I hope that we can meet on 1 February. Who knows what will end up in our laps over the next four or five months? If the clerks and the researchers are overloaded, I will take that on board, but I feel that we need some room to manoeuvre. Having a meeting next week might help us to get through some of the backlog of issues on which we have yet to take final decisions.
Kenny, do you think that we need an extra day to discuss McIntosh?
The timetable in annexe 2 on page 7 shows that we will discuss McIntosh on 8 February and have a final consideration on 15 February. I am not suggesting that we discuss McIntosh on 1 February, 8 February and 15 February; I am suggesting that if we discuss it on1 February and 8 February, we can bring other things forward, such as the non-domestic rating inquiry. In that way, if the committee is asked to take a view on other issues, perhaps in March or April, we will, in effect, have created a free week in which to discuss those issues. That would make life easier for the committee. I am concerned that, if we cancel next week's meeting and do not meet again for a couple of weeks, we might suddenly find ourselves having to have two meetings in one week in order to talk about other issues. I do not think that anybody wants that.
Some items on the timetable are fixed and cannot be done any earlier—for example, meeting the adviser on the non-domestic rating inquiry or dealing with the stages of the ethics bill. Do we need three meetings to deal with McIntosh, or two?
I find that there is often a timing clash between this committee and the European Committee, of which I am also a member. I would prefer to have a meeting on 1 February and not on 8 February, if that is possible. We might need to accept Kenny's point.
I agree with the proposal to bring forward the consideration of McIntosh. An issue that is not on the timetable—although I presume that we will be discussing it at some stage—is the Kerley report. We are not sure when that report will be issued but, although we are talking about a final discussion on McIntosh, we will discuss Kerley once he reports. Kenny's proposal may be sensible. If we bring forward our discussion on McIntosh, it will create some space later on.
A lot of our discussions so far have been on the nuts and bolts, rather than on day-to-day local government issues. I know that, to discuss education or housing or whatever, we can go to the meetings of the relevant committees but, now and again, if our timetable is flexible, I would like this committee to discuss those issues, instead of only the structures of local government.
Morag Brown of the Scottish Parliament information centre is doing some preparatory work on McIntosh. Cancelling the meeting next week would give her a bit more time; if the committee wishes to discuss McIntosh over two meetings, we might have to accept that some of the research work would be available for the first meeting and some for the second meeting. I presume that we could work around that.
I was not suggesting for a second that we should discuss McIntosh at three meetings. I am suggesting that we have two meetings—as is presently suggested—but that we have them on 1 February and 8 February, rather than on 8 February and 15 February. We do not know what other commitments we will have at the end of February but, even if we cannot bring forward the stage 1 discussions on the ethical standards bill, we can bring forward the non-domestic rating inquiry.
Would it be reasonable to discuss McIntosh on 1 February and 8 February, and, by the end of the meeting on 1 February, to decide whether we need to meet on 15 February? I think that most people would prefer a fairly heavy agenda that dealt with items speedily to having bits of items spread over a number of meetings. We are not setting our face against the idea of cancelling a meeting; we could decide on 1 February whether to cancel on 15 February. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Is the committee agreed that it does not require any further evidence on McIntosh?
Yes.
Unless someone is beating a path to our door with something illuminating to tell us.
Do we have the written evidence from the local authorities that we did not visit? Could that be distributed to members?
Yes. It is obviously a big bundle.
E-mail would be fine, if that is possible.
Rather than all of us getting information from all the authorities, another option is to make available to any member specific information from one authority. That would leave it up to us to chase Eugene for the information.
That might help to save Amazonia.
On some of the questions that we asked local authorities, the position is clear and fairly unanimous. Would it be helpful to try to summarise things? That would avoid everyone having to plough through 30 reports.
Yes—and if we wanted individual reports, we could ask for them.
Members indicated agreement.
All right. We have agreed on how we will action McIntosh; let us move on to the next item in section 3, which is the inquiry into non-domestic rating revaluation. We will be having a meeting with the adviser, and members can decide when that should be. The timetable suggests 23 February.
The adviser will be appointed next week. Having the meeting on 23 February will give the adviser two or three weeks to do some work before coming to the committee with an initial report.
The next item is petition PE26. We are still waiting for comments from COSLA. Then comes the item on students and council tax. We are waiting for a research note on that, after which we can allocate time to discuss it.
That is the kind of thing for which it would be useful to have a free week; otherwise, it could just hang over us.
Does anyone have any comments on the special islands needs allowance? The Executive is reviewing the matter. Once it has done that, we may want to comment on SINA within the broader context of an inquiry into local government finance, although to some extent we are waiting for the Executive to determine what will happen on that, too.
SINA is a more clear-cut issue. I hope that we will not have to rely on an independent review of local government finance to deal with it, given some of the difficulties in the island areas that do not receive the allowance. If possible, we should consider SINA independently, because the issues in some of the islands are pressing. If we want to take a decision on SINA in time for 2001-02—which I doubt we would be able to do if we considered it as part of a full review of local government finance—we must review it separately.
Those who were pushing for this matter to be considered were making the point that the unfairness exists within the current system. Therefore, if the system does not change, we will need to address the issue, regardless of the ultimate findings of any inquiry into local government finance.
What is happening about the visit to South Ayrshire Council? There was a problem on Friday and we did not go.
We will deal with that as part of our housekeeping business at the end of the meeting. We have agreed to proceed in the way that is suggested in the paper.
Given the comments made by a number of committee members when we went through the bill earlier, I do not think that it is necessary to consider taking evidence on the section of the bill that deals with the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. The committee has a clear view on the issue and I do not think that taking further evidence would be productive.
My understanding is that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will take evidence on that area; that seems to be the most sensible locus for it. I agree that the issues raised in section 2A are important and that their significance has triggered a lot of discussion, but they have been raised within the context of a bill that seeks to set fairly high expectations of the people who represent us in public life. Local government's part in that needs to be seen as important in itself. If people contact the Parliament because they want to make representations to us on that aspect of the bill, we will consider those representations. That is the best way of proceeding for now.
We will discuss the guidelines for parents anyway and can take evidence as part of our discussion of the bill at the next stage; it would not be appropriate to detach that issue from the rest of the bill.
Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to items that the committee has agreed to consider in future, including evidence from trade unions that are active in local government and the implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to local government. The trade union meeting is timetabled, and we will timetable discussion of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for a time when it will be most productive.
I think that we should have an independent inquiry into local government finance. As I said to the Minister for Finance when we discussed the issue some months ago, the results of the inquiry may or may not suggest that the system that is in place is the most effective. Nevertheless, given the pressure to examine the issue from everyone in local government—from elected representatives to officials and trade unionists—it would be remiss of the committee not to consider it, regardless of the outcome of the inquiry. We should start to timetable that in and decide on the best way of taking evidence.
I support that view. All the feedback from the councils suggests that we need to examine this area.
Does Kenny mean that this committee should undertake an inquiry or that the committee should call for an independent inquiry, which the Executive has ruled out? I do not have a problem with our doing that, but we need to clarify what we are saying.
My view—which I think is what Kenny is suggesting, although he can confirm that himself—is that, when we make our submission on McIntosh, we should record our view that there should be an independent inquiry. The Executive has already indicated that it does not believe that such an inquiry would be necessary or helpful. Kenny's suggestion—which I support—is that this committee should take a lead in analysing local government finance issues and in taking representations from all the relevant parties, including the Executive, local authorities, trade unions and anyone else who is interested. Business will be an important part of that if we are to consider business rates.
I agree with Bristow. He is spot on. The two issues should be detached from each other. Regardless of how the money is raised, distribution is separate. We do not want to get tangled up and make the matter more complex than it already is.
I agree that we should have an inquiry, not so much because it proves that this committee exists as a distinct entity, but because so many local authorities have made it clear to us that local government finance is an issue. If we do not represent them by carrying out an inquiry that otherwise will not take place, that could undermine our credibility in their eyes, which would not be a good idea. We are in the business of building bridges with local authorities. The inquiry will give us a lot of extra hassle, but we should do it.
Sitting in the city of Glasgow, we would be remiss not to take on our responsibility in relation to the whole question of local government finance and distribution. The question is how we manage that. We cannot just say, "Yes, it's a really good idea to have an inquiry" if two years on we are still carrying it out.
Members indicated agreement.
Are there any comments on the programme expenditure proposals for 2001-02? Clearly, we have a role in responding to those and time has been identified for us to do that.
Unless it is colder than the average temperature here.
Colin has asked that he be sent to a country in which he can display the new leather thong that he got for Christmas.
Behave yourself.
I shall not comment. If we visit classrooms, you might discover the belt outside the door.
I suggest that it would be useful to examine countries with devolved arrangements.
We should emphasise that we can do some work on local authorities in other countries without visiting them—we are not necessarily going on a grand tour around Europe as people did in Victorian times. It may be possible to get information from the internet and other unglamorous sources. I agree that countries with devolved arrangements will be significant for us.
We need to get dates for proposed visits to other UK legislatures or to local authorities in other countries—or for visits to the Scottish Parliament by people from those institutions—as soon as possible, as our diaries are starting to fill up. The legislative programme will affect local government, so we must not schedule visits for times when we have to discuss legislation in Parliament.
Work on local authorities in other countries and on other UK legislatures must be balanced by our important work building structures between Parliament and local government in Scotland.
Members indicated agreement.
Members should note the draft forward programme, from which the proposal to cancel the meeting on 1 February has been removed. The programme remains flexible.