Councils (Visits)
We now move on to reports on visits to councils. We will start with Bristow Muldoon's report on the visit to Glasgow City Council.
The visit to Glasgow City Council was the first that we timetabled. It was important that we started there, given Glasgow's position as the largest council in Scotland in terms of population and expenditure. I was slightly disappointed that only Michael McMahon and I attended, but I know that other members could not attend for good reasons, However, the result was that only Labour members of the committee were present.
The visit was very useful. We were able to flesh out many of the views of Glasgow City Council regarding several aspects of the McIntosh report. In some areas the council has not reached final conclusions, so some of the views that were expressed to us are the views of Councillor Charlie Gordon, the leader of the council. He stated strongly that on some issues the council has still to meet formally before submitting a response. I imagine, however, that Councillor Gordon has a good understanding of what the response will be, given his position as council leader.
I want to raise a few points. Glasgow supported the power of general competence, although that was not its prime concern with regard to the McIntosh commission. It supported the principle of that power being granted, although it felt that there were other ways of dealing with some of the issues that were raised by that power.
Glasgow City Council felt particularly strongly about the question of an independent review of local government finance. The council supports the principle of moving to a situation where business rates are set on a local authority basis, but its primary concern was an issue that Johann has raised on several occasions, that of Glasgow's metropolitan status and the way in which the greater Glasgow community benefits from services that Glasgow provides. Related to that is the fact that the residents of the middle-class suburbs around Glasgow use the city as a place to work but do not contribute to the cost of its services. When those issues are seen in relation to the poverty that exists in Glasgow, the seriousness of the situation becomes apparent.
The way that the business rates are distributed means that Glasgow finds it hard to ensure that revenue that is raised in the city is returned to the city. The council wants that issue taken forward by the Executive and indicated that it would support any initiative that was taken by this committee to ensure that that happened.
On decision making, the council said that it was reviewing its systems of operation. It felt that some aspects of the issue were exaggerated by McIntosh, particularly the question of whipping. It said that it did not use whipping regularly in the Labour group. I do not know whether the SNP group holds regular whipping sessions.
Charlie Gordon also said that he felt that Glasgow had been innovative in its approach to committees and mentioned that Glasgow was the first council to establish a standards committee. Through initiatives such as the citizens panel, it is trying to involve the community in the decision-making process. It does not favour a move towards the cabinet system of local government organisation that was suggested by McIntosh.
People are well aware that Glasgow City Council expressed support for the retention of the first-past-the-post system of election for local government. It is concerned about the way in which the Scottish Parliament works, with division of case work becoming politicised. It drew attention to the fact that local government does different work from that which is done by the Scottish Parliament. The primary role of the Parliament is legislative, so an additional member system might be workable as there would be more of a role for members who did not have a particular constituency to serve. The council strongly expressed the view that its prime principle was that the link between the constituency and the member should be retained. It felt that the most appropriate way to do that was by having a single-member, first-past-the-post system.
I would suggest one slight correction to the report of the visit. When Michael McMahon asked about AV—alternative vote—top-up, the council representatives said that, although they did not support AV top-up, they were prepared to look at AV itself—that is, a majoritarian system—because in that system every single councillor would have to have received the support of 50 per cent of the electorate in their area at some point in the election. They saw that as improving the legitimacy of a councillor's election. But I must stress that it was AV and not AV top-up in which they expressed interest.
The representatives were quite happy with the suggestion that local authority elections should take place on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament; they felt that it was important to boost turnouts. They also believed that there were other ways of doing that. In particular, they felt that we should consider having a continually updated electoral roll, as that would deal with problems such as people changing address and so becoming disfranchised.
On most of the other issues that we raised, the council still had to come to final conclusions. It highlighted some areas where it felt that it was already working towards implementing many of the principles in the McIntosh report.
It was a useful and worthwhile meeting, and it allowed us to explore some of the reasoning behind the views that the council had expressed.
My constituency covers North and South Lanarkshire, and I could see many similarities between issues that are raised there and those that are raised in Glasgow. The impression that I took away from the visit was that there is definitely a need—because of the compounded impact of the issues that the council highlighted—for special status to be given to Glasgow as a local authority. When we visited the housing department and the homelessness unit, the scale of the difficulties that Glasgow faces was obvious. Those difficulties are greater than those suffered in other parts of Scotland. I want to say on record that Glasgow's difficulties are especially significant.
The second question that you asked Glasgow City Council was whether it took a view on the McIntosh commission's recommendation for an independent review of local government finance. The conclusion in your report is a masterpiece of not quite answering the question. Have I missed something? Was the issue discussed?
The council clearly said that it wished an independent review. I do not know whether other members of the committee have seen it, but a full written response by Glasgow City Council to our questions is available and would be useful to members. The paper that Colin has is just our notes from the meeting.
Our morning session overran by about 45 minutes—probably because we spent so much time discussing local government finance.
The council's response to that question is conspicuously missing from the notes, so they do not quite capture the flavour.
The council clearly stated that it wished an independent review.
That is fine.
If you wanted to add one word to the report to make it clearer, the word would be yes.
We should get that answer from all local authorities.
My concern about the Glasgow visit was that only two out of the 79 elected councillors were there. I am not sure whether the other political parties, or other members of the ruling group, were invited. When I went to City of Aberdeen and East Renfrewshire Councils, nine members and at least three political parties were present in each case. I am therefore not sure how representative the views expressed in the report are.
I am concerned about what you said about AV. The answer to the fourth question you asked says that an AV top-up system was rejected
"because it would actually strengthen the dominant party."
I cannot understand how that is mathematically possible.
From what I can recollect, the sentence that you quoted is an incorrect record, and I raised that point with the clerks before this meeting. I think that it was a genuine error—I do not think that that is what Charlie Gordon said.
The council ruled out the idea of top-up lists—it was not happy about that. Following on from that, the AV top-up system implies a list and that was also rejected. The council said that it could see the merit in the AV system, because of the rule of 15 per cent plus one, but it did not think that that would help in terms of distributing power.
It was quite curious that the two councils that I went to were agin the proposal in question 6.
Glasgow City Council said that directly elected provosts
"could have ramifications for sleaze and mismanagement".
Did the council expand on that statement, or was it a reaction to the Jeffrey Archer-Ken Livingstone situation?
I think that the council was thinking about American models and about the concentration of power in one person. It felt that councils would have greater democratic accountability by having a range of members with responsibility, rather than concentrating power in one individual. It felt that that would be a healthier system.
Perhaps it was thinking about Pat Lally having another shot.
I cannot possibly comment on that.
My impression from Charlie Gordon was that Pat Lally walked on water in Glasgow.
How times have changed.
Are you finished, Kenny?
I have one or two other points, but I shall defer to you, convener.
I am interested in Kenny's comment, as it struck me that the two committee members who were able to attend the visit to Glasgow heard only one side of the story. We did not see any opposition members and, wherever I have been, the opposition has had an opinion. It seems to me that we should have heard that opinion, particularly in a city as large as Glasgow—even if it might have been difficult to find opposition members. I think that those members would have given their views if they had been given the opportunity. Perhaps we should consider that.
In the first paragraph on question 1, Jimmy Andrews said that Jean MacFadden had written a paper. I would like to see that paper, and members should have a copy—we would send a copy out to members. If Jean has said clearly in a paper what local authorities could do if they were to have the power of general competence, I would be interested in it, because of what has happened on other visits.
Charlie Gordon made it clear when he was speaking in a personal capacity. When he was speaking on behalf of Glasgow City Council, he stated that he was giving the official position—one arrived at through the policy-making process and following consultation. The officers who were present clarified on each occasion whether this or that was an agreed policy of the council or whether it was Councillor Gordon's personal view—that happened on only one or two occasions. While not ideal, that approach was made clear by council officers, who made up the bulk of the delegation. They said on a number of occasions that this or that was the policy as agreed through the democratic process.
I still believe that, if you had been able to compare and contrast the official position with that of opposition members, you might have found that the opposition might not have agreed with council policy. However, given that 73 members were against the proposal, the policy would have gone through.
There might be a different view of the first-past-the-post system.
There might be a different view, which would be worth commenting on, but it did not happen in this case—nor is it happening in other areas.
Jean MacFadden's paper will give us an idea on the uses of the power of general competence.
Next, Donald Gorrie and I visited Stirling Council. I am glad to say that Donald was the reporter for that meeting.
Stirling Council produced written answers to the questions—we gave it quite good marks out of 10. Eugene Windsor has produced a paper, which summarises the further discussion that we had with the council.
I will concentrate on a few points that I thought were particularly striking. On the issue of general competence, Stirling Council felt like other councils—that such power could be linked to community planning.
The council believes that a bill giving councils the duty and power to lead and the other players a general duty to co-operate would help the process forward. It would love a wider power of general competence, but it felt that we could make a start in that area.
The decentralisation of Stirling Council seemed to be real and impressed me. We all have experience of organisations whose claims to have decentralised turn out to be a sham, but in this case it seems to be genuine. Interestingly, Stirling conducted a postal ballot for community council elections, in which the turnout was between 40 and 60 per cent. The single transferable vote system was used and seemed to work very well. Postal elections are an issue that we need to consider.
Stirling is an interesting council, because the area that it covers is 50 per cent urban and 50 per cent rural. There are problems, but the council is addressing them seriously. It hopes to arrive at a system of scrutiny by the community, which is an interesting concept, even if it has not yet been realised. The council thinks that democracy should not consist simply in people trotting into a polling station every now and then to put an X on a piece of paper, and that they need to be involved. The council said, if I understood it correctly, that items on its agendas on which there was a free vote were starred. That seemed to me to be a step forward.
The council was dead against elected Jeffrey Archers and cabinets. Councils that have taken decentralisation seriously believe that a cabinet system would work against that.
I was impressed by the fact that the council was experimenting with a slightly different set-up of committees and departments. The remit of the children's committee and director of children's services, for instance, includes social work involving children as well as schools. Curiously, however, it does not include youth work, which may be an issue for the future.
The council was working genuinely to increase participation by young people. It has set up children's committees, at which school pupils discuss issues relevant to them. They have dealt with such basic but important issues as the weight of school satchels, flooding and lavatories.
This and the other visit that I have made so far, to Highland Council, illustrated the enormous variety of ways in which councils operate and the their good practice. Councils are not all perfect, but they all do some things well. We should encourage them to continue doing those things well and discourage the Executive from being on their back. British civil servants have an extraordinary lust for regulation, and I think that they should be told to get stuffed—if that is a parliamentary expression. With proper monitoring, councils can be allowed to get on with things. They are doing good things and, if given more general powers, they could do more. Parliament should set out targets and put in place appropriate monitoring, but it should not impose detailed regulation. That is the message that I have brought back from Stirling.
I want to pick up Michael McMahon's point. Having been a councillor in Glasgow, I can see how the deprivation there leads to a more cumbersome approach, and why it is much more difficult to get things off the ground there than in smaller councils such as Stirling. However, I was impressed by Stirling. I was also impressed by the council's admission that Government initiatives with challenge funding—of which it has been a net beneficiary—are not the way to proceed. Rather, Governments should start to trust councils, instead of ring-fencing so much and designating everything as challenge funding.
In the afternoon, we visited a family centre in the Raploch. The woman who ran the centre had been there for about 15 years. She said that when she started, the kids coming to the centre were from families with difficulties of all kinds, and that the mothers and parents were there too, whereas now, they all appear to have jobs—or a larger percentage of them have jobs, which surprised me, although I thought that it was very good. She had seen quite a dramatic change, especially in the past three or four years, with women returning to work or attending some form of education that would, we hope, take them into jobs—in other words, the new deal.
It was interesting to hear about the opposition in Stirling Council. It is fragile, but it is there. Council members do, however, seem to be able to work together. I was impressed both by what they were doing and by the officials and the way in which they approached their work.
You mentioned challenge funding, convener. The Stirling report states:
"Stirling was not particularly in favour of the approach, which it felt ‘makes liars' out of councils."
Was that expanded?
I do not know about "makes liars". That is in quotation marks in the report—perhaps Eugene Windsor wrote it down.
That is the council's own quotation.
It certainly felt that if a need is recognised and if it is possible to say exactly where money needs to be spent, there has to be an element of trust between the Executive and the council in order to do that. That is a fair point. If that does not happen, the councils are pulled into account, but after they have been given the chance to do it. I say that without wishing to go down the "Here is an area of priority treatment" road, which we went down in the 1980s, throwing money at problems.
If there is a clear need for something and the Executive recognises that, the money should be put in, but it should not be ring-fenced. The trust between councils and the Executive should be strengthened and given a chance to flourish—if that is the right word.
Council representatives said that they were disappointed that local government finance was not in the McIntosh report's remit, and they saw the committee as having a crucial role. Donald Gorrie and I said that discussion of local government finance was on our agenda.
I want to ask about the electoral systems. The notes say that the Conservative group was against proportional representation—we are aware of that. The notes say that there was "a range of views", presumably from some of the other councillors present. Could we have some indication of the views of the Labour and Scottish National party representatives on electoral systems?
You had not told them yet.
Specifically, they said that they had used the single transferable vote for community councils, which had been a success. They registered the concerns of many people about lists of councillors. I felt that they were not hostile to the concept of PR.
Except the Conservative group.
Yes, except the Conservatives.
That discussion took place when we had moved out into the provost room. The council representatives were keen to examine the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, because ward boundary changes have wiped what are considered to be communities from the map. It is an especially interesting situation, because the council is so finely balanced.
It was interesting that no clear view was expressed one way or the other in the Stirling report. At the two councils that I visited, there was a clear view. One was Glasgow and the other was Highland, where there is no overall majority. Was there a definitive view from Stirling Council?
I cannot remember anything definitive coming out, to be honest. Having seen the list MSPs and the situation in Europe, the council representatives seemed to be saying that it was not a good idea. For Europe, there is a vague list and people do not really know whom they are voting for. Members of the Conservative group certainly said that they opposed it, but I cannot remember any positive comments being made.
Did Donald say that the council put asterisks or stars against a free vote?
That is right.
As a member of the opposition, I was not aware of that. I have never seen a star, so I can assume only that there has never been a free vote.
There is a difference between a star and a black spot.
Kenny Gibson asked about the reference to making liars out of councils. In addition to what you said, convener, I took it that the Executive—or previously the UK Government—produced a scheme with strict rules. The council has, to some extent, to tell lies to fit its scheme into a sort of straitjacket. The council may have a good scheme, but it has to cheat a bit round the edges to make it fit the Government guidelines. It is felt that that is a bad thing. The councillors were in favour of trust between the council and the Executive. If they make a hash of it, they are hauled over the coals.
Would the Executive look kindly on a council that admitted in a submission to the committee that it lies?
That was the expression that the councillors used, because they had to fit their scheme to certain criteria before they could get money.