Health and Community Care Committee, 27 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 27, 2002

Official Report 92KB pdf

---

Local Government Covenant

Agenda item 3 is the covenant between local government and the Scottish Parliament. All relevant subject committees have been asked to examine the document. I bring to the committee's attention the following points that were made by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which states:

"The Committee welcomes the development of the Covenant. It is aware of the creative tension that exists in the relationship between the Parliament and local government in the post-devolution settlement, and believes that the Covenant is a welcome step forward in addressing some of these issues.

The Committee would like to emphasise that it would wish to continue to consult with individual councils as well as COSLA in its work. This is particularly important as COSLA's membership is, of course, not currently comprehensive.

The Committee also recognises that the Parliament's representation of the Standing Joint Conference will need to be carefully elaborated."

The draft document states simply that there will be 16 representatives from Parliament, but it does not elaborate on who those representatives should be. There might be some debate about that representation. I think that the draft document suggests only that the Parliament's representation might consist of 16 conveners. It could be argued that there should be parliamentary representation from outwith committees. I am open to colleagues' comments, which we can feed back to the Local Government Committee.

First, I would like some information—I do not know whether members can help me. Paragraph 8 on page 3 of the draft document refers to

"The European Charter of Local Self Government."

That paragraph also states that the "principle of subsidiarity" underlies that charter, which the United Kingdom Government has apparently signed. However, to do so runs counter to the principle of Westminster's sovereignty that is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. I wonder whether anyone could enlighten me about whether the charter now takes precedence over the principle of Westminster's sovereignty and whether subsidiarity—at last—is here to stay. I hope that that is the case.

I have two other comments. I noticed in the draft document that the Local Government Committee will have reciprocal observer status with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I wonder whether there is scope for other committees having such reciprocal observer status. For example, the Health and Community Care Committee could do so for discussion on such matters as the joint future and the Mental Health Act 1983. A COSLA representative could come to our committee meetings, and we could be represented at COSLA meetings.

My final comment concerns how we define who should represent Parliament in the standing joint conference. We should have more information about that important issue.

There is a question about who will have ownership of the choice of Parliament's representatives. Will parliamentary officials or committees make that choice? Could there be a role in that process for business managers, who are linked to parties but whose job it is to ensure that the business of the Parliament gets done? Ownership is important.

We could have an interesting discussion about the subsidiarity issue to which John McAllion referred. I cannot give him a definitive decision on the matter and I do not know whether other members can do so. However, we can ask for clarification on the issue, or at least raise it.

I understand that some councils are not members of COSLA. I do not know what the latest membership figure is. An agreement with local government should surely include all local government in Scotland and not only local authorities that are COSLA members.

The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee also made that point.

It would be difficult to achieve the inclusion to which Mary Scanlon referred. COSLA's representatives on the standing joint committee will not represent each COSLA member. However, local authorities that are not COSLA members would want direct representation on the standing joint committee. We must be careful about how we deal with that.

John McAllion referred to representation of parliamentary committees on the standing joint conference. There should be a representative from each committee whose work is relevant to work that local government undertakes. That should be the case particularly for relevant matters such as community care. I am not suggesting which committees should be represented, but other committees might not share the Health and Community Care Committee's interest in community care.

I believe that COSLA has sub-committees on specific issues. We have had contact on community care issues with the chairpersons of COSLA sub-committees. It might be worth investigating what those sub-committees are and assessing whether there might be links between them and parliamentary committees. There would be links to this committee, which has a strong link to a matter with which local government deals. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Local Government Committee will have similar strong links.

I do not know the answer to the question that Mary Scanlon asked about councils that are not COSLA members, but we must ask it. Currently, Scotland's biggest local authority and its smallest mainland local authority are not COSLA members.

By choice.

Sorry?

They are not members by choice.

There are complicated reasons why that is the case, which could be discussed; however, it is a fact that those authorities are not COSLA members. An arrangement that excludes those local authorities would be of dubious worth. I do not know the answer to the problem, but we should raise the question of how those councils' interests will be protected under the arrangement for a standing joint conference.

The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee emphasised that it wanted to continue to consult individual councils and COSLA. Such a practice would be relevant to this committee in two areas. For example, if a council that was not a COSLA member were doing innovative work, it would be unreasonable if we could not ask the council about that work. For the sake of argument, if Perth and Kinross Council were doing a pilot project on community care, it would be useful for us to talk to the council about that pilot. If a council is outwith COSLA, we must be able to ask that council to give evidence to the committee about what it is doing.

Councils that represent in total half the population of Scotland would be excluded from the standing joint conference.

The second point is that committees sometimes want input from all councils. That is particularly the case with the Local Government Committee on issues such as local taxation. It would cause difficulties if we could not have direct contact with all councils.

I agree. We must make that point. It would be fine to have an arrangement that does not exclude direct relationships with individual councils. However, I am concerned about institutionalising a relationship with an organisation—COSLA—that represents fewer and fewer of Scotland's local authorities. I am not being political—there is a danger in doing that.

Would members be happy to sign up to the kind of approach that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has taken on the matter, which probably covers the issues that Nicola Sturgeon raised? We must acknowledge COSLA's role, but there should be scope for us to contact councils directly.

I have a question on a different matter. The standing joint conference will meet twice a year and will normally consider whether the relationship between Parliament and local government is working. However, policy issues might arise during those meetings. I wonder whether Parliament's representation could be ad hoc rather than fixed, according to the subject that was being discussed. For example, if a heath subject were being discussed, there could be more health representatives from Parliament; if the subject was education, there could be more education representatives. It is not necessary for the same 16 members always to represent Parliament at the standing joint conference. The choice of who represents Parliament could depend on the conference's agenda.

I suppose that some members could, to maintain continuity, be our constant representatives at the conference, but perhaps three or four places could be left free to deal with the contingencies, as John McAllion suggested.

The draft document states that there is scope for special meetings to be called on specific issues. Different committees might have an interest in such issues. It might be better, in that case, for those committees to represent Parliament.

There must be in-built flexibility in representation. It will be fine if such flexibility exists within the framework that is worked out. I acknowledge the points that Nicola Sturgeon and other members made about the largest and the smallest mainland councils. A covenant is an agreement with all the people; otherwise, it ain't a covenant. We must figure out a mechanism that allows the covenant to be inclusive.

Is everyone generally happy with that, in principle?

Members indicated agreement.

Great. Thank you. That brings to an end the meeting's public business.

Meeting continued in private until 10:37.