Official Report 173KB pdf
Let us get back to business. The second item on the agenda is the programme of visits and consultation. Members have been issued with paper LG/99/7/1, which lists some core questions that Morag Brown from the Scottish Parliament information centre has drafted. The questions are based on discussions that we have had at previous meetings. We can amend them, if members so wish. The questions will be sent out to the councils before we visit them. Obviously, we can add to the list, once we have heard people's answers. In the meantime, is there anything in the draft that members would like changed? Kenny—sorry, I was going to call you Keith. I get confused because there are two people on the committee whose names start with a K.
I have a couple of minor points. In question 4, on proportional representation, should we not mention the three systems that McIntosh has suggested, so that we do not end up with 57 varieties of response? The McIntosh commission spent a great deal of time examining this issue and narrowed the options down to three. We should ask councils which of the systems they favour, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.
We should also ask them whether they would like to keep the status quo.
Yes, we need to ask that question. Councils must justify why they want to keep the status quo, in the same way that they must justify their preference for other systems.
I have another query, regarding directly elected leaders. I know that Frank sees himself as the future Rudolf Giuliani of Glasgow, but we are flogging a dead horse here. There is no interest in the idea from local government in Scotland, so I do not understand why we are continuing to ask about it. Nobody that I have met from any political party gives a monkey's, apart from the minister.
It will be easy enough for people to answer the question, then—they can just say no. We could build up a database that indicated that nobody, apart from Frank McAveety, wanted directly elected leaders.
In spite of what Ken keeps saying, this was in our manifesto. There is a demand for directly elected leaders.
There you are, see.
No one of importance wants them.
There is a demand in two places. This is a very good question, because it may settle this matter once and for all.
Without opening Pandora's box, should we not ask councils what other issues they would like to raise?
We could include that on the list of questions.
I want to make more or less the same point. We need to ask councils what, in their view, are the key priorities and the main pressures. One of the important reasons for visiting people is to get different answers from different perspectives. There could be a standard question about what priorities we should have that could help them, or words to that effect.
I have no objection to any of the questions—it is the way in which we will get the answers. I have a terrible fear that some of the councils will simply produce two or three A4 sheets with answers and talk to that. The spirit of this inquiry should be that of a dialogue around these things, rather than putting councils in the way of having to do too much extra work. There will be a temptation amongst some to show off, or to produce big documents to back up their answers. We should make it clear that these are core discussion elements.
When we send out the letter we will make that clear. You are right. We do not want pages and pages listing the great things that councils are doing.
It is important that, when the letter and questions go out to councils, we make it clear that they are not sitting an exam. We recognise that a lot of work has already been done and that if councils wish they can refer us to that.
I will remember that.
I want to make the same point about constructive dialogue. We should say that we are conscious of the time that councils are giving to various visits at the moment.
I support that point. If we make visits when the clerk is not available to accompany us, how do we report on that visit? Is the onus on the reporter to take shorthand notes, because I cannot do that? How do we cope with the spontaneous response that you want from elected members rather than officials?
When we first discussed this, we talked about the reporters agreeing a common format for their findings. We do not envisage members doing shorthand notes, but they could perhaps produce some kind of report to present to the committee.
There will always be at least three of us on a visit. If a member of staff is not present, the three of us who are there can get together and produce a report that will come back to the committee. Later in the meeting we will set aside a date for reporting back from meetings and visits. I take your point, but you would not want to write down everything anyway. You would need the salient points: the main issues that were discussed, any decisions that you reached and anything in particular that came up.
I write very slowly.
He is trying to get out of being a reporter. I can see that.
Absolutely. [Laughter.] Get someone who can write fast to accompany me.
I know that we have agreed that what we are aiming for is a representative group of local authorities—big, small, urban, rural, etc. Is it appropriate for us to consider writing to the local authorities explaining what we are doing and possibly allowing them a chance to give us their written thoughts on these questions? We could explain that it will not be possible for us to visit every single local authority, but that would at least explain the process.
We were going to do that anyway, but now it is on the record. That is a good point.
Given scheduling constraints, the fact that many of the committee's members served on more than one of these working groups, and the dates on which councils were available, this is what I have come up with. If we agree to the visit on Friday 5 November, which is the only date on which Glasgow City Council is available before Christmas, we will be able to visit nine councils. Dumfries and Galloway Council, Clackmannanshire Council and South Ayrshire Council could not fit in with the dates that were given before Christmas. We will have to accommodate them at some later juncture.
Do members have any questions or problems with that? Kenny wants to go somewhere else.
Yes. Well, no, but on Friday 12 November, I cannot go to Stirling, as I have scheduled a meeting with South Lanarkshire Council for that date. I will also have to attend a constituency meeting, which has taken four or five weeks to organise, on that day.
We will have to consider that.
One last issue to consider is travel. I spoke to the chief executive of Shetland Islands Council. To get up there and back, our visit would have to straddle the Thursday and the Friday. The committee would have to travel up at lunchtime on the Thursday. That is the only way. It is impossible to get up there and back in a day.
Oh dear. What a shame. Who will go up there now?
Could we return on the Friday?
You could return at lunchtime on the Friday.
You could return on the Monday, if you are really keen. However, we would have to travel on the Thursday.
Do you envisage that these will be all-day visits, or are they expected to last only a couple of hours in the morning?
I think that we are considering an all-day visit—or as much of the day as we can manage—given the questions that are going to be put and the fact that we will be addressing officials, councillors, people who are receiving the services and kids from schools. One of the things that I remember from Neil McIntosh's presentation was that, although such consultation takes a long time, it is worth while. There should be an informal element, too, even if it is just a conversation over a sandwich lunch, which would allow us to talk to a lot more people informally, rather than in a formal information-gathering session.
I want to clarify what was said in our initial letter to councils. We asked for a timetable that would give committee members the opportunity to meet the chief executive, senior officers and senior members in the morning session. There would be a break for lunch, followed, in the afternoon, by a visit that would be based on the things in which committee members had expressed an interest. That is why we thought that an all-day session would be better; it is why we opted for Fridays and Mondays, when there is no Parliament business.
I am conducting some exchanges with my friend here, but we will let you know.
That is all right. You can conduct exchanges if you want. That is not a problem.
If the meeting were to last all day, I would find that difficult to accommodate this Friday.
Do you mean Friday 5 November?
Yes.
Who could go to Glasgow? We decided that neither Johann nor Kenny, nor I, would go.
That is not this Friday?
That is this Friday.
It is a week on Friday.
It is next Friday—a week on Friday.
No, it is 5 November.
Which is not this Friday—it is next Friday.
It is a week on Friday.
Three people could go, but nobody from the SNP would be there. How do members feel about that? Heartbroken, are you?
We have no axe to grind.
Gil, if you cannot manage to attend that meeting, we will remove your name from that. It just gives you other guys more work.
As it is parliamentary business with which I will be occupied, I will seek to move it to another time, but I do not think that I will be able to do so.
If you cannot do that, that is fine.
Some Liberal Democrats think that I am half-SNP, so I will cover for Mr Paterson.
My goodness.
That is your more intelligent half.
The question is, what is the other half?
To attend a meeting on 5 November poses a potential problem for me as well. I need to nip out to check my master diary in my constituency office.
Okay. Johann, I hope that you do not have a problem.
I have a slight problem with the Friday. Is it possible to set aside the time between Friday lunchtime and Saturday lunchtime, rather than between Thursday and Friday? There will be parliamentary business on Thursday.
For the visit to Shetland?
Yes.
That makes much more sense, because if something is going on in Parliament it may be difficult for that number of people to be away. We should make the visit from Friday lunchtime. Kenny, we will think about letting you go. How much is it worth? I am not supposed to say that. This is the wrong day to say that.
It is all right: no one is paying any attention.
When Bristow returns we can clear up the matter of the Glasgow visit.
Can we have some information on where the council's offices are or where the meetings will take place?
Yes, we will provide that information with the travel arrangements.