Local Government Committee, 28 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000

Official Report 159KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2001-02

Committee members have received a briefing note from Eugene Windsor, a copy of a letter to me from Mike Watson—the convener of the Finance Committee—and a flow chart that outlines the budget process. The departmental report was due to be released on 31 March, but that has been delayed slightly. I understand that a draft might be available for 31 March.

We suggested a timetable for taking evidence from the Executive, Professor Arthur Midwinter—whom we have invited before—COSLA and the Minister for Finance, Jack McConnell, as the minister who is responsible for local government finance. We were considering whether to invite Frank McAveety back to give evidence, as he is the minister for the spending department, if you like. We might invite them all.

It seems reasonable enough to invite those people. It might be useful to take evidence from trade unions, as they are responsible for the local government work force and have quite a lot to say about delivering public sector services.

We might also consider taking evidence from the Women's Budget Group, which includes academics, the Equal Opportunities Commission and Engender, which is responsible for developing the gender audit. The group has been brought together to examine the budget process in terms of equality, particularly in relation to women. Given that women are major users of local government services and are often the low-paid employees, the group may offer us an interesting perspective. This matter was raised at the Equal Opportunities Committee; I recall that it was agreed that the convener of that committee should write to subject committees asking them to consider taking evidence from the group. I hope that we will take that opportunity, as this is the first time that expenditure will be considered in relation to equality.

That sounds like a good idea.

I am happy to support Johann's suggestions. Perhaps we could also hear from SOLACE. I am concerned about the third paragraph of the briefing paper, which states that

"opportunities for the Local Government Committee to make representations on the spending proposals may be more limited than those for some other subject committees."

It seems that things are being stripped out of this committee's remit. Housing and education are being discussed elsewhere, and we are left to discuss systems and structural issues. It is fundamental that this committee should also discuss such wider issues and I hope that, like other subject committees, we can be at the forefront of discussions.

I have discussed the matter with Eugene Windsor and I know that other committees will be discussing the budget. I thought that we should appoint reporters from this committee to go to meetings of the Health and Community Care Committee and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee at which aspects of the budget are discussed. That is quite a commitment, but the work will be spread over a year, so members will not have to attend those meetings every week. I was going to mention that next week but, as it has been brought up, I shall suggest it now.

I would be interested in attending the Health and Community Care Committee to see how community care is funded, as that is directly linked to local authorities. There would certainly be a need to sit in on the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee's discussions on housing. I am sorry; I forgot that housing was self-financing. We should appoint reporters for transport, education, health and anything else that is covered by local government services, apart from housing, which I keep forgetting is self-financing.

Housing is still part of local government, however.

That is right. For us to be able to consider matters thoroughly and properly, and given that we will be conducting a review of finance, we should consider appointing reporters. I would like to cover community care, and members should think over the next week about which subjects they would like to cover—it should not be a problem if more than one person wants to cover an area. This will involve extra work, but over a long period, and it will be relevant to the work of this committee.

Would it be possible to appoint a reporter to shadow each committee when they are discussing local government issues? We may need half a dozen reporters.

That is the idea.

The proposed consultation and scrutiny periods are to be welcomed. I hope that the greater involvement of local government will be reflected and that settlements can be agreed amicably on all sides at the end of the process. I echo the comments that this committee must have a key role in examining the whole question of local government finance, rather than confining itself to systems or to the abstract. We must reflect on the impact on service delivery in local government of whatever settlement we agree.

In addition to the people who have been mentioned, it is important that we hear evidence from the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Minister for Local Government. It would also be useful to hear from representatives of trade unions that are involved in local government, whether as a—

I already mentioned that.

I am sorry, I must have missed it.

We all switch off when Johann is talking.

Even I switch off when I am talking.

I agree with Johann that we need to talk to that group.

Eugene Windsor has pointed out that we have to report by 23 May, so our time is limited. Why do we have to report by then?

The time scale has been laid down by the Finance Committee, which is co-ordinating the process.

I thought that we had a year.

There are several stages. The report is only the first.

Eugene and I will have a chat about that. If there are several stages, we could invite people at different times.

I want to back up the points made by Kenny Gibson and Bristow Muldoon. We have an overarching responsibility for local government finance because of the interconnectedness of revenue budgets and capital allocations. When we have time, I want to ask about local government rules, such as those that govern capital expenditure. At present, revenue must be spent in the year in which it was earned. If the years were lumped together, pressure could be taken off capital budgets with no effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. There are other ways in which we can consider revenue balances. The committee has a role to play in that kind of consideration. I admit that it is a wee bit worrying that a lot of our stuff—

I would like us to be clear about what we are doing. We are considering our response to the budget process. Jamie, you are straying into a discussion of our examination of local government finance.

I am deliberately putting down a marker for the longer term. I agree with what you say about the time constraints.

If our time is constrained, it would be legitimate to ask for written comments from the groups that we have mentioned. My anxiety is that a process that is driven by the Finance Committee could quickly become incomprehensible and the meaning of the process—in terms of services and so on—could be lost. Our role must be to keep people away from just adding up sums.

As well as noting where things seem silly and dealing with them later, we have a responsibility to join the budget up and make sure that everything is connected. People who are involved in this area tell me that no matter how good the joint working between local government, health boards and Government departments is at a local level, budgetary issues drive them apart further up the system. We should ask the Finance Committee what system it has decided to use to ensure joined-up action. We should not view the budget process as separate from politics; one of our jobs is to examine the politics of the finance debate.

I would make the same point about joined-up government. It should be our duty to knock the heads of various committees together. It is worth keeping an eye on the housing issues because, although council housing is funded in its own way, issues such as those surrounding the financing of housing associations are serious. Transport issues are also relevant and important. Liberal Democrat councillors talk about holes in the roads almost more than they talk about anything else. The state of the roads is a huge issue, as is local public transport. The environmental responsibilities of local councils should also be examined. Observers of the various committees should examine those issues.

In response to a question at the COSLA conference last week, Jack McConnell said that he would be more than happy to make the full resources of the Executive available for a review of local government finance. This committee should assert itself more. A COSLA representative is in the public gallery. Although the three ministers and Margaret Curran, who is convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, spoke at that conference, nobody from the Local Government Committee was asked to speak. I hope that the convener will be asked to speak at the conference next year. There are many developments in local government of which it would have been appropriate for the committee to make delegates aware.

Irrespective of the tight time scale at stage 1, we should hear from the full range of people about whom we have talked today. The opportunity to influence the outcome of the financial settlement for next year is greatest early in the process. I hope that the Executive's budget proposals will be influenced by the initial Finance Committee report, which will be produced at the end of June. If we hear from organisations only after stage 1, when the general framework will have been more or less set, there will be a danger that we will be able to amend the settlement only at the margins and that we will not be able to make a significant impact. Even if additional meetings are required, we should take the opportunity to hear at stage 1 from all the organisations that have been discussed today and play a full role.

I will discuss that with Eugene Windsor. There may be time constraints, as the Ethical Standards in Public Bill etc (Scotland) Bill must be completed before the summer recess. If it proves impossible to hear from those organisations at stage 1, perhaps we will take up Johann Lamont's suggestion of seeking written evidence. I prefer to take oral evidence, as one question leads to another.

I want to tie this up, as we are beginning to stray from the budget to local government finance, which is a slightly different subject, and the official report will start—

Strictly on the budget, I make a plea that we remember the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—the ability of police forces to requisition can cause mayhem in local authorities.

I leave it to members to consider the matter and to inform Eugene Windsor of their thoughts over the next week.

We need reporters at every committee at which local government finance matters are being discussed. I volunteer to attend any committee meeting that you see fit that I should attend, convener. We need volunteers to say which committee they would like to report on. Because of your role in social work in Glasgow, I think that it is absolutely right that you should be on the Health and Community Care Committee; others may have particular interests, but I am happy to fill any gaps.

We should request information on when committees will meet. That will allow us to determine whether we are able to attend, given our other commitments.

We should also seek information on when these issues will arise.

I think that this matter is so important that a member of the committee should attend if there is a meeting to be reported on. Reporters will have to attend only for the part of the meeting that deals with the budget.

Meeting closed at 14:58.