Official Report 99KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is on the renewing local democracy working group. The committee will recall that, when the Kerley report was published in June, we agreed to consult councils on its contents during the summer. In September, we agreed to hold an inquiry into the less controversial aspects—
I have to raise an important matter.
That matter is not on the agenda. If Mr Gibson wants to discuss it—
Frankly, I think that it is on the agenda.
If you want to discuss the matter, we will put it on the agenda for our next meeting. We have an agenda; we must stick to it.
No. We are talking about the Kerley report. What is the point of the committee theoretically going through the Kerley report when, with your connivance—the question was in your name—questions are planted—
I should clarify that we are going through the part of Kerley—
Questions are planted to circumvent the parliamentary system in order to gain an advantage for the Executive. The committee must stand its ground on this issue. What happened last week was outrageous. I want to move an emergency motion, if I have a seconder, to condemn the sneaky and underhand way in which the announcement was made, to ensure that it does not happen in future.
On a point of order. Is it in order that a motion be put to the committee without prior notification? How can we discuss a motion on this issue? Kenny Gibson has been told that he can put the issue on the agenda for our next meeting. If it is put on the agenda, he will be entitled to inform us of his intentions. Is it in order to drop the issue on the committee here and now?
It was dropped on us last week.
Will you speak through the chair, Kenny?
It was dropped on us after decision time last Thursday. In response to a written question, which had not even been published, we were told that local government elections were being delayed by 12 months. I had thought, in my naivety, that the committee was going to discuss the issue at some length. There was no parliamentary statement from a minister and no parliamentary debate. The question is in your name, convener. That undermines the workings of the committee. If we are going to have the charade of going through Kerley when decisions on issues of such import are taken in a sneaky and unparliamentary way, the committee must thrash out the issue so that we know where we are. Otherwise, we are all wasting our time.
Thank you, Kenny. It is entirely up to me if and when I take a motion. I do not intend to take a motion today, whether an emergency motion or anything else. We will put the matter on the agenda for the next meeting. Today, we are considering the less controversial aspects of Kerley. That is what the report that members have before them is about and that is what I want to go through.
With respect, convener—
Just a minute. I will call you to speak, as always happens in this committee. Do not jump in; I will call your name. I call Colin Campbell.
With respect, convener—with what respect I have left on this matter—I understood that one of the points that the committee agreed on a considerable time ago was that we should put aside some of the more controversial aspects of Kerley so that we could advance consensually on the matters that we agreed on. It was my belief—naive or otherwise—that the committee would discuss the more controversial aspects at a later date. I thought that we would have an interesting political debate, but that has been subverted by Thursday's written answer—for which the written question appeared in Friday's documentation. I have to say that that is a major breach of confidence in the committee. I am sorry, but there we are.
I agree. I have to support Kenneth Gibson and Colin Campbell on this matter. The former minister led us to believe that the ministerial group would discuss the matter. The decision has been sprung on us with no discussion or debate. We have not even had the opportunity to read the comments that we have received from councils. It is deplorable that the Executive is running things through the press on an issue-by-issue basis instead of through full discussion with this committee and with the Parliament.
I have previously raised with a minister the issue of making announcements when the committee is in full flight considering a matter. The unanimous decision of the committee was that that was the wrong way to proceed and that it would be courteous of ministers to inform the committee of decisions in advance. It is hard to reprimand you, convener, but in a small way you have done the same thing as ministers have done. I did not expect that from you, to be frank.
Okay. I accept and note what members are saying. If you wish, we will put it on the agenda for our next meeting.
No. I would like to put this to a vote now. The motion is simply that issues of great import to the Local Government Committee should not be announced prior to discussion through the sneaky and underhand medium of replying to a written parliamentary question that has not even been published.
I have to stop you. You cannot do that unless I agree that you can, and I do not.
Where is the democracy here?
Under standing orders, members have to refer such a motion to me. If I agree that they can move the motion, that is fine, but I do not agree in this instance. You can raise this matter for discussion at a later date, but I would rather carry on with the agenda.
In that case, I do not believe that there is any point in participating further in today's Local Government Committee meeting.
That is your prerogative.
I do not want to be pedantic, but I have a genuine question. The briefing paper refers to an inquiry, but the research paper refers to a survey. Those are two entirely different things.
The survey is the one that we carried out over the summer, when we sent a letter to all councils asking specific questions. The research paper summarises the responses to that survey. The briefing paper provides a proposal on how to proceed.
I have a couple of questions. First, on the overall time scale, presumably all this work is meant to feed into the local government reform bill that the Executive is supposed to introduce next year. We want to study the subject properly, but it would be a pity if we slowed further the Executive's decisions.
The document is out for consultation until 16 February. I take the point that we have to watch where our work fits in. In the briefing paper, I have recommended that we write to the Minister for Finance and Local Government asking for an indication of the time scale for the renewing local democracy agenda, so that we can fit our work into that.
The leadership advisory panel under Alastair MacNish is examining various matters, such as management in councils and cabinets. Are we pursuing those matters, which are relevant to the pay and work load of councils?
Alastair MacNish is reporting at the end of March. That should tie in with what we are doing. We will have to wait for his proposals and then put everything together. As responses to the consultation document must be submitted by 16 February, it will be the end of February or March before the Executive's response to the consultation is produced. Everything should start to gel around that time.
If I remember correctly, one, or more than one, council complained that the Kerley proposals assumed that councils would opt for a cabinet system, and on that basis Kerley recommended a division among councillors, between full-time sheep and part-time goats. It will perhaps be difficult for us to decide our view on two types of councillors if we do not know what is happening on the method of management of councils.
McIntosh certainly did not suggest that. He suggested that if a council agreed that a cabinet system would be an improvement, it should introduce it, but that if its current system was working it should not change that. I suspect that that is the position that Richard Kerley will have adopted. Perhaps those points will come out in the consultation. It is unlikely that we will have finished by then, so we will start to pull everything together at that time.
Maybe I should register an interest as a member of the GMB. UNISON is not the only public sector union. We constantly go to UNISON for its view on the issues. That is inappropriate. If we want a trade union response, we should go to the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
I agree that we should go to the STUC.
Under "Promoting Citizenship", the organisations that are proposed as witnesses are Learning and Teaching Scotland and Community Learning Scotland. Should we ask anybody else?
It is very difficult to gather evidence on why people do not become councillors. However, it might be worth talking to some voluntary organisations that attract the sort of people who should be councillors but are not. Also, on promoting citizenship, there might be groups that have such an agenda.
That is a fair enough point. It might be an idea to ask people why they have not become councillors—why they have made one choice and not another.
We could ask the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations or some other umbrella group. The idea is not yet properly thought out.
We can certainly consider that idea and perhaps add to it.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite a representative of the Scottish youth parliament.
Yes.
Just in case there is a conflict of interest, I tell the committee that I employ the convener of the youth parliament in Scotland as a researcher. It might be that the person who came to the committee worked for me.
I am sure that Michael McMahon will give them time off.
They will speak with Michael McMahon's voice.
A question might be posed if I did not declare that the convener of the youth parliament was my caseworker.
Is there anything in paragraph 5 on which members would like to comment?
Donald Gorrie talked about the timing of the first phase of the inquiry. It is recommended that we approve the terms of reference for the first phase of the inquiry—and we have added some organisations to those terms. It is also recommended that I write to the Minister for Finance and Local Government in respect of the timing of the process as it relates to other aspects of renewing local democracy, so that it is clear where everything fits in. It is further recommended that the committee agree to consider the timing of the inquiry in relation to those other priorities at its next meeting—if we have received a response from the Executive by then.
In a spirit of conciliation, when you write to the Minister for Finance and Local Government you might ask him to speak to the committee before he makes any further announcements on the Kerley report.
I am not prepared to ask that in this letter, but we can discuss whether he should attend the committee. Are we agreed to pursue the matter according to those three recommendations?
Next
Petition