Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 20 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 20, 2002

Official Report 229KB pdf

---

Local Government Covenant

Agenda item 2 is the draft covenant between local government and the Scottish Parliament. We have been asked to consider the convenant and to pass on to the Local Government Committee any points that members might raise.

I will make two points. First, we need to address the position of councils that are not members of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, of which the most notable is Glasgow City Council. The Parliament must cover all local authorities, not just those that are members of COSLA. For example, we should bear in mind the importance of Glasgow to the Scottish economy. Secondly, last year I was invited, as convener, to attend a meeting of COSLA's economic development and planning committee, which is chaired by Willie Dunn. Since he became the chair of that committee, he has co-operated and interacted with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. The covenant simply formalises what is already—I hope—a good relationship between the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the relevant COSLA committee. Do members have comments?

Are you proposing an accretion to the proposed framework in the fourth bullet point on page 4 of the draft covenant? I note that COSLA will produce a co-ordinated response, but the consultation will presumably take place with individual councils. The draft covenant goes on to say:

"On certain specialised topics some councils will have an interest"—

such as economic regeneration of the Clyde or housing. It strikes me that that is a commitment to consult both councils that are members of COSLA and those that are not. Do we need to add anything further to that?

I am simply suggesting that, in our response to the Local Government Committee, we should emphasise the fact that the covenant should cover all local authorities, not just those that are members of COSLA. In later sections of the draft covenant, such as the bullet points under section 16, which deals with consultation, the emphasis seems to be on COSLA, for obvious reasons. We should underline the point that we would have to consult the other councils as well. We have always done so when we have requested evidence and so on. My suggestion is not that we make textual changes, but that we note that point.

A conjunction is always helpful when it is there.

I would welcome further explanation of the "Review and Renew" section, which is under the heading of "Monitoring the Agreements". I was not quite sure how the standing joint conference would be elected or selected, although its functions are clear. Paragraph 22 begins:

"The Conference will develop its own set of agreed working practices".

The document also talks about membership of the conference, but it does not explain how the membership will be drawn up.

I understand that the draft covenant is about the principles. If the Parliament as a whole agrees to the covenant, it would be up to the Parliament, through its normal procedures, to agree how representation from the Parliament would be established. I suppose that the situation is similar to the way in which the Parliament has procedures for establishing representation on outside bodies such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The matter would be dealt with under the Parliament's internal procedures, once it had been agreed in principle.

I would welcome further explanation of that at some point. It is important to establish how a formal body such as this should be represented in Parliament, what powers it should have, and what its relationship with the Parliament and local government should be.

I welcome the document and what the Local Government Committee and local authorities have produced. I am very aware of the creative tension that exists between the Local Government Committee and local authorities. It is useful to have mechanisms that ensure that both sides have the opportunity to express concerns about the relationship.

We all endorse the comments that Kenneth Macintosh has made.

Do members agree with the suggested response?

Members indicated agreement.