Finance Committee, 23 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 23, 2002

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

Local Government Covenant

Agenda item 3 is the covenant between local authorities and the Scottish Parliament. The commission on local government and the Scottish Parliament recommended, through the McIntosh report, the establishment of a covenant and a joint standing conference between local government and the Scottish Parliament. A draft covenant has been produced. We are asked to consider it and to supply any comments that we have to the Local Government Committee. A short paper by Arthur Midwinter highlighting issues that are of relevance to the committee has been distributed to members.

My paper tries to relate the covenant to the role of the Finance Committee. In recent years, trying to provide a local government view has created growing tension in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There is pressure in COSLA to come to a single view, but it is almost impossible to get a local government view on matters such as local government reorganisation and grant distribution. It is important that the Finance Committee and the Local Government Committee have access to a range of views rather than one that emerges simply through the political processes in COSLA.

The draft covenant refers to "regular meetings". I am not sure whether that means two a year or whether further meetings are envisaged. I am not sure that more meetings would be particularly productive. At present, the Local Government Committee invites up to five councils to give evidence on the budget. Perhaps that ought to be formalised so that every council has at least the opportunity to give evidence. I am not sure about that; maybe the matter should be left to the Local Government Committee. The covenant proposes that meetings take place in April and October. It would be helpful to the Finance Committee if the April meeting took place after the annual expenditure review so that the local government side had a chance to consider the review before its meeting with the Local Government Committee.

By October, the Local Government Committee will have received its written and oral evidence from councils and it would be helpful if that meeting could take place before the end of stage 2 of the budget process. That would enable COSLA to have a discussion about its wider view of the issues that have been raised in evidence with the Local Government Committee.

Arthur Midwinter made three helpful points.

I have always thought that it is ridiculous for Government to expect COSLA to come up with a one-size-fits-all prescriptive model of what is ideal in local government. Every local council has to deal with its own set of problems, its own culture, its own environment and its own community. I am not convinced that there should be an expectation that COSLA should produce a view. COSLA should merely be a representative body that facilitates opportunities for its members—or others—to deal directly with Government, given that the settlement comes directly from Government to local authorities.

I agree totally with Professor Midwinter's final comments on paragraph 22, which deals with the timing of the budget process—they make absolute sense. I am not convinced about what the covenant will deliver. A covenant usually delivers something, but I do not think that COSLA is in a position to do so or that Government should expect it to. It is vital that the Government defines individually with each council how it works. Government should also define how open and transparent its relationship with each council will be, but I am not sure what two conferences a year will deliver for anyone.

I would love to know what the cost of the covenant will be. Usually, when we get papers such as the paper on the draft covenant, there is some indication of what the cost to the budget will be.

For the record, I take slight issue with David Davidson's comments. Those of us who have worked with COSLA over the years know that it has never sought to put forward a single view. Rather, it has expressed a balanced menu of views that takes into account the needs of the central belt versus those of rural areas. I think that COSLA does that quite well.

The danger in David Davidson's proposal is that he almost signs COSLA's death warrant. Let us think things through. COSLA has a useful role in co-ordinating council responses and in presenting to us not a single view but a spectrum of views. I stress that COSLA has another function that is quite useful from the point of view of council back benchers, rather than from that of council leaders—it is a resource for those councillors. The covenant is a positive way forward and we should not rubbish it until we have tested it and tried to make it work. It has worked in the past—COSLA has been successful—and the covenant gives us an opportunity for the future.

May I respond to the comments that have been made, convener?

On a point of order, convener. Although the discussion may be fascinating, I think that we are heading outwith the committee's remit.

That is a fair point.

I was not attacking COSLA. I see COSLA as a body that facilitates opportunities for its membership—I thought that I had made that view perfectly clear. I do not think that it is possible for COSLA to come up with one view that fits in with all councils' views.

Given the fact that COSLA no longer represents all local authorities in Scotland, the document contains some weaknesses that may well impact on local government finance, which is a matter that we think is relevant. Councils withdrew from COSLA partly because of the different views that they held about how local government is financed. I am concerned about the suggestion that is made midway through the bullet points in paragraph 16 of the draft covenant. The document says:

"COSLA will undertake to provide a co-ordinated response which takes account of the views of the individual councils."

I do not know how COSLA will represent the views of councils that are not members, particularly if those councils have views that are different from those of the majority of councils in COSLA. I suspect that that might be the case.

The idea of formalised arrangements between local government and the Parliament is very sensible and I hope that we can get to that point. However, I am worried about how they are being formalised. I hope that we are not going to tell councils that do not choose to be members of COSLA that their views will not count because the Parliament has an arrangement with those that are in COSLA.

Brian Adam is reading a lot into the document, but none of the fears that he has expressed are in print. COSLA will represent those councils that are members—it is as easy as that.

I have two points. I am not sure of the value of a quasi-legal document as opposed to a more informal statement of best practice, which might have been a better way to proceed. The draft covenant looks retrogressive in the way that it is drawn up as a traditional document rather than as something more user-friendly.

The second issue is that some of the terms in the document appear to suggest that COSLA should be the designated consultee in all circumstances. I can imagine circumstances where committees might want to consult specific local authorities on the particular policy areas in which they are involved. In such cases COSLA might not be the most appropriate consultee and the covenant could tie the hands of committees unduly.

With that point in mind, perhaps we should suggest to the Local Government Committee that the document needs to be a wee bit more flexible.

I agree. The Local Government Committee was conscious of those problems last year. Falkirk Council was invited to give evidence, specifically because it is one of the councils outwith COSLA. All those councils have the right to make written submissions. I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which Glasgow City Council did not let anybody know what it felt. As long as people are aware and try to be fair across the board, I do not think that there will be any difficulties.

I suggest that we take those comments on board and put them in a letter to the Local Government Committee.