Local Government
The next item of business is a statement by Wendy Alexander on best value and planning in local government. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and there should be no interventions.
Presiding Officer, I shall make a statement about our plans for modernising local government, which follows on appropriately from the debate that we have just had on local enterprise companies. As in that debate, the issue concerns the creation of opportunity for innovation and the breaking down of barriers. I hope that the same consensus will be evident following this statement as was evident in the previous debate. Although Annabel Goldie may superficially bear a resemblance to members of the Women's Rural Institute, we do things differently in Scotland and I hope that consensus can be reached on this statement.
I begin by highlighting the real partnership between the Scottish Executive, the Parliament and local government in Scotland. We began, almost 12 months ago—on the first day on which this Parliament got down to business—by choosing the McIntosh report as the subject for the first full debate in the Scottish Parliament. We have continued to develop policies in partnership with local authorities. Partnership is a better, more enjoyable and more effective way of doing business.
Over the past year, a huge amount of often unacknowledged work has gone into local government throughout Scotland, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, councils and councillors all playing their part in renewing Scottish democracy. Important steps have been taken. Last July, we established the leadership advisory panel, under Alastair MacNish, to oversee the modernisation of councils' decision-making processes. Councils throughout Scotland have embraced the modernisation agenda and the need for change, not as a one-size-fits-all approach, but to make a virtue of the rich diversity that exists in Scottish local government. That flexible approach has been welcomed by councils, and all Scottish councils are now working on reviews of their own structures.
In July, we announced the establishment of the Kerley working group to consider the renewal of local democracy, the widening of access to council membership, the remuneration of councillors, the size of councils and the electoral system for local government. That group will report shortly. I am aware of the press speculation about its recommendations, but it would be discourteous to the working group for me to speculate on those recommendations before it has completed its work.
We have also created the opportunity—through the community leadership forum—for council leaders to have regular, full and frank exchanges of views with ministers as they move from the old administrative ways of governing Scotland to a much more democratic approach. We should build respect between local government and the Executive; we need its support in delivering our promises on social inclusion, education and the regeneration of our communities.
In 12 months, we have begun to develop the structures that support change rather than obstruct it. We have begun to achieve better government, rather than simply bigger government. However, much remains to be done if we are to achieve parity of esteem between the Executive, local authorities and the Parliament. Today, we take the next steps in the journey towards McIntosh's vision of parity of esteem between Parliament and local government.
Scotland's councils want to play their full part in the new Scotland. However, they are legally constrained to doing only those things that are allowed by their specific statutory powers. That is not the way of the future. We need to end the dead hand of ultra vires culture. By creating this Parliament, we have succeeded in replacing the politics of grudge and grievance in our relationship with Westminster with a new politics of power and responsibility. We owe it to Scottish local authorities to do the same in our relationship with them. Today we send a clear signal of our trust in, our commitment to and our expectations of local government. We need to give councils the ability to deliver better services. We need to empower councils to take on a leadership role in their communities. That means giving them powers to take any action to benefit their localities that are not otherwise prohibited or restricted by other legislation.
We have listened carefully to the arguments and we believe that a new power—a power of community initiative—will help councils. The new power of community initiative will help to make a reality of joint working with other bodies and cross-cutting initiatives, and it will provide strong foundations for community planning. In essence, it will set a framework within which councils can truly embrace a community leadership role, and so help to deliver the renewal of our communities. I am pleased to confirm that the Executive will introduce a power of community initiative for Scottish local government in its forthcoming local government bill.
I turn now to community planning. We have always believed that the wickedest problems cannot successfully be tackled in handy compartments marked education, crime, roads, health care or housing. Community planning offers a way for public services at local level to work together with the community and with the voluntary and private sectors to develop and deliver an agreed joint vision for their community. The potential value of community planning is beyond doubt. Pioneering work has been done by five pathfinder councils; other councils across Scotland are following suit. However, there are real challenges in moving from the vision to the practical delivery. Community planning is an evolving process; we are all learning, and long-term commitment from us all is vital to its success.
To encourage that process, we will introduce a statutory basis for community planning. We want to get the detail right and we will be consulting soon on the exact nature of both the new power of community initiative and the statutory basis for community planning. Those new powers of community initiative and community planning will help to deliver renewed and self-confident communities.
We have a third objective: best value. Best value has a crucial role in the modernisation agenda. It involves new ways of thinking and working. It demands continuous improvement. Best value asks councils—and others—to state clear aims and outcomes and to develop strategies to achieve them. It encourages the consideration of all options—including some that might initially seem unpalatable—because thinking outside the box can identify real and lasting solutions to previously intractable problems. Best value requires clear justification for all decisions and actions. It requires balanced consideration of all relevant views—of customers, citizens, staff and trade unions. It requires courage and political commitment.
Local authorities in Scotland have been developing best value in Scotland for three years. Already, key lessons are emerging. Councils are largely following the deliberately broad-brush guidance that has been issued by the best value task force. In its recent final report, the task force published recommendations for securing best value's long-term future. On behalf of the Executive, I am happy to confirm that we accept in principle all the recommendations in that final report.
There is further work to be done, and we want to continue in the spirit of partnership. We have decided that a duty of best value should also be enshrined in legislation—although without moving to an overly prescriptive approach. I am pleased to announce today that we have placed in the information centre a consultation document on best value's next steps. The consultation document invites views on the wording of a duty of best value and promises the creation of a new group to develop guidance for authorities and further work on how to ensure that Scottish local government makes the best use of public resources.
Scottish councils have embraced the modernisation agenda that we outlined a year ago. Today we are responding by giving them modern powers to deliver that agenda. If we are to achieve genuine renewal of local government in Scotland, we must place our trust in councils to act in new and innovative ways to better meet the needs of their communities. In each case talked about today—the power of community initiative, community planning and best value—we have listened. In each case, we have accepted in principle the need for legislation. Now we want to consult on the detail in order to get the legislation right.
Everything that we have talked about today must centre on better services. Our ability to help to deliver better services depends on those who deliver those services every day. By our actions today, we make it easier for them to do their jobs and we reaffirm our belief in local democracy, recognising the central role that local government plays in giving Scotland the public services that it deserves. I commend the statement to the Parliament.
The Minister for Communities will now take questions on the statement. There is approximately 18 minutes available for that.
I thank the minister for her statement, although I am sure that she will agree that allowing us only 40 minutes' advance notice of it is unacceptable if we are to prepare an informed and constructive response.
There are many positive aspects to the statement, including the introduction of a power of community initiative and the comments on partnership, parity of esteem and the Kerley report. Will the minister clarify how much of what has been announced today will require primary legislation? If some of the measures do not require that, will she confirm which measures those are and what powers the Executive will use to implement them? She said that issues requiring legislation will be included in the local government bill. Can she confirm reports in today's newspapers that the bill will not be forthcoming until the end of 2001? If that is the case, does she regard today's announcement as perhaps premature? If she is to meet the statutory requirement of local elections by 2002, does the Executive not think that the local government bill must be introduced in the next parliamentary term and not the one after that? Will the minister clarify the matter and give us a clear commitment that legislation will be introduced sooner rather than later?
I apologise if the statement was received by Mr Gibson's office only 40 minutes beforehand; I will check the arrangements.
We anticipate that the three areas covered today will have a statutory basis in primary legislation. The purpose of the pre-legislative consultation that we are embarking on today is to establish how wide the coverage of the primary legislation has to be and what will appropriately be covered in secondary legislation.
On the timing of legislation, the three areas—the power of community initiative, community planning and best value—were not dealt with in any depth by the McIntosh inquiry; they were given a fair wind in principle but none of the detail needed to establish what the legislative framework should be was laid out. South of the border, a more prescriptive approach has been taken than we want to take. There is widespread consensus in local government for scoping those three areas in more detail. Community planning and best value particularly are virgin territory for local government legislation in Scotland. Our intention is to have consultation over the summer on the three areas, when a lot of thinking must be done in conjunction with local government and COSLA. Having completed the consultation and reflected on it with local government, we should by the late autumn be in a position to give an indication of what the scope of the bill will be.
I am thinking, for example, about the other 30 recommendations, many of which it would be much more straightforward to legislate for. Those recommendations would not require detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. I envisage that we will be able to come back to the chamber with a broad, scoping green paper at the end of the autumn, having first looked at those three difficult areas. That would allow us to consult on the green paper and to publish a draft bill sometime next spring. We do not think—having had discussions with COSLA—that we are ready to rush to primary legislation. That is because the scope that would be required of such legislation—not least in the three areas that I mentioned—is not yet clear. There is a desire throughout local government that the Parliament's central legislative focus next winter should be on the detail of the forthcoming housing bill, just as this year the main focus was on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. The principles of local government legislation must also be established next winter.
I, too, am obliged to the minister for her statement and for its pre-release to us this morning. Mr Gibson griped that 40 minutes was not sufficient time but, if one takes out all the hype and spin, the statement does not take too much time to read. However, a number of points arise from it on which I would appreciate some answers.
First, in her statement the minister expressed a wish to depart from
"the politics of grudge and grievance".
Does she accept that local authorities certainly have a grievance—even if they do not bear a grudge—because their share of the Scottish block has been reduced from 40 per cent to 36 per cent since the Labour Government came to power? Does she acknowledge that what she proposes—much of which is to be welcomed—will have an associated cost? Will she confirm that the grant to local authorities will be examined in the light of that? Does she agree that there is an inconsistency in her statement, in that, although she says that she will legislate for best value, she intends to do so without introducing a "prescriptive approach"? The two things seem to be contradictory.
I see also that, when Ms Alexander championed change last July, one of those who was lauded was Brian Souter. Can I assume that his gold star has been removed and that he is no longer regarded as one of her champions for change, given that there does not seem to be consensus ad idem on certain other issues? Will Ms Alexander also respond to the demand by the community in general to be allowed input to planning policy? Will she consider giving consideration to an—albeit limited—appeal process that would involve objectors to any planning application?
In the spirit that I was keen to engender in the debate, I will not dwell on "grudge and grievance" in relation to consultation on enforced local government reorganisation or the poll tax.
Bill Aitken's point about local government finance is important. On-going discussions are taking place with COSLA on modernising our financial relationship with local government. That does not detract from the agenda in my statement, which will allow local authorities the scope to rationalise, streamline and improve service delivery in a way that is not currently available to them.
Bill Aitken mentioned best value. I hope that the consultation will demonstrate that it is not contradictory to say that we need a statutory underpinning for best value, but that it would be wrong to prescribe in legislation every step in the process of establishing best value. The savings that have been delivered throughout Scotland have been led largely by local initiatives. I can reassure Bill Aitken by pointing to the areas on which we think consultation is required. Those include, for example, finding out what performance information we require from local authorities and what should be the gradated framework of intervention in cases of failure. We must also find out how best value fits with the repeal of compulsory competitive tendering and how equality matters and competition fit into the best value process. Those are the matters on which we will consult in the coming months, although—as is the way in Scotland—the Executive thinks that all those issues are, probably, more effectively dealt with in guidance and guidelines than they would be through primary legislation.
On that note, I will address Bill Aitken's point on Mr Brian Souter as a champion for change. I am pleased to put on the record that Brian Souter made an enormous contribution as a champion for change. He gave generously of his time and attended a number of the community leadership forums. The community leadership forum used the champions for change in the winter of its first year, but has now moved to a different agenda.
On Bill Aitken's final point, I note that planning as a statutory function is the responsibility of Sarah Boyack. Generally, we associate the success of community planning with a reduction in the number of statutory requirements that we place on local government. In that context, people may want to examine how the current planning framework dovetails with the emerging community planning framework.
I welcome the statement whole-heartedly, if it means what it says, as I am sure it does. It is the first document on local government from the Scottish Office or Scottish Executive that I have read that is positive to local government and does not carp—its tone is excellent.
The proposals in the statement are welcome, and will be welcomed by the Local Government Committee, which has pressed hard for the power of community initiative—or whatever the current phrase is—and community planning. I welcome the proposal on best value. The minister has said that the approach on that will not be prescriptive, but there is a danger that it will become too bureaucratic and prescriptive. If the legislation is along the lines that are set out, we will welcome it whole-heartedly.
I will ask two questions. First, if there is a problem about the timetable, will the minister consider, as has been discussed in various quarters, expanding her department by bringing in people who have current or recent knowledge of local government, to supplement the work of officials, who are under a lot of pressure because of the business that has to be done? We could get through these matters better and more quickly if such people were co-opted into the department.
Secondly, I was not quite clear from the minister's statement whether the legislation would be introduced in the parliamentary year 2000-01 or in the following year—she spoke about consultation until Christmas. The Liberal Democrat group would be very concerned if there were not legislation in 2000-01. Will the minister make it clear when she envisages that the bill will be introduced?
When are we going to get to a question?
I think that we have just had it, after a somewhat long haul.
I begin by thanking Donald Gorrie for his kind words about the statement. We mean what we say, and we will be held accountable for what we have said today.
I will deal with the couple of substantive points that Donald Gorrie raised. He asked whether I thought that we should supplement civil service departments with experts in their fields. It is fair to say that I am widely regarded as a champion of secondees. Of course, there are issues that would have to be addressed and, ultimately, secondments into departments are a matter for the permanent secretary. In principle, I think that we should unquestionably make as much use as possible of the expertise and good will that exists in the new Scotland. I accept what Donald Gorrie says and will take forward his representations on the subject.
On the timetabling of legislation, when I start speculating about what may or may not be in the legislative programme and on the time scale for legislation, I am mindful of the chief whip sitting to my right. Bearing in mind the caveat that legislation is a matter for the Cabinet, I draw an analogy with the housing bill. Exactly a year ago, when we came into office, we inherited a green paper that was widely regarded as excellent. Over the year, we have consulted on the most difficult outstanding areas—indeed, some are still outstanding—and we expect to publish draft sections of the bill in the next three weeks. We will use the draftsmen's time over the summer to write further sections, with a view to publishing the bill at the beginning of September.
I highlight the fact that we are not even at the stage of a green paper on local government, because we have yet to scope the possible parameters of the legislation on the three areas that I mentioned in my statement. I do not wish to be dishonest by suggesting that we can get through all the pre-legislative stages when, as I said, we are not even at the stage of a green paper. I regard housing as a matter of comparable complexity, as there has been the same desire for consultation, and we will have a comparable bill—this will be the most radical legislation in its field for 20 years. I simply do not think that it would be possible to publish a bill before this time next year; to do so would mean a more truncated time scale than we followed in housing, where we started with a green paper a year ago.
I do not say that as a way of giving out political instructions. Rather, I refer to the process through which our major policy bills are emerging into the parliamentary system. We could genuinely explore that matter in more detail with the Local Government Committee when we consider the pre-legislative stages, as it is a legitimate area for discussion.
I call Brian Adam, to be followed by Michael McMahon. I ask members to keep their questions short and to the point, and the minister to keep her answers likewise.
Would the minister care to explain the difference between her proposal for a community initiative and the power of general competence, with which many members are perhaps more familiar?
The minister suggested in her statement that there was a desire within local government for parity of esteem between the Parliament and local government. Although she has discussed that with local government, she has not discussed it with the Parliament's Local Government Committee. It might also be appropriate to have in place parity of esteem between the Executive and the Parliament.
On partnership arrangements and the community leadership role of local government, will the minister reassure us that the legislation will not attempt to widen local government's enabling role at the expense of service delivery?
Mr Adam asked about the difference between general competence and a community initiative. The difference is essentially semantic. We have chosen the phrase "community initiative" because it was COSLA's favoured option; COSLA felt that it matched more closely the vision of community leadership and community planning appropriate to the new century. The phrase does not represent a change in concept, powers or responsibilities.
I wrote to the Local Government Committee in advance of my statement in order to signal that we were committing ourselves to parity of esteem in principle. I would welcome a dialogue on that point over the coming weeks and an immediate dialogue on what is, and what is not, appropriate for the consultation on the three areas highlighted in the statement. Before taking the next steps on the local government agenda, we thought it important to highlight the willingness of the Executive to move on those three areas. We look forward to discussing those matters further with the committee.
Mr Adam also asked about the extent to which the legislation would widen the role of local government. We are saying to local government, "Don't think about what you can't do; think about what you can do." We want to bolster that mindset. The choices that councils make between services is entirely a matter for them. That approach is appropriate to the vision of community leadership that I talked about.
I call Michael McMahon. I ask for a quick question and a quick response.
I welcome this morning's positive statement. My simple question is to seek an assurance from the minister on whether the Executive will involve in the consultation the employees who deliver services. That would give the consultation on best value the best chance of a positive outcome.
We will very much do so. I confirm that today we are accepting in full all the recommendations of the best value task force. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and individual trade unions were outstanding partners in contributing to that. The task force made its recommendations unanimously. We are consulting on them and we hope very much to take forward the same partnership approach.