Chamber and committees

Thank you for the questions. I join all of you in wishing our community councils—all roughly 1,200 of them across the country—a very happy 50th birthday. I certainly know, from my experience as a constituency representative, the invaluable contribution that they make to communities in undertaking a range of activities and providing important insight and scrutiny for the decisions that are taken not just by councils but by parliamentarians.

I will ask Mr FitzPatrick whether he wants to come in on any specific aspects of the Verity house agreement. I think that community councils have a very important role to play. As we undertake the second phase of the democracy matters programme and consider the ways in which further power can be put in the hands of communities, I go into that process with no pre-set ideas of what the outcome should be. That could lead to calls or suggestions for a more enhanced role for community councils.

I am conscious that the committee might have some interest in the parish council model south of the border and how that links in with the quite varied landscape of local government in England—there is sometimes almost a tripartite structure, with the district and county councils.

I am not going into that process with any pre-set ideas about what the future of community councils should be. It is imperative that, as the review progresses, any of the ideas that are put forward are considered in consultation and collaboratively with our partners in local government and with communities, recognising that various models, including new models, might emerge from the review process, which might enhance the current structure of community councils.

As I said, community councils do an invaluable job and make a huge contribution to Scotland. I want to work constructively to maximise their impact. If, through our deliberations and engagement, we land on a position that involves an enhanced role for them in statute, I would not close off that option at this stage.

I have two points to add. First, it would be remiss of us not to recognise the huge contribution that many partner organisations that are supported by the Scottish Government, such as the Development Trusts Association Scotland and the Scottish Community Development Centre, make directly to communities.

Secondly, I very much recognise the concerns that the convener has expressed about the funding environment in which we operate. We all understand that a cascading effect occurs when budgets are set by the UK Government, the impact that that has on our ability to forward plan and the subsequent impact that that has on local government and other partner organisations, despite the degree of certainty or confidence that we seek to provide through medium-term financial strategies and indicative budgets. I also recognise the specific challenge that exists around resourcing to provide the level of engagement that we want.

It is important to bear in mind that, when we speak about engagement, for example with local government, there is an element of it almost being viewed as something additional. Part of the agenda of empowerment, the review of local governance and the move to a more participative form of democracy involves no longer viewing such engagement as something additional but integrating it as part of the approach. With community wealth building, the situation is analogous.

When it comes to the economic element and the democratising of our economy, some of the narrative is about that being something additional. Additional support is required in that transitional phase, but the destination is something that is much more integrated and mainstream. That is an important point. Notwithstanding that these are medium-term to long-term aspirations that we will seek to advance in partnership, there is a continuing need for support in the immediate term.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. I will, of course, leave the specific points about community planning partnerships for my colleague, Mr FitzPatrick, to respond to on behalf of the Government, as the lead minister.

With regards to the broader question of community, there are recognised terms such as “community of place” and “community of interest”, but ensuring that communities have space to define and understand themselves is paramount, so that they are able to engage with public services through the shared understanding that they have developed of their own identity as a community. I take that very seriously in the work that I lead on community wealth building and the work more widely around community empowerment, whether that is through participation requests, asset transfers, the wider work that we are doing around the review of the 2015 act or the work that we are undertaking on the review of local governance—the key word being “governance”, not “government”.

Working with communities and exploring, in partnership with COSLA, ways in which we can empower communities further and place more resources and decision-making power in the hands of communities will be paramount to that. Part of that work is recognising that communities have a role in defining and understanding themselves and part of it is finding the models and the range of powers and levers that are best suited to their particular needs.

Yes, I do—they have played and continue to play an important role. It is important to recognise that they operate within a broader context of rights and that they are just two particular mechanisms at our disposal. However, since the respective powers came into force, we have seen some 79 participation requests and more than 200 asset transfer requests, with many more applications having subsequently been made. They are playing an important part in the ecosystem of community empowerment, and they are important tools in enhancing a more participatory approach to our democratic culture and as a key lever and enabler of not only regeneration but community wealth building, specifically with regard to asset transfer requests.

The aspiration is that it will be in the first half of next year. As I indicated earlier, I would be more than happy to appear before the committee to discuss the outcome of that and the next steps once it is published.

With regard to part 10, I would want to situate that issue in the context of the review and not presuppose any outcomes. I appreciate that the wider issue of the “Democracy matters” initiative has been referred to several times, but I would also recognise that, although we in Government might operate through distinct reviews, people will bring forward ideas as and when they see fit.

As for the requirement that is set out in part 10, it has not been introduced, and we certainly have no plans to take it forward at this stage. Any move to introduce that or some similar mechanism would require very detailed consideration, very close engagement and a clear rationale. However, I would say that, in recent years, we have seen a significant improvement in communities’ abilities to engage with and participate in decision making and to take on assets not just through statutory means but through non-statutory means. Councillor Heddle has touched on participatory budgeting—let me again, as I did in the summer, commend and congratulate COSLA on achieving that 1 per cent target. Participatory budgeting is an example of communities being given an opportunity to have much more of a say in the allocation of resources in their area.

Something that has been very encouraging about participatory budgeting is not just the benefits that it confers but the move away from discrete pots of money being specifically allocated to authorities challenging themselves to find ways of giving communities more say over existing budgets for, say, roads and maintenance or the environment. We have seen some really excellent examples of that; indeed, I have to commend the work of one of the local authorities in my constituency—Renfrewshire Council—and what it has achieved in that respect.

With regard to the overall culture surrounding community empowerment, I would say that, notwithstanding what has been achieved through statutory mechanisms, we are seeing non-statutory mechanisms being used, too. Through the work of the local governance review and the work in partnership through the provisions in and the spirit of the Verity house agreement, we will achieve much more by changing culture and practice instead of necessarily having more statutory mechanisms.

However, I do not want to pre-empt the review’s outcome, and I reiterate that any decisions will be arrived at in a spirit of partnership that is consistent with the Verity house agreement.

On the latter point, yes. That is being considered through the work that is being undertaken as part of the 2015 act review. We have seen development and evolution of participation requests. At the outset, to an extent, they were still predominantly coming from community councils, but the subject of the participation request—the relevant public service authority—is no longer exclusively local government. We are seeing a wider range of partners, and the requests are being used to allow communities to engage in a range of decision making around roads and other local assets, for example. We must have a more detailed understanding of the landscape, and that work is being undertaken through the review. That information should become available as we move towards the completion of the review in the early part of next year.

There is learning to be taken from the experience today. Previous consideration has demonstrated that the legislation was working as intended, but we recognise that there might be some opportunities for further development. One particular issue that has been raised previously is the absence of an appeals or review mechanism. Again, we will give that further consideration. I look forward to engaging with the committee at the conclusion of the review of the act and exploring your findings.

On the asset transfers, we are seeing that aspect grow. It is one of a number of tools that are available. As I look towards the introduction of legislation on community wealth building later in this parliamentary session, I keep in mind that one of the key tools and enablers that has helped us to make progress in a way that is consistent with community wealth building aims has been asset transfer requests—admittedly, it is one tool of many, but I think that it has been an important one and will have a pivotal role to play. Again, the review of the act will inform our thinking on what further steps, if any, we have to take, in partnership with local government and other public bodies, to further enhance that tool and on what further support is required.

There are two aspects to the issue: the authority; and the community group that wishes to take on the asset.

On supporting community groups, we have provided funding to the community ownership support service, which provides expert support and guidance to organisations seeking to take on an asset. More broadly, we have seen the establishment of the national asset transfer action group, which has been working to address the issues around consistency and the sharing of best practice. Kathleen Glazik can talk about some of the work that has been undertaken in that forum.

I will briefly build on what has already been said. The point about digital divide is well made. That is why we employ a multitude of channels to engage with individuals and communities collectively. When we jointly launched phase 2 of the “Democracy matters” conversation last week, it was an in-person event with a range of stakeholders present. Recognising the need to ensure that we are not relying only on one means of communication and engagement is important, and that informs all of our approaches to wider engagement.

The point about ensuring that all voices are heard is absolutely paramount. I come back to my earlier point in response to the question of how we define a community. From our engagement in our respective constituencies and regions, we will all be conscious that there can be voices that purport to be the voice of a community, but that would be contested by other people in the wider community. We must always bear that in mind.

Ensuring that we hear the fullest range of voices is important, not just from the perspective of inclusion, equality or rights, but to enable us to harness the collective expertise, knowledge, insight and lived experience that exists across our communities and to bring those to bear. Those voices not being included would not only be a failure of inclusion but would be a missed opportunity to bring to bear the knowledge and insight that different groups bring from their unique and particular sets of experiences.

Often, we find that some of the groups that have historically been the most marginalised in the democratic process are those that engage most frequently with public services. As such, they can bring a powerful set of insights to the conversation. We engage communities from the principles of inclusivity and equality, but we also want to bring the collective expertise of our communities to bear so that we can all benefit from that.

We anticipate that the consultation will run for about six months, so that should take us to February 2024, roughly coinciding with the timescales for the review of the 2015 act.

We are working with partners to facilitate a range of engagements that will take place across Scotland and we are publishing materials as well, so a number of pieces of work are taking place to facilitate that activity. If it would be helpful to the committee, I would be happy to provide a written update towards the end of this year or the beginning of next year addressing the progress that has been made to date. Of course, at the conclusion of the work, we will be more than happy to appear before the committee to discuss the matter further.