Local Government in Scotland Bill

– in the Scottish Parliament at 5:05 pm on 8 January 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party 5:05, 8 January 2003

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3652, in the name of Andy Kerr, which seeks agreement that the Local Government in Scotland Bill be passed.

Photo of Andy Kerr Andy Kerr Labour 5:06, 8 January 2003

Of course the Executive fully respects the decision made by Parliament. We believe that we are correct in wanting to devolve powers to local authorities—that is part of the Executive's ethos, and we learned that lesson from the Parliament. The Executive will seek another opportunity, in another debate, to do what I think is the right thing: continuously to devolve from this Parliament, to local authorities and beyond, power for local decisions to be made in the right environment, by the right people, in the right location and at the right time. That is what we seek to achieve. There was no lack of consultation in the Executive's proposal. Peter Peacock outlined clearly that consultation would be a thorough part of the guidance.

Let us not forget the positive aspects of the bill. Local government in Scotland is a key driver for many of our public services. It is a democratic structure that provides services in education, community care, transport, police and fire services—of which we are of course aware—and a vast range of other services that affect the quality of life of many people in Scotland. We want to remove barriers that hinder delivery and to show increased trust in local authorities. That is exactly what the legislation seeks to do. It was developed closely with the stakeholders: local government, public bodies, equalities interests, the voluntary sector, the business community and the trade unions. The Local Government Committee played a crucial role. I thank it and its clerks for the work that they carried out.

We have also benefited from the wealth of experience that exists within the Parliament. Many of us have worked in local government as officers or have served in local government as councillors. We have brought that experience to bear during this process—particularly during our discussions on best value and community planning. The consultative approach, involving a full range of bodies, individuals and communities, will continue in the development of the guidance. Guidance forms a major part of what we seek to do and we will continue that democratic engagement with all of civic Scotland to ensure that we produce proper guidance to achieve the implementation of our objectives.

Members are familiar with the contents of the bill, but it is worth referring to key elements, such as best value. As someone who had to work with compulsory competitive tendering in local authorities, I am glad to see the end of that negative, petty and centralising legislation. We are replacing CCT with best value, which means decisions made in the right environment at the local level, not measures prescribed by central Government. CCT has been a failure and the bill sweeps away all its remaining elements. Best value offers flexibility, quality and value for money. It ensures that decisions are made at the right level and the right point by local communities and their local representatives.

Local authorities are familiar with best value, which they have taken ownership of and developed. There is a lot of good practice out there. Members are aware that we want to introduce best value across public sector bodies, including the Executive. As Peter Peacock said in committee, we are looking for the next suitable legislative vehicle to introduce at the earliest opportunity a statutory duty of best value across the public sector. I hope that that statement is not quoted as often as was the First Minister's response in a similar vein to other matters.

The duty of best value in the bill reflects and builds on the good practice that already exists and further embeds the culture of quality, equality and continuous improvement. Quality public services rely on accountable public services. The accountability within the legislation is an extremely important aspect of what we seek to achieve.

The bill also sets out a framework for reporting directly to the public on local government performance. Those measures are intended to get the right information to the right people at the right time. Accountability also comes through formal scrutiny and a number of provisions will ensure that the Accounts Commission for Scotland and its auditors have the right responsibilities and powers to increase local government accountability.

Part 2 of the bill provides a statutory basis for community planning. It is innovative and is an example of the Executive working in partnership at a local level to ensure greater collective engagement among the agencies that work in communities to assess needs, develop policies and deliver services. The bill encourages effective local working between bodies and a commitment to sharing objectives and to following that work through into real improvements in local service delivery. My local council has a community planning pilot and I have attended many of its events. The pilot is making real changes in the community through proper consultation.

The measures also provide an excellent opportunity for better connections between national priorities and those at a local, neighbourhood level. Two-way processes and local partnerships collectively influence the national direction and help to deliver national and local priorities. The measures provide a solid platform for on-going engagement with key participants in the community planning process, with the aim of improving the planning of local services. We have shown our firm commitment by including a duty on ministers to promote and encourage community planning.

The third core element of the bill is the power to advance well-being, which is a wide-ranging power that was known as the power of general competence. It was recognised by the McIntosh report, but has been renamed so that the focus, which is to improve communities' well-being, is clear. The power will give local authorities scope to be creative and innovative, to respond to communities and to provide better services. The term "well-being" is deliberately broad and is intended to avoid a restrictive interpretation. It includes social, economic and environmental well-being. Together with best value and community planning, the power completes a framework for the provision of better local services within local authorities.

The bill also makes provision for a range of miscellaneous items. I will not go into them all, but I am particularly pleased with the prudential framework for local authority control of capital borrowing, which replaces the section 94 consent regime and was warmly welcomed by local authorities. That is an historic measure from the Scottish Executive.

The bill is important for local government. It will reduce confrontation and create trust by providing the basis for local authorities to work effectively in partnership with other bodies in the communities that they seek to serve. Most important, the bill will assist with the delivery of better public services.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Local Government in Scotland Bill be passed.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party 5:12, 8 January 2003

Today has been a good one for the Parliament. I was heartened by Andy Kerr's remark that he accepts the Parliament's decision on amendment 59. The Executive should acknowledge that the processes that it followed for the bill were, frankly, insulting to the Parliament. The Executive has received the Parliament's answer. I hope that lessons have been learned and that the legislative opportunity that the Executive is looking for will not arrive in two days' time. I also hope that the Executive will allow proper scrutiny in future, not only of amendments such as amendment 59, but of all legislation.

We are entering into an extremely difficult period because of the number of bills that are before the Parliament—we have around 22 outstanding bills to deal with between now and March. As I have said previously, it is important that parliamentarians are responsible for producing good legislation. That does not mean that we must agree with every piece of legislation—sometimes we will not—but we have a duty to ensure that the legislation that comes out of the Parliament is the best that it can be. I sincerely hope that the minister will pay more than just lip service to that duty and that he will embrace the consultative steering group proposals in their entirety.

There are a number of good measures in the bill, such as those on community planning, best value and the power of well-being. I will not replicate what the minister said on those issues.

All the measures have been a long time in coming. I believe that, if the will exists, local communities, local bodies, local authorities, health boards and the like should be able to work much more closely together. It is a disappointment that we have to legislate for community planning. Most of us would expect statutory bodies and the like to build that in. Legislating is all very well, but we also need to ensure that a culture change takes place that embraces community planning, best value and the power of well-being. There is much work to be done outwith the legislative process to ensure that that happens.

A number of the amendments that we discussed at stage 2 were marred but are now part of the bill. As a member of the Local Government Committee, I did not give them the scrutiny that they deserved because there was not enough time. I am not convinced that the bill is a good bill—I hope that it does not come back to haunt us. However, because of the good things that are in the bill, the SNP group will support it today.

Photo of Keith Harding Keith Harding Conservative 5:16, 8 January 2003

I declare my registered interest as a member of Stirling Council. Like others before me, I record my thanks to Eugene Windsor, the clerk to the Local Government Committee, and his staff for guiding my colleagues on the committee and me through the lengthy bill process.

At stage 1, Conservative members were unable to support the general principles of the bill, as we felt that it was unnecessary to enshrine in statute the principle of best value, which is already entrenched in councils and which may not prove to be as effective as CCT, despite the minister's optimism. Community planning is something that the better councils already successfully undertake. The power of well-being is just a watered-down power of general competence and nobody appears to be able to explain how it will be used. That said, with the proliferation of amendments that have been moved by the Scottish Executive, the bill has changed considerably from the one that was debated at stage 1. Perhaps it should be renamed the local governance bill.

Regrettably, the bill is a lost opportunity to drive forward local government modernisation. We acknowledge the fact that a further bill will be introduced to address the remaining recommendations of the McIntosh report, including those that relate to councillor remuneration and proportional representation. However, it is, at the very least, disappointing that all those issues have not been addressed in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Another area of considerable concern is the large number of amendments that have been lodged by the Scottish Executive—they have already been mentioned—on which the committee could not take evidence. In fact, the convener refused to take such evidence. As the minister said, one of those amendments is based on a recommendation of the Bain report on fire services. I was not aware of that, as I have not had the privilege of seeing a copy of the report. Our concern, which we have expressed, is that if we make legislation without scrutinising or taking evidence properly, it is possible that it may prove to be flawed. Therefore, I am pleased that the Parliament was able to defeat amendment 59.

The bill will do little to reassure deeply disillusioned councillors. It is about propping up a failed and tired coalition that is bereft of ideas, not about addressing the real needs of local government and meeting the aspirations of the people of Scotland.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat 5:18, 8 January 2003

It is perhaps unfortunate that this important day for local government will be overshadowed by an issue that relates to a relatively minor part of the bill.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

No, not at the moment. I have barely started.

The bill addresses many significant issues for local government and it is vital that we reflect on how important today is for local government in Scotland. The bill is about enhancing the power and status of local government. It is not just about best value, community planning and well-being; it is about saying that, in the democratic process, local authorities have the same status as, and are equally important as, the Scottish Parliament. The bill removes a lot of restrictions on local government that have been imposed over the years. It is probably the first bill for 30 years—sadly, since 1974, if not longer—to enhance the power of local government in Scotland.

Over the years, the powers of local government have been eroded time and again. Powers have been removed and local authorities' ability to operate in the interests of their communities has been restricted. However, the bill contains a series of important measures that will significantly enhance the powers of local government. Best value is a significant improvement on CCT because it allows councils to take into account factors beyond price, such as quality and sustainability—an issue that was put into the bill following consultation. It is important to put on record at this stage that, although the Executive might have chosen a slightly unfortunate way of dealing with the fire brigade issue, it listened to the members of the Local Government Committee during the bill's progress through Parliament and made significant improvements to it.

On several occasions, the Executive lodged amendments that significantly enhanced Parliament's powers, as distinct from subverting the interests of Parliament. For example, it changed the bill's approach to secondary legislation from the use of negative instruments to the use of affirmative instruments, which will require the Executive to report when it uses those powers.

Today is an important day, although it is slightly unfortunate that the fire service issue will overshadow it. As a matter of principle, I believe that the Scottish ministers should not have the final say in how local fire services are provided. That should be a matter for locally elected, accountable representatives.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Does Mr Smith accept that local communities should have a statutory right to be consulted? If not, is he satisfied with the watered-down version of guidance? It is either one or the other.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

I do not think that local authorities have a statutory right to consultation under section 19. That is where the whole argument becomes a bit of a myth. At present, if fire boards want to cut back a fire service, close a fire station or reduce the number of appliances, they must get permission from the Scottish ministers. The Executive's proposal was simply to remove that final say from the Scottish ministers.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

Mr Sheridan should sit down. I have heard enough from him today.

Any good fire authority—Fife Council is also a fire authority—will consult its local community and would not dream of trying to close a fire station without full consultation with the relevant local authority. It would be ridiculous and stupid of a fire authority to do otherwise. Parliament took a decision on the fire service issue that will have to be revisited. It was unfortunate that the Executive used that process but, at the end of the day, the bill is about enhancing the power of local authorities. There is more to be done. The local governance issues in the bill that will be published later this month by the Executive are important, particularly those that deal with proportional representation. Addressing those issues will also enhance the status of local government.

The bill is welcome. We should reflect on that and enjoy it today, rather than glorify one particular issue.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

We have nine minutes for open debate, which means that we have time for three brief speeches.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 5:23, 8 January 2003

I, too, thank the Local Government Committee members for their hard work on what I think is a very good bill. I also thank the clerks and their staff, the official report and the Scottish Parliament information centre for all their hard work.

It was no accident that the first debate in the Scottish Parliament was on the McIntosh report on the future of local government in a devolved Scotland. There is a clear recognition that local government, more so than the Parliament, is important in the daily lives of constituents. Parliament does not deliver services directly to the people of Scotland—that is the role of local government.

Donald Dewar said on 1 July 1999 at the opening of the Scottish Parliament that the Parliament was rooted in the past but would not operate in the past. I believe that we have remembered that in our progress through the past four years, which culminates, as far as the Local Government Committee is concerned, in the Local Government in Scotland Bill.

The Executive listened to local government and accepted the major changes to the bill that were sought both by local government and by the Local Government Committee at stage 2. For example, as Andy Kerr said earlier, the bill repeals section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, on borrowing consents for local authorities, which will be placed under a prudential system of capital investment.

There were long and hard arguments on either side about including in the bill a statutory duty to extend best value across the whole of the public sector. The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services assured the committee that legislation will be introduced to ensure that all public bodies will be governed by a duty of best value. The committee has accepted that it is outside the scope of the Local Government in Scotland Bill to extend the duty of best value to other public bodies. Given that commitment from the minister, we are content that the matter will be addressed as soon as possible and that, in the meantime, a wider part of the public sector will be placed under a duty of best value through administrative means using the existing powers.

The committee would like information on outcomes from the community planning process and on the future targets to be incorporated in reports. We agree with the minister that the focus should be on community planning outcomes rather than on a glossy document when we are addressing community planning issues.

I want to deal briefly with the power to advance well-being or, as I used to know it, the power of general competence. The essence of that part of the bill is to give local authorities greater scope to work in a way that allows them to respond to the needs of their community while recognising their democratic accountability and their community leadership. It is intended to give local authorities responsibility and scope to work in a genuine partnership with others to improve the communities that they serve.

In our report at the end of stage 1, the committee considered that the bill could be improved. I am pleased to say that, in some of the amendments and improvements that I have outlined, the Executive has listened not only to local government but to the Local Government Committee and has moved significantly.

This bill has been amended, altered and, I hope, improved by the committee. As with other bills, that shows plainly the powerful role that the back benchers play in the Scottish Parliament. That fact of parliamentary life does not always thrill the Executive but I believe that it is a defining feature of this Parliament, even though it appears to be lost on the Parliament's critics in the media and other organisations.

I should point out, in all fairness, that some of the changes in the bill have been brought about by sensible and courteous negotiation with Peter Peacock. Again, that is a positive reflection on the work of back benchers as it is a recognition of our influential role in the passing of legislation.

I urge members to support the bill.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party 5:27, 8 January 2003

Lessons have been learned in the chamber today. Trish Godman mentioned the powers of back benchers and I believe that we have seen the power of the Parliament today. I hope that the Executive has learned lessons today. If nothing else, this Parliament should be democratic.

I want to thank the clerks, Eugene Windsor, Ruth Cooper and others, who have done many hours of stalwart work to draft amendments and help members of the committee. I also want to thank various members of the committee for their work in the scrutiny of the amendments—those that we were allowed to scrutinise. I did not always agree with members of the committee, but they always listened to me with respect, unlike the members of the Executive, who appear not to want to listen to anyone.

There are many good things in the bill. I welcome the policy of community planning, which is excellent. If it works properly, it will be an asset to local government and the people whom it serves. Along with the power of well-being, the policy will result in dramatic changes in local government that will benefit people throughout Scotland.

Although they deal with a matter that is important, sections 25B and 25C have not been mentioned today. They deal with rate relief for food stores in rural settlements and the derating of automatic telling machines in rural settlements. In the committee, I asked the minister to consider extending those provisions to cover other areas of deprivation in which the population was under 3,000. Many people in deprived areas across the country would benefit from rate relief for small food stores and the derating of automatic telling machines. I ask the Executive to consider those points.

We welcome the bill. There are elements that I would like to have been included but which have not been. However, unlike the Executive, if we have any amendments to make to bills, we will certainly ensure that the relevant committee has the opportunity to scrutinise them.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

I apologise to Dr Sylvia Jackson and Michael Russell, who sat through the debate but were not called.

Photo of Peter Peacock Peter Peacock Labour 5:30, 8 January 2003

Much has been said about the matter over a number of years, so I do not intend to delay Parliament too long.

Like others, I thank the clerks to the Local Government Committee, who put a lot of work into the bill, which is a significant piece of legislation. I also thank the committee members, and I mean all the committee members, including Opposition members. Notwithstanding the outrageous speech that Keith Harding made, he is still invited for a drink with the others after the day's proceedings. I also thank all the Executive staff who put a huge amount of behind-the-scenes work into preparing all the policy advice, all the detail and a lot of the consultation on the bill that went on formally and informally throughout Scotland. As a consequence of the work of all those whom I have mentioned, we have a better bill today than when we started the process. That is the benefit of the Parliament's process of scrutiny.

It is ironic that the amending of the bill finished on the tone on which it did, because there has perhaps been more consultation on the main provisions of the bill than on any other bill that the Parliament has scrutinised. There were a huge number of meetings, consultations and seminars, which ran over many years. Informal sessions were held with the committee, and the committee held conferences. That all helped to inform the bill's provisions.

I will put the bill into context. It should not be seen in isolation. It is part of a process, in which the Executive has been involved, of trying to modernise the context in which local government seeks to work. When the Labour party came to power in Westminster in 1999 and the Executive came to power in 1997—I am sorry: in 1997 and 1999. It is the reverse of what I said—that was a Freudian slip. When Labour and the Executive came to power, the relationships that existed with local government were truly appalling. Trust between local government and central Government had broken down completely. We have spent a lot of effort trying to rebuild that trust and partnership because, if we have a strong partnership at the local level, we can deliver better public services. That, ultimately, is what a lot of our activity is about.

That is why we tried to create a new environment for discussions with local government. It is also why we brought in significant finance reforms, such as three-year revenue and capital budgets and less ring fencing of funding. It is why we pushed capping into the background and introduced shared outcome arrangements with local government about what we are trying to achieve. It is why we have abolished spending guidelines and why we fund central initiatives 100 per cent and give minimum grant increases to councils. We have also given councils a longer term of office—a four-year term rather than a three-year term—so that they have a longer time to plan.

Against that background, the Local Government in Scotland Bill clicks into place. It is about trying to create trust within the framework that we have created in the bill. It is about giving more trust, more authority and more responsibility locally but, equally, expecting local councillors to be accountable for their decisions locally.

The bill contains historic provisions, such as the abolition of CCT. Many members campaigned for that in many capacities over many years. The bill replaces CCT with best value. That is a much more sensible, balanced approach to how we make decisions about service delivery. The bill also puts community planning at the centre of what a local authority does locally and includes a power of general competence, targeted, in the way in which it is described, as a power to advance well-being, because it is about the well-being of communities. People have campaigned for that for many years.

The changes that the bill heralds, along with the other matters that I have mentioned, transform for the better the landscape in which local government in Scotland operates. They create a better climate for the future. That is why I trust that the Parliament will support the bill as part of that process.