Local Democracy

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 30 November 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-02804, in the name of Andy Wightman, on local democracy.

Photo of Andy Wightman Andy Wightman Green

The commission on strengthening local democracy published its final report in August 2014, a little over two years ago, yet, as far as I can tell, there has been no debate in Parliament on its findings. We have introduced this debate on local democracy for two reasons. First, we believe that it is important to endorse the valuable work that the commission undertook and to ensure that its principles and findings form the core of local democratic reform during this session of Parliament. Secondly, we want to make it clear that there is a big difference between community empowerment, which is voluntary and partial, and local governance, which is statutory and universal.

I stress that, in saying that we should endorse the report, I do not mean to imply that the Scottish Green Party or any other party here should support every detailed finding that is contained in it. However, it is worth reminding members that the commission was—and is—a cross-party endeavour that includes representatives from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour, the Scottish National Party and the Greens. Just as I do not expect that those representatives would have agreed with every detailed particular of each and every paragraph, so I do not expect members here to do so. Nevertheless, by endorsing the report, we would validate the effort that went into its creation, support the efforts of our party colleagues who sat on the commission and send out the important message that Scotland’s national legislature—which spends considerable time considering its own competencies, structures and future—also has regard to the vital role that local governance plays in Scotland’s democratic architecture.

Having said that by way of introduction, I congratulate the members of the commission, who, under the auspices of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, produced the comprehensive and timely report. In particular, I pay tribute to Councillor David O’Neill, the president of COSLA and the chair of the commission, for his leadership.

In the previous session of Parliament, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee published its report “Flexibility and Autonomy in Local Government” in June 2014. The committee, which was convened by the current Minister for Local Government and Housing, took a rather dim view of the arguments on strengthening local democracy and went so far as to suggest that interest in it was limited to

“the narrow confines of academia and COSLA”.

That rather dismissive assertion is reflected in the SNP amendment, which claims that the committee took the commission’s work into consideration. Quite how that was possible, given that the committee reported in June 2014 and the commission published its final report two months later, in August 2014, I leave to the minister to explain.

To turn to the substance of the debate, it is becoming increasingly clear that local government in Scotland is not local and does not govern. As the McIntosh commission noted in 1999,

“It could be said that Scotland today simply does not have a system of local government in the sense in which many other countries still do. The 32 councils” that exist

“are, in effect, what in other countries are called county councils or provinces”.

As the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities observed in 2013,

“Scotland is one of the most centralised countries in Europe. It is no coincidence that our European neighbours are often more successful at improving outcomes, and have much greater turn out at elections. We cannot hope to emulate the success of these countries without acknowledging that they have more local councils” and more local elected councillors representing fewer people,

“and that these councils and their services are constitutionally protected and their funding secured by law, even with regard to national policy making.”

In Scotland, we have 32 local authorities, yet the Netherlands has 408, Norway has 428 and Belgium has 589, while in Germany there are more than 11,000 councils at the lowest tier of governance. Some amalgamation has been undertaken in those countries, but there has been nothing like the stripping away, hollowing out and elimination of local governance that have taken place in Scotland. At the beginning of the 20th century, for example, Scotland had more than 1,100 councils at the lowest tier. A century later, we have 32. If we are serious about strengthening local democracy, as I believe we should be, we need to be serious about doing something about it.

Empowering communities is well and good—we support it—but, without a strong democratic structure, it risks providing opportunities for those who are already motivated and engaged while providing little for communities that are marginalised and lacking in capacity. A community that needs action on local matters should not have to rely on voluntary effort that in turn requires it to be constituted in some form of corporate entity to make a statutory participation request to a local authority. The powers that are required should be readily available through the democratic structures in communities. Empowering communities and strengthening and deepening democratic institutions are complementary, as are other important approaches, such as introducing more participatory budgeting and greater community engagement.

The University of Edinburgh academic Paddy Bort noted recently that

“Scottish local democracy ... has been compared to a ladder, with the lower rungs missing. It is excluding Scots from running their own local affairs, denying them access to democracy. What we have instead is the reduction of citizens to customers—a marketisation of local governance, exacerbated by out-sourcing and privatization of services. No wonder that turnout at local elections is catastrophically low—Scottish voters clearly experience local government as something they’re being excluded from and ignored by.”

The commission’s recommendations go a long way to providing a means of reversing those trends and providing those lower rungs. I understand that the commission is soon to be reconvened. I am pleased about that and wish it well. I hope that all parties that are represented in the Parliament will participate in it again.

I also welcome the launch last week of our democracy—act as if we own the place, which is a coalition of organisations, campaigners and politicians who are dedicated to improving our local democracy.

During this fifth session of the Scottish Parliament, it is vital that we deepen and strengthen local democracy. Local councils are a vital part of how we are governed, and meaningful local control has been undermined and sidelined for far too long. Two weeks ago, the minister responded to a question by stating that there are no town halls in Scotland. He is wrong: there are almost 200 town halls across Scotland. The only difference is that they no longer have any democratic institutions inside them.

As I said at the outset, by supporting the motion, members are not endorsing every detail of the commission’s report, but they are endorsing a clear direction of travel, which is to move Scotland towards being a more normal European country where local communities enjoy hard-wired, universal local statutory governance, with fiscal responsibility exercised at the community level. Given that the two amendments to my motion would delete its substance entirely, Green MSPs will not support them.

I know that there are many members, in all parties, who support the broad conclusions of the commission. That should come as no surprise, given that it was an all-party endeavour. I hope that those who may not support our motion tonight because of how they are being asked to vote will, nevertheless, work with all of us who want to see a genuine restoration and strengthening of local democracy across Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the final report of the Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

I congratulate the Green Party on bringing to the chamber this debate on local democracy. The Scottish Government shares much with the Greens in our vision for a healthy democracy. Like the Greens, we believe that decisions that affect people’s lives should be taken as near to communities as makes sense for those communities. That is why we and the Greens believe in an independent Scotland: a country in which the people of Scotland are trusted to shape and take all the decisions that affect our country’s future. We believe that democracy should start in communities. Local people hold the sovereign power, and the job of democratic institutions is to help people to achieve their goals.

I have no doubt that we will debate some points of detail today, but there is much shared ground across the chamber on many of the fundamental principles of how a modern democracy should work. The Scottish Government has always believed in the fundamental importance of local government in delivering better outcomes for all Scotland’s people. Local government can do that because councils and their elected members know their areas and the needs and aspirations of those areas.

Our relationship with local government is based on shared interests and mutual respect. Partnership with local government is critical in tackling poverty and inequality throughout Scotland. An excellent recent example comes from the refugee resettlement scheme, which has been a model of joint working between central Government, local authorities, partner organisations and local communities in providing a safe and welcoming home for people who are fleeing the continuing violence in Syria. Recently, in Forres in Moray, I was pleased to meet Syrian families who have moved there; they expressed their gratitude for our joined-up approach to delivering services for them.

Another example of that joined-up approach is in housing. To deliver on the housing targets that we have set for this session of Parliament, we need to work together with local government and expand on what we do well. That will continue our collaboration in the previous session of Parliament, through which we delivered more than 30,000 affordable homes.

We welcome the widespread debate that has taken place over the past few years on the future of local democracy. The in-depth look at democracy that the COSLA commission and the Jimmy Reid Foundation have undertaken has helped to lay some of the foundations for today’s discussion, as has the work in the previous session of Parliament by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which I was privileged to convene. In that committee’s work, I was determined to hear directly from local people to shape our final report.

I am pleased that, as the Minister for Local Government and Housing, I can now take action that is shaped by many of the principles and recommendations that were set out in those influential reports. We believe that now is the time for real change in how local democracy works. I can confirm today that we will build on the work that we have done on community empowerment and introduce in this session of Parliament a local democracy bill that will deliver real power to communities.

At this stage, I want to be clear about a few principles. The future of local democracy is not just about lines on a map or changing administrative boundaries, with all the costs that are associated with that, and neither is it simply about ratios of electors to the number of those elected or delivering absolutely everything at local level. It is about reinvigorating local democracy, strengthening community voices and making the most of the talents of all our communities in making people’s lives better. Everybody who lives and works in Scotland, regardless of their background, can help to grow the economy and tackle inequality. A renewed local democracy is about people seeing a connection with their council, and increased numbers of people from all parts of our diverse society voting.

W e have a track record of making such changes happen. Last year, the Parliament passed the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which gives communities new rights to expand community ownership and have their voices heard. The proposed islands bill will reflect the unique needs of our island communities.

That local focus is complemented at regional level. The Government recognises that cities and their regions are the engines of our economy: some two thirds of Scotland’s gross value added is generated in our city regions.

We have two city deals in delivery in Glasgow and Aberdeen, with the Inverness deal agreed in principle, and all our other cities are at various stages of discussing deals. We have committed £760 million over the next 10 to 20 years to the first three deals.

There is much to build on and much that Parliament can still do. This is a time of opportunity to bring local democracy to life for the people of Scotland—the people we all serve. We will continue our work with local government, communities and Parliament to deliver a local democracy bill that has the potential to make the most significant change in democracy in Scotland since devolution.

I move amendment S5M-02804.2, to leave out from “endorses” to end and insert:

“notes the findings of the 2014 Local Government and Regeneration Committee inquiry into the Flexibility and Autonomy of Local Government, including its consideration of the Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy, and the committee’s recommendation, which stated that ‘Adequate powers to devolve responsibilities and control to communities already exist which local authorities must begin to exercise’, and agrees that enabling local control not on behalf of but by a local community should be the guiding principle in considering the roles and responsibilities of local authorities over the course of the current Parliamentary session, with the aim of decentralising local authority functions, budgets and democratic oversight to local communities.”

Photo of Graham Simpson Graham Simpson Conservative

I confess to being slightly underwhelmed by the Green Party’s motion. It refers to a report that was published more than two years ago and, while the report had some merit, it has been largely ignored.

In principle, Conservatives are firmly on the side of strengthening local democracy. Unlike the Greens and Andy Wightman, we back that up with votes in Parliament. The Greens are guilty of horrendous hypocrisy. When they had the chance to show that they are on the side of local accountability by rejecting the SNP’s centralising council tax plans, they and Labour blew it. Warm words will not cut it.

Photo of Andy Wightman Andy Wightman Green

Does Mr Simpson accept that the only vote that we have had on the council tax was about the multipliers and did not in itself make any difference to centralisation and redistribution? We oppose that, as I understand Mr Simpson does.

Photo of Graham Simpson Graham Simpson Conservative

Mr Wightman knows full well that the effect of that vote was to reduce local accountability. The Greens voted the other way.

I prefer to judge parties by their actions, and the Greens have been found wanting.

The two-year-old report contained some principles with which we would agree—that decisions should be taken as close to communities as possible; that democratic governance should be clear and understandable to communities, with clear lines of accountability; that communities must be able to participate in decision making; and that power should be from the bottom and not the top. There are some good ideas in the report, but we do not go along with some of the others. We do not endorse the whole report, which is why we will not vote for the Greens’ motion.

A democratic deficit is emerging in Scotland and power is being sucked to the centre. We have seen that with Police Scotland, health and social care integration and the fire service, and now we see it with the council tax. I have said before and I will say again that we are on a slippery slope.

When I asked Kevin Stewart to confirm newspaper reports that Scotland’s “town halls” face being stripped of more powers, in an attack on local accountability, all that he could say was, “Scotland doesn’t have town halls.” That is not good enough. Kevin Stewart did not twig that the term “town halls” is newspaper language for councils and he was wrong in any case, as Andy Wightman said.

We need a straight answer from the Scottish Government; perhaps Mr Stewart can provide it. Is the Scottish Government planning to force councils to share services and to strip them of further powers over, for example, roads? Maybe that is what will be in his local democracy bill. I suspect that the answer is a simple yes, but ministers do not wish to own up ahead of next year’s council elections.

Central government is not always best placed to deliver economic growth. Local people usually know best and, given the tools, they can deliver what is best for their communities. Our amendment recognises that and I believe that the authors of the commission on strengthening local democracy’s report would agree with the principle that is behind it. Empowering cities and city regions is essential if we are to improve the levels of economic growth in Scotland. I am glad that Kevin Stewart agrees with that, and I presume that he will back our amendment.

This is not about taking powers from councils—quite the reverse. Last night, I was at a hugely impressive presentation by the Stirling city region team. Stirling will be transformed by people working collaboratively for the good of their community and, crucially, taking communities with them.

That is a model for the way ahead—it involves not forcing councils to do things but giving them the tools and resources to work together. That is how to do it, and it is what led the former chancellor down the northern powerhouse route.

Scotland’s first city deal, for Glasgow, covers part of the area that I represent. The story is a bit mixed there. We have good projects and others that are not so good. A couple of road schemes in Holytown and Stewartfield in East Kilbride will not benefit anyone and should be scrapped.

Our message is this: give councils the power and they can deliver. Do not centralise—trust people.

I move amendment S5M-02804.1, to leave out from “endorses” to end and insert:

“recognises that empowering Scotland’s cities and city regions is critical to economic growth and development in Scotland”.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you. I know that time is tight; this is a short debate.

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

I welcome the fact that the Greens have kicked off this debate. The commission on strengthening local democracy hoped that there would be a debate across communities in Scotland on the future of local government, but I do not think that that has quite happened. It is interesting that the Minister for Local Government and Housing has announced that he will introduce a local democracy bill. I certainly look forward to that, because we need a debate across Scotland about what type of local government we want.

The Tory amendment simply replaces the Green Party motion—it is not really an amendment—so Labour will not support it. There is clearly, however, a place for regional organisation and regional government in Scotland. Local authorities are leading that with the Glasgow and Aberdeen city deals. Last night in the Parliament there was a celebration of the Stirling city deal. There is no doubt that we need some form of regional organisation around the economy, skills, training and co-operation. We support that and we will continue to work with local authorities—however, that needs to be led by local authorities, not simply the rhetoric of this place.

Photo of Graham Simpson Graham Simpson Conservative

Is there any part of our amendment that Alex Rowley disagrees with?

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

There are two problems with the Tory amendment. The first is that it simply replaces the Green motion and we are not going to have that, because it is important to recognise that the commission’s report is a good starting point and that we need to move forward with it, not rule it out.

The second problem is that the Tories are playing politics. Their objection to what the SNP is doing with the council tax is that it tinkers too much. We need to get rid of the council tax. If it was unfair in 2007 when Nicola Sturgeon said that she would replace the council tax—she said then that “no tinkering with bands” would make it fair—it is still as unfair today. The Tories’ objection is that the SNP is tinkering too much.

We need to get rid of the SNP council tax and replace it with a tax that is progressive and will put local government finance on a firm footing in the future.

With regard to community empowerment, the question that springs to mind is what is empowerment? If a person lives in a community and is homeless, to empower that person would be to give them a house. If a person is living in cold, damp, overcrowded conditions, empowerment would be to tackle fuel poverty and give that person a house.

We can play around with the word empowerment, but, for me, one of the key areas of empowerment that we should have made more of over the past few years is community planning. The concept was quite right, but it failed to engage properly with communities. Although the SNP might introduce a bill to transfer 1 per cent of a local authority budget to community level and ask the community how it would spend that 1 per cent, I say that community planning should result in local community plans in every community so that communities start to set the priorities in their areas.

Community budgets are one thing, but setting out how the bigger budget—the 99 per cent of the budget—is spent is another. How do we empower parents? How do we empower teachers? It could be argued that the education budget will not be taken much further than the school and the classroom, but we need to consider how we empower the parents of the pupils in those classrooms and those schools. It will be interesting to have that debate when we consider the proposed local democracy bill, but I believe that we missed a chance on community planning.

I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. It needs to take place not just in the Parliament, but in the 32 council chambers across Scotland, the community councils and the community forums. Let us have a big debate on the future of local empowerment in local government in Scotland. It is long overdue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We move to the open debate. Speeches should be of no more than four minutes. I call John Finnie.

Photo of John Finnie John Finnie Green

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

“Let’s not forget that it is local people that have fired the debate about Scotland’s constitutional future, and their power must not default back to the centre.”

That is from Councillor David O’Neill’s introduction to the commission on strengthening local democracy’s excellent report.

Any discussion is welcome, and we certainly welcome the minister’s announcement. We will be happy to engage, but the devil will be in the detail. The report outlined a number of principles, one of which relates to sovereignty. I hope that everyone can sign up to the idea that the people are sovereign. That is a foundation stone of Scotland’s outlook. Our democratic process is about people, rather than who does things to people.

Another principle that the report covered is that of subsidiarity. People will understand that decisions should be taken as close to communities as possible. The report says that only communities can decide on change. As Alex Rowley said, that is the level of debate that we need to have throughout the system. Decisions need to come from the bottom up, not from the top down.

I will illustrate the difficulty that we have with the present model. I was a councillor on Highland Council, which covers an area the size of Belgium. As I understand it, it covers the largest area in Scotland of any elected body, the Scottish Parliament aside. A councillor on the planning committee will travel from Wick to Ardnamurchan to adjudicate on a planning decision. That is a distance of 230 miles. It is the equivalent of someone in Portree or—to put it another way—someone in Doncaster in South Yorkshire deciding on planning matters in Edinburgh. On independence, I absolutely agree with the minister’s view that decisions should be taken as close to communities as makes sense, but I hope that he will reflect on the fact that it clearly does not make sense to have that level of travelling involved.

In talking about scale—I have no doubt that its authors had Highland in mind—the report said:

“the scale of most local governments in Scotland today creates an enormous gap between the local level of representative democracy and communities”.

The folk in Ardnamurchan have no more in common with the folk in Caithness than the folk in South Yorkshire do with the folk in Leith. Why should they? That is not a negative comment. We must embrace difference but, as the minister mentioned, the drawing of arbitrary lines on the map is not the way to go, as is evident from the recent debacle with some of the council wards.

I look forward to the introduction of the islands bill. Some interesting ideas have been suggested about democracy there.

It is unfortunate that I do not have much time, because I would have told members about the “Variation instead of one size fits all” paragraph in the report, which I think is very relevant. People have fond memories of town councils and district councils, which had a clear identity. One of the recommendations talks about creating local tax and spending choices. The people who need to make those choices are local communities.

Mention has been made of the integration of health and social care, which I see as positive. As the Christie commission said, there can be economies of scale that mean that it is possible to have local decision making along with shared services. That is a way forward.

Councillor O’Neill said that he wanted one legacy of the commission to be

“an alliance of voices that are ambitious together”.

I do not think that our motion is particularly ambitious; it is intended as a modest start. As my colleague Andy Wightman said, it is an attempt to get the parties that were involved in the process to acknowledge the work of their representatives in that process. The report also talked about starting “a new conversation”. It would have been far more ambitious—this is not a criticism; our approach was meant to be an inclusive one—if we had attempted to do what Councillor O’Neill mentioned and together “make change inevitable.”

We do need to invigorate our local democracy, and today’s debate is perhaps a start.

Photo of Bob Doris Bob Doris Scottish National Party

I welcome the opportunity to debate themes about local government and local democracy. The Greens might be slightly confused with the wording of their motion in relation to local democracy. We heard from Mr Wightman that endorsing the report does not mean supporting it, but it might mean supporting certain bits of it. I am not quite sure what we are being asked to sign up to today with the Green motion, which is unfortunate.

Photo of Bob Doris Bob Doris Scottish National Party

I only have four minutes so I am sorry, gentlemen, but you will see that that is quite clear if you look at your comments in the

Official Report

.

I pay tribute to the commission on strengthening local democracy and the job that it did, but even the party that is supporting the commission’s report is not sure which bits it agrees with. We have just concluded a debate on local educational priorities in which the Greens in effect called for ring-fenced funds for additional support needs in local authorities, yet they grudgingly support £100 million for the attainment challenge each year, stating that they will not stand in the way of additional cash. That is their prerogative and I welcome the fact that they did not stand in its way.

I also note that, since 2007, the Scottish Government has dramatically reduced ring-fencing in local authorities, as well as allowing local authorities to retain efficiency savings that were previously top-sliced by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive back in the day. The loosening of council tax restraints was recently announced by the Scottish Government—freezing council tax was a controversial measure at the time, but it was welcomed by and large around the country. Yet the Scottish Government, as was confirmed in the previous debate, has stepped in to ring-fence £80 million to secure teacher numbers after they fell by 4,000, despite promises being made but not delivered by local authorities.

I am sorry that I received that response from the Greens earlier as I am not trying to provoke. The point that I am trying to make is that the motion is oversimplistic—when we talk about local democracy, we have to be clear about what we mean. It is multifaceted, which is not reflected in the motion.

It is also important to put front and centre that the Scottish Government will introduce a bill that will decentralise local authority functions, budgets and democratic oversight to local communities, which is what the debate will move on to. I know that the Greens will have some positive words to say on that.

At the Local Government and Communities Committee meeting this morning, we looked at the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the statutory instruments that underpin it. We noted that powers already exist to extend more local democracy, but that a culture change is needed. Absolute statutory rights are coming into place in relation to asset transfers, for example.

I also welcome comments on participatory budgeting and I note that my SNP colleagues on Glasgow City Council—led ably by Susan Aitken—are talking about liberating £1 million for each council ward for local communities to decide and direct how that cash is spent. That is local democracy just as much as councillors or Government directing that cash, and I commend that.

It is becoming more difficult and complex to map local democracy. Areas include health and social care integration; the educational attainment fund; the scrutiny or lack of scrutiny of city deals—the people on the ground in local communities have not been involved with what that money is going towards; the review of community planning partnerships; planning reforms and the loss of planning gain; and charrettes perhaps being used as a badge of honour to say that communities have been consulted but, in my constituency, blocking co-production on community developments and community housing. The motion before us does not quite reflect all that. The provocation at the start was a way of explaining that we need more. We need a bill from the Scottish Government to look at promoting and enhancing local democracy—we will get that and I will support it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Heaven forfend that you should be provocative, Mr Doris.

Photo of Alex Cole-Hamilton Alex Cole-Hamilton Liberal Democrat

I congratulate the Green Party on an excellent motion and, unlike Bob Doris, the Liberal Democrats have no problem in understanding its meaning, so we will have no problem in supporting it tonight.

Photo of Alex Cole-Hamilton Alex Cole-Hamilton Liberal Democrat

Not in the first 13 seconds. [

Interruption

.] Please sit down, Mr Doris.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Sit down, Mr Doris.

Photo of Alex Cole-Hamilton Alex Cole-Hamilton Liberal Democrat

On Monday, James Fergusson, a retired resident from Corstorphine who subsists entirely on the state pension, came to see me. He was incandescent that his council tax is to be increased so that the Scottish Government can de-fund Edinburgh and redistribute money into other parts of the country. He was so angry that he was ready to take to the streets and stop paying council tax altogether. That a pensioner should be incited to civil disobedience is an indictment of that policy, which is the final straw for many people who perceive that, once again, this Government is meddling in local government.

As we have heard, the commission on strengthening local democracy points to a trend of centralisation that has spanned 50 years. In that time, the number of local councils has evaporated, going from 203 to just 32, and the 2011 commission on the delivery of public services hinted that that number could be cut further. I hope that, in her closing speech, the cabinet secretary will confirm that the local democracy bill will not seek to reduce our councils further.

In more than half a century of centralisation, many social indicators would suggest that the flow of power to the centre has not yielded positive results. The gap between rich and poor has widened while educational attainment has fallen. At no point in that time has the pace of centralisation been as great as it has been under the SNP. Under the sheep’s clothing of the 2007 concordat, the Scottish Government claimed that it would unencumber our communities from the strictures of ring fencing. It did so while robbing them of the only revenue levers at their disposal. For nearly a decade, with the council tax immobilised by SNP policy, we have not had an effective system of local taxation in this country.

Photo of Alex Cole-Hamilton Alex Cole-Hamilton Liberal Democrat

I do not have time, I am afraid.

Having won two successive elections on a commitment to scrap the council tax, the Government has singularly failed to do that.

The SNP exalts those Scandinavian countries that hint at the prosperity that we might enjoy as an independent country, but it does not seek to emulate them. Norway, with a population that is nearly identical to ours, has 428 municipalities. The success of countries such as Norway is down to the absolute pre-eminence of the principle of subsidiarity—that fundamental liberal belief that power works better when it is closer to the people—whereas Scotland already has the lowest number of councils in Europe.

Certainly, there are savings to be made through economies of scale in relation to things such as the shared services agenda, but they should not come at the expense of a society where power is devolved to the lowest level possible.

The policy trajectory of this Government is one of centralisation, big government and control. That is evident in the police service’s application of Strathclyde solutions to Edinburgh’s problems while front-line morale falls through the floor; in the anxiety of healthcare professionals when they hear rumours about mergers across our health boards; and in the creeping erosion of the power of local government.

Last week, the First Minister admonished me and suggested that the Liberal Democrats were trying to intervene in local planning. However, we are seeking to empower authorities so that they can compel developers in relation to planning gain.

It is incumbent on us as legislators and as representatives to walk lightly through the lives of the people we serve. This Parliament must stay the hand of our ministers so that we are an enabling force, not a controlling force in our communities. We must be ever conscious of the fact that, without reversal of this centralisation, those who seek further empowerment will soon find that the 10 most frustrating words in our language are, “I’m from the Scottish Government, and I’m here to help.”

Photo of Alexander Stewart Alexander Stewart Conservative

As someone who has served in local government for 17 years, on Perth and Kinross Council, I am very much aware of the part that local democracy plays. Local councillors really are at the coalface and, because of that, we need to ensure that constituents come to local councillors. Constituents believe that there is much better co-operation between them and local councillors than is often the case with representatives in other tiers of government. Decisions are better taken by people who are closer to and more familiar with the communities that they reflect and look after. In that regard, we on these benches support the principle that is mentioned in the 2014 report that the Green motion refers to, although that report is two years old.

The sole purpose of most of our debates at the moment seems to be to fill the space created by the SNP’s legislative vacuum. So much has changed with regard to local democracy since the report was published. In recent years, the direction of travel has gone one way: into the centre. In all spheres, we have seen more and more things going to Holyrood rather than being dealt with by us at a council level.

Our local police forces are now one and councillors no longer sit on joint police boards, which I feel is a loss to the democratic processes in our communities. It is vitally important that the local democracy that we have is kept. Councils across Scotland are in straitjackets.

Planning is a particularly local issue that can at times become extremely controversial, but again the Scottish Government has seen fit to ignore and undermine the decisions that are taken at local level. Last year, the Government overruled more than half of local planning decisions. That is not accountability; that is control from the centre.

At the same time, and perhaps unsurprisingly given the Government’s approach to local government, it has continually cut funding to local government. After nine years of a council tax freeze, we are now to have a council tax rise for individuals in the community. The SNP has a new proposal, which is to cut the clear link between local democracy and local councils and individuals. Councils are to end up paying for a national priority, and we should not be doing that at all at local level.

The Scottish National Party talks about bringing power closer to the people, but that is a myth. It is interested in more powers for this place. It is hoarding powers and demanding more powers to ensure that it has as many powers as possible here, while constraining local government powers. The SNP, often aided and abetted by the Scottish Labour Party and the Greens, is the real threat to local democracy in Scotland. In sharp contrast, the United Kingdom Government has been working continually with Scottish local authorities to forge new deals, which are coming to fruition across Scotland. Those deals will allow greater flexibility for local authorities to work in partnership, continually doing all that they can to ensure that local communities do well. Giving more powers to regions will allow them to design policies that better suit their areas, to support economic growth, to facilitate more job creation and to invest in local infrastructure projects.

I urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge the fact that many decisions are best taken closer to the communities that they affect. I am happy to support the amendment in Graham Simpson’s name.

Photo of Colin Smyth Colin Smyth Labour

I declare an interest, as a local councillor.

I congratulate the Scottish Greens on choosing the issue of local democracy for today’s debate. I confess to being a bit of an admirer of Andy Wightman’s contributions on the subject over the years, which predate his election to the Parliament, and his observations today did not disappoint. I may not always agree with some of his proposed remedies for the local democratic deficit that we face—namely, his suggestion to have 180 municipalities and six or so strategic regions—but I agree 100 per cent with his short, to-the-point and easily understood motion.

No one with any credibility can dispute the fact that, after a 50-year journey of centralisation, Scotland has the most centralised relationship between local and central government in the European Union. The debate is not about whether that leaves us out of step internationally, because that is taken as read; it is a debate between those of us who recognise that if we are serious about tackling inequalities or disenchantment with politics, that position must change, and those on the other side of the debate, who think that centralisation is acceptable. Sadly, more often than not, the Scottish Government fits into the latter category, and the journey of centralisation has accelerated in Scotland in the past decade.

The Scottish Government’s instinct when establishing Police Scotland was to select a model that sucked powers and jobs from peripheral areas into the central belt and ended any meaningful local accountability. When it comes to funding local councils, there are no meaningful negotiations, just imposition, and if local government dares to call for a fair settlement, the threat of sanctions is waved in its face.

Despite the fact that, for 2016-17, the Scottish Government grant from the UK Government increased, albeit by a far too low 0.7 per cent, the Scottish Government imposed a 4.5 per cent cut in the revenue grant to local councils. On the day that income tax powers worth £12 billion will be passed to the Parliament, I can reflect on the fact that, in my decade as a local councillor, I have never once had the power to set the council tax in my area. It would never cross the mind of the Government, or the Tories, to use those new tax powers to protect funding for councils, which shows contempt not just for local government but for the services that our local communities rely on.

Recent research by the Scottish Parliament information centre, the University of Glasgow and Heriot-Watt University has shown that such services are used most by those on low incomes. Never before have we seen such disregard for local government and such a systematic breakdown in the relationship between local and central government than the one that we are witnessing today. Local government is seen not as a partner of the Scottish Government, as the minister claims, but as the enemy.

For the past five years, Scottish politics has been dominated by the debate on which powers should come to the Scottish Parliament from the UK Parliament; yet, when anyone suggests a meaningful debate on whether some of the powers of this Parliament would sit better in local government, look at the reaction of some SNP members.

Joan McAlpine, in her

Daily Record column, famously said that those wanting to devolve power to local councils did so because they wanted to “bring down our Parliament”. Apparently, according to Ms McAlpine, anyone who thinks that a local council might be better placed to deliver a back to work programme is an enemy of the state. I am sorry, but it is time for the more grown-up politicians to have a serious debate about which powers should now be devolved from this Parliament to local communities, and that includes local government.

That is very much the real unfinished business of the Smith commission. Indeed, as Lord Smith said in his introduction to the commission’s report,

“There is a strong desire to see the principle of devolution extended further”,

so maybe it is time for a Smith commission 2 to look at that work, because for all the warm words from this Government about devolving powers to communities, participatory budgeting and some of the positive aspects of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, it needs to get over its distrust of and paranoia towards democratically elected councils. It needs to take seriously the balanced, well-argued and clearly evidenced recommendations set out by the commission on strengthening local democracy—recommendations that anyone who genuinely believes in local democracy would have no problem whatsoever in supporting.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you, Mr Smyth—that was on the button. I call Graeme Dey, who is the last speaker in the open debate.

Photo of Graeme Dey Graeme Dey Scottish National Party

A direction of travel is being established around this important issue, with a bill to decentralise local authority functions and budgets and manifesto commitments from the Government party on the reform of community planning partnerships, on bringing forward, among other things, the use of citizens’ panels and town hall meetings, on introducing community choice budgeting and on looking at properly functioning community councils delivering some services.

All of that is surely welcome, but it strikes me that there are two things that should be at the core of any and all deliberations on the future nature of local democracy and on taking forward such measures. Preparedness, first, to listen; and, secondly, to fully explore the merits and practicalities of any suggestions that come forward. Let me deal with those in order.

There are reasons why people feel disconnected from the existing local democratic structures and how they deliver. We need to develop a proper understanding of that disconnect, not assume that we know the reasons and that we can identify the solutions. That will come about only through genuinely seeking and taking on board the views of the public.

I participated in a public event in Kirriemuir in my constituency a couple of months ago, looking at the future of local governance. It was well attended and ultimately—from my perspective—quite thought provoking, but by the time that I, as the last speaker, rose to make my contribution, the audience had been talked at for the best part of two hours and, worse still, one of the contributors had actually taken folk to task for not being sufficiently enthusiastic in their response to the views that were being advanced. We need to be prepared to listen, but we need also to explore, in partnership, whether what might look like a better approach would work effectively in practice.

That brings me to practicalities. It is easy to promote the introduction of lots of smaller councils without exploring how that would work in practice and whether other mechanisms might deliver greater benefits, and it is easy to identify apparently successful instances of local governance structures from other countries and to call for those to be implemented here without examining, among other things, the circumstances in which they worked and whether we could, in reality, implement them or versions of them here. Both might appeal and have their merits, but change, however well intentioned at first glance, is rarely without difficulty if not properly thought through.

We need to have genuine conversations and then explore, in partnership and very carefully, how we can improve local democracy in order to deliver real improvement of the kind that meets realistic aspirations and works. The proposals for work around the community planning partnerships might offer that chance. That is not to risk—as the commission identifies—trading away fundamental change for more modest ideas, but it is a way of exploring the pros and cons and practicalities of change and of, most important of all, setting about the whole process in a way that rebuilds eroded capacity and confidence within communities, so that they can participate effectively in decision making at a local level, which is what the report calls for.

That is the key. It is not about the structures and whether we need many more smaller councils. What we need to show is that people’s views can be listened to and delivered on, and we need to provide mechanisms for people to have a proper say in how services are delivered for their communities.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

This is becoming scary—everyone is keeping to their time. Excellent. I call Pauline McNeill to close for Labour. You have four minutes, Ms McNeill.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

Presiding Officer,

“Many people are understandably losing interest in a democracy over which they feel little influence, where decisions are taken far away from where they live”.

That is from page 6 of the report that we are debating this evening, and for me it sits at the very heart of the challenge that we face.

I always believed that the financial crash of 2008 would trigger the start of a very big public reaction, and I suspected that ordinary people would find some way of responding to the earthquake that had robbed them of their pensions, their wage rises and their belief in a modern, democratic, capitalist system. One might call that a bit strong for a debate on local democracy, but for me it is exactly the point. The revelation that the banks and the financial sector were selling people credit that they obviously could not afford highlighted the fact that, as the political economist Joseph Stiglitz put it,

“There was a party going on—only a few at the top were invited, but the rest of us would be asked to pay the bill.”

Worse than that, those people had conspired to manipulate the economy—accompanied, in some cases, by criminal actions—in the belief that they would not be found out. I believe that that event has rocked our democratic system to its core. We should also add that, in this democratic system that we have grown up in, few have been held to account for their actions, and people’s elected representatives have done little to redress the fact that it will take generations to recover from the fallout of the world recession. As we have heard in previous debates, the average pay for executives rose to £4 million between 2002 and 2012, while, over the same period, real pay did not increase at all for the average worker.

As a result, people feel remote from not just political but institutional power, and there is deep distrust of the political model and of politicians who preach business as usual. Is it any wonder that voting trends have become unpredictable? Moreover, as we have again debated, dangers lurk as right-wing parties across Europe and on our doorstep exploit people’s insecurities. I believe, therefore, that we need a radical overhaul of power and accountability at every level throughout the United Kingdom and here in Scotland.

This debate is about how we devolve power down to and from all levels of government, and I believe that that is essential if we are to restore faith in our democracy. If people are made to feel that they are closer to where decisions are made and that they are part of that decision making, it might be a start in restoring their faith in the democratic system. Local government must be trusted to take more power to govern the communities that it represents but, in turn, communities must also have more of a say in planning and long-term decision making. It will not be easy to get that right, but I agree with Andy Wightman on the need for statutory provision to embed those rights in law for local communities.

Brexit might yet prove an opportunity to devolve more power across the UK and to construct new local democratic ways of getting people involved, but that will mean a halt to the centralising agenda that this Government seems to be bound for. I commend the Government for creating the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 in the previous session of Parliament; however, although it is an excellent piece of legislation, I do not think that it has been driven with any passion so far, and I would like that to happen in this session of Parliament.

As SCVO has said, open government is all about a new relationship between citizens and the state, and it is time to make a start on that.

Photo of Adam Tomkins Adam Tomkins Conservative

The most alarming suggestion in the debate came a few moments ago when someone said that there should be some kind of Smith commission 2 to consider questions of local government in Scotland. At that appalling suggestion, Patrick Harvie and I shared, I think, a cross-party shudder.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

I am sure that your fellow Deputy Presiding Officer would share that horror, Presiding Officer—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I am not allowed to comment.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

Should there perhaps be a call not for a Smith commission 2 but for something akin to the fiscal framework between the Scottish Government and local government, not between the UK and Scottish Governments?

Photo of Adam Tomkins Adam Tomkins Conservative

I will come to that in a few moments, if I may.

The greatest single challenge facing Scotland today is how we grow our economy and, in particular, how we do so relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what Government policy should be resolutely focused on, but it should also be at the forefront of our minds when we in Scotland think about local government.

There is much in the commission on strengthening local democracy’s report with which we agree. Scotland is far too centralised, and that problem has grown much worse under the SNP. As a nation, we have not had a mature and reflective rethink of the role, scope or shape of local government in Scotland since before the dawn of devolution in 1999. The commission’s report is right about all those things. However, we cannot endorse a report that we do not altogether agree with. Andy Wightman and Alex Cole-Hamilton may be able to endorse something that they disagree with, but I agree with Bob Doris—this is a first—that that is an intellectual contortion too far.

Photo of Adam Tomkins Adam Tomkins Conservative

I am afraid that I cannot, as I do not have enough time.

The report falls down in its failure to say anything at all about the vital role that local government can and must have in boosting the local economy. As Graham Simpson said, last night in the Parliament there was a quite brilliant presentation of the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city deal bid. Like all the UK’s various city-region and other growth deals, at its core is a programme of innovative and potentially transformative economic regeneration and development.

The city that I represent—Glasgow—led the way in Scotland. When its city deal was signed in 2014, it was the richest anywhere in the United Kingdom. It was worth more than £1.1 billion to the local economy. It is fabulous that, thanks to the chancellor’s autumn statement last week, there is now to be a city deal for every city in Scotland.

The importance of that was recognised in a report that was published in June this year, which I, for one, certainly would have endorsed. However, we have never debated that report in the Parliament; I fear that that is a sign of how little the SNP Government is interested in it. “Empowering Scotland’s Cities: Empowering City Government” understands that cities and their regions are the real economic drivers of Scotland, but that, without what it calls

“radical change to the current working practices between local and central governments”,

our cities will be comprehensively “outperformed” by their “English counterparts”.

The devolution of power to England’s cities has galvanised them. They have a confidence and a sense of ambition that is evident in them and is projected to the wider world. With devolved powers, cities can better integrate transport networks, streamline planning decisions, make localised decisions on skills and support for business, and promote an attractive and competitive image and identity. That is the future of local government, that is what we need in Scotland and, unlike the Greens’ motion, that is the vision—ambitious and aspirational as it avowedly is for local government—that the Conservatives endorse.

I support Graham Simpson’s amendment.

Photo of Angela Constance Angela Constance Scottish National Party

Mr Wightman started his speech by saying that he and the Green Party do not support every detail of the COSLA commission’s report. That is the starting point for the Government, as well. I have to confess, not unreasonably, to taking quite a literal interpretation of the meaning of the word “endorses”.

Nonetheless, the debate is a good opportunity for us to begin to explore where we have common ground. I agree with Alex Rowley, who said that the COSLA commission is a good starting point.

I pay tribute to Councillor David O’Neill for his tenure in local government and his time of service in COSLA, and wish him well for when he retires next May.

The Government holds the widely shared view that local democracy in Scotland can be improved to empower communities and engage individuals with a view to delivering better outcomes. I agreed with Councillor O’Neill when he said:

“We understand how difficult it is to throw off the shackles of the current way of looking at democracy. However, the reality is that if we are serious about making Scotland fairer, wealthier and healthier then we need to start putting local communities in control over what matters to them.”

We have to balance equity with localism, of course. We have to ensure that there is equitable provision of public services at an appropriate standard, and we have to take that forward in tandem with the need for greater local decision making and local autonomy and flexibility.

I stress to Mr Simpson and others that there is a tripartite interest in making those improvements. That work has to span local government and the Scottish Government and, most important, it has to include communities. That is why the working group that will be established will include the Scottish Government, COSLA and, on an equal basis, community organisations. That working group will build on the platform of the work that has gone before it. It will lead into the introduction of the local democracy bill.

Photo of Angela Constance Angela Constance Scottish National Party

No, thank you. I am usually generous with my time, but not today.

I can reassure Mr Simpson that there is no tablet of stone. He should not believe everything that he reads in the Sunday papers. We are going forward with the bill in the spirit of co-production.

In response to the claims of centralisation, I point out that the number of councillors who scrutinise Police Scotland has actually doubled since the reforms. Police Scotland also has local plans at multimember ward level. We have 31 integrated joint boards whose elected members are involved in the scrutiny and implementation of health and social care reforms. This Government brought forward, with much passion and relish, the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

Regarding city deals, as a Government we will invest £760 million in the next 10 to 20 years to support that vision of economic growth becoming a reality. However, I confess that we do not have much enthusiasm for mayors. I have not detected any strong desire across Scotland for directly elected mayors with that executive power. To me, that would seem to be an example of centralisation.

The Scottish social attitudes survey of August 2016 tells us that 96 per cent of Scots think that local people should be involved in making decisions about the design and delivery of their public services and how resources are spent. This is the point where I disagree with Mr Wightman. I believe that community empowerment and community involvement have to be at the very heart of local governance, and they have to be at the very heart of the debate that we take forward about the changes that need to be made in local democracy.

We have to move to service provision by communities and not necessarily always on behalf of communities. That approach will very much inform our thinking as we take public sector reform to its next stage.

All the discussion, thinking and reports—whether it is the work of the COSLA commission, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee in the previous parliamentary session, the Jimmy Reid Foundation or the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—have laid strong foundations. The challenge for us all now is to get on with the work of translating words into deeds and building the new democratic framework for Scotland. We have to continue to listen to and learn from experts. We cannot cherry pick from other countries; we have to really look and learn and apply what we learn to the Scottish context. We have to recognise, as we work together on the next chapter of our democratic story, that no one size fits all in terms of the agenda that we pursue.

I am very conscious of the cost to the public purse of the last round of local government reorganisation. I am also conscious of the need to build capacity in communities. That is why we have invested heavily in the empowering communities fund and the people and communities fund at £20 million.

Photo of Alison Johnstone Alison Johnstone Green

I thank all those who have contributed to this lively debate. I welcome the comments by the cabinet secretary on the introduction of a local democracy bill, and I hope that it signals a move away from further centralisation.

I point out to Graham Simpson of the Scottish Conservatives and Bob Doris that their representatives on the commission did not dissent from the recommendations of the report.

Photo of Alison Johnstone Alison Johnstone Green

I will not give way at this point.

Alex Rowley was right to highlight that empowerment is experienced in different ways by different people, according to their circumstances. Alex Cole-Hamilton was right to point out the opposition to the Government’s top-slicing of council tax. It is a priority that is shared, but local authorities must be empowered to raise revenue.

As for Alexander Stewart’s painting of Andy Wightman as the greatest threat to local democracy, what can I say?

The Scottish Greens’ manifesto said that

“Scotland can be a bolder democracy”.

I am sure that we all agree. In his book, “The Missing Scotland”, Willie Sullivan reminds us that 10 per cent and more of potential voters are not registered and are not voting in elections. By international comparisons, that is not too bad, but Willie rightly says:

“Gratitude at not being the worst should not translate into an acceptance of not being as good as we could be.”

In the heat of an election campaign, we focus entirely on those who intend to vote, but afterwards, when we learn of turnouts as low as 20 per cent in some wards in local authority elections, we carry on as before: there are areas in Scotland in which 80 per cent of people have declined to exercise their right to vote. In Iceland in 2006, turnout dropped below 80 per cent for the first time, and there was an academic inquiry into that and soul searching about why it had happened.

The “Act as if we own the place” campaign commissioned the Electoral Reform Society to poll people, and only 1 per cent said that local politics interests them more than watching the telly. Some 46 per cent said that they would rather stay in bed than vote, and almost a quarter said that they would rather finish the ironing.

However, a strong democracy is not just about voting, so I was heartened to learn that in the same poll 45 per cent said that they would give up at least half a day each month to improve their local community. That does not surprise me. As a grass-roots activist and then councillor in Edinburgh, I met hundreds of people who were actively campaigning to keep their schools and nurseries open, fighting to save the only local green play space or attempting to overcome the might of professional power and vested interests that put global chain stores before shops where local folk could buy their tea.

People are passionate about what happens in their streets and communities, but in all those cases the community view was rejected, no matter how many meetings people had attended or how many people had completed what they saw as infuriating tick-box consultations. They had spent months meeting in each others’ homes, reading complex council papers, poring over planning proposals, making home-made banners and writing to the local press, and at times they were up against the might of paid lawyers, lobbyists and developers—professionals with expertise and budgets to match.

After such experiences, many people despair and feel disempowered and, to be frank, scunnered. Indeed, the old town community council, which represented the part of Edinburgh that we are in, disbanded entirely following an unequal and demoralising planning battle.

Too often, politics and democracy are seen as things that are done to people rather than with them. If we believe—the Scottish Greens and I do—that decisions that impact on people’s lives should be taken where they most impact on people, the local decision-making bodies must be fully empowered. Fiscal empowerment is key to empowering local government to deliver the outcomes that we want. Lack of empowerment is having a negative effect on engagement.

Elections at community council level are a rarity—and no wonder. Although local participation in budget setting is slowly increasing, it is fair to say that the amounts are far from transformative. Communities are told what spend they can and cannot affect with their votes, and although many bring great experience as statutory consultees in areas such as planning and licensing, the voluntary time and effort that are expended by community councils too often come to naught.

We can do so much better. The difference between voter turnouts in the most affluent and least affluent parts of the country is stark, but engaging our disengaged communities is the key to addressing inequality, because empowerment is the key to increasing wellbeing. Not surprisingly, people who enjoy better health are far more likely to vote in elections.

I ask members to imagine that the active people that I have spoken about are able to put their skills to more positive use. Instead of taking on the council, they could work with it as equal partners. Scotland can revive local democracy by devolving more powers to local councils and requiring them to include local communities in decision making.

Change is required. Our local authorities are not really all that local—John Finnie mentioned making a 3.5 hour trip in order to be involved in a planning decision. We need to build on the cross-party work that went into the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities’ commission on strengthening local democracy. The final report sets the scene and explains the context. Scotland’s local government is not local and the default position is, increasingly, that efficient delivery means centralisation. By all means let us be challenged by the recommendations in the report, but let us welcome them, proudly endorse them and vote for the Green motion this evening.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

A vote took place at the beginning of this month on the Council Tax (Substitution of Proportion) (Scotland) Order 2016. All the information that was provided by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament information centre made clear that the order was changing only the council tax multiplier and contained nothing at all about how the money would be spent or by whom. However, during today’s debate, Graham Simpson accused the Greens of supporting centralisation by voting for that order.

Presiding Officer, I understand that if Mr Simpson is purely trying to misrepresent our position, that is a matter for him and not for you, but may we have your assurance that all the information that was provided to Parliament on the matter was accurate? Surely we need to have the confidence to say that Mr Simpson is entirely responsible for his complete failure to understand what he was voting for.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

Thank you for the advance notice of your point of order.

I will assess the information for myself. You have made a debating point, not a point of order.

That concludes our debate on local democracy.