It gives me great pleasure to open on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s behalf this debate on our report on flexibility and autonomy in local government. The report was completed shortly before the summer recess, and the Parliament has the benefit of the Scottish Government’s response to it. Also relevant is the report of the commission on strengthening local democracy, which was set up and run by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I might touch on aspects of that report later but, for now, I will concentrate on our report.
Earlier this year, the committee agreed to undertake a short inquiry into the levels of flexibility and autonomy available to local government in Scotland. In many ways, it was a natural follow-on from other work that we have undertaken this session, such as our three-stage report on public service reform, our work on the delivery of regeneration and our report on turnout at the previous local government elections.
We wanted to inform the on-going debate on whether local democratic structures need to be strengthened and enhanced. We thought that our work would be timely, given the other activity that was taking place across our country, but we never realised just how timely it would turn out to be as the year unfolded and the focus turned more and more towards local democracy. In particular, we wanted to know how local government could become more effective, more accountable and more accessible to people and communities.
In the course of our inquiry, three committee members went on a whistle-stop tour of Hamburg, Copenhagen and Malmö during this year’s Easter recess to talk to local politicians in each place and compare how their local democratic systems worked. We heard from academics, council leaders, members of the commission that I mentioned earlier, leaders of minority groupings on councils and the office bearers in the newly re-established Scottish Provosts Association. We also used videolink technology to speak to politicians in the Åland Islands, before hearing from the then Minister for Local Government and Planning.
Of course, we were extremely keen to hear local people’s views. The committee does a lot of that; in fact, in the past couple of years, we have covered the length and breadth of the country, from Shetland to Dumfries and from Stornoway to Glasgow, Ayr, Cumbernauld, Dundee and, of course, Aberdeen. We have used Twitter to run discussions; we have listened to folks on web exchanges; and we are now the first committee on these islands to have its own Instagram account—although I must be honest and say that I do not really know how it works.
We have lots of tales to tell, but the one constant message that we have received loud and clear is that democracy must not start and finish at national or even council headquarters level. It must become more effective, more accountable and more accessible to people and communities. The Parliament should remember that we wrote our report before the events of 18 September and the mobilisation of civic Scotland in becoming involved in decisions that affect it.
Even before we started our current scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, we knew—because we had been told again and again—that if communities are to be empowered those powers must be passed down through the tiers of government. Let me say straight away that local authorities have powers to devolve functions and budgets to a community level. We know that, and they know that, but it is not happening and we were keen to find out why it was not.
We divided our report into five parts, and I will say a few words about each while concentrating mostly on flexibility. I repeat that there is ample opportunity for local authorities to be more flexible, devolve down and not only involve but empower local people.
It is interesting that the report of the commission on strengthening local democracy majors on increasing the number of local authorities and councillors while agreeing with us about the need to devolve power to the most appropriate level, to enhance subsidiarity and to remove centralist controlling tendencies. The message that we received from those in the communities that we consulted was clear—they have no interest in authorities’ size or structure; what concerns them is their ability to influence bodies.
We agree with the Scottish Provosts Association, which consists of long-serving councillors who have lived through previous reorganisations. It advised against significant change to existing structures. Like a number of other witnesses, the association’s representatives pointed to changes that are happening that range from the sharing of services and functions to joint boards and, of course, the sharing of budgets. The association was clear, as was the minister, that any new structures would be a distraction and simply divert attention from devolving powers.
The Scottish Community Alliance suggested that there is no doubt that councils have invested heavily in attempting to engage communities more effectively, before adding that most attempts have resulted in abject failure. We wondered why that was, as local authorities talk constantly about subsidiarity. Most communities disagreed with the suggestion. They told us that councillors are too remote and in particular that power is centralised. That happened in the Western Isles, where communities think that there is far too much focus on Stornoway; it also happened just the other week when we visited Fort William, where communities think that power is centralised far too much in Inverness.
Local communities—to a man, woman and schoolchild—all want more influence, involvement and autonomy. We were frequently told, “Our opinions do not count; the decision has been made.” However, some councillors told us that it is very easy to work with communities if we put our minds to it. That is not about having a chat with people; it is about empowering the community.
Why is that not happening? Why are communities not being empowered to make local decisions? Local authority councillors and officials told us that they are restricted in what they are allowed to do and the actions that they can take. Examples were given of restrictions preventing them from devolving budgets or empowering local communities. Every time we heard that, we asked what the barrier was, what was preventing them from acting, what was the reason for the restriction and why action could not happen. Do you know what, Presiding Officer? They generally admitted that the barrier was their own self-given restrictions and internal cultures. They agreed that they have the tools and ability and that the barriers exist mainly in their mindsets.
Addressing that takes courage and willpower. That applies on both sides. Local authorities must display that courage and willpower, but so too must communities, to demand empowerment then take it and use it when offered. Many opportunities are coming in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill but, frankly, many exist. The bill is largely a measure to force authorities to do what they should have been doing for many years—engaging meaningfully, involving communities and devolving responsibility and accountability to the lowest possible level.
We heard about and discussed who should exercise devolved powers in communities. There was a lot of talk about community councils getting more powers—mainly, it has to be said, from community councillors. Frankly, we do not think that it matters who the powers go to, as long as they are representative of the community. We need a flexible approach, and if a body is respected by and representative of the community—be it a residents, housing or tenants association, a community trust or centre or whatever—it should be offered powers to exercise on the community’s behalf. Those powers should be accompanied by budgets to exercise on behalf of the same communities.
Our second strand, on public engagement, also covered turnout at local elections. In our report on the 2012 local government elections, we made a number of recommendations covering voter turnout, postal and proxy voting, ordering of the ballot paper and the timing of elections. We made recommendations about increasing diversity, the age of voters and other equality matters. Perhaps the minister will update the Parliament on when the results of his subsequent consultation will be published and how the recommendations that we made are to be addressed.
I do not propose to dwell on our third strand, which related to funding mechanisms, as the committee unanimously agreed that those mechanisms require to be addressed and that a resolution requires to be reached before the next local elections in 2017. We recommended that an independent cross-party commission be established to take that work forward. I am pleased that the Government seems to agree with us and look forward to that commission starting its work soon. Perhaps the minister will take the opportunity to update us on the plans and to confirm what the commission will look at.
Our fourth strand looked at remote, peripheral and island communities. We support the principle of joint working between the island authorities and their receiving more powers. That would allow them to implement bespoke policies in their areas. A flexible approach is required. We were pleased to learn that the Lerwick declaration applies equally to all parts of Scotland. We did not see a need or see it as desirable for all local authorities to have identical powers.
In our fifth strand, we considered the level of legal flexibility and autonomy from central Government that local government should enjoy. Local authorities exercise many duties on the people’s behalf. Some duties are mandatory, such as schooling, social welfare and housing duties; other powers—to promote economic development, the arts and tourism, for example—are discretionary.
When academic witnesses wondered why devolution had not followed through to local government, they talked about a tendency for central control and suggested that parties in opposition are generally keen on decentralisation and that parties in government centralise. They said that the same applies to councils, which perhaps illustrates a controlling tendency across all politicians at whatever level when they are in power. I do not think that that necessarily applies to all politicians. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill is an example that shows where we can do much better.
In a number of our reports, we have said that retaining control at the centre—whether that is Inverness, Stornoway, Edinburgh or Westminster—stifles innovation and stops risk taking. Governments and councils have democratic mandates, but we maintain that they should be exercised with or by the people and that things should not be done to people. We expect the risk-aversion culture to be addressed. Only in that way will staff and communities become empowered, and only then will innovation be encouraged.
We want local authorities to use their existing powers better and to adopt greater flexibility in their policies and practices. Structures should suit communities, not the centre, and we expect different structures in different places, within and across authorities.
The role of central Government should be to specify core services and set minimum standards. Thereafter, local authorities should be free—indeed, they are free at the moment—to determine which standards need to be exceeded locally, whether that is across their region or in more discrete areas. They should be able to act flexibly to reflect local need and, in making such decisions, we are clear that they are properly exercising their democratic functions. We expect services to differ to meet needs across the country. Communities should not all expect identical service provision beyond agreed levels.
Our report is fairly wide ranging, albeit that it is on the single subject of local government. It was unanimous; all of us agreed with every one of our conclusions. I hope that members agree that it was timely. I look forward to hearing contributions from members across the chamber.
I am delighted to move the motion. I move,
That the Parliament notes the findings of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s 8th Report 2014 (Session 4), Flexibility and Autonomy in Local Government (SP Paper 573).
14:43