SP Paper 948 (Web)
Contents
Report
Membership Change
Public Engagement
Scrutiny of Legislation
Inquiries
Scrutiny of Public Bodies
Our Guiding Principles
Remit and membership
Remit:
To consider and report on a) the financing and delivery of local government and local services, and b) planning, and c) matters relating to regeneration falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment.
Membership:
Kevin Stewart (Convener)
John Wilson (Deputy Convener)
George Adam
Jayne Baxter
Cameron Buchanan
Willie Coffey
Cara Hilton
Legacy Paper
Membership Changes
1. One of the issues for the Committee has been the number of membership changes over the course of the session. Only Kevin Stewart of the original committee remains and of the others only John Wilson and Cameron Buchanan have been members for over two years.
2. The result of the extensive changes has disrupted continuity of purpose with changes during inquiries making it harder for new members to fully contribute. We would strongly encourage the next parliament and our successor committee to seek at all times to minimise changes to membership. Similarly all of the clerking team have changed during the course of the session with resulting impacts on continuity.
Public Engagement
3. The feature of our work during this session has been to focus our attention on and engage with the public and stakeholders. To that end the Committee made visits the length and breadth of the country from Shetland to the Borders, and Stornoway to Dundee and Aberdeen as well as numerous other places. While out of Edinburgh we held formal committee meetings and informal events always trying to reach out to and talk with communities.
4. We endeavoured to meet people on their own terms and recognised the necessity of meaningful consultation in our work. In this report we highlight areas in which we have made a difference and those in which the input we have received has been invaluable. We have found no shortage of the public willing to engage with us and tell us their own stories and about their experiences. To each and every one of the thousands of people across the country we have engaged with we are extremely grateful.
5. We made a deliberate effort to be at the forefront of all engagement media available to us, often leading the way in the use of new technologies and methods and have found huge advantages accruing from these attempts. This report, as well as highlighting what we achieved as a committee over the session, shows the methods we used in our attempts to engage. We commend this approach of meeting public services users and to our successors and cannot emphasise enough the benefits gained from the conversations we had and the information received on how services and proposals affect them.
Here are the views of Kevin Stewart, Committee convener on the importance of engagement and the Committee getting out and about and meeting people -
As Convener of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, I have tried to ensure our work has been driven by the views of those who use the local services provided by councils and others. This engagement focus on our work has meant we have met with folks on their own turf, whenever possible, and across the length and breadth of Scotland. We have used social media extensively, particularly through making a number of videos and using Facebook and Twitter.
We have also tried to engage with the widest possible number of organisations and we have learnt much from looking further afield and meeting with officials and politicians undertaking similar work outwith Scotland.
All of this engagement work has had a positive effect on our understanding of issues and allowed us to have a ‘people focus’ at all times which is particularly important for a local government committee. Our targeted approach during our work on the Air Weapons and Licensing Bill was particularly successful allowing an important group to give us their thoughts which improved our scrutiny of the legislation.
6. Our year-long inquiry into Regeneration had engagement at its heart. The inquiry included five fact finding visits around the country to a range of local projects and we saw at first-hand how communities are fundamental to regeneration. Our overall conclusion was that successful regeneration must involve the communities from design to delivery; our evidence showed regeneration can only be truly and long lastingly effective if “done by people”. We were clear that all those involved in regeneration were not placing enough emphasis on true community participation, particularly in the design stage; community engagement must sit at the heart of this process. At its core regeneration is about poverty, but it is essential initiatives are not “done to people”, they must involve those affected as closely as possible.
7. We were clear regeneration cannot be achieved overnight and the many initiatives need time to work and must place communities at their core. We very much hope and encourage our successor committee to pick up the regeneration baton and to follow up on our report to ensure progress continues to be made with lessons from past failings learned.
Scrutiny of Legislation
8. Public engagement was fundamental to our scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill and in anticipation of the Bill being introduced we visited communities and held engagement events across Scotland. That preliminary work gave us a good feel for the communities’ ambition for the Bill which in turn enabled us to scrutinise the legislation leading to a number of our recommendations to increase empowerment being accepted. We strengthened the role of the public in participation requests and asset transfers also the requirements on public authorities particularly in reporting and allowing them to be scrutinised.
9. As we considered the Community Empowerment Bill we started to utilise the power of video to seek the views of a wider audience than we had previously managed to reach. The videos, which were distributed by the Scottish Parliament and stakeholders social media networks, showed real-life outworking’s of the subject matter and emphasised the need for people to make their voices heard, signposting how they could become involved.
By focussing on specific aspects of the Bill we reached further into specific communities, for example, allotment holders and within our videos we sought to also incorporate information on how the legislative process works. We concluded our work on this Bill with a further video highlighting how we had listened and acted on contributions received. That video featured contributions from two groups, The Usual Place and the Woodlot Society, for whom engagement with us directly led to their hopes and aspirations being realised.
Here is what John Wilson, Committee member had to say about working with the committee to achieve change:
As a member of the committee since 2011 I have had the privilege of being involved in the scrutiny of government legislation and Member’s bills, including Community Empowerment and Blue Badge Scheme. The role of the committee has been positive in its scrutiny in ensuring that any legislation going forward should be fit for purpose.
The committee has also been responsible for receiving oral evidence from a number of public bodies on the delivery of services and accountability for dealing with the public, particularly SPSO.
One of the main innovations of the committee over this session has been the level of public engagement, particularly with community groups and individuals. This has involved holding formal and informal committee meetings throughout Scotland which has allowed us to hear evidence from a wide range of groups and individuals who would not normally have engaged with the scrutiny process.
10. Alongside the Community Empowerment Bill we also considered the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. Much of the content of that legislation was new to us and we divided the Committee membership across the different subjects to develop our knowledge through direct engagement with stakeholders. This approach enabled us to hear informally from many in advance of formal consideration and was immensely helpful in guiding and informing our inquiry.
11. During our stage 1 consideration of the Firearms and Licensing Bill we identified the taxi trade had not engaged with us. The subsequent YouTube video (see below) we produced alongside a targeted Facebook post was successful in eliciting numerous comments on the taxi proposals, including hearing from those we had previously failed to hear from through more established/traditional means. These are approaches we commend to our successors.
12. Our final video was produced to support a short inquiry into fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) and sought to explain what FOBTs are and invite input. The level of engagement was terrific, and encouraged our subsequent finding that the proposed legislation was inadequate and needed to be widened. We used a short clip embedded on the Parliament twitter account to publicise our report. The whole area of FOBTs is one we would encourage our successors to monitor closely; whether the Scotland Bill is strengthened or not we consider action must be taken to address the damage these machines can cause.
13. One area we did not investigate which is linked to other new Scotland Act powers is the operation of Trading Standards across Scotland. Given the addition of some consumer protection and competition powers and the potential for Scottish legislation this is an area our successors may wish to consider for inquiry.
14. We also anticipate that the Footway Parking and Double-Parking (Scotland) Bill will be reintroduced in session 5. We scrutinised this as a member’s bill and although not at that time within the Parliament’s powers an amendment to the Scotland Bill would give this Parliament competence and the Bill is likely to be reintroduced in some form. Our inquiry into the provisions was aided by video, an online questionnaire and a Facebook conversation. In total we received over 4500 submissions, the overwhelming majority of which supported legislation to address inconsiderate parking. We sought to put pressure on both Scottish and UK Governments which has led to proposed resolution of the competency issues.
Inquiries
15. During the session we used our time to conduct a number of inquiries. We endeavoured where possible, to link our inquiry work to forthcoming pieces of legislation and to make our inquiries relevant to the public. In doing so we sought to choose inquiring topics which would benefit public service users.
16. For example our first inquiry was into the Living Wage and we sought to drive forward the implementation of the living wage across the public sector. We encouraged the Scottish Government to accelerate this work and we are pleased to note the progress now being made, in particular, recent proposals for all social care workers to receive the living wage by 1 October 2016.
17. Also early in the session we commenced a three part inquiry into Public Services Reform. This was as a direct result of our predecessor’s suggestions and followed closely on the work of the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services (“the Christie Commission”).
18. Part of that work focussed on benchmarking activity within local government and we were instrumental in driving forward to completion the initial plans which had stalled. We have kept a close eye on progress, not only with the development of indicators but more importantly how they are used to drive improvement, by holding an annual session with the Improvement Service and local authority chief executives. Progress and benefits have not been as widespread as we would have hoped and more needs to be done. Nevertheless we consider the scheme to be fundamental in the drive for improvement and efficiency across public services.
19. For the third part of the Public Services Reform inquiry we looked closely at community planning partnerships (CPPs). These bodies are fundamental to the delivery of public services and while we have been generally disappointed in progress we note the determination of the Scottish Government to ensure reform as suggested by the Christie Commission and, particularly an increased focus on early intervention being delivered through CPPs. The Community Empowerment Act requires CPPs to publish local outcome improvement plans which will assist in monitoring how well they are performing.
20. Reform of local government also featured in our Autonomy and Flexibility inquiry for which some of us visited Germany, Sweden and Denmark to see first-hand how local government works in other countries and what lessons could be learned. Our subsequent report which recommended the need for the reform of local government finance, but not the structure, led directly to the establishment of the Commission on Local Tax Reform whose work will inform the reform of local taxation we expect to see early in the next session. We imagine this will become a significant piece of work for our successor and would encourage it to look closely at progress of the Christie Commission reforms as well, particularly the operation of community planning partnerships.
22. We have also scrutinised three other members' bills this session all of which have become law. The Disabled Persons' Parking Places, the Buildings (Recovery of Expenses) and the High Hedges Bills have all now been implemented and the last of these requires, during session 5, a review of how well it is working. Post-legislative scrutiny is something we would support for other legislation once a sufficient period has elapsed after commencement for the impact to be assessed. Our suggested period for review of the High Hedges (Scotland) Act after 5 years was agreed by Parliament.
23. The final piece of legislation we considered was the Burials and Cremation (Scotland) Bill. That Bill created a framework for the making of subordinate legislation most of which we would anticipate will fall to our successors to scrutinise. The approach taken on that Bill to leave most substantive policy to secondary legislation reduced the opportunity for engagement and external comment. It also confirmed a need for close scrutiny when the consequential subordinate legislation is referred to the Committee.
24. As with the Burials and Cremation Bill we were a secondary committee when scrutinising the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. In terms of looking ahead we considered how the linkage to CPPs would operate and recommend a need for local authorities to continue to hold the police and fire services to account. The task of ongoing services, which hitherto has been undertaken by a separate committee could in future be a matter for our successors to scrutinise.
25. For completion we also scrutinised the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc.) (Scotland) Bill.
Here is what Jayne Baxter, Committee member had to say about working with the committee and a committee’s role in holding the government to account.
I have enjoyed the experience of being on the Committee. The Work Programme was relevant and well organised, which gave me the opportunity to understand the topics and get the information I needed both to hold the Government to account and debate the issues with colleagues.
26. Over the session we have undertaken in total around a dozen inquiries some, such as looking at the Planning Framework and Climate Change, in conjunction with other committees. Both of these can be expected to feature again in the next session. In particular we have been keeping a close eye on progress of the Independent Review of the Scottish Planning Review System, which is due to report in May 2016.
27. Another inquiry, the outcome of which remains outstanding, was our scrutiny of the Scottish Local Authority Election 2012. Much of that work was undertaken for us by two members acting as reporters, an approach which allowed more in-depth and informal evidence to be gathered leading to a wide range of recommendations for change or improvement. The Scottish Government subsequently consulted on most of our recommendations and while the outcome of that work has been stalled, we would anticipate a report being made and possible implementation early in the new session.
28. We have twice appointed European Reporters this session due to changes in the committee membership and annually agreed our EU priorities. In addition, and where possible, we mainstreamed consideration of EU issues into our work programme. During this session we considered the draft EU procurement Directive and kept a watching brief on other EU issues, such as the implementation of the 2014-20 European Structural Funds Programmes in Scotland and its potential impact on local government.
29. Our final two inquiries were undertaken as part of our budget scrutiny when we looked at the potential for local government pension funds to invest more locally in infrastructure schemes. We saw no reason for Scottish pension funds not to follow the example in Greater Manchester where we heard about the benefits accruing to all parties from local pension fund investment.
30. While visiting Manchester we also saw the potential from city deals and looked at how they were developing in Scotland. We saw the potential they could bring although retaining concerns around their governance and how they are to be held accountable. We also expressed concerns, shared by our equivalent committee at Westminster, around the lack of involvement by the general public along with worries about whether those areas without a city deal will be left behind. This is another area where our successors might want to keep a close eye upon progress.
31. The above inquiries followed our decision to mainstream our budget scrutiny into all of our work throughout the year as opposed to a bespoke inquiry held in the Autumn. That approach allows more time to examine issues and the potential to review progress year on year if desired. We also invited the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy to discuss the annual local authority settlement with us before it was debated by the Parliament. That allowed us to look closely at allocations across the board and better understand the rationale being adopted in the settlements.
32. An issue we returned to several times was the operation by local authorities of Arm’s Length External Organisations (ALEOs). We have been particularly interested in governance arrangements and over the course of the session have explored these with councillors, Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. Our report at the end of the session noted developments while sounding a cautionary note around accountability going forward.
Scrutiny of Public Bodies
33. In addition to asking the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland about ALEOs we have also considered his annual report each year with a particular interest in his work with local authorities. We have been pleased to note no significant issues have arisen albeit the year before an election will inevitably see an increase in complaints. At the end of the session we discussed a possible need for amendments to the councillors’ code of conduct and requested the Commissioners views on what changes might be desirable.
Here is what Cameron Buchanan, Committee member had to say about being a new member and what committee work meant for him:
My first day was spent on a building site in Dundee. Quite an introduction to a subject I knew very little about. My background is a business one not as a former local councillor.
We have covered a lot of topics and I have found myself growing in knowledge as well as confidence in participating particularly in the witness sessions we have held.
The best thing about the Committee is that it has gone out of its way to engage with the public and I have found round table sessions we have done in Inverness, Stornoway and Dumfries of particular value.
I suppose because I came at things from a different angle I found it all very interesting and have really enjoyed it.
34. Alongside scrutiny of the above Commission we have also heard from the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) on an annual basis. Our main interest has been to scrutinise his annual report and consider how well he is performing against his strategic objectives.
35. We consider there is huge potential for the SPSO to keep the Parliament informed of how the public sector is performing, he could be “a window on the world” for committees. By way of an example we were pleased to take forward and resolve concerns over the slow progress being made in adopting a common complaints handling system as a consequence of the integration of health and social care. We asked the SPSO to investigate ways under which he can alert committees to potential systemic issues as a result of his work.
36. This year we have shown considerable interest in his new strategic plan and proposed approach to scrutiny. As the number of complaints continues to rise and resources become stretched across the public sector we are keen the office adopts a proportionate approach to prioritise cases of wider public interest. We consider the SPSO should have a greater role in adding value to the operation of our public services by taking greater account of the potential for its work to add value and not solely confining its activities to securing apologies for complainers. Our successors may want to consider how in future years the SPSO balances its workload against available resources.
37. In relation to the SPSO we tended to receive considerable correspondence from those with an interest in their operation. While this has the benefit of allowing us to hear directly from parties who have interacted with SPSO it also became a platform for a small number of people to promote particular concerns. We suggest our successors continue to scrutinise SPSO operations but keep a close eye on the behaviour of complainants; we had occasion to eventually exclude two from communicating with our clerks.
Our Guiding Principles
38. When we took evidence on our legacy one former local authority chief Executive urged us to draw out some principles to guide our successors. We can only set out what has worked for us as follows:
- Engagement with the public is the key to understanding issues and their potential impacts. There are now many different mediums available depending on the circumstances and audience. Such engagement comes best when people can be certain their engagement matters and building such trust takes time and commitment.
- Challenge of those who develop, set and implement policies in public bodies is a critical role for the Scottish Parliament and particularly its committees. As MSPs, we all have our own experiences and local knowledge. We sought to trust and use these in our work and we would encourage our successors to do the same.
- Communities are the main “building block” for public service design and delivery. A considerable amount of our work was with communities and we found it important to recognise there is no single definition of what constitutes a community. We have considered any group with a common interest to be a community.
- Process can be the enemy of good intentions. Too often in our hearings we heard officials and others argue that delivering a process achieves an outcome. We came to see this as ‘Tick-box’ mentality. Too many bodies have sought to hide behind processes while focusing on inputs. We have maintained a focus on outcomes, principally outcomes for people. When possible we have sought to engage with local people, not necessarily ‘representatives’, to establish what outcomes really mean for those affected by policies, programmes and/or projects.
- We have found a general reluctance to innovate and take risks. Our experience suggests innovation involves ‘trial and error’. Our evidence suggests all public sector innovation succeeds! We do not find that credible. We realise that our current media environment does not create a culture where ‘failure’ is acceptable, especially in terms of developing and delivering public services. We encourage our successors to reflect on this and find ways of investing in innovation, making it easier to admit failure and publicise the lessons learned.
- Equally we have found a reluctance to share best practice and learn from others. Our experience has convinced us that ‘one size does not fit all’ particularly in such a diverse country as Scotland. That said, too much of our evidence suggests that some see, and use, local characteristics/circumstances as a barrier to change. We simply do not accept that.
Any links to external websites in this report were working correctly at the time of publication. However, the Scottish Parliament cannot accept responsibility for content on external websites.
Back to top