Meeting of the Parliament 03 February 2015
Lyndon Johnson said:
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
For me, that is a good starting point on the bill. I welcome the fact that the minister has said today, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights has said previously, that they want to have more discussions and are willing to consider addressing some of the issues in the bill at stage 2. The Labour Party certainly supports the principle of the bill, but we see a need for greater clarity, and there are still far too many unanswered questions; I hope to go through a few of them. I will highlight one. On participation requests, I say that if there is no right to appeal—there is uncertainty on that, in some senses—what is the point?
The bill needs teeth and more strength. Marco Biagi said that “inequalities are reduced” when we empower communities, and I do not disagree with that, but I am not sure that the bill will do that, particularly if we are aiming at the least empowered communities. A real worry about that comes through in the evidence to the committee. Therefore, the bill needs more strength and more teeth if we are serious about community empowerment. I am not sure that it actually goes there.
There is a great need for improvement in the bill, which is why I commend Kevin Stewart and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for the exhaustive work that they have carried out. They have produced a report that contains a range of detailed recommendations. That demonstrates not only that the committee has been active in taking evidence but that it has listened to that evidence. I am sure that the committee’s recommendations will form the basis of discussions with the Government, as we move forward.
I draw attention to the Finance Committee’s report. We cannot go past today without highlighting that, although that committee
“acknowledges the difficulties faced in quantifying potential future costs arising from services that will be demand driven”,
it
“remains concerned that, despite the requirements of Standing Orders, best estimates have not been fully provided.”
A number of local authorities gave evidence to the Finance Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, and highlighted many concerns. For instance, East Lothian Council said:
“Local government will incur extra cost as a result of these provisions (which constitute a new legislative burden) and it is not possible to allocate money to these”.
There were submissions from Inverclyde Council, Glasgow City Council, North Ayrshire Council and North Lanarkshire Council, all of which raised legitimate concerns. The bill team confirmed that
“That would be part of the normal discussions with local authorities through the annual budgeting process”
and that
“Local authorities would have to demonstrate and quantify what was involved and then go into discussions with the Scottish Government.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 8 October 2014; c 55.]
As we know, local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland—regardless of their political colour—are currently cutting front-line services.