Chamber and committees

Good morning to the online panel—it is nice to see you again. I have a couple of questions on costs and barriers to elected office. Given on-going issues, and given that unions are balloting their members on pay-related strike action, how would a 40 per cent pay rise for councillors be received by the wider local government workforce?

That is helpful—thank you. Another recommendation was to introduce severance payments for councillors losing their seats at elections. We already have a set of principles for MSPs—the payment, half of which is taxed, is up to two terms’ salary, depending on the terms served. When the single transferable vote was first brought in for council wards, payments were provided to councillors who were standing down. Will the witnesses explain how severance payments would work? What costs might be attached to that?

I will move on to my next question. We previously heard SLARC’s recommendations on establishing a dynamic national data set to look at the composition of our councils and councillors. Does COSLA have views on why that has not been made available to date? How could we create that? The committee has looked at that and found that some self-reported information has not been available and that there were general data protection regulation issues in looking at councillors standing down. Do you have a view on that?

Good morning to the panel. Thanks for joining us today. Where did the recommendation come from that the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council leaders’ salaries, given their responsibilities, be pegged to MSP salaries? What was the rationale for that? As an Edinburgh MSP, I see our leaders at most things that I attend, so I know how busy they are. Should they instead be pegged to, for example, the salary of an English mayor?

That is helpful. The principles are the same as those for MSPs in the Parliament.

On the recommendation that councillor pay be a percentage of Scottish public sector average pay from 2022, why was that time chosen instead of more recent pay points?

You have touched on the subject of my next question. I calculate that about £5 million extra is needed for the whole package that is recommended. You believe that the Scottish Government should help to meet that cost. Are there any other options in councils to help to cover that cost, or is it purely for the Scottish Government?

I have a wider question about the pipeline. That was one of our biggest concerns when we looked at NPF4, and we were reassured that it would not be a problem. However, developers are telling us that it is very much a problem. NPF4 has obviously removed the ability to support unallocated housing sites. Where is the Government on that? To get the balance right, could the Government consider having national interim planning guidance on some sites that have not been brought forward?

Thanks.

I have a couple of questions on different topics. The first is about 20-minute neighbourhoods. The committee has heard a number of concerns with regard to the centralisation of services and the commercial pressures on developers in realising those neighbourhoods. Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to unlock such developments?

My question is about the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods and the services for people within them. That also brings me on to my second question, which is about the infrastructure-first approach, so that people have services on their doorstep. For most developments, that is planned through a phased delivery, but it relates to services such as schools and general practitioner surgeries.

The committee has heard quite a lot, too, about leisure and retail facilities that are sometimes promised but not realised. NPF4 does not seem to have delivered some of that community infrastructure at this stage.