Chamber and committees

Good morning, Ali, and thanks for joining us today. I want to discuss the introduction of another set of politicians—elected mayors and provosts. We have touched on that, but I would like to hear more of your thoughts on it. Is there evidence of elected mayors increasing accountability, improving community engagement and delivering better outcomes for people? What are your thoughts on that? What has Reform Scotland said about the suggestion?

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I want to ask a couple of questions about the spending figures in the report. What stood out for me was the significant reductions in council spending on planning, culture and leisure services and environmental services over the past decade. What impact have those reductions in spending had on local communities and businesses? Have some of the changes that we have seen—for example, the use of arm’s-length external organisations—helped, or have they simply been a way of transferring the money off council budgets?

Which powers would you centralise to elected mayors, provosts or civic leaders? This is a leading question, but something that has not been well managed is deciding who is responsible for delivery of the city growth deals that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and collections of councils have signed up to. We have had big bang moments and big numbers for those, but we have key infrastructure projects such as the Sheriffhall roundabout, which is not far from here, progressing at a snail’s pace. That is a huge key project for the Lothian region, but no one is the lead minister or lead politician for it. Do you envisage powers over, say, economic development, health or policing sitting with the individual?

Would it improve the relationship between local and central Government to have that additional tier or would it mean that we just created another voice for the areas in people who, let us face it, will be elected by a party that is either in government or not? Political cycles might dictate who has the roles. Might we see mayors who will, as with Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan, happily take on the UK Government? We would maybe have Conservatives elected, who would take on the Scottish Government at this point. It is quite easy to have a dissenting voice if you are not in the Government of the day, because you will not necessarily be progressing an agenda.

Finally, to go back to Willie Coffey’s question about council numbers, let us consider having 32 elected mayors and the amount of resource that an elected mayor of Edinburgh, for example, would potentially have compared with an elected mayor of Clackmannanshire. The voice of those mayors, in the cities, would work well in driving real economic opportunity and promoting an area. However, where did the idea of having 32 mayors come from? Should we look at where we operate more regionally—such as with Holyrood’s Lothian region—with individual councils coming together? People could get lost if there were 32 voices instead of eight.

Good morning to the minister and her officials. I put on the record that I welcome amendment 2, which covers one of the key parts of our considerations. How it works in practice is something that we will want to see monitored, so I hope that the Scottish Government will do that, taking into account the limited numbers of cases for which this provision will be needed.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Sections 9 to 11 agreed to.

Section 12—Recording of charity mergers and treatment of legacies

I welcome amendments 3 to 12. There is one point of clarification that I feel is still needed—maybe it is for stage 3—which relates to the situation of a United Kingdom-wide charity that is based in England and does research funding in Scotland. That research project could have a legacy gifted to it from a Scotland-domiciled individual. Has that been captured in these amendments? The cabinet secretary might want to take that issue away and clarify it for stage 3, but I know of a number of charities that, for example, fund research projects in our universities, and individuals might donate or leave a legacy to those projects. I wanted to see these amendments lodged, but I wonder whether that situation has been captured or whether any legal advice has been taken on that scenario.

We are talking about decades before we can legitimately—

I think that it does. My question is whether those buildings have not been included because the task with homes seems to be so huge. We are talking about 105 pilot projects, not the potentially 5,000 buildings across Scotland that might need surveying. Obviously, those are the high-risk buildings that we are talking about.

How long do you think things will take? I am an Edinburgh MSP; other committee members are Glasgow MSPs. We represent parts of the country in which those buildings predominantly are and people who are now trapped in those buildings with mortgages on properties that they cannot sell. You have outlined insurance problems, as well. With what is an in-principle agreement—I would like to know from the minister what we are talking about with that—how long do you think it will be until things can be resolved?

A large number of buildings that are included in England are being omitted in Scotland—specifically, hotels and hospitals. I have concerns about that. What is the thinking behind those buildings not being included? Is that under review?