Chamber and committees

This is my first committee meeting since my entry in the register of members’ interests changed. I have ceased being the owner of a private rented property and a landlord. I was advised by a Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee clerk that I must make that declaration for a year following the cessation of that declaration.

Recently, the First Minister said that any issues relating to pay negotiations are for COSLA, councils and their employees. However, I have sat here long enough to have heard previous First Ministers, finance secretaries and local government ministers say the same thing, only to get involved in negotiations when strikes cause school closures and the rubbish starts mounting.

Given that councils rely overwhelmingly on the Scottish Government for the vast majority of their funding and the majority of that funding is spent on wages, what should be the Government’s position in supporting pay negotiations? Does it mean just getting around the table or does it mean putting more money on the table to ensure that local services remain sustainable?

In the previous parliamentary session, the Local Government and Communities Committee flagged up the issue of the lack of an appeals process for participation requests, so it is good to hear that the Scottish Government is considering that. That committee also raised concerns about the asset transfer process sometimes being overly bureaucratic, cumbersome and difficult for local organisations to navigate. We heard particular examples around the opportunities for community groups to take over areas of ground for use as allotments. Has the Government done any work on how to make the asset transfer process easier and more accessible for community groups that have that aspiration to take on a piece of land or asset that is held by a public authority?

Councillor Heddle, do you have any points to make regarding the effectiveness of the participation request or asset transfer powers in the legislation?

Good morning. I have a few questions about the powers in the act relating to participation requests and asset transfers. I will kick off by asking whether you think that the two instruments around asset transfers and participation requests have helped to empower communities.

There are three key strands to the Verity house agreement, one of which is sustainable public services. Who has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that those services remain sustainable? What is a sustainable service, if pay inflation reaches the point where public services stop being provided? Are we talking about services reaching a level at which Government and councils say, “We can provide X, Y and Z sustainably, but A, B and C will have to go,” or are we talking about sustaining the existing level of service? How is pay inflation impacting on that?

I want to touch on cruise ship stays, which have been omitted from the bill. I know that the Government is considering that in further discussions about the new deal. Why have cruise ship stays specifically been omitted, considering that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities called for their inclusion, which is commonplace in other European cities?

I can see the attraction in the inclusion of cruise ships, because clearly some local authorities would benefit to a much greater extent from a cruise ship levy than they ever would from a levy on overnight stays on land. Barcelona has answered such questions. I appreciate that you are talking about different questions, but other areas have answered them. Has there been any work done with other places that have introduced a similar levy? As I said, areas of this country could benefit massively from it.

Thanks.

Mr St Clair—did I hear correctly from the convener that you are COSLA’s solicitor?

I am sorry. That is fine. I misheard that at the start. I was going to ask whether there is a view on the matter from COSLA.

Before my second question, which is about exemptions, I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on carers.

Under the bill, local authorities would be able to provide exemptions, and there is also provision for national exemptions. Why was it not considered appropriate to include at the outset an exemption for people who travel for hospital care or to provide care? I am thinking in particular about parents who stay in hotels to be close to their sick kids in hospital.