The Leader’s Report tabled for discussion at Argyll and Bute Council’s Executive Committee this morning (27th January 2011) is a lengthy valedictory by the Council Leader, Dick Walsh, defending his conduct of the council’s affairs in the chain of events that saw Argyll and Bute suffer the biggest cut by far of any Scottish local authority in its 2011-12 revenue grant.
Argyll is now looking at an additional loss of £6 million as a direct consequence of this mismanagement- for that is exactly what it is.
£5.6 million of this is due to the council’s failure to realise – or to work out – the impact on Argyll’s budget from the changes it had agreed to in the way all Scottish local authority budgets for the coming year were to be calculated.
The remaining £400,000 is due to the council’s failure to realise that Skye’s previous loss of its island status (and therefore its Special Island Needs Allowance (SINA) funding) because of the Skye Bridge, indicated that Argyll’s Isle of Seil might come under similar threat later on.
The Council Leader’s defence of his own and his senior officers’ management is that nobody told them there would be problems in either of these cases. So on this basis of unbelievable complacency, they simply did not bother to calculate the effect of the funding changes for themselves before they agreed to them – nor during the almost three month period before the Leader also agreed to the still unrealised consequent budget itself.
Councillor Walsh invited questions on his report and the following were the key exchanges in the discussion on this item.
Exchange between Councillors MacIntyre and Walsh
Councillor Robert MacIntyre bowled first: ‘Is it the responsibility of the Scottish Government or COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities) that Argyll and Bute faces the significant reduction of £5.6 million you mention.’
Councillor Walsh’s oblique response was: ‘The Joint Review was initiated by the Scottish Government and it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to determine at the end of the day the distribution to individual councils’.
Councillor MacIntyre then asked: ‘So it was only the Scottish Government, not COSLA at all?’
Councillor Walsh waffled to no effect then said: ‘We were very cautious with the press when we got the news of the 4.9% loss. We thought it must be an error. We were concerned to find out what had gone wrong and we were then working to establish the reason’. (They should of course have worked out for themselves long before, just what the impact would be of the changes COSLA had proposed.)
Councillor MacIntyre’s riposte was: ‘So there’s been a mistake?’
In the first of many repetitions of this mantra, Councillor Walsh said: ‘Civil servants say that there has been an unintended consequence’.
At this point Depute Leader Ellen Morton interjected to say: ‘To be honest, I’m not that interested – and I’m sure the folk of Argyll aren’t that interested – in how we got to where we are. (At £5.6 million if an additional loss, she’s wide of the mark there. The folk of Argyll are keenly interested to know how we got here.)
‘I’m interested in how we get it fixed. I understand we’re on the brink of a partial solution’.
Exchange between Councillors Strong and Walsh
Councillor Isobel Strong asked the Council Leader: ‘Have representations been made for a direct meeting with the Cabinet Secretary?’
In an odd deflection, Councillor Walsh’s first response was: ‘Members know my interest in finance. There is no way I’d let a matter of this importance pass unnoticed’. (The trouble is that this is exactly what he actually did – for three months, until someone else added it up for him.)
Then he went on to add: ‘We’re not alone. There are nine other councils, including some with SNP-led administrations, like Renfrew. (But the fact is that no other council has lost anything like as much as Argyll.)
‘However, I expect the matter to be resolved tonight or maybe tomorrow’.
Councillor Strong pressed her point: ‘Have you asked for direct meeting with the Cabinet Secretary?’
Councillor Walsh’s answer was: ‘I have not arranged such a meeting but I have asked for it and I regret that I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary’.
Exchange between Councillors Freeman and Walsh, with contributions from Head of Strategic Finance, Bruce West
Councillor George Freeman was, throughout this exchange, absolutely in charge of the brief, well informed, numerate and with additional evidence for investigations he had taken the trouble to conduct – evidence that could be described as something of a stopper for the Leader.
Councillor Freeman started by asking: ‘Did the Data Issues Working Group (DIWG) have any authority in this matter?’
Councillor Walsh’s response here was very interesting indeed: ‘They were (the DIWG) communicating with the Head of Strategic Finance and other finance officers in Argyll and Bute Council during the process’.
At this point, the Council Leader invited Head of Strategic Finance, Bruce West, to the dais.
Mr West said: ‘The Data Issues Working Group make recommendations to the Scottish Government’.
Councillor Freeman asked: ‘Does the Scottish Government not consult COSLA?’
At this point Councillor Walsh intervened to redirect, challenging Councillor Freeman to attend to Recommendation 5 in the minutes of the COSLA meeting on 19th December (the one at which Councillor Walsh agreed to the Argyll budget): ‘Recommendation 5 says that if any figures were to change, they were to come back to COSLA?’
At this point Mr West was escaping back to his seat, when Councillor Freeman said: ‘Stay where you are, Bruce’, followed by a resigned return to the dais.
Councillor Freeman then signalled that he was moving to look at the issue of the ‘indicators’, the criteria used to calculate the precise funding due to each local authority on the critical ‘Supporting People’ grants whose ring-fencing had been reintroduced, causing the critical additional loss to Argyll of £5.6 million.
Councillor Freeman said that he had been in touch with senior civil servants at Victoria Quay (Government offices in Glasgow) who confirmed that the indicators no longer exist. He then asked:” ‘Why did COSLA ask for those indicators to go back in?’
Mr West replied: ‘The indicators were introduced in 2004 and all the civil service has done is to update those indicators.
‘The Leader’s Report identified four indicators, the same as those used to update the Supporting People calculations this time.
‘These indicators show that Argyll and But has slightly increased its share of Supporting People from 1.45% to 1.59%’.
Councillor Freeman interrupted Mr West to say: ‘The Victoria Quay people say that the indicators were updated at COSLA;s request, even though they did not exist – and they did affect budgets’.
At this point, clearly uncomfortable, the Council Leader broke in to say: ‘Well, we have issues with this’. (Argyll has issues with this.)
Dick Walsh then went on to say: ‘The purpose of bringing back the ring-fencing was to remove volatility and bring stability.
‘But Argyll and Bute ended up with a 48% reduction in Supporting People funding while some other councils ended up with an increase of over 140%’.
He admitted that this had actually introduced volatility for nine councils, rather than the intended stability. It was at this point that Councilor Walsh made the remark we have already reported: ‘I think this happened because of a move from the policy group to the finance group at the Scottish Government’ – and then locked his lips and would say no more.
With Mr West still fidgeting at the dais, Councillor Freeman took a new tack: ‘Was any mitigation agreed?’
Bruce West replied: ‘In 2005-06 and in 2006-07 mitigation was there.
‘From 2007 onwards, the distribution share was rolled up and became the formula for Supporting People. Argyll then had a share of 3% – now its only a 1.6% share. Yet according to the overall figures our share has increased’.
Councillor Freeman came back like a terrier with a trapped rodent:’So were we in mitigation from 2005-2007? There must be mitigation tables. can you provide them?’
There was no answer from Mr West.
In came Councillor Walsh in haste: ‘There was the dampening effect’. (And he still gave no explanation of what he means by this description.
By now Councillor Freeman was on his home run: ‘Dampening effect? Why did no one get stuck in and start to work out the implications?’
Councillor Walsh: ‘Nothing gave is any indication our figures would change. Nothing indicated Argyll and Bute would suffer. The dampening effect was not paid sufficient attention.
‘I did not know until December that we were 4.9% down and I was on my feet at that meeting and that can be confirmed.
‘The Head of Strategic Finance put forward detailed formulae to COSLA as part of this process’.
Exchange between Councillors Macdonald and Walsh
Noting that in the minutes of the COSLA Leaders; meeting on 19th November where the local authority settlements for 2011-12 were agreed, Aberdeen is noted as being unhappy with the distribution, Councillor Donald Macdonald asked Councillor Walsh: ‘When it was known that Aberdeen was unhappy, why did that not trigger concern in the Argyll and Bute delegation?’
Unbelievably Councillor Walsh’s response to this was: ‘Because there was no negative impact on Argyll and Bute’.
The Council Leader went on to indicate that Aberdeen was a regular malcontent so no one thought anything of it when they complained.
He then said: ‘There was no indication that dampening would be taken off’ which suggests that what he had meant in saying that there was no negative impact on Argyll and Bute was that he had not expected that there wold be such an impact.
In conclusion
It would be fair to say that in his own defence the Council Leader put up a typically robust but never convincing performance.
The evidence, the timescales and the chronology were against him.
It was clear from early on in the session that his strategy is to put his faith in COSLA to manage something to ease the depth of the additional cut this has brought upon Argyll – because COSLA now needs him to keep his restive councillors reined in.
The full council meeting in the afternoon today saw the start of serious formal questions on whether or not the council should continue to belong to COSLA.
The new Depute Provost, Councillor Len Scoullar, ruled at the meeting that the motion on this matter, put forward by a cross-party group under Standing Order 14, could not be heard.
This was Councillor Scoullar’s first outing in standing in for Provost William Petrie. It would be naive to think anything other than that the rookie Depute Provost was doing what he was told by the experienced Council Leader in whose fee he holds his post.
So Councillor Walsh delivered on the deal for COSLA this afternoon. He must hope that, between tonight and tomorrow, COSLA can deliver something for him.
Whatever happens, Argyll must remember that whatever it will suffer above the average cut of 2.54% it would otherwise have received, is directly due to a marriage of negligence and complacence on the part of the Council Leader and his senior officers.
So why on earth did councillors, many of whom clearly believe quite differently, vote – with no audible demurring – that they agreed that there was no error on the part of anyone at Argyll and Bute Council in the emergence of this unprecedented budget cut?
We have no idea.
All we can wonder is that, with some subsequent agenda items at this Executive Committee highlighting matters of concern yet also meeting with only audible agreement, perhaps this is simply what they do. It is a very odd world indeed.
Pingback: Argyll News: Budget Crisis: Executive agrees 'No error on part of anyone from Argyll and Bute :Argyll,Argyll Bute Council,SINA,Supporting People, | For Argyll
I find it almost impossible to believe that no Councillor objected or insisted the contrary to the idea that the Council Leader and his Chief Executive had done everything to look after the interests of their voters and all the taxpayers of A & B.
The facts which Cllr Freeman and yourselves have put in the public domain say clearly that there was a total failure to question the basis and extent of the reduction in the Council’s grant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From COLSA papers:
Supporting People
13. As members may be aware, as a result of the Scottish Government’s interpretation
of thedistribution decisions taken by leaders, there is an issue with the supporting
people resources. The degree of volatility which has affected a number of councils
was not predictable and is particularly significant for some councils. We are currently
in discussion with the Government to try to find a solution and it is likely that an
update will be provided to the Leaders meeting. However, should a solution not be
found to this matter prior to the leaders meeting, a report will be issued to leaders
next week for their consideration.
Comment: You stick the numbers into the distribution formula and the outcome is entirely predicable! Elsewhere it has been confirmed that COSLA ask to distribute Supporting people money and that was agreed. The culture on this council/coalition: admit no errors – blame someone else. We deserve better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For James: Absolutely. Note again the slippery use of the word ‘predictable’. Of course Argyll and Bute did not ‘predict’ the disaster – but they could have known it by doing, as you say – a pretty straightforward and formulaic calculation. But the ‘Sure, it’ll be all right’ syndrome was way to the fore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: Argyll budget crisis: latest stories :Argyll,Argyll budget 2011,budget crisis,For Argyll, | For Argyll
The report above asks “why on earth did councillors, many of whom clearly believe quite differently, vote – with no audible demurring – that they agreed that there was no error on the part of anyone at Argyll and Bute Council in the emergence of this unprecedented budget cut”?
It must be borne in mind that the Executive is not democratic as it does not reflect the political make up of the Council. Unfortunately, like myself, most councillors are not members of the Executive and, although we can attend the meetings (and ask questions if the Leader of the Council allows), we have no vote and cannot submit any amendments. It must also be borne in mind that most opposition councillors are now excluded from membership of the Executive. Although the new Lib Dem, Conservative, Independent administration only makes up 58.3% of the Council, they take up 87.5% of the places on the Executive while the opposition councillors, who make up 41.7% of the Council, are only allocated 12.5% of the places on the Executive.
As far as I am concerned, I am not in a position to agree with the statement at the Executive by Councillor Walsh that “there was no error on the part of anyone at Argyll and Bute Council in the emergence of this unprecedented budget cut”. Although this matter continues to be investigated, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get information out of COSLA, which makes me ask, what have they got to hide?
A number of opposition councillors are now investigating what benefit (if any) Argyll & Bute Council receives from its membership of COSLA. I now have very little confidence in COSLA and its ability to represent all councils across Scotland fairly. How democratic is it when most councillors have no input to any of the decisions that are taken by COSLA? How open and transparent is it when much of their business is taken in private session?
I believe that it is getting very near to the time when a motion of “no confidence” in COSLA will be submitted and the Council asked to consider withdrawing from membership of that organisation. Even although the COSLA constitution now makes it very difficult for Councils to withdraw from membership as it requires a minimum of a years notice to be given, I believe that there are other ways that the Council can reduce the costs that it incurs as a result of its current membership of the organisation.
Councillor George Freeman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great to see a councillor looking forwards and unafraid of change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How much does it cost to be a member of COSLA?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Phill,
The cost of membership of COSLA varies depending on the size of the Council. For Argyll & Bute for 2010/11 the cost was £63,795.
Councillor George Freeman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Councillor Freeman and phil: Very useful information. This annual fee amounts to just under 12% of a days fee for Keir Bloomer. Since we’ve wasted fees on two consultants to date on the flawed school closure proposals, no one’s going to cry scandal at the possibility of losing up to a full year’s subscription to COSLA at this rate.
Update 30 January 2011: For everyone. The above is nonsense. Dr Douglas Mackenzie’s questioning of it drove us back to look again at Councillor Freeman’s information – and we realised that tired eyes saw a dot and not a comma, seeing an astonishingly modest (if odd) annual COSLA subscription of £63.795 and not the rather more breathtaking figure it actually is: £63, 795.
We do feel though that there’s no point throwing good money after bad. It’s a bitter reflection that Argyll paid almost £64,000 to be misrepresented and misled by COSLA to the tune of an additional £6 million loss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for the information, Cllr Freeman.
Do you happen to know if any other councils have pulled out of ‘cosla’ or indeed never were a a part in the first place?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Newsroom: that cannot be right! I think you mean the other way round.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Dr Douglas Mackenzie: You are SO right. Tired eyes thought the comma was a dot and that the fee was a remarkably modest £63.three figures (that DID seem odd) sum.
We’ll leave the comment in place but add a note to say that it’s wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keir was pricey but not £531,625 a day surely?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Phill,
Glasgow City Council pulled out of COSLA a few years back but were eventually persuaded to rejoin. Argyll & Bute did discuss pulling out of COSLA a few years back but eventually decided to renew its membership.
Councillor George Freeman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So there is no doubt about it, the COSLA membership figure for Argyll & Bute for 2010/11 was sixty three thousand, seven hundred and ninety five founds.
Councillor George Freeman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Councillor George Freeman: Thank you. Apologies for tired eyes – and somehow, when it’s written in words like this, you feel every ;pound of it slide away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Council Tax Payers do not appear to get any benefit from the £63,795 paid by Argyll & Bute Council to COSLA, only grief. I suspect that some of this money is used to pay for COSLA’s Annual Conference which takes place at the end of February annually and is partially subsidised by private companies. Last year’s COSLA conference was held in the 4 star Fairmount Hotel (formerly St Andrews Bay) St Andrews and was attended by local authority councillors and staff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The time is ripe to leave to pull out of Cosla surely.
The ‘gang of three’ at the budget meeting, representing the Council got it woefully wrong, (pity they wouldnt just admit it and get on with it), but Cosla let down the people of Argyll and Bute badly also. They handed back £1.6m certainly speaks volumes, but we lost a heck of a lot more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As ForArgyll reports elsewhere, COSLA is trying to sort out a deal on the redistribution of the former Supporting People funding that will see Argyll & Bute lose £5.588 million. No matter what the final deal is, how can anyone possibly trumpet the outcome to this situation as a great victory for the Council? It is a situation that should never have arisen. There are a number of rumours flying about with regards to the deal that COSLA is trying to get agreement on. They vary from the £1.6 million referred to above up to £4.8 million. No matter what the final figure is, it cannot be considered as a victory (great or small). Unless the £5.588 million is reinstated, then it can only be considered as whether the disaster that faces Argyll & Bute is great or small. In the most unlikely event that COSLA agreed that the 4.5% Floor was applied, then the loss to Argyll & Bute would be £526,000. Still not good news but certainly not at the top end of the disaster scale currently facing the Council. If we cannot get a just result from COSLA (which would be surprising), we can only hope that the Scottish Government can come up with additional funding to ease the pain that Argyll & Bute is currently facing. If the Scottish Government manages to help ease this problem for Argyll & Bute that was certainly not of the Government’s making, that will require additional public funding to be found while at the same time, Councils such as Dundee City, Falkirk, Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Highland and many others will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Councillor George Freeman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0