Robb and Freeman expose COSLA refusal to help in the budget crisis it caused

Helensburgh and Lomond councillors George Freeman and James Robb are making the weather  in nailing down the machinations at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), whom the Argyll and Bute ruling coalition insist was completely innocent of the budget crisis its action precipitated for Argyll.

Councillor Freeman used Freedom of Information to discover that on 21st December 2010 the Scottish Government made a generous offer to COSLA.

This was, if COSLA requested it, to remove the loss caused to nine local authorities by COSLA’s eccentric request to reinstate the redundant  ring fenced Supporting People Grants. In asking for this, COSLA had not asked for the accompanying reinstatement of the traditional mechanism (;flooring’) that protected any council from a sudden significant loss.

Argyll came out of this entirely unnecessary process by far the biggest loser – with an additional loss to its 2011-12 budget of £5.6 million – a total budget cut way in advance of any other local authority in Scotland.

When Argyll and Bute council awoke from its stupor to discover what everything it had agreed to had actually done to Argyll’s budget, they were poleaxed.

Councillors and the Argyll electorate came to realise that the disaster had originated with COSLA. Then there were – rightly – widespread questions as to why Argyll and Bute paid a total of over £74,000 per annum to be a member of a supposedly representative organisation whose actions had comprehensively shafted Argyll.

The Scottish Government offered, if asked, to revert to the previous method of calculating the annual revenue grant for local authorities.

The offer was that the Scottish Government would put £5 million into a pot to make this possible which, if matched by COSLA, would see most of the losses incurred by the nine affected councils wiped out.

It would, though, also have wiped out the gains made by other councils at the expense, principally of Argyll with the other eight affected authorities.

The offer was not accepted and the Scottish Government’s £5 million was distributed among affected councils with some of Argylls expected share clawed back by doughtier fighters, leaving Argyll with an easement of £1.316 to set against the additional cut of £5.6 million incurred.

If COSLA had contributed its share, the totl easement would almost have halved Argyll’s additional loss.

Cou ncillor Freeman has asked precisely who, at COSLA, agreed that they would not respond to the Scottish Government’s offer.

He also showed conclusively that the COSLA hierarchy of President, Vice Presidents and Party group leaders largely came from councils that had benefited from COSLA’s unusual request to change the method of  budget calculation. A coincidence? (See the details in Councillor Freeman’s comment on our article on his investigations.)

The Robb letter

Councillor James Robb sent the following letter to the Council Leader, its Chief Executive, the Chief Executive of COSLA and the President of COSLA. He tells us that he ‘also sent it to the Leader of the COSLA SNP Council Group who has confirmed that his group supported a redistribution but the Labour Group and other winners refused to re-open the distribution’.

‘Sir
‘I write to ask for your support for a fairer distribution of Supporting People Funding.

‘You will be well aware of the floor concept in GAE that manages decline in allocations to some councils (a smoothing effect to avoid excessive volatility). I would ask that COSLA consider a similar approach to re-working the allocations from the Supporting People fund for 2011-12.

‘COSLA within its agreed mechanism for allocating Supporting People funding also created a floor. For the period 2005/06 – 2007/08 this was 18% (equivalent to 6.4% per year). For the period 2008/09 – 2010/11 the floor was zero (an effective freeze).

‘When COSLA agreed to update the indicators (inputs) for the Supporting People allocations for 2011/12 no floor was specified.

‘Attached is a spreadsheet with details but in summary this approach would produce the following.

‘Applying flooring to the £5m from the Scottish Government would create a floor of -16.2% with those councils above the floor unaffected.

‘If COSLA agreed to re-distribute a matching £5m as suggested by Mr Swinney yesterday that would create a floor of -11.7% with all councils contributing 1.3% to the redistribution pot. That 1.3% in terms of overall financing for each council would be minuscule.

‘I hope you will consider this approach which is consistent with past and  current practice and persuade your colleagues to a similar view.
‘Regards.’

Councillor Robb has had no response from a single one of those to whom he sent this emailed letter.

He has written to the Finance Secretary, John Swinney and has suggested that, if COSLA cannot act responsibly to arrive at a fair distribution, the Scottish Government should distribute it directlly on the fair flooring mechanism suggested.

James Robb points out that: ‘Argyll & Bute has – for the last six years – been protected from being given its ‘formula’ amount of revenue under the Supporting People grants by a percentage limit reduction called the floor’.

Without the floor, for 2011-12 and for the future – if the COSLA changes are not reversed – it has received the ‘formula’ amount without the limiter.

Councillor Robb says: ‘This calamity was avoidable if one of the three paid by Argyll & Bute Council to attend the fateful meeting had raised the issue of a future floor.

‘That inevitably leads to the blame game which doesn’t get us one extra penny. Regardless of how they got into this mess COSLA has had every opportunity to correct what have been described as the ‘unintended consequences’ but has failed to do so.

‘As the amount currently on offer (£1.3m) is derisory, the influence of Argyll & Bute at COSLA is negligible and we face another disaster it is necessary to lobby as hard as possible to get a fairer outcome’.