Dec 182010
 

By Cllr Martin Ford, Aberdeenshire Council

Last week a key decider of Aberdeenshire Council’s 2011/12 revenue budget became known – the level of grant support the Council will be getting from the Scottish Government.

It is important to remember that Scottish councils depend on the Scottish Government for the vast bulk – around 80 per cent – of the money they need to meet the cost of providing public services.

An overall cut in its funding for local government next year of 2.6 per cent has been promised by the Scottish Government provided councils agree to a Council Tax freeze and other measures – otherwise the cut in grant funding for councils is to be 6.4 per cent.

Aberdeenshire Council has already decided that it will freeze the Council Tax and meet the other terms set by the Scottish Government as conditions for a smaller cut in its grant (see: Council Tax Freeze and Many Cuts Decided, Aberdeen Voice, 26 November 2010).

By enforcing a Council Tax freeze, the Scottish Government has removed from councils any real say over the total amount they have to spend.

In fact, within the overall 2.6 per cent reduction in funding for councils, Aberdeenshire Council has done relatively well. It will receive funding of £427 million from the Scottish Government towards the running costs of council services in the financial year 2011/12.
This is a cut of 1.9 per cent in cash terms – not as bad as expected and not as bad as the 2.6 per cent average reduction in funding councils are facing.

A 1.9 per cent cut in cash terms, though, is a cut of more than 5 per cent in real terms – once inflation and other increases in costs are taken into account. This is a severe cut.

Moreover, as a result of the formula used to distribute funding amongst councils, Aberdeenshire is still receiving a much lower grant per head of population than most councils do. Aberdeenshire Council receives more than 12.5 per cent less than the average amount of funding provided to councils per head of population. And unlike many councils, Aberdeenshire also has to cope with the budgetary pressures that result from having a growing population.

Aberdeenshire Council’s Liberal Democrat/Conservative administration voted through budget cuts and savings totalling almost £27 million at the November full council meeting. Efficiencies and cuts were approved right across the range of public services provided by the Council.

However, the extent of further spending reductions – beyond the £27 million of cuts and savings already voted through – required to achieve a balanced revenue budget for 2011/12 could not be worked out until the Council’s grant settlement became known. The 1.9 per cent cut in the Council’s funding from the Scottish Government means additional savings totalling around £3.5 million will now have to be found.

Council finance officers are still seeking clarification from the Scottish Government regarding some of the conditions that the Council has to comply with in order to avoid the threatened funding cut of 6.4 per cent. There is therefore still some uncertainty about the full financial implications of what the Council will have to do in order to have its funding cut by 1.9 per cent.

So while it is now clear that the Council will have to find additional savings of close to £3.5 million, the exact amount still cannot be calculated.

In total, Aberdeenshire Council will have to cut approximately £30.5 million of spending to balance its revenue budget for 2011/12.

That is going to have a serious impact on Council services and on some service users.

The Council is responsible for deciding exactly what it will cut.
However, it has been put in a position where the total saving required has been decided for it – and for that the Scottish Government must take responsibility.

Nov 262010
 

By Councillor Martin Ford.

Yesterday (25th November), Aberdeenshire Council took important decisions about its budget for the financial year 2011/12.

It was one of the worst days I have had as an Aberdeenshire councillor.

First, the Council had to decide whether it would accept Finance Secretary John Swinney’s ‘offer’ of a funding cut of 2.6 per cent (£10.243 million) in return for the Council agreeing to a package of measures including no increase in the Council Tax.

On this the Council was unanimous – because the alternative was so much worse. If the Council refused to comply with the conditions set by Mr Swinney for a 2.6 per cent cut in funding, funding would be cut instead by 6.4 per cent, or £27.093 million.
Faced with losing an additional £16.850 million in grant, the Council effectively had no choice but to agree to meet the requirements for the smaller cut in funding.

Agreeing to freeze the Council Tax is not the same as agreeing with freezing the Council Tax – as several councillors made clear. Enforcing a Council Tax freeze on councils is wrong in principle. The decision as to what balance to strike between raising additional revenue and cutting council services is properly one for councils and not the Scottish Government.

Had Mr Swinney allowed councils to decide on the level of Council Tax next year, some of the cuts to services could have been avoided. In the case of Aberdeenshire, the Band D Council Tax is £1141. A one per cent increase, £11.41 per year or 22 pence per week, would bring in around £1.2 million to help pay for public services.

There is, though, to be no increase in the Council Tax – just a cut in government grant. Although the cut will be 2.6 per cent in cash terms, in real terms, allowing for inflation and cost pressures, the cut is 7.9 per cent. Having made the decision to comply with the conditions set for a 2.6 per cent cut in funding, the second debate at yesterday’s Council meeting was on the cuts that would be required to achieve a balanced budget.

This was a grim experience indeed.

it appears that Aberdeenshire Council has already decided on most of the cuts it will make in next year’s budget

Councillors were provided with a huge list of potential cuts and efficiencies that together were projected to save almost £27 million. The cuts identified ranged from fewer teachers and classroom assistants to reduced opening hours for swimming pools, fewer social work staff, ending grants to voluntary organisations and reducing grounds maintenance.

Councillors were warned that to make these cuts from the start of the 2011/12 financial year, work had to start immediately. Making staff redundant is not something that can be rushed.

While it was certainly necessary to authorise the Council’s management to continue preparation work so the cuts identified could be implemented if agreed when the Council sets its 2011/12 budget on 10 February, the Council’s Liberal Democrat/Conservative administration went further. Summing up the debate on the cuts options, the Council leader, Cllr Anne Robertson, made clear that agreement to proceed with work on the cuts listed was a decision to make them.

The cuts were approved by a large majority.

On this basis, it appears that Aberdeenshire Council has already decided on most of the cuts it will make in next year’s budget. Depending on the exact grant settlement the Council receives from the Scottish Government, some additional savings will need to be found before budget day in February.

We will find out exactly what the Council will get in grant funding in two weeks time.

Nov 192010
 

With thanks to Frank Taylor.

An Aberdeen gardener has asked Voice to draw to the attention of all city allotment tenants, the following statement made by John Swinney, Scottish Finance Minister in reply to a parliamentary question:

“A local authority would not be entitled to collect rent under regulations that had not been formally confirmed by Scottish Ministers in terms of section 6(1) of the Allotment (Scotland) Act 1892. Regulations made under this provision have no legal effect without ministerial confirmation”.

The regulation for Allotment rents used by Aberdeen City has not received ministerial confirmation and so the City Council is therefore not entitled to collect rents for allotments.

Frank Taylor has personally withheld rent for his allotments in Bucksburn, and is urging all his fellow allotment holders to follow suit until the Council has had its allotments regulations confirmed as required by law.

Mr Taylor told Aberdeen Voice:

“We simply cannot allow ourselves to have savage rent increases illegally imposed on us again without being able to exercise our right to have an input into the process.  The law was put in place to protect allotment holders from possible excesses of local authorities.  Any local authority that increases allotment rents by 80% and then follows that with further increases of 72% within a twelve month period has acted to excess.”

For plot holders, one of the most annoying consequences of Aberdeen City Council refusing to accept that it needs to formalise its regulations, is that those who neglect their allotments – even to the stage of a state of total dereliction – cannot be legally evicted because any legal proceedings for recovery of possession of allotments must be founded upon a regulation made in pursuance of the Allotments Acts. As a result, our own plots end up affected by weed seed and by vermin.

By the same token, in the absence of formal regulations regarding rents, the Council cannot  successfully pursue anyone who refuses to pay rent for an allotment.

The Council cannot even start proceedings for recovery of unpaid rent without a regulation (also to have been formally confirmed by the Scottish Government) which determines the due date for payment – as a tenant must by that stage be at least 40 days in arrears before these proceedings begin.

Allotment holders should note that the Council proposes to recall their allotment leases and to issue new leases containing new rules(regulations).

The regulations contained in these leases will not have been confirmed by the Scottish Ministers and will be unenforceable until ministerial confirmation is obtained. Ministerial confirmation cannot be given without publication and full public consultation and no allotment tenant should accept these new leases until the full process required by law has been completed.

Nov 152010
 

By Cllr Martin Ford, Aberdeenshire Council

Next February, councils will set their revenue budgets for the financial year 2011/12. It looks certain that the funding councils receive from government will be reduced, leaving councils with no choice but to make painful cuts to a wide range of public services.

Aberdeenshire Council will be no different from other councils in the difficult decisions it will have to take.

The Council’s revenue budget – the budget that pays for the running costs of Council services – is currently £550 million. Around 20 per cent of that comes from the Council Tax, the Council offsets the cost of some services by charging users, but the vast bulk of the Council’s funding comes, in one form or another, from the Scottish Government. Even before the Council Tax freeze, the Council only had control over a small proportion of its income. Now, effectively, the amount the Council has to spend on services is fixed by the grant funding it receives from government. If the Council is given less, it will have to cut its spending accordingly.

One problem for the Council is that, only three months before setting its budget, it still does not know what size of spending cut it will have to make.

Aberdeenshire may have to make savings of anything from £25 to £40 million next year. It could even be more, or less, than that range. Until the Scottish Government makes its decisions, the Council is having to plan for a variety of scenarios.

The position will become clearer when the Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2011/12 is published on Wednesday. The Council will probably have to wait until close to Christmas before it finds out exactly what level of funding it will receive from the Scottish Government next year.

I have been a councillor for eleven years. Setting the Council’s revenue budget is always challenging. There is never enough money to fund all the services the Council would ideally provide. The cost of providing services goes up every year due to price increases (especially, in recent years, for electricity and heating), staff salaries and, in some key areas, more people needing the service. For most of the last ten years, though, the Council has received additional funding from government, but not usually enough to fully cover the increased cost of keeping services running as before.

For the first time in my experience, the Council’s overall budget is set to shrink

Arriving at a balanced budget for the following year required some spending to be cut and savings made even though there was to be a rise in the Council’s total spending.

This year will be different. For the first time in my experience, the Council’s overall budget is set to shrink. Savings (or cuts) will have to be found to offset all the rises in costs since last year, and the Council will have to cut spending to match the reduction in income from government grant. Since the Council has been seeking savings every year already, there are no (or very few) easy options for achieving this.

Personally, I will want to support measures that as far as possible protect education and social services, reduce the Council’s carbon emissions and which accord with sound financial management.

There are a few savings that I think the Council should not find it too difficult to agree. One example is funding for unadopted roads.

The Council will struggle to adequately fund the maintenance of public roads, a clear council responsibility. It can’t afford to contribute towards the cost of maintaning or improving roads it is not responsible for that provide access across private land.

Ending funding contributions to unadopted roads would save the Council £300,000 – a worthwhile saving but only a small fraction of the savings the Council needs to make.

Raising additional tax revenue from those who can afford to pay would be a good start

I hope the Council will use the budget process to acknowledge that it cannot afford what it would have to pay if the Western Peripheral Route was built.

Unfortunately, however, it is difficult to see how the Council will be able to balance its budget without making cuts in education and social work. These are the services which account for the bulk of the Council’s spending. The education budget alone accounts for nearly half of what the Council spends each year.

Cutting education or social work is the last thing I want to do – but the Council cannot spend money it does not have.

It is also true that the UK budget deficit cannot be ignored – reducing it is essential – but there are alternatives to the draconian cuts in public services and welfare the Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition government has chosen. Raising additional tax revenue from those who can afford to pay would be a good start. The Scottish Government too could use its powers over taxation to reduce the scale of the cuts if it wanted to.

Given the scale of the likely cuts, I believe asking some people to contribute a bit more towards the cost of public services would have been a far better and fairer option.

Oct 222010
 

By Dave Guthrie.

As the public purse-strings draw tighter, local government has been looking at alternative financing to carry through development and redevelopment projects. After many years of borrowing and spending beyond their means, the obvious – perhaps the only – source remaining is the private sector.

Last year Oxford Economics, in a report on Aberdeen, said that during the economic downturn opportunities would present themselves with quality resources being available to businesses and organisations much cheaper than at the city’s economic peak in 2007 and that a lower cost-base could be achieved without trade-off against quality of location or accommodation.

By definition the private sector – business and commercial interests – exist to make a profit, expand and pay dividends to shareholders. There can be public benefits – increased employment etc. – but these are essentially by-products. Any public/private partnership will therefore involve some compromise on both sides. Aberdeen City Council has been exploring several innovative funding mechanisms with the aim of carrying through their City Masterplan.

The three main ones are:

Tax Incremental Funding [TIF],

The City Development Company [CDC],

and the Business Improvement District [BID].

TIF.

This is a financial model pioneered and now widely used in the US. It allows a local authority to borrow money for specific infrastructure developments. The loan is secured against expected tax revenue increases resulting from the development. [new businesses attracted to the area, higher taxes etc.] allowing repayment over a 10 to 20 year period. The Scottish Government has sent out encouraging signals about this scheme and in January of this year Edinburgh City Council’s proposal to borrow £84m for the redevelopment of Leith Port was approved. Glasgow City Council and North Lanarkshire Council have similar plans in the pipeline. As does Aberdeen City Council.

Borrowing against future unknown tax revenues is not without its risks, however. Responsibility for any shortfall would be an important issue and councils are likely to choose partnership with a commercial developer thus sharing the risk. Another danger is that a TIF-supported development may not actually produce increased tax revenue, just move it from one area to another. In the US, TIF projects compete with one another. [In Chicago there are now 500 such schemes].

So, TIF is a tried and tested model for kick-starting large development schemes but like other funding models it is complex and not without its dangers.

CDC:

A City Development Company is a mechanism which allows local authorities to use their assets to attract long-term investment from the private sector to finance regeneration projects. Also known as a Local Asset Based Vehicle [LABV], it provides a route whereby public and private sectors pool land, finance, expertise and powers and allocate risks and returns from targeted projects

An Aberdeen CDC [AC/DC?] would seek to identify and ‘remediate’ pockets of ‘market failure’ within the city, capturing value for targeted beneficiaries. Suggested examples so far include; Union Terrace Gardens, Bon Accord Baths, Denburn Health Centre and Park, St Nicholas House, Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre, Chapel Street Car Park, Summerhill Education Centre, Granitehill and Greenferns. The City Council would be encouraged to ‘leverage’ these assets through the CDC in partnership with the private sector.

BID

Aberdeen Business Improvement District is a proposal being implemented by Aberdeen City Centre Association in partnership with the City Council. Funded jointly by a compulsory levy on businesses within the area supplemented by the local authority, the BID aims to provide a more vibrant and viable town centre and encourage more input from business managers and owners towards regeneration of the area.

The area covered by BID is likely to include Union Street and most of the city centre from Union Square and Guild Street in the south to John Street in the North.

Sep 172010
 

Voice’s Dave Watt describes how the government’s budget cuts put women and children first.

A little known fact about Steig Larsson’s celebrated novel ‘The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’ was that the original Swedish title was ‘The Man Who Hated Women’ (Män Som Hatar Kvinnor) and while I don’t think the ConDem coalition has any particular hatred for women, they are certainly going to be beating on them pretty badly with a disproportionate burden of the budget cuts.

A gender audit of the Budget, commissioned by MP Yvette Cooper found that of the £8bn net revenue to be raised by financial year 2014-15, nearly £6bn will be from women, in contrast with just over £2bn from men.

Responding to the study’s findings, Ms Cooper said: “I cannot recall any budget that has ever had such a severe attack on women in the history of the welfare state. Cameron and Clegg …..simply don’t get that things like the child tax credit help millions of women manage to balance work and family life.”

perhaps the ConDems simply saw them as an easy, pliable target that wouldn’t be out protesting in the streets.

The cuts have also drastically reduced support for children more savagely than anything else so far with billions of pounds being cut from child benefit, child tax credits, maternity support and child trust funds.

Amongst the reports’s key findings are:

Of £8.1bn net personal tax increases/ benefit cuts, an estimated £5.8bn (72 per cent) is being paid by women and £2.2bn (28 per cent) is being paid by men.

• Support for children is being cut by £2.4bn – including cuts in Sure Start maternity grant, health in pregnancy grant, child benefit and tax credits. The majority of this support is paid to women. A further £560m cut from the Child Trust Fund is not included in the gender audit.

• Even excluding support for children, women still pay £3.6bn (66 per cent) compared to men paying £1.9bn (34 per cent). This is because women are more heavily affected by things like housing benefit cuts and the switch to CPI uprating of the additional state pension and public sector pensions.

Women have, in general, have traditionally tended to be more politically conservative than men (and indeed the Nazi vote before 1933 was largely female) and perhaps the ConDems simply saw them as an easy, pliable target that wouldn’t be out protesting in the streets. Whatever the rationale, any women who voted for the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems last May are going to find themselves being very poorly rewarded for putting their cross in either of those two little boxes.

Obviously, the cuts will hardly affect the ultra rich (Baroness Warsi won’t be taking up that early morning office cleaning job just yet) but her poorer sisters: the working mothers, the single parents and the other women who can just about make ends meet at present are going to suffer very badly and very unfairly from these economic cuts.

Aug 272010
 

Another rant from Aberdeen’s adopted crustacean Rapunzel Wizard.

Are androids voted for by electric sheep?
We’re in our forties in our suits
from a public school laboratory.
We look like you but we’re not
cos we’ve no human empathy.

We’re the Eton Replicants
pre-formed to form your government.
We’re the Eton Replicants.
We hate common things
like common sense.

We’re androids built on privilige.
We would fail the Voight-Kampff test.
The ruling elite couldn’t slash and burn
if we had compassion or concern.

I’ve seen the servants at Eton Wick
their council estate makes me sick.
You might think we’re a feudal joke
“Peasants feel our Norman Yoke!”

We’re the Eton Replicants
reptilian and repugnant.
We’re the Eton Replicants
born to form your government.

We’re modelled on a Nexus Six.
Handshakes hide an iron fist.
We’re the invasion of the bodysnatchers
implanted spawn of Maggie Thatcher.

We’re the Eton Replicants
against us there is no defence.
There’ll be a public sector vasectomy
it will go the way of a rat in V.

We’re the Eton Replicants
like Roy Batty our government
might die in four years
but we’d still be here
amongst you.

Rapunzel Wizard is a locally based performance poet who will be appearing this week at The Coffee House, Gaelic Lane …. see Upcoming Events. He also hosts Jam Factory – an open mic session at The Moorings every Sunday.

Aug 132010
 

One Wedding and All Our Funerals… A poem by Rapunzel Wizard, a locally based performance poet who is 96% human and 4% woolly mammoth, and refuses to get a proper job or a haircut.

At Number Ten
stood on the steps
is a double act
with the emphasis on act Continue reading »

Jul 302010
 

The view of Barry Black, Aberdeen Youth Councillor and youth link for Friends of Sunnybank Park.

Scottish SNP Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill, said in August 20, 2009, “For these reasons [Cancer will kill him within three months] – and these reasons alone – it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.” Continue reading »

Jul 302010
 

By Dave Watt.

Fat Dave Visits the Colonies.

Hello oiks.

In the spirit of my Big Society, I thought I’d bring a little sunshine into your drab, tiny proletarian lives by writing you a few lines. After all, it can’t be much fun working down coal mines and up chimneys with only the prospect of racing pigeons, whippet-breeding and drinking gin at the weekend to look forward to. “What would I want to read about after a hard evening shovelling coal into the bath,” I thought to myself, so I decided to tell you all about me.

After all, what could be more encouraging for a poor person than to see how someone with the right attitude can get on just through sheer hard work and application? Continue reading »