Council Services - budget cuts

[John S]

As you know Argyll & Bute is likely to face a 12% cut in its budget over the next 3 years, this will undoubtedly mean that the council will have to do some things differently and stop doing other things all together. Here are the service areas the council has, the shortfall expected at this point in time is likely to be between £9m and £13m each year for the next 3 at least....here are the annual service budgets to give you some context.

Department budget
Education £99.5m
Roads and transportation £14.8m
Planning and Development £ 3.9m
Culture and Sport £8.1m
Social Care £52.3m
Environmental Services £17.4m

What do you think the priority should be for making this saving?
Would you pay more tax rather than see cuts?
Would you be prepared to pay more for services rather than see cuts?
Could the community its self provide services better and more cost effective than the council?
Could the private sector?

[mary]

Not sure if there is any point in responding to the consultation as our views are unlikely to be democratically represented in any case. See this letter from Argyll First


Dear Sir

Following the decision taken at the recent Council Meeting on 19th August, it is our opinion that a democratic deficit remains in the representation of residents in Argyll and Bute. The current governance of the council consists of 16 councillors (Executive Committee), 12 of whom are from the ruling group, with the remaining 4 from the opposition. It is this group who are making the vast majority of council decisions on your behalf. The remaining 20 councillors are excluded and can only vote on issues which pertain to their own wards. From May 2007 until June 2010, over 600 agenda items have been dealt with in this way. We, in Argyll First, believe that this has created a ‘two tier’ system of democracy and strongly believe that when you vote for a councillor, he/she should have equal voting rights on ALL council business. The current system is undemocratic and we would ask that if you agree, you lobby your local councillor as it you, the voting public, who hold the key to opening up the democratic process for Argyll and Bute. Argyll First looks forward to working on behalf of, and in partnership with, the residents of Argyll and Bute and we look forward to hearing your views.

Councillors Donald Kelly, Douglas Philand and John McAlpine
‘Argyll First’

[John S]

All the above councillors will have a vote on the council’s budget, and will have the opportunity to put an alternative budget as they have always had; but never chose to exert.

Budgets are considered and discussed with members in a series of seminars prior to the full council meeting at which they are set. All councillors are able to vote at full council meetings. It is just not true for them to say they do not have influence if they take the time to exert it - what they don't have is power and are prepared to destabilise the council in order to have a measure of power.

Indeed this letter is surprising since both Cllr Kelly and Philand were, until fairly recently, members of the Executive Committee and certainly didn't seem to resign as a result of any kind of concern for a democratic deficit. The letter also talks about decision making. If the Executive Committee was such an undemocratic place, wouldn't there be lots of motions from the leader of the opposition who sits on it, as does the leader of the Conservative Group??? - well there isn't.... why?

Because most of the work is done in the PPG's where councillors from across the council both geographically and politically sit and scrutinise policy, if councillors spend the time working on these, then they can influence policy - Cllr Collvile is on the Environment PPG and successfully influences council policy from there. All councillors can speak at executive meetings and put there points accross, these points are often then drafted into the policy or sufficient assurance given to members. This pretense of a democratic deficit is nonsense aimed at sturring up unrest.

Can none of them use the internet Mary or are they just too busy at their full time jobs?

[James]

I remember when Councillor Semple and I agreed that one member, one vote was a fundamental democratic principle.
All councillors can be fully involved in all budget decisions as they eventually come to the full Council meeting. Where the democratic deficit lies is in the three quarters of Council decisons which do not, so 20 councillors are excluded. They do not have the right to equal participation or voting rights at Executive meetings. I would refer readers and Coucillor Semple to Council Standing Orders (rules for meetings).
PPGs do not have any powers to make decisions.
As for the opposition - you should ask the LibDem candidate for Holyrood Councillor Alison Hay why they are such a complicit and docile opposition - anythingto do with the extra salary for Leader of the Largest Opposition Group? At the last Council meeting the only dissent from the LibDems was when they put up Councillor Morton for the National Park position (which pays additionally around £7,000 pa).There are only two Conservatives who are now over-represented on the Executive Committee. Do we also have an (unofficial) ConneD'em coalition at Argyll & Bute Council with the Administration. That is not healthy.
Finally readers may agree they are prepared to pay more council tax but there is no guarantee that extra tax will be used to protect your intended service. What is certain is that any support for such a tax rise will be used to justify it.
Councillor James Robb

[mary]

This article was in the Helensburgh Advertiser of 2nd September. I think it explains the situation very well particularly the bit about the reaction to the first serious challenge to the council way of working

Two Tier Democracy
By Jenny Foulds
A ROW has broken out after several members of the council claim they are excluded from council decisions.
Helensburgh Councillor James Robb and Argyll First member Councillor Donald Kelly say Argyll and Bute Council operates a “two tier democracy” where only half the councillors have the right to vote.
Their comments follow a tense council meeting in which all three of the new party’s motions were defeated at the recent full council meeting.
Mr Kelly told the Advertiser that he feels this is because the decisions were already made behind closed doors in a bid to stop Argyll First gaining momentum.
Meanwhile Mr Robb says he is “appalled” by Council Leader Dick Walsh calling Argyll First’s motion to amend expenses, a publicity stunt.
He claims the council has two identifiable camps, new party Argyll First and him – and the rest of the councillors (which he calls the ‘establishment’).
However council leader Dick Walsh is adamant that there is “ample opportunity” for members to be involved as much as they wish.
He told the Advertiser he is disappointed with these claims and is calling on all councillors to unite in a close team approach in a bid to tackle that difficult budget decisions the council is going to have to make.
It has also been claimed that the majority of members believe that Argyll First Councillors are not committed enough to the council, which led to other members voting against the motions.
The second of Argyll First’s motions called for the Executive Committee to be scrapped under the grounds that it is undemocratic because it excludes 20 members.
“This means that 16 councillors are deciding the business of the council and it has turned into a rubber stamping exercise.”
Amendment voted through concluded that the party’s motion was “ill-considered”.
Mr Walsh explained :”Any member who has an issue with the discussions at the Executive Committee can come along and participate at the meeting and they can vote.
“It is not a rubber stamping process.”
Councillor Robb said “In the first serious challenge to the council’s methods of working and its values the Argyll First motions that most folk would recognise as serious and important – fundamental democracy and debating councillor payments and perks ahead of cutting vital services.
“In the face of informed debate its usual spin failed and the meeting was a poor advert for local democracy”
Mr Kelly, who represents South Kintyre, said the meeting was the most “hostile” he has been to in his nine years of being a councillor.
He said “I felt that a lot of decisions had already been taken behind closed doors to stop Argyll First being successful in any of its motions.”
“The fact was that nobody broke ranks to support our motion that both elected members and senior members consider taking a voluntary 10 per cent reduction in wages to make savings of around £100,000 “
“I felt that the alliances were concerned that our new progressive non-aligned group would gain momentum “
“When each person votes they expect their councillor to have the same powers and privileges as any other councillor”
“All we are looking for is everyone to have the same say and we are willing to campaign and work actively to seek this”
Councillor Dick Walsh said his door is open to any member who has an issue. He said “ from 2007 I have attempted to promote inclusion in the council because prior to 2007 there was a lot of mistrust and lack of respect between members. I am disappointed that against that background this is happening. The council is facing very difficult times in terms of budget and the point I made at the meeting is that more than ever we need to have a very close team approach and have everybody working together. We will have some difficult choices to make and if any member has any issues, my door is always open. Nobody is excluded and we want all members to be fully involved”

[John S]

Thanks Mary, but dont you think that the people blowing a gasket on the Machrihanish Wind Farm thread might be more interested in hearing from you in terms of your involvement in Argyll Renewable Communities than as a mouthpiece for Argyll First.....

The idea of setting up this thread was to give the people of South Kintyre some information on the difficult choices that lie ahead and the opportunity to discuss and make their views known. It’s clear from the attention this thread has had from the devotees of Argyll First that stifling that opportunity is the name of the game....who would be bothered after this lot

Fair do's, but remember, it’s not the words people will measure but the actions.

Welcome to the Kintyre Forum James ;o)

[Ship called Dignity]

As you know Argyll & Bute is likely to face a 12% cut in its budget over the next 3 years, this will undoubtedly mean that the council will have to do some things differently and stop doing other things all together. Here are the service areas the council has, the shortfall expected at this point in time is likely to be between £9m and £13m each year for the next 3 at least....here are the annual service budgets to give you some context.

Department budget
Education £99.5m
Roads and transportation £14.8m
Planning and Development £ 3.9m
Culture and Sport £8.1m
Social Care £52.3m
Environmental Services £17.4m

What do you think the priority should be for making this saving?
Would you pay more tax rather than see cuts?
Would you be prepared to pay more for services rather than see cuts?
Could the community its self provide services better and more cost effective than the council?
Could the private sector?

Worrying times, indeed. I was going to ask where we, the public, can find out more information but can see there is alot of detailed information at

http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/d ... l/3309797/

Is it normal for Councils to have an annual spend of £30 million alone on loans? That is rather alarming to say the least!!

[mary]

In response to post by John S

BRIEFING NOTE TO MAKI LACPG/ 1ST SEPTEMBER 2010
What is ARC (Argyll Renewables Communities)
- Islay Energy Trust, Kintyre Energy Trust, Tiree Development Trust
- Collaborate to maximise the benefits and minimise the negative impacts to our local communities from the development of renewable energy in the seas off Argyll
- Aim to be active participants in offshore development processes and operations, and understand how our communities can be involved
- Work together with key stakeholders (eg developers, Crown Estate, Marine Scotland, Scottish Government, Argyll & Bute Council) to achieve the best overall outcomes, especially for our communities
- Welcome new affiliates who share our approach
What do we do
- Commissioned our own Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Scoping Study, by SQW Consulting. Supported by HIE and A&BC, and by voluntary work. Published February 2010
- Commissioned Phase 2 of this work, again by SQW, started in August 2010, completion in Q1 2011. Supported by LEADER, SNH, RSPB, HIE and Scottish Power Renewables
- Established regular contacts with all relevant parties, to lobby and promote the best interests of our communities
- Building fact-based analysis to inform a proper debate, with consenting authorities, with developers and with communities
- Encourage corporate developers to engage with local communities and enhance their projects and their reputations for social performance
Scale of the Projects
The estimated capital cost of the three Argyll wind farms and associated grid connections is in the range £ 7 to 9bn. They will have a life of 20-25 years. The operations and maintenance work offers a major opportunity to generate economic growth in these fragile communities (also in the planning/surveying phase, but less likely in the construction/manufacturing phase). There is the potential to change fundamentally the social, environmental and economic aspects of the host communities. There is also scope for further major marine energy developments around our coast, to be announced by Crown Estate later this year.
Current Issues
Scottish Government Strategic Environmental Assessment and Draft Plan for Offshore Wind: This was published earlier this year and put out for consultation. ARC has responded with proposals and suggestions, and circulated its document to relevant parties, including MAKI and other councillors. Key points concern the assessment of socio-economic impacts, offshore and onshore facilities considered together, involvement of communities at an early stage, avoiding disparities of outcomes and preparing communities to participate.
Planning and consenting process: At present, offshore developments can be considered independently of onshore activities. We have argued that this could lead to a failure to assess overall impacts. Also, there is no obligation to consider socio-economic impacts.
SSER Kintyre and Islay Projects: No indications have yet been given about design, construction, operations, or onshore facilities, and none may be seen before end 2011. However there are various options, and we want to encourage SSER to discuss these before then, as a means of engaging locally. Marine Scotland has recently responded to the SSER Scoping Documents for both projects, based on the current consenting process. Although all statutory consultees comment on the need to cover both onshore and offshore aspects, there remains no provision for community consultation, and rather weak references to economic and social impacts. We will continue to lobby Marine Scotland
SPR Tiree Project: There has been much greater open-ness from SPR concerning the potential local impacts of this project. SPR’s Scoping Document has recently been published, and responses will be prepared shortly. The Tiree Development Trust will maintain a “neutral” stance on the project, to provide a full assessment of all the potential impacts. However, there are already some “anti” voices.
“Community Benefits”: ARC takes the view that the most important matter is to gain a full fact-based understanding of all impacts (positive and negative) of all phases of these projects, so that community responses are solid, measured and supportable. We all need to see what long-term economic opportunities might be available locally. The issue should focus on “Community Investment”, to build a stronger base for the future. While we understand there are benefit packages for onshore wind farms, the scale of the offshore projects dwarfs the onshore ones. We believe in working with developers to achieve the best overall outcome, not getting into a package approach which may not recognise particular local concerns. Without a proper understanding of the likely economic returns to the developers, it is in any case impossible to assess what local investment might be appropriate.
A&BC Renewables Energy Action Plan (REAP): This is a substantial and ambitious document. A major plank of the campaign is to establish the Argyll & Bute Renewable Alliance (ABRA). ARC will submit some ideas on the governance of ABRA and the role that ARC could play in support of A&BC’s ambitions. There are already many groups involved in the renewables opportunity and individual agendas are not always transparent! ARC’s ambition is to ensure local community issues are properly and openly voiced in the process, and that the appropriate resources are available to deliver the required outcomes.
Future Work Programme: ARC’s consultants are researching other offshore wind farms to understand any relevant lessons. Also, to highlight the most important impacts from a community viewpoint (eg visual/noise impacts, infrastructure and public service issues, cultural heritage, and economic impacts on fishing, construction, tourism, and the potential to improve skills and resources)
Information Sources
The following websites carry relevant local information.
www.islayenergytrust.org.uk
www.tireetrust.org.uk
www.argyllarray.com (The Scottish Power Renewables site for Tiree)
www.sse-kintyre.com and www.sse-islay.com (The SSER pages for Kintyre and Islay)
There are also the sites of Marine Scotland, Scottish Government, and HIE which carry more official materials.
If you have any specific questions, please contact george.dean@islayenergytrust.org.uk

I should further add that A&BC Renewables Action Plan (REAP) was approved at the Council’s Executive meeting on 12th August. The covering paper states that “There are no immediate financial resource implications for the Council linked to this paper. However there will be officer time in taking forward the actions in the REAP specifically identified as falling under the Council’s remit and in setting up and facilitating ABRA (Argyll and Bute Renewables Alliance)”. In other words, there is no budget (at present) to take this ambitious plan forward.

[John S]

And all good stuff Mary, all be it on the wrong thread, which I am happy to support, but how are the communities who have genuine concerns about the location of windfarms being represented and communicated with by ARC ?

[mary]

It's not really on the wrong thread! This thread is about budget cuts - read on. The single most important issue to affect Argyll & Bute in the near future is going to be the offshore windfarms. These will probably be imposed on us despite the protests of some of the anti groups. Indeed you yourself have spoken out against and expressed vehement opposition to the proposed Machrihanish Array. If one or more of these developments is inevitable, then surely ARC's approach is the right one. As for consultation, ARC has kept communities fully informed through the press and also kept Community Councils fully informed. As you can see from the article, a member of ARC has attended the LACPG. I attended the KIWG in May and gave a short account of ARC along with some handouts to all members of the KIWG. The point is that there appears to be no budget for REAP or for any council involvement in consultations on behalf of the communities it serves. There appears to be no budget for involvement in the most important issue facing Argyll & Bute - that is why this issue is relevant to this thread.

[Asymetric]

All the above councillors will have a vote on the council’s budget, and will have the opportunity to put an alternative budget as they have always had; but never chose to exert.

Budgets are considered and discussed with members in a series of seminars prior to the full council meeting at which they are set. All councillors are able to vote at full council meetings. It is just not true for them to say they do not have influence if they take the time to exert it - what they don't have is power and are prepared to destabilise the council in order to have a measure of power.

Indeed this letter is surprising since both Cllr Kelly and Philand were, until fairly recently, members of the Executive Committee and certainly didn't seem to resign as a result of any kind of concern for a democratic deficit. The letter also talks about decision making. If the Executive Committee was such an undemocratic place, wouldn't there be lots of motions from the leader of the opposition who sits on it, as does the leader of the Conservative Group??? - well there isn't.... why?

Because most of the work is done in the PPG's where councillors from across the council both geographically and politically sit and scrutinise policy, if councillors spend the time working on these, then they can influence policy - Cllr Collvile is on the Environment PPG and successfully influences council policy from there. All councillors can speak at executive meetings and put there points accross, these points are often then drafted into the policy or sufficient assurance given to members. This pretense of a democratic deficit is nonsense aimed at sturring up unrest.

Can none of them use the internet Mary or are they just too busy at their full time jobs?

I remember when Councillor Semple and I agreed that one member, one vote was a fundamental democratic principle.
All councillors can be fully involved in all budget decisions as they eventually come to the full Council meeting. Where the democratic deficit lies is in the three quarters of Council decisons which do not, so 20 councillors are excluded. They do not have the right to equal participation or voting rights at Executive meetings. I would refer readers and Coucillor Semple to Council Standing Orders (rules for meetings).
PPGs do not have any powers to make decisions.
As for the opposition - you should ask the LibDem candidate for Holyrood Councillor Alison Hay why they are such a complicit and docile opposition - anythingto do with the extra salary for Leader of the Largest Opposition Group? At the last Council meeting the only dissent from the LibDems was when they put up Councillor Morton for the National Park position (which pays additionally around £7,000 pa).There are only two Conservatives who are now over-represented on the Executive Committee. Do we also have an (unofficial) ConneD'em coalition at Argyll & Bute Council with the Administration. That is not healthy.
Finally readers may agree they are prepared to pay more council tax but there is no guarantee that extra tax will be used to protect your intended service. What is certain is that any support for such a tax rise will be used to justify it.
Councillor James Robb

Hi,

Being new to the forum, although an avid reader, I would just like to ask Cllr Semple to clarify which of the above statements is indeed correct as we are being given conflicting information? I notice that Cllr Semple did not correct Cllr Robb therefore are we to assume this is because Cllr Robb's statement is indeed factual?

Interesting reading, I for one was unsure of any democratic deficiency within the Council and thought that all elected members forming Argyll and Bute Council made the decisions for matters in Argyll & Bute.

Surely decisions made for areas in Argyll & Bute Council's remit will have consequences for other areas therefore all elected members should be party to all decisions?

[sniper]

Cllr Semple why did you not take the proposed 10% pay cut as proposed by Argyll First?

[John S]

I will be happy to answer that Sniper once I have flushed out all the Grouse - you post your name on here so everyone can judge you in flight and I can get you between the cross hairs not chicken are you ?

[sniper]

Straight answers to straight questions on this thread would be nice?

[Sweltered]

Straight answers to straight questions on this thread would be nice?

Ok here's a straight question then. What's your legal name ?

I may have missed it, but have the councillors who proposed the 10% reduction returned the 10% they have been overpaid, or did they give it to charity, or have they not been paid yet? Not trying to be smart, just curious.