Residents of Renfrewshire have to ask themselves whether they really understand that they have very little say in how the council’s finances are run.  The Leader has attempted to persuade residents that the cuts in education should be undertood in context with how the budget was set.  But the fact that he implies that the level of reduced level Grants were unforeseen by the Council should concern electors in Renfrewshire.  The circumstances surrounding the council tax freeze and implications should give council tax payers reason for grave concern. 

Council tax is intended to be an equalisation which bridges the gap between the council’s estimated total expenditure and total grant from Holyrood (“AEF” meaning Aggregate External Finace).  For Renfrewshire the extra grant which was awarded to compensate for a freeze in council tax can be said to fall short by some £8.6 million pound – the funding gap which the education cuts are intended to cover in parts. Did the Council receive a recommendation for a realistic council tax increase before they decided to accept a freeze?  Unless they did and agreed to an increase of less than 3% together with cuts in services (some two thirds of which would be to education) the explanation that this extra grant covered the frozen council tax increase is purely hypothetical. 

Any assertion that there will be no loss of service to pupils is not borne out by fact.  At Gryffe High School the cuts mean a reduction in choice.  The council may wish to claim that the subjects cut are not “popular” choices, but their abolition is still a reduction in service from a school which high achieves high standards.  They may also argue that high standards are not necessarily consistent with wide choice – but this would not be a view shared by parents whose children attend Gryffe High School. 

The council make a virtue about providing a number of additional mainly social need services.  Most parents and council tax payers will have no argument with this.  The complaint is that the council decided to implement cuts without consulting parents or the head teachers.  They are cuts decided by accountants not teachers.   We have heard some say that they would prefer an increase in council tax to cuts.  Provided council services are efficiently managed most people will be prepared to pay for them and to contribute towards those who have special needs. 

The Council would have obtained the electors views if they had followed guidance on Local Government Finance.  A key point of the guidance Holyrood gives them being that local authorities should consult with their electors before setting council tax levels.  This doesn’t happen in practice and it didn’t happen before the council decided to freeze council tax.  Neither does the recommended practice that each council sets its own council tax rate.  Any equalisation which happens is related to ensuring that the Band D rate is not in excess of that for the family group of local authorities the council is allocated to.  This is such a fundamental consideration for the council that the Finance Director led his report on council tax with it on 14 February 2008.   

The “stick and carrot” approach adopted by the Scottish Government to freezing council tax is another example of how the guidance doesn’t work in practice.  The result being very limited scope for a council to determine its own level of income.  It is clearly intended that council tax is for the electors to determine, not the Holyrood government. Freezing council tax and, if it is ever implemented, Local Income Tax takes away any idea that the electorate have a say in how much their council spend on providing services.  It will remove any responsibility from the council – providing them with an excuse.  That excuse is being used in relation to the cuts we are experiencing now.   We are facing this dilemma until 2011.

The arbitrary approach the council takes to controlling its expenditure will inevitably lead to decisions to make cuts rather than to provide improved council services at a more affordable cost.  Shortfalls in funding for Renfrewshire are forecast to get worse as the demographic balance in Renfrewshire causes even lower levels of AEF grants.  Levels of service will only be achieved by radical changes.  The council will have to instigate more out-sourcing, shared services and better working practices, as well as achieve the highest standards of local authority management.  Whilst education has the largest budget the cost of employment is the largest cost (around £200 million each year).  As time goes by it is inevitable that the council will have to address its employment costs to balance the books - in fairness to many loyal employees they should have a long term plan. 

Council leaders and councillors have no room to be complacent about this.  You only have to consider Renfrewshire local roads.  The council is failing in its duties to manage and maintain them and to provide safe footpaths.  A sharply contrasting picture of where priorities lie is that there are new dedicated cycle ways being built in Renfrewshire whilst our roads are dangerously unsafe for cyclists.   

Such dysfunctional governance is indicative of an authority that has lost the right to govern.  In fact there are examples of local roads in Bridge of Weir and Houston (e.g. in the Hazlewood Road area) where the condition of the road is so bad that the council may do well by offering them back to residents to maintain themselves.  Far too many local roads are unsafe.   In some parts they barely exist as a road.   In many locations footpaths are unsafe. 

The selected method of management of our council is by way of corporate management teams.  True corporate management fosters good relationships with its stakeholders, employees and customers.  Modern ideology dictates that no decision is taken until those who will be affected by it are properly consulted with and informed.  This ideology is enshrined in the latest local government legislation.  It doesn’t happen in Renfrewshire, or if it does it is inconsistent and not very apparent. 

All of this has been compounded to a very significant extent by the attitude the authorities have had towards issues which are essential to any public health and well being.  How in an apparent first world country we can even have a debate about the issue of raw sewage in public spaces - an event that would precipitate emergency remedial action in most moderately advanced states - frankly beggars belief. 

We also have the saga over Manse Crescent.  Now the developer is submitting another reduced proposal.  This has become a scheme which nobody wants.  The new proposal isn’t want the council said they wanted, it apparently isn’t what the developer wanted, it isn’t what the Community Council wants and the local people don’t want it at all.  Only the most ardent apologist for the council could pretend that any idea of competition, best value or integrity of the planning system hasn’t been thrown out of the window.   We are asked to believe that receipts from Manse Crescent are crucial for the council to achieve its capital plan for the next five years.  In the context of a potential shortfall of £9 million a year in revenue income it becomes rather insignificant.   

We have looked at the new plans submitted by the applicant.  The council should apply building lines which are consistent with what is already established by The Neuk and Manse Crescent and will be established by the proposals.  If they do, the development will be reduced to 17 houses in total.  Around 1,000 square metres of development - less than £3 million worth of new housing.  This hardly offers the council a substantial contribution towards what remains of the Four Year Capital Plan – with £180 million still to spend.   

To put it into context the cost of financing the potential loss of receipts will put £1/year on council tax – whereas the cost of running the Chief Executive’s Department is equivalent to c£25, Property Services is equivalent to £130 and the Planning Department is equivalent to c£100.  We think that council tax payers in Gryffe Valley have good reason to question value for money from these three departments. Some other areas which could make a contribution to funding lost receipts: