Official Report 542KB pdf
Our second agenda item is an oral evidence session for our short inquiry into arm’s-length external organisations. I welcome from Inverclyde Leisure Kieron Vango, chief executive, David McCorkindale, head of leisure and communities, and Councillor Jim Clocherty, director; and from Riverside Inverclyde Dr Gerry McCarthy, chair, and Councillor David Wilson, board member.
Mr Vango, I believe that you would like to make an opening statement. Please go ahead, sir.
Thank you for asking Inverclyde Leisure to be part of this evidence session on arm’s-length external organisations. I hope that those of you who attended the presentation earlier saw the great work that Inverclyde Leisure has been doing.
Inverclyde Leisure works in partnership with Inverclyde Council to deliver leisure and community services to the people of Inverclyde. I am honoured to be part of a company that is able to offer so many benefits. Those include giving customers the opportunity to have healthier lifestyles, socialise, meet new people and partake in team events, sporting activities and the latest leisure trends such as CrossFit and Zumba; teaching children and adults essential life skills such as swimming; helping customers who are deconditioned to get back into exercise; encouraging children to exercise to combat childhood obesity; and growing the business to encourage employment in the area. All that has a positive impact on so many people’s lives in Inverclyde.
Thank you. Dr McCarthy, I believe that you would like to give an opening statement, too. Please go ahead, sir.
Thank you. I very much welcome the opportunity to address the committee, as I take great pride in being chair of Riverside Inverclyde and being part of an organisation that is transforming this area.
Today, I hope that you saw an Inverclyde that is welcoming to its travellers, its visitors and its residents, and an Inverclyde that is visibly providing opportunities and encouragement for people to live, work, visit and invest here. I am proud of what we are doing in Inverclyde. I live and work here, and I want to see a regenerated Inverclyde—economically, physically and socially—so that my children can have a great future in the area.
My appointment in March 2013 coincided with the introduction of the “Inverclyde Economic Development & Regeneration Single Operating Plan April 2014 to March 2017”, which was a landmark new approach to regeneration in Inverclyde. To give you the context, the single operating plan pooled the resources of Riverside Inverclyde and Inverclyde Council’s economic development and regeneration team into a more integrated partnership approach to shared priorities and objectives that is designed to maximise the area’s economic potential with the best use of the available funds.
The single operating plan fares well against the toolkit and key points identified in Audit Scotland’s report, “Arm’s-length external organisations (ALEOs): are you getting it right?”. Riverside Inverclyde has made great progress towards delivering the revised goals and targets that were set out in the single operating plan. The results from the first year of the three-year plan have demonstrated that the vision is delivering for Inverclyde, but there is no complacency, as the objectives for 2015 and 2016 remain challenging.
I take great pride in the approach that has been taken by the Riverside Inverclyde team and in the flourishing collaborative relationships that have been fostered with Inverclyde’s communities and businesses and our partners, Inverclyde Council and Scottish Enterprise, on delivering projects and consultations and on working together towards a successful, revitalised and proud Inverclyde.
Thank you.
Councillor Clocherty, would Inverclyde Leisure have been formed had it not been for the savings that were possible through VAT and other taxation measures, including non-domestic rates?
Inverclyde Leisure was formed in 2001. If we look at the journey from 2001 to now, we see that the council, in partnership with Inverclyde Leisure, has added to Inverclyde Leisure’s portfolio. We have recognised what Inverclyde Leisure is good at and what the council is good at. I would think that—
Would it have ever existed had it not been for the VAT and non-domestic rates savings?
I cannot transport myself back in time. The only thing that I can say to you is that Inverclyde Leisure is doing a fantastic job now—so much so that the council is putting more resources into it.
There are tax benefits, including VAT benefits, and there are other, visible benefits of having that arm’s-length organisation. I think that, yes, the politicians at the time would have had the foresight to put Inverclyde Leisure in place.
What are the other benefits of having an arm’s-length organisation?
I will talk specifically about Inverclyde Leisure. We have seen a more dynamic approach from Inverclyde Leisure than we would have had in a normal council setting.
We have been managing to bring in sports professionals and people who are very much sports driven rather than being local authority-driven officers. That is the main thing. Kieron Vango’s background will not be a local authority background; it will be a sports background. That is one of the advantages that Inverclyde Leisure has had. I would like to think that the partnership that has been built up between the council and Inverclyde Leisure is second to none in Scotland—I think that we work really well with each other.
I hope that that answers your question, convener. I am not sure whether it does, but if it does not, I am sure that you will say so.
I would like to know what the benefits are. Regardless of whether an organisation is in house or at arm’s length, it is possible to bring in professionals from across the board; I do not think that the status of the organisation makes any odds.
I want to ask about the overall approach that the council has to governing its ALEOs. How well does that approach work in allowing the council to monitor and scrutinise the work of its ALEOs?
There are five councillors on the Inverclyde Leisure board. I am one of them and Councillor James McColgan is another. As well as being the vice-chair of the Inverclyde Leisure board, he is the vice-convener of the education and communities committee. Those two roles fit together quite well. There is a direct tie-in, whereby the head of education and communities has a direct link, at officer level, with Kieron Vango and monthly meetings take place. At a political level, the vice-convener in charge of education and communities is also the vice-chair of the Inverclyde Leisure board. Therefore, there is an extremely good fit. Reports are produced at officer level and at political level.
Does the fact that the convener and vice-convener of the education and communities committee are the chair and vice-chair of the Inverclyde Leisure board not cause some governance problems?
Not really. Councillor Wilson is here representing Riverside Inverclyde—
I will come to him in a minute.
—but I, too, am a board member of Riverside Inverclyde and also of the Inverclyde Community Development Trust. As elected members, we are acutely aware of our roles with regard to scrutiny and when it is right for us to intervene and when it is wrong for us to intervene. For example, if Inverclyde Leisure is mentioned at a council meeting, I will declare that I am a director of Inverclyde Leisure. Equally, if Inverclyde Leisure deals with a matter that relates directly to the council or to a contract with the council, I and other councillors will exclude ourselves from that. Councillor members of all ALEOs—in Inverclyde, at least—are acutely aware of their position within the ALEO and of their position within the council. I believe that I act responsibly in that regard.
How many times have you made a declaration of interests and left a council meeting because of your position as the chair of Inverclyde Leisure?
As a board member of Inverclyde Leisure, every time that Inverclyde Leisure is discussed I will intimate that I am a member of Inverclyde Leisure’s board. Unless the council is considering a contract situation or a proposal to spend money, I will stay in the chamber.
How many times have you declared an interest and then left a council meeting?
I have declared an interest many a time, but I do not think that I have had to leave the chamber yet.
You have declared an interest on many an occasion, but you have never left the chamber.
Yes.
Okay.
I will come back to John Wilson in a second.
Councillor Wilson, how many times have you declared an interest at a council meeting and how many times have you left a meeting because of your position on Riverside Inverclyde?
I had asked whether I could make a short initial statement, like Dr McCarthy.
That was not relayed to me, but you can make a statement, if it is short. However, first, I would like you to answer my question about declarations of interest.
I have been a director Inverclyde Leisure, Riverside Homes and Riverside Inverclyde. On numerous occasions, I have declared an interest. I have left the chamber twice during meetings of the planning board, when issues arose. In the main, though, I have declared the interest and stayed in the council meetings.
You have declared an interest and stayed in the meetings.
Yes.
Do you want to give your short statement now?
Thank you. I was offered the opportunity to become interim chair of Riverside Inverclyde in July 2013. It was an honour and a privilege to accept. I held that role until February 2014.
The committee might be aware that the organisation was undergoing some upheaval, with personnel changes on the board and in the operational team. It was, therefore, imperative that I was able to steady the ship and assist RI to attract talented people to deliver for the people of Inverclyde and to oversee the transition process.
I was delighted that our publicly advertised recruitment process was able to attract high-calibre board members from the private sector, such as Dr Gerry McCarthy, the managing director at Texas Instruments UK in Greenock, and Anne McGregor, a partner in Anderson Strathern Solicitors. Dr McCarthy took over my role as chair and I resumed my role as an ordinary board member in March 2014, at which point we embarked on a three-year single operating plan with Inverclyde Council.
Good afternoon to new and returning panel members.
The convener has raised the issue of conflicts. Councillor Clocherty, you discussed your involvement in the arm’s-length external organisation. In your opening remarks, you indicated that Inverclyde Leisure was doing such a good job that the council increased its funding levels. You are a member of the committee that made that decision. What did you do when it was coming to that agreement?
There are two points to make. First, we did not increase the funding of Inverclyde Leisure. Inverclyde Leisure took on different responsibilities within the council, including management of the town halls, and the funding followed those responsibilities. The management fee for Inverclyde Leisure—that is, the money that the council gives it—has reduced, and is supposed to further decrease over the next three years. However, as it takes on more responsibilities, such as responsibility for pitch hire and community centres, funding for those responsibilities will follow that. That clarification is important, because the council believes that it is getting good value for money out of Inverclyde Leisure. We are under financial pressure, and we will continue to ask Inverclyde Leisure to cut its cloth accordingly, too.
We will check the Official Report on that point. However, the main point concerns the circumstances in which those decisions were made. I accept what you say about services being transferred to Inverclyde Leisure, but I want to know what your position was, as a member of the board of Inverclyde Leisure, during the committee meetings at which those decisions were made.
I would have declared an interest. I will need to check whether there was a requirement for a vote at those meetings. Usually, there is not. I hope that that answers your question. Honestly, I would need to check through all the council records to see whether there was a vote at committee and whether I abstained.
Would it be your normal practice to abstain in votes on decisions concerning Inverclyde Leisure?
I want to be clear. As a policy maker, I would make the policy decisions. We have a policy on free swimming for the over-65s. That is a policy decision that was made by the council and, as a policy maker, I would make the policy decision. We also have free pitch hire for the under-19s—that is a policy decision that I would take as a councillor, and the implementation of the policy would be put to Inverclyde Leisure. I would not see any conflict between my role as a policy maker in the council and my role as a board member of Inverclyde Leisure.
16:15
You used the example of free swimming lessons and free pitch hire. Does the council compensate Inverclyde Leisure for delivering those services free of charge?
Yes.
So there is a financial implication for the council.
Yes.
So you, as a policy maker, would make a policy decision to increase the provision of free swimming lessons and free pitch hire, and the council would compensate Inverclyde Leisure accordingly.
Yes.
Those are financial decisions. You sit there making policy decisions, which become financial decisions once you decide to pay the ALEO to deliver that service. Would you agree?
Yes, I would agree. As a policy maker, that is what I would do.
Do you see the link with the financial position?
I see exactly the link that you are trying to draw.
This issue is extremely important. Before we move on, I have a question. What legal advice have you had from the council’s solicitors regarding the position that you hold as a director of Inverclyde Leisure in relation to making some of those decisions?
Councillors have had training on ALEOs. If I was at all in any doubt about whether what I was doing at the committee was right or wrong, I would go to the chief legal officer, Gerry Malone, and ask him that question—
Have you done that?
No, I have not, because I have always been clear that my role is that of a policy maker as opposed to a director of an ALEO. I have never felt the requirement to go to my chief legal officer to discuss my position.
Has Mr Malone approached you about the positions that you hold and the possible conflicts that exist?
No.
Okay. I will bring John Wilson back in—sorry, John.
It is okay, convener—you have clarified my point with your follow-up questions.
I will move on to Councillor Wilson and his role on the RI board. I understand that you are also the convener of planning in the local authority.
Yes.
As I understand it, RI is a developer; it applies for planning consent to construct buildings and does development work. Have you ever had occasion to consider whether you should be sitting as the convener of planning, or on the board of RI, when decisions are made on planning applications?
When I sit as the chair of the planning board, I inevitably declare an interest and leave the chamber when such a planning application is to be discussed, having taken advice—usually the day before—from the solicitor who sits on my right at the planning board.
Has that situation arisen on any occasion?
Yes.
On how many occasions?
Three or four, perhaps, over eight years. I have been the chair of the planning board for eight years.
I will throw the question open to the rest of the panel. Part of the issue concerns the link between ALEOs and local authority democracy. We have heard in previous sessions—not in official evidence sessions, but certainly privately—that there is a potential conflict between the role of an ALEO board member and the role of an elected member.
If we go to those at Companies House or the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, they will tell us that a director’s role is to protect the best interests of the company or organisation on whose board they sit. As an elected member, your role is surely to protect the best interests of those who elect you as a representative and not to protect the interests of any board that you sit on. Do you have any views on the argument that your responsibility is to the electorate and not to a small board of directors?
You are absolutely right. My colleagues are often placed in a situation of conflict. I am a representative at the National Association of Councillors and I am constantly saying how difficult it is for councillors to balance their roles in ALEOs and outside bodies with their council roles. There is a conflict between a councillor’s constituents and the boards that councillors are on.
We get good general advice from the chief executive and the council’s head of legal services but, at the end of the day, the decision is up to the councillors—it is what the councillor thinks is appropriate in the circumstances. That is where matters are left. That has left councillors with some quite difficult decisions to make, and I admire my colleagues.
We are in a particular situation. We are a relatively small council, which means that involvement in outside bodies and different functions is spread across a limited number of councillors. It is not like Glasgow or the Lanarkshires. I am on the board of Strathclyde partnership for transport—I am the one person from Inverclyde who goes to SPT; in Glasgow, it is possible to choose from 65 or 70 councillors to go on SPT.
The situation is quite difficult for my colleagues. In the main, they handle it well, and I often see people declaring interests at committee meetings. That is quite a regular occurrence.
I support what Councillor Wilson says. In a small local authority, it is a councillor’s role to go on various arm’s-length organisations. I am also a board member of Riverside Inverclyde and of Inverclyde Community Development Trust. Those organisations have close links with the council. I hope that, as an individual councillor, I am aware of my responsibilities, both as an elected member and as a director of those organisations. When an issue crops up, I hope that I use my own sense to understand and do the appropriate thing at committee meetings.
As you are aware, an issue has arisen about public accountability in the decision-making process. That is why I have asked about the democratic accountability of elected members. Other board members on ALEOs do not face that potential double scrutiny by the electorate. They are appointed—I assume that the majority of members of ALEO boards are appointed by the council and not by the ALEO. There is a need to protect the democratic process when it comes to councillors.
Both councillors have identified issues when being called on to make decisions. I am not aware of any elected member having been challenged to date about decision making. Surely in a small local authority—both councillors have mentioned this—the size of the council’s majority group might be slim on any committee, and people might find themselves in a situation where the will of the majority group could be subverted at a committee meeting, if members such as Councillor Clocherty or Councillor Wilson had to abstain on a decision or a vote because they were both declared members of a board.
Fortunately, that has never arisen in all my time on the council. We have a full council meeting on Thursday this week, and there is one C item on the agenda, which is to do with the naming of a road. Under the current administration, I do not remember having had any other C items at a full council meeting. I could be wrong but, if that has happened, it has been just once or twice. I do not remember any C items being taken at a full council meeting during the previous administration.
That tells the committee that we try to do things in a consensual manner at Inverclyde, across the political parties, and we have a good understanding. In the main, we are all looking for the same thing. Whatever political party we are in, we are seeking to act for the benefit of Inverclyde. Normally, if we find that a policy is to the benefit of Inverclyde, we get cross-party support for it.
I reiterate that I think that we have had just one C item at the council over the past seven years.
Will you explain to committee members what a C item is, please?
My apologies. A C item requires a vote at the full council. First, there has to be a vote at a committee meeting, then the item has to be referred to the full council so that the full council has a chance to vote on it. If, for example, there was a meeting of the education and communities committee, we would vote on the item at that meeting, and those who voted against an item would need to refer it to the full council.
How many folk does it require to refer an item to the full council?
Three.
Out of a committee size of?
Eleven.
Some local authorities use terminology that others do not use.
My apologies.
I agree with Councillor Clocherty. I admit that we are not very adversarial. There are nine Labour councillors out of 20, and they represent the administration. I am a one-man party. Frequently, if something is coming up, the leader of the council will tell me about it and say where it is coming from, and he will often seek my views. Unless I am totally and utterly against something, I will support it. We operate on the basis of quite a good consensus among all the parties.
The adversarial politics here is kept to Twitter, is it? And the Greenock Telegraph.
I certainly do not do Twitter, but that is for personal reasons.
Let me turn to other aspects. This question is still for the politicians. If you were to establish a new ALEO for, say, the delivery of social care, would you ever consider setting it up without any elected membership on its board?
The most likely new ALEO, if you could call it that, would concern shared services. If we were talking about a shared service for roads between local authorities and if a new ALEO was to be set up for that, there would be political input into that.
So the answer is yes—if you were setting up a new ALEO, you would definitely have elected member input.
Yes.
Councillor Wilson?
Yes.
I turn to Dr McCarthy, in your role as chair of Riverside Inverclyde. Could Riverside Inverclyde’s relationship with the council be considered a little incestuous?
In what respect?
Do you ever feel that the council, as the overseer of Riverside Inverclyde, is making the decisions rather than the Riverside Inverclyde board?
Unequivocally, the Riverside Inverclyde board makes the decisions. We have a finance and operations team and two boards. I chair the boards, and I come from the private sector, as you may know. I tend to have a slightly different view—an apolitical view—although I am not saying that the councillors are necessarily political.
Given the way in which we manage the boards and make decisions, and given what Riverside Inverclyde is trying to achieve, I believe that we have the company’s beliefs at heart. That is what we set out to do. The foundation of any organisation is its governance and ethics. I hold that very true in my private enterprise and therefore I am quite comfortable that that is the way in which RI does business.
How many members does the RI board have and how many of them are elected members?
The Riverside Inverclyde board has nine members, three of whom are councillors. Three are from the private sector, one is from Scottish Enterprise and one is from the community. There is one private sector vacancy.
16:30
How many council officers are directly involved in running Riverside Inverclyde?
Mr Fawcett is the chief executive officer of Riverside Inverclyde, and various accountable officers come along to the meetings. In terms of direct relationships, I guess that we are talking about Mr Fawcett.
Mr Fawcett is the chief executive officer of Riverside Inverclyde and also holds the post of corporate director for environment, regeneration and resources in Inverclyde Council.
That is correct.
Is that two hats or one hat?
That is a good question but, whatever the case is, it is what I requested and favoured. Mr Fawcett was the interim CEO of Riverside Inverclyde. It went through a bit of turbulence and I joined after that, to try to establish a more robust organisation. We tried to interview for another CEO and, for various reasons, the board and I felt that we did not have anyone with the same vision as Mr Fawcett displayed. We therefore decided to enter into a protocol agreement whereby Mr Fawcett could be CEO of Riverside Inverclyde and the regeneration director in the council.
Are you happy with that governance arrangement?
I am very happy with it. I am happy with what we have been achieving together. I am satisfied with the level of scrutiny that we have at each board meeting. I meet Mr Fawcett on an occasional, going towards regular, basis, and I am satisfied with the way in which we are running Riverside Inverclyde and with what we are achieving.
You heard me say earlier that I play devil’s advocate quite a lot, which I do.
I figured that out.
What would you say to people who might be a bit cynical, including members of the public here in Inverclyde—there seem to be a few cynics here—and who feel that there is a kind of incestuous relationship between the council and the ALEOs?
It is difficult to put myself in someone else’s position. From a community or enterprise point of view, we have to understand that we are trying to improve the net value of the economy in the area. We have to have a private enterprise attitude at times. When it comes down to it, the data speaks for itself. It is important that we get the right people to do the right job to allow that to happen and to get the success that we need.
When I asked whether Mr Fawcett has two hats or one hat, you seemed to indicate that it is one, but are the two roles not very different?
I do not think that I indicated that it is one hat. I said that I am satisfied with the outcome, whether Aubrey Fawcett has been part of Riverside Inverclyde or part of the council as a regeneration officer.
I want to make it clear that the issue is not about one individual; it is about the way that the relationships between local authorities and ALEOs work. We will see what the Official Report says about the one hat scenario.
I turn to the roles and responsibilities in Inverclyde Leisure. How many council officers are involved in the running of it?
We have five.
You have five council officers.
Sorry—we have one council officer who serves the client function and who we meet monthly.
What role does that council officer have with Inverclyde Leisure and with Inverclyde Council?
He is the head of safer communities at Inverclyde Council. In Inverclyde Leisure, he serves the client function. As I said in my presentation to the committee earlier today, we report to him monthly on aspects of financial and operational performance of the leisure trust and any areas of risk for the trust. He is also on the board as an observer.
So Inverclyde Leisure reports to a council officer about all of its financial dealings and all of the client dealings.
And operational. We are part funded by the council, so we produce and give information to the council.
You are the chief executive of Inverclyde Leisure, Mr Vango.
I am.
Do you think that the head of—what did you say?
Safer communities.
You report to him. Is he actually the boss?
No. I report to him on the issues relating to the leisure trust as we are part funded by the council. I report to the board on a two-monthly basis. The board is who I am responsible to.
Okay. What do you think of that situation, Councillor Clocherty?
I intimated in one of my earlier statements how the situation works and that Kieron Vango meets John Arthur on a monthly basis. I am quite happy with the scrutiny role that I undertake as a member of the Inverclyde Leisure board. I believe that the papers that we are presented with on the operational and financial fronts of the leisure trust are excellent. They allow me to fulfil the scrutiny role that is my remit as a board member.
If, as a councillor, I get a report back to Inverclyde’s education and communities committee about Inverclyde Leisure, the first thing that I do is declare an interest, as I said earlier. I would not remove myself, but as a council member I would get any of the reports that go through the education and communities committee regarding Inverclyde Leisure.
You would declare an interest but you would not remove yourself.
That is correct.
We gathered that from what you said earlier. I want to ask about the role of the head of safer communities. When he is dealing with Inverclyde Leisure, I take it that he has no formal role.
No—he is an observer.
He is an observer. What is his input at board meetings?
He does not make any input.
No input whatsoever.
No.
Okay. Talk to me about the management contribution from the council to Inverclyde Leisure, which we touched on earlier.
We have 30 per cent funding from the council and a funding agreement with it. To meet that funding agreement, we present a three-year business plan, within which we say what products and services we are going to offer for that funding. There is also a three-year financial document within that business plan.
So 30 per cent of the funding comes from the council. I take it that 70 per cent comes from the income that you take in.
Yes. It comes from customers for products and services.
The council is providing only 30 per cent of your budget, but it seems to have a huge amount of influence for that percentage, which—I understand from what you said—will continue to reduce.
From my perspective, the councillors on the board are representing the company as a whole. I believe that any viewpoints that they bring in are being brought in from the public and not necessarily from the council. However, that is only my perception.
Okay. Do you think that the public know the difference between Inverclyde Leisure and the council?
I would like to say yes.
I agree with that. I think that the public perceive the difference.
All our marketing is Inverclyde Leisure based, as are all our products and services. We work in partnership with the council because we are part funded by it, but we market all our products and services as Inverclyde Leisure.
I will come back to that in a second. Councillor Clocherty, do you think that the public know the difference between the council and Inverclyde Leisure?
I think that they know the difference very clearly. In fact, sometimes I find it a bit frustrating that the public think that everything is provided by Inverclyde Leisure and they do not recognise that the council is behind an awful lot.
The branding and advertising for Inverclyde Leisure is fantastic; no doubt you will have seen some of it today. As we mentioned in the presentation earlier today, Inverclyde Leisure affordable fitness is a prime example, as it is quite clearly branded as an Inverclyde Leisure service.
I might be wrong on this, but we were out at Parklea today to see the 3G football pitches and other pitches, and the signage that we saw said “Inverclyde Council” in the top right-hand corner. I stand ready to be corrected on that, but there is a potential issue in terms of perception and reality. If the sign says “Inverclyde Council” and yet Inverclyde Leisure is delivering those services, there is clearly an issue around marketing what the council is doing and what Inverclyde Leisure is delivering.
You are absolutely right. We took over the facility recently—the full transfer was in April—and we have not finished the signage, but it is on our to-do list.
I have a few quick-fire questions for Councillor Wilson—sorry, I mean Councillor Clocherty. Are any other areas of service delivery being considered by the council for delivery by ALEOs?
No.
Are you aware of any, Councillor Wilson?
No.
Okay. What added value do you think that there has been from those ALEOs in comparison with keeping the services in-house?
I have already touched on that with regard to the enthusiasm and the future proofing that Inverclyde Leisure has managed to create. The CrossFit gym facility is an excellent initiative, and I wonder whether, if provision had stayed with the council, we would have had the foresight to deliver that and to try to future proof our leisure facilities rather than, in these times of constraint, carry on chipping away at the funding.
From my point of view, the added value is the enthusiasm and the future proofing that we get, and the fact that Inverclyde Leisure can look to the future in expanding leisure facilities without any constraints from the council.
Regarding the funding situation, has there ever been a time when the council has withheld any funding from either RI or Inverclyde Leisure, and if so, for what purposes?
Who is going to have a go at that? Councillor Clocherty, are you aware of that happening?
Not to my knowledge. There has never been such a report to the council. A situation in which money was withheld would be so serious that it would come through the policy and resources committee. As you will be aware, that would have serious implications with regard to the employees. We have touched on the number of people that Inverclyde employs, and the same applies to RI. To my knowledge, that has not happened.
No, I cannot recollect such a time.
Inverclyde Leisure provides some facilities, but Inverclyde Council will also have facilities in the local area. With regard to the wider strategy and the joint working between the two, has there ever been a time when IL has undercut Inverclyde Council—or vice versa—in providing particular facilities or services? If so, what was the outcome?
Who is going to have a crack at that? Councillor Clocherty?
I am quite happy to do so—the answer is no. We are now in a position in which most, if not all, of the council’s leisure services are run by Inverclyde Leisure. Our town hall buildings are run by Inverclyde Leisure. IL will take the responsibility for putting services such as catering out to contract, so it will be the IL board, and not the council, that will be involved. Using catering as an example, the council will not bid directly against Inverclyde Leisure to do the catering in the town hall.
16:45
That is a fairly recent development, is it not?
I think it has been so for four years now.
I seem to remember a situation, within the last couple of years, that had to do with the cost of hiring facilities at the Ravenscraig sports centre compared with the cost of hiring facilities at the new schools. They were in close proximity but it seemed that there was not a totally coherent approach to the letting of facilities in that part of Inverclyde.
The facilities would not have been in direct competition. In a school estate, however it was built, there will be a certain way of doing things, and Ravenscraig is a prime example of that. Although it might have appeared that the school was undercutting the sports centre, it would not have been in direct competition with it. The council would not have set a charge in spite of Inverclyde Leisure. We would not have gone into competition with Inverclyde Leisure. I understood that your question related to direct competition with Inverclyde Leisure rather than—
That is one of the issues, Councillor Clocherty. You are the chair of Inverclyde Leisure, but I think that I am right in saying that you just said, “We would not have gone into competition with Inverclyde Leisure.” You are wearing different hats at different points. One of the things that the committee is trying to get to is what hats you wear at what times.
As the chair of Inverclyde Leisure, you obviously have a job to do—
Convener, can I stop you? I am not the chair of Inverclyde Leisure.
Sorry. You are a director.
I am a director. The chair of Inverclyde Leisure is not a council member. Similar to Riverside Inverclyde—
I stand corrected. You are a director of Inverclyde Leisure, yet you said, “We would not have gone into direct competition with Inverclyde Leisure.” The issue is the different hats that you wear and at what point you wear which hat. One of the reasons why we are having this inquiry is to discover the different hats that you wear, at what points you wear them, where the governance fits in and what you are doing at a particular point in time.
Mr McCorkindale, do you have anything to say about the Ravenscraig sports centre?
The transfer of facilities to Inverclyde Leisure meant that the scale of charges was there or thereabouts, but we have now harmonised charges so that there is a stable price for customers across the board for lets of school or sports facilities.
I want to go back to a point that Councillor Clocherty made about Inverclyde Leisure. Councillor Clocherty, you made great play of Inverclyde Leisure being innovative and forward looking, and you seemed to indicate that the local authority would never have taken that innovation forward. Are you saying that the only reason that local authorities establish ALEOs is that local authorities do not have the in-house skills and expertise to deliver those services within their own services?
First, when the question of setting up a leisure trust was originally put to us, we recognised the value of the VAT saving that we would get by having a leisure trust with charitable status. We do not underestimate its benefit to the council in that regard.
Secondly, we benefit from the experience that Inverclyde Leisure has built up with regard to sport. Would the council have been able to do exactly the same? I do not know. Inverclyde Leisure was set up in 2001 and it is the only game in town that I have known. As a director, I have known how good it has been. In the west of Scotland—in Scotland generally—an awful lot of private gyms offer X, Y and Z when they try to come into an area, but I understand that Inverclyde Leisure has been at the forefront of providing those facilities to our communities in Inverclyde.
As I said earlier, I cannot, unfortunately, send myself back to 2001 and bring myself forward to find out how the council would have done things, and I have not looked in depth at how councils elsewhere in Scotland do things. As a director of Inverclyde Leisure, I can only be happy with the scrutiny that I undertake, and, as a councillor, I can only be happy with the facilities that Inverclyde Leisure delivers on the council’s behalf.
It is an interesting issue. As you say, Inverclyde Leisure was established in 2001. When the ALEO was established, one of the key issues—it was a key issue with a number of other ALEOs throughout Scotland at the time—was the VAT and rates issue. There was a saving, and some local authorities argued that the savings on VAT and rates were substantial. That was the reason why they transferred services at the time. Do you think that local authorities would have transferred those services if the VAT and rates issue had not been a concern to them? I will check the Official Report, Councillor Clocherty, but my understanding of what you said earlier is that you think that Inverclyde Leisure has done a better job in providing leisure services than the council could have done.
Yes.
That is because you have brought in additional skills and expertise. You alluded to the local authority not being able to attract or bring them in to run the same services.
Yes. I think that that is what I said.
That is fine.
To conclude, I want to touch on training, which has been discussed to a certain degree. Councillor Clocherty, how much training have you had on the relationship between the councils and the arm’s-length organisations of which you have been a director or a member?
As councillors, we had in-house training on our roles and responsibilities within an ALEO, and, as a director, I had training from Inverclyde Leisure and in my time with Riverside Inverclyde. So, we had training from the council on our roles and responsibilities as members of an ALEO—many of those subjects have been touched on—and training from the ALEOs on our responsibilities as directors.
When did that training take place?
The training on our roles within ALEOs probably took place when I was last elected. I do not know whether there have been refresher courses that I have not been on, but we are probably talking about six or seven years ago.
I have had training in the council. We got training after the 2007 election and after the 2012 election, and there was further training in between. I have also had training via Riverside Inverclyde, River Clyde Homes and Strathclyde Passenger Transport. In that training, there was a lot of emphasis not just on the code of conduct but on the role of a board member or director.
How long did the in-house council training that you received after the 2012 election last?
It lasted an afternoon.
Did all councillors participate in the training?
I cannot remember, but I think that most did.
Have you not had training for six years or so, Councillor Clocherty?
I am trying to be as honest as possible. I cannot remember whether I went to the training session after the 2012 election.
Okay. As the chair of Riverside Inverclyde, Dr McCarthy, are you confident that your board members have had the training to be able to fulfil their duties and to recognise their different roles?
I cannot remember questioning any response around the board table or anything that would have indicated that there was any potential conflict.
What about the chief executive of Inverclyde Leisure? Mr Vango, have you had any difficulties that have led you to think that folk have not had enough training to deal with responsibilities around the board table?
No. We have offered training ourselves. I think that the last training was around a year and a half ago. We get in a local legal firm—Patten & Prentice LLP—to give us a presentation on the directors’ responsibilities.
My final question is for the councillors, although I do not know whether they will be able to answer it. We will find this out later, anyway. Do the councillors know what training is given to council officers who have dual roles in the council and in arm’s-length bodies?
I have no idea.
Are you talking about training for council officers?
Yes.
Our chief legal officer, Mr Malone, is very geared up on our role and he quite often gives us advice. He seems very knowledgeable about the matter, so I imagine that he has been trained at some stage.
Okay. I thank you all very much for your evidence.
I reiterate my thanks to Inverclyde Council for hosting our visit and for the hospitality that we have received. I also thank the organisations that have played host to us today, particularly Ferguson’s shipyard, which did so at very short notice, and the members of the public who have engaged with us.
We now have an opportunity for a question-and-answer session in which the public can question the committee. I am not sure whether there are many members of the public left, but, if people want to question us, they should remain in their seats.
Meeting closed at 16:56.Previous
Draft Budget Scrutiny 2016-17