The picture is certainly developing. As Mr Baillie said, the Local Government Association in England is working with COSLA to present a united case for UK local authorities. The most up-to-date information that we have is that legal questions exist about the preferred creditor status of councils. As Mr Baillie also said, we will look into that further. The picture is shifting, but councils certainly expect to recover most of, if not all, the money.
Yes.
They have done it again, have they not? Do they not learn from their mistakes? Is it not the case that some interest rates are too high to be true? That was the case with BCCI, and it proved to be the case again with the Icelandic banks. What are you doing to ensure that local authorities learn from their mistakes?
I believe that a direct consequence of the case that you referred to was the introduction of the prudential borrowing regime.
When the Icelandic events took place, the first thing we did was carry out a quick piece of work to review local authorities’ treasury management practices. That gave us some comfort because it was clear that there is good treasury management policy in place in just about every local authority in Scotland, and that that was generally being complied with. That is a big improvement on where we were when the BCCI situation arose. However, some questions were raised about the reliance on a small number of rating agencies and how quickly the ratings were being adjusted to take account of concerns that were surfacing in Iceland and elsewhere in the world as the banking crisis progressed.
The Audit Commission’s findings refer to the impact of the recession. Page 3 of the submission says that
We all acknowledge that local authorities have difficult decisions to make and we all disagree with any cuts in funding of services. Local authorities have to make those decisions, but they also need to plan ahead for further cuts. There is a general election happening—in May, we think—and there has been talk of an emergency budget by various parties. Are local authorities carrying out long-term planning and considering how they will cope with the unknowns? We do not know whether there will be an emergency budget or who will be in power, so there might be further cuts in addition to the ones that we are expecting. Are all local authorities looking ahead to that?
Information from the work of Audit Scotland suggests that a lot of scenario planning is going on. I have two points on that. One is that there is a need for a much more long-term consideration of the resources—the people, property and pounds—that councils manage, so that things are done on a more co-ordinated basis.
It is fair to say that there is. A lot of scenario planning is going on and there are all sorts of discussions behind the scenes to consider how best to deal with the issues and how to ensure that vulnerable people are not affected.
It is absolutely clear that councils know better than we do what they face in the next few years. We see that in our work and we are just reflecting some of the things that we think we can do to support improvement and to help councils deal with the tough times that lie ahead.
I am sorry, but I will pick you up on that. I do not mean to be personally offensive to you, but I have heard that facile argument being used right across the country. When I became leader of Renfrewshire Council in 1995, I was told that if we did not set the salaries at a particular level, we would not attract and retain the best people. I refused to do that; I pegged the salaries at a lower level than even some of the smaller local authorities nearby. We attracted and retained good people.
The frustration—which Mr Baillie cannot resolve—is that, even if we get informal reports, we cannot pursue matters. Nicol Stephen gave the example of SPT. The committee was unable to consider whether there was wrongdoing or there were irregularities and would have been unable to do so even if it had had an internal briefing, as the responsibility lies with local government. The Parliament would have to give us the ability to examine such issues on the production of a report. The rules and legal framework would need to be changed completely. If Mr Baillie and his colleagues or Audit Scotland gave us an informal briefing, what would we do with any information that highlighted irregularities? We could do nothing to pursue the matter if it were a local government matter. The rules of engagement would need to change.
The controller of audit reports to the Accounts Commission. We do it, yes.
But you do not report to us as you have done here.
Absolutely. That is a good point and we should not lose sight of it.
The Accounts Commission has been considering the issue. There is a commonality of view on the matter.
It might be useful to take a step back to Mr Stephen’s original question about the right level of engagement of the Parliament with local government, which is an important issue. Parliament decided when it was established that the Accounts Commission would remain in place to look at problems that occurred in individual councils. The Accounts Commission has general powers to take action in relation to wrongdoing and specific powers to take action when public money is lost because of that wrongdoing. Those powers are used and are taken seriously in local government.
I start by reminding the committee what we said at the beginning of the meeting—that we are not here to attack individual local authorities, because they are not here to respond and because Mr Baillie is probably not in any position to give us an answer. It is not appropriate for us to do that.
It is fair to say that there is a variety of views, but Caroline Gardner knows the specifics of the issue.
Very limited.
There is an opportunity for a debate on that. If you are told that you will not get any additional sums unless you freeze council tax, it is called blackmail.
What percentage is it? Is it 7 per cent?
Thank you very much.
I will make a general point and ask Caroline Gardner to make specific comments. I again come back to the point that I made earlier about performance management and performance reporting.
It is fair to say that practice varies across the country. As you said, our report is an overview report. Some councils are much more focused on having the proper information to allow them to take the right decisions or to take the decisions that have more chance of being right. Having quality information on services and on the costs of services can lead to much more effective scrutiny and decision making. There is a general need for all councils to have such information, otherwise they are all guessing in the dark. Some councils are much better than others, but there is still a general need for things to improve.
For a number of years now, the commission has been pushing for councils to ensure that their audit or scrutiny committee is chaired by a councillor who is not a member of the ruling administration. That should ensure that the audit committee provides a real challenge that is perceived as such—and that there is confidence about that—outside the council. That works very well in some parts of Scotland, but less well in others.
Has COSLA accepted the commission’s recommendation that audit committees should be chaired by a councillor from a party other than that of the ruling administration?
Right. So that work is on-going.
The matter is very important for us.
My next question relates to one of Nicol Stephen’s earlier points. On page 15 of the report, you refer to procurement issues and state that significant savings can be made if procurement is done properly. You also state that huge contracts can be let if things are done centrally. However, in a central body that is at arm’s length from councils and elected members, even if members are appointed to such a body, there is the potential for contracts that the central body lets to be subject to less than rigorous analysis. We all know what happens—not only in this country, but elsewhere—when cosy relationships develop and there is insufficient scrutiny. Are you satisfied that the accountability structures for bodies such as the one that is referred to in your report are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that there is always proper accountability, scrutiny and decision making?
Most of the points have been covered. John Baillie spoke about the need to maintain governance. The report reflects the fact that this year and in previous years arm’s-length organisations have become more prevalent. As Mr Baillie said, it is essential to follow the “Code of Guidance on Funding External Bodies and Following the Public Pound” that the Accounts Commission and COSLA released a few years ago. It is important for councils to know what they are trying to achieve through such arrangements and to put in place the type of monitoring arrangements that have been suggested. There must be monitoring not just of the financial position but of performance, to determine whether a council is getting from the arrangements the level of service that it expects.
Which exhibit are you referring to?
The convener asked a good question earlier, which took us into those figures. That exhibit conceals the fact that a big chunk of the change was made up of staff moving from direct employment in Glasgow City Council into an arm’s-length organisation. If that is discounted, there was a small increase in the number of staff employed across the piece. However, your broader point is correct. Many local authorities are planning reductions in their workforces, but that will have an impact on much wider issues than just the budget. Given the current difficult circumstances, we know that all those local authorities are taking those issues seriously.
Thank you.
So the local government budget has grown up until the financial year just ending and there were no cuts in the current financial year.
That is right. We are currently coming to the end of financial year 2009-10, so next year’s overview will give the figures for that year.
That is right.
I found the figure for job losses difficult to understand. Paragraph 38 states:
Those figures come from the joint staffing watch survey and are taken from the table at the bottom of page 13, which summarises the overall movements. You are right that the decrease in Glasgow City Council’s workforce figure is greater than the overall figure. That means that there was an across-the-piece increase in full-time equivalent posts in the rest of local government.
COSLA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers and others have worked hard to develop training fully so that all councillors have personal development plans, but there is still a way to go. Caroline Gardner may know the specifics of the training programme.
The programme is a big part of the Improvement Service’s work. As you know well, convener, such training has been considered to be good practice for a while, and it was boosted when the new remuneration arrangements for councillors were introduced four or five years ago. One requirement of that was that councillors should have individual personal development plans that ensure that they are trained in their general responsibilities as councillors and in specific requirements for tasks such as membership of a planning committee or a health board.
I cannot remember the exact figure.
Although the figure that is involved this time—£46.5 million—is a great deal of money, it is fair to say that there is not the same degree of concentration of local authorities’ money in particular banks. There is a more general problem this time, rather than a specific one.
The principle is the same. There are treasurers or directors of finance of local authorities who have public money that they are meant to safeguard but they get excited when they suddenly see a bank offering a big interest rate. They should say, “Wait a minute. We’ve had experience of this in the past. These are dodgy investments. Let’s not do it again.” Is the Accounts Commission doing anything to advise them on that or to discourage them from trying to make a quick buck?
I would like to say that, but you will not be surprised to hear that auditors hardly ever say “never”.
We are addressing our findings to the local government community. When we say that “an urgent response” is needed, we mean that it is needed in relation, first, to what services are provided and how they are provided and, secondly—I keep saying this, but only because it is true—to the introduction of proper performance management and reporting so that elected councillors have an idea of how to choose services and how they should be provided. The two go hand in hand.
The answer to that would start with the observation—I think that we are all aware of it—that if we want to retain the people who have the qualities to manage a complex organisation such as a local authority, that is the going rate.
It seems to me that the general point that I made is just that—a general point—and there can be specific counterarguments in given cases. People are much more mobile these days and they could find themselves another role.
Cutting salaries? With all due respect, I will give one example because I happen to know about it, but I am sure that it will apply right across the country. In my own local authority area, the director of education earned £96,000. That is for someone who came up through the teaching ranks. There are not that many jobs elsewhere for someone with that background and experience, other than perhaps as a director of education in another local authority. Are you seriously telling me that £96,000 is not enough to live on?
You will not expect me to comment specifically on the example that you raise; I understand that it is an example to illustrate your point. Does Caroline Gardner want say something?
It is unarguable that we have been through a period of significant wage inflation for senior staff, not just in local government but right across the public sector and more widely. It is difficult to focus on just local government in that context. That is one of the reasons why the Accounts Commission focused in the overview report on the need for councils to move on from just the shared services agenda to other, more extensive ways of joint working and collaborating in order to get the same quality of services for lower cost. For example, some health boards and councils have appointed joint directors of health and social care, which takes out one post at a very senior level but should also give them much greater capacity to design better services for older people or people who rely on community services. The thrust of the commission’s report is to ensure that we get the best value for everything that we spend on staff, including senior managers, on assets and on all the other things that we do.
That is an interesting area to look at. The Accounts Commission’s view—we talk about it informally—is that it is entirely right and proper that a body that funds approximately 80 per cent of local authority activity has some kind of interest in and, indeed, receives reports on what is happening in local authorities. As you will know, the status of this meeting is that of an informal briefing rather than one where we give evidence per se. However, the Accounts Commission would welcome a closer involvement with Parliament in terms of its reporting and conversations with members of the Scottish Parliament and its committees. Such discussions would only enhance your understanding of us and vice versa. There is a good case for developing that conversation.
Yes, but it is fair to say that, historically, the Accounts Commission and the Public Audit Committee have tended not to liaise.
That is correct.
Who is responsible for checking the accounts of the police and fire boards and reporting if there is anything wrong with them? Do you do that?
Police and fire board accounts go back to the boards and then to the constituent local authorities.
Yes.
That needs to be looked at, too.
There is an issue that we cannot resolve this morning. Certainly, Mr Baillie and his colleagues cannot resolve the problem.
No, but we can develop a resolution over time.
Excellent.
Caroline, do you want to say anything before I bring in Willie Coffey?
There is discretion in relation to, for example, planning charges, which are significantly down because of the recession. Many councils are considering how to charge for leisure services. It is difficult, because the very time when a lot of people may need exercise or some form of leisure to keep themselves stable at a time of threatened redundancy is the very time when they may have to pay for it. It is obviously not my decision. It is a decision for councils, but they face a difficult dilemma. Those are two examples, but there is limited scope.
The short answer is that housing rental income is included in the table. You are in the right ball park—it amounts to about £1 billion a year. It is included under the line
Sadly, I do.
Do Caroline Gardner or Gordon Smail want to fill in some of the blanks?
It is true that the proportion of councils’ income that is raised by local taxation has been falling for a good while. That was accelerated by the council tax freeze, which kept that part of their income steady while the rest of their income increased. I will round out that answer. I am not sure that it is fair to say that the freeze was imposed; it was part of the concordat between central Government and local government, whatever we think of the merits of the agreement.
It is a small proportion, particularly when you take account of the fact that a large amount of the second line in exhibit 1, on service fees and so on, consists of rent.
Bill Kidd is absolutely right that without proper information no council can know what impact it is having on the different needs of groups in its local population. We do not yet know the outcome of the consultation on how the bill will apply in Scotland, but I agree with your point.
What is being done with those few exceptions?
The only fair answer is that it varies. In the case of East Ayrshire Council, for example, I decided against using my statutory powers to report to the Accounts Commission because we were clear that the council dealt with the issue very well after it came to light and the annual audit process had considered it. The council not only dealt thoroughly with the specifics, but it considered what it could learn from the situation. That is one example, but practice varies across the piece; that is why the Accounts Commission has the powers to look specifically at individual authorities.
Both the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland have been saying for some time—for example, in the report “Code of Guidance on Funding External Bodies and Following the Public Pound”—that, no matter where the public money goes, the same accountability and governance are needed. It is therefore for councils to ensure that that happens. If something was not followed through in the way that the convener talks about, it would be picked up in, for example, the best-value reports of individual councils.
I invite Gordon Smail to come in on this one, because I think that he is on top of the detail.
I am sorry that I was late, but I had another parliamentary committee to attend. I apologise to the committee and the witnesses.
You are absolutely right. That is another good example of the trade-offs to which the convener referred earlier. In making any big purchasing decision, one looks to trade off getting a good price with ensuring that the purchase provides the required quality. One needs to ensure that one is not having an undue impact on the local economy, that the purchase is sustainable and that the cost to the public purse is not bigger. All that is particularly apparent with regard to sensitive services such as care services for older people.
Yes. The report refers to a piece of work that we did jointly for the Accounts Commission and the Auditor General, in which we considered progress on procurement in general, in line with the work that was commissioned by the Government three or four years ago. We think that good progress is being made, but careful attention needs to be paid locally to how things can be procured at the lowest cost without losing what is valued in the first place about what is being bought.
We welcome the opportunity to meet the committee and discuss key issues in local government based on the work in 2009. My opening statement will be short; after it, we will be more than pleased to respond to any questions that the committee may have.
Will you give me the reference again, please?
It is therefore Caroline Gardner’s comment. I ask her to speak to it.
That is right.
What is the cut in real terms for 2010-11?
There will be a very small real-terms decrease. Gordon Smail might have the figure to hand.
There will be a very small decrease of about 0.4 per cent in real terms.
There will be a cash-terms increase but a very small real-terms decrease.
How much is that 0.4 per cent?
Can we anticipate that local authority income will increase in 2009-10 as well, given that the cuts will start in 2010-11?
So, excluding Glasgow City Council, employment in every other local authority increased.
Yes, by a very small amount across the piece. Total local government staffing stands at about 0.25 million.
In the case of Glasgow City Council, the decrease reflects not a decline in staff numbers but a transfer of responsibility to an arm’s-length body.
That is right. That is in line with the increase in resources that we have just been exploring.
So, in fact, the number of people who are employed in delivering services has increased rather than decreased.
I have other questions on more substantial issues, but I will come back to those.
On page 11, the second half of paragraph 28 states:
What John Baillie says is exactly right about the context. The direct answer to Bill Kidd’s question is that officers do not have instructions on the level of information that should be available to members. That level of prescription would probably be hard to achieve. Instead, what is important is that members have the context that they need for proper decision making and the right level of detail to let them take decisions for which they are properly accountable and about which they can be transparent with their electorates. The best-value guidance gives some information on that, but that is not instruction.
John Baillie mentioned training for councillors. When I was a councillor before being elected to the Scottish Parliament, I suggested such training. Through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I did work to prepare training courses for members. I lost sight of that when I was elected to the Scottish Parliament. Has such training not continued? Are training courses not in place for councillors?
Exhibit 4, which is on page 9, details the investments that several Scottish councils hold in Icelandic banks. Paragraph 7 on the previous page says:
We talked about the issue just before we joined the committee this morning. The situation is being handled nationally throughout the United Kingdom. The expectation is still that quite a lot of money will be recovered. Gordon Smail may know more. I think that we will research the point more.
Would it be fair to say that there is now greater uncertainty about whether that money will be recovered?
That is fair. The fact that the legal process is now under way means that we need to keep an eye on the situation and see how it unfolds. Councils have provided for those amounts but, as our report says, the expectation is that all the money and related interest will be recovered.
Do you remember the Bank of Credit and Commerce International affair?
Do you remember how many how many Scottish local authorities lost money as a result of their involvement in that situation?
There were quite a few, were there not?
Yes.
Can you say that the problem will not arise a third time, or that it is less likely that it will?
Indeed.
John Baillie has covered most of the points. We have seen for a while that councils are improving their short and medium-term financial planning, but there is a much bigger issue about long-term financial planning, which needs to be done a lot better. As Mr Baillie said, there is a connection with the other resources that councils have available. The point that we are making in the report is that we are in a different set of circumstances, so many of the things that have served councils really well in the past and until now will not be enough in the future. For example, in the past few weeks, councils throughout Scotland have put together balanced budgets, which is good in the circumstances, but the big job now will be delivering on some of the assumptions in those budgets, such as those on anticipated efficiency savings.
Is there a general acceptance in the local government community—and not just by one or two authorities—that there is a requirement to look at things differently and that we need long-term planning?
Just before I bring in Nicol Stephen and Willie Coffey, councils know that tough times are ahead; I will come back to the pensions issue at some time during the meeting. One of the things that has been quite starkly obvious in recent years—it reflects what is happening in other parts of the public sector, such as the health service and universities—is the huge growth in the salaries of the people at the top. That is now starting to cause problems in the environment that you described. An increasing number of services are being cut, but a vast number of people in the public sector across Scotland are earning salaries that are completely out of proportion to those that are earned by the rest of the population. Is anything being done? I know that chief executives have taken the decision to freeze their salaries, but the situation goes way beyond that. If someone has had a 20 per cent or 30 per cent increase in their salary and then they decide to freeze it, the damage has already been done. Is anything being done to address that disgraceful situation in the public sector?
I want to ask about the role of the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland and the former’s relationship with this committee and—linked to that, I guess—with Parliament and the Scottish Government. The relationship has always been explained to me as being about the separation of powers, if you want to call it that. It is not a separation of powers in the classic jurisprudential sense; it is the separation of local government from central Government and the importance of recognising the distinction between local and central Government. However, the witnesses sit here today answering our quite detailed questions about local government. I am interested to know your perspective on that relationship and where you feel that it is appropriate for us to scrutinise and ask questions of you, Audit Scotland or individual local authorities in this area. Where do you feel that we would be stepping over the mark or going beyond the general level to which the convener referred when he introduced this agenda item, and getting into areas that strictly should be the responsibility solely of you and the members of the commission?
I welcome that response and feel that we should take the opportunity to develop the relationship. After all, although the Accounts Commission might not have direct responsibility for certain issues that come before it, they might impact on the committee’s work or the operation of the Scottish Government, and the commission should have the opportunity to refer such items to us.
The people on either side of me and those representing Audit Scotland might want to comment on this in a second, but I think that the general issue is the Accounts Commission’s independence. Of course, as the specific cases that you mentioned are still live, I cannot comment on them—you would not expect me to. However, instead of having some formal reporting mechanism, we could establish a mechanism for providing additional informal briefings to MSPs.
I accept that point fully. However, I read a media briefing this weekend or a previous weekend that told us that the First Minister intended to abolish SPT. That announcement has not been made to Parliament, but such a fundamental and significant restructuring can occur when it is decided that things have gone so far wrong that the Parliament or Government should intervene. Part of the reason for my question is the fact that the boundaries between the responsibilities of central Government and local government can change.
Absolutely, and if there were a policy change, the appropriate committee would deal with it. I am talking specifically about the committee’s current remit. For us to go further would require a rule change. That might be a welcome change, but I am reflecting on the fact that there is a limit to what we can do.
That is correct.
So they are wrapped up in this report, essentially.
It is a very good question, particularly in the current climate. We are not seeing a great appetite for extra powers. The existing powers are quite extensive. The prudential framework means that councils can borrow up to the limits of their ability to repay, which is what is in question now, as funding starts to decline after years of real-terms growth. Powers around, for example, planning gain and planning consent can leverage in extra funding.
That was an extremely interesting answer. We know from elsewhere in the report that the 2 per cent year-on-year efficiency gains will probably not be enough to address some of the issues to which the increasing demand on resources will give rise. It was interesting to hear your view on how consistently an approach that involves the use of existing powers to think of different solutions to apply locally is being adopted. Perhaps local authorities require to do further work to make progress on that.
Thanks for that clarification.
I would like to follow up on Willie Coffey’s first question. Paragraph 3 on page 7 of the report says:
We had discretion in local government. The Tories used to propose reducing the rates and we used to propose increasing them to provide better services, which would justify the increase. We therefore had some discretion and there was a choice, but now that the council tax is frozen by Scottish Government diktat what discretion does that leave local authorities in respect of their income as opposed to their expenditure?
I clearly cannot comment on that, Lord Foulkes, but I can say that at the same time there has been a reduction in the amount of ring-fenced funding, which gives councils more freedom in spending money. You are right about the broad point that the proportion raised through local taxation has fallen.
When you take out Government grant and council tax, what percentage is left for discretionary charge raising, which Professor Baillie mentioned?
Exhibit 1 gives you a pretty clear indication of the amount that does not come from either Scottish Government funding or council tax. It is a small proportion overall.
I would not like to think that we have to blackmail councils into delivering equality. Paragraphs 79 to 82 on page 19, under the heading “Equality of outcomes for individuals”, correctly state:
Further to Nicol Stephen’s point, the committee and the Parliament will no doubt need to reflect at some point on how the public interest can be best protected, and who should scrutinise matters, when issues of significant public concern arise about substantial amounts of money that ultimately come from central Government. However, let me take the issue back to the local level, on which the report—although it is an overview report—gives some very specific examples.
I think so.
Yes, that is very widely accepted. There are few exceptions now.
We continue to apply pressure year on year through the annual audit process and in particular through best value. The issue is a theme in fewer and fewer best-value audits, as councils accept that that really is good practice for good reasons. I do not have up-to-date figures on which are the outstanding councils, but we have seen a significant reduction in that number over several years.
It would be interesting to get that information. That is an important recommendation from the Accounts Commission that should lead to improvements in standards.
Another item in your report that worries me a bit refers to a significant and serious issue. Paragraph 36 refers to the implications of restructuring for the role of the chief financial officer. If departments such as finance and corporate affairs were to merge, the head of finance and corporate affairs might not be the chief financial officer. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy recommends that
The Accounts Commission is looking closely at that. Whenever we see something that does not fit CIPFA’s recommendation, which we firmly believe is right, we pounce on it. Caroline Gardner may want to add something on the specifics.
We recognise the concern that the convener expresses. It is an important safeguard that the chief financial officer should be on the senior management team and report directly to the chief executive. We are doing more work on behalf of the Accounts Commission to consider how far councils comply with the spirit of the recommendation, as well as the letter of it.
It is referred to at the end of paragraph 36.
Let us put to one side the issue of malpractice, about which everyone must be vigilant at all times. Mr Baillie made an important point about the impact of centralised decision making on the local economy. When a council entrusts local purchasing to a central body and the contract is won by a big company—perhaps not from Scotland, but from elsewhere—local companies may suffer. I have had local contractors tell me that a service that they had provided to the council—for stationery and printing, for example—has been centralised. They say that the cost to the public purse is now greater than that of the service that they could provide, but they have no way of influencing matters because they are not big enough or they do not meet the criteria. I am sure that other members have encountered such situations; Murdo Fraser has raised the issue. The public purse is losing out from the way in which purchasing is done. Do you look at that issue from an audit perspective, or is it simply a management issue that councillors on the board must resolve?
When Audit Scotland prepares best-value reports, part of its work is to look at the competitiveness of councils—how they assess the competitiveness of their services and the value for money that their purchases represent. My two colleagues from Audit Scotland can amplify my comments. We urge councils to benchmark their purchases, to ensure that they are getting not the cheapest service but the best value for money—the service that is best value for money is not always the cheapest. If benchmarking is lacking, as is sometimes the case, that is commented on in best-value reports, included in our findings and built into the improvement plans that councils draw up to do something about the situation. Competitiveness is looked at specifically. Councils need performance management and performance information, so that they have the proper tools to enable them to make the right decisions.
In the first year, you raised four questions with East Ayrshire Council. As a serving member of the council, I endorse Caroline Gardner’s comments on the thoroughness with which the current administration approached the issue that arose, with support from across the council. That is to the credit of all members of the council.
It is early days, and there is a learning process about when e-purchasing is appropriate, and so on.
Exhibit 8 provides information about local authority workforces. If my sums are correct, between 2008 and 2009 we lost more than 4,000 workers in the local government sector, including—
I am sorry—it is exhibit 11. Obviously, there is a cost to everyone who loses a job, and the impact on the local economy needs to be considered. Have you done any work on that?
I thank Gordon Smail, Caroline Gardner and John Baillie for their contribution. Notwithstanding the frustrations that the committee sometimes feels when items are drawn to our attention that we cannot take any further, we recognise the sterling work that the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland perform, and the invaluable service that you provide not only to the committee but to local authorities. The challenges that you pose to public representatives are very big. Are we sufficiently equipped to meet those challenges and address the shortcomings that you sometimes identify? We all have a shared objective to ensure that public resources are used to best effect, for which work we thank you.
John Baillie and his colleagues will give a presentation on the Accounts Commission report. It is an unusual item because we cannot go into the detail of what local authorities deliver as they are accountable to their own councils and to the electorate, but there are top-line issues that may be of significance.
I will ask a couple of factual questions. Towards the bottom of page 5 of the report, you say:
It is towards the bottom of the second-last paragraph in the left-hand column on page 5. It is in the controller’s foreword.
Yes—the short answer is that there has been year-on-year growth until the settlement that was announced for the financial year that is about to start in April 2010.
You are testing us today on whether we have the figures at our fingertips. We are talking about a small amount of the overall budget. We will confirm the figure separately rather than risk misleading the committee.
On page 7, under the heading “Income and expenditure”, paragraph 2 states:
That is right. Employment in local government has gone down slightly because of the shift of staff to an arm’s-length body by Glasgow City Council, but the overall number of people who are engaged in service delivery has, on a like-for-like basis, gone up very slightly. However, that will not take account of previous changes in those that employ staff, whether it is local government directly or arm’s-length organisations. Paragraph 38 provides a factual picture rather than a conclusion that has been drawn about levels of service.
I will start and Caroline Gardner will follow up. Bill Kidd has raised several points; if my answer is too broad, just interrupt me.
Next
Section 23 Report