Aberdeen City Council (Best-value Audit)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-2021, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, on the best-value audit of Aberdeen City Council. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the findings and recommendations of the Accounts Commission for Scotland following its Best Value audit of Aberdeen City Council and looks forward to concerted and urgent action to implement those recommendations and to secure the future of schools and of public and voluntary sector services in the city.
On Tuesday, petitioners from Aberdeen Trades Union Council, from Glencraft and from Future Choices came to Parliament to seek support for the defence of jobs and services in Aberdeen. Many trade unionists, disabled service users, disabled working people and campaigners for schools and for the rights of senior citizens have made their voices heard at Holyrood again today, and I am delighted that some of them have been able to stay for this evening's debate.
The message from those campaigners is loud and clear: Aberdeen City Council must balance the books and sort itself out, but it must not do so at the expense of the most vulnerable people and communities. Never before has a Scottish city council required such drastic treatment as the Accounts Commission has prescribed for Aberdeen. It is essential that the council now accepts the findings as well as the recommendations of the Accounts Commission.
At the weekend, the council's leader, Kate Dean, appeared to say on television that she would implement the Accounts Commission's recommendations but that she did not accept its analysis of why they were necessary. Taking the medicine but not listening to the expert advice about what went wrong in the first place will result only in painful short-term term fixes. The fact that that is what the council has said that it will do does not offer hope of a long-term cure.
The Accounts Commission's very first finding is that
"the challenges facing the council are collectively extremely serious",
but that there is
"a lack of a full appreciation of the seriousness of its current circumstances."
That is what has to change, and urgently.
If leaders of the current administration recognise the reality of the situation, they need to demonstrate that by accepting that some of the choices that they have made have been the wrong ones. For example, the Accounts Commission's fourth finding and fourth recommendation address the lack of "leadership and direction" in the council's two largest services, education and social work.
The commission says that it is
"concerned that the council believes the organisational structure is fit for purpose,"
despite the findings to the contrary of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the Social Work Inspection Agency. The commission believes that
"there is a case for the organisational structure to be simplified and for effective leadership, which commands the respect and support of employees, to be put in place for the council's major services."
To achieve that,
"Immediately following the appointment of a new chief executive a review of the council's organisational structure should be undertaken,"
in full consultation with council staff.
The import of those findings and recommendations could hardly be clearer. In the past three years, education and social work services have been plunged into chaos by the abolition of their director posts and the loss of leadership and direction. Those mistakes urgently need to be put right. For that to happen, those who made the mistakes must acknowledge them. It will not do for those who run the council to maintain that the current situation is somehow the responsibility of every member of the council and every administration of the past 12 years. To make such claims only adds to Aberdeen citizens' sense of council leaders abdicating responsibility instead of leading from the front.
The Accounts Commission has no axe to grind, and it is in no doubt about the relevant timeframe. The commission states:
"Over the past three years, the council's expenditure has been significantly in excess of its budget, giving rise to concern over diminishing reserves".
That is not a tentative conclusion; it is a clear summary of the evidence that the commission has found. The council's precarious financial position arises directly from significant overspending in the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. In 2003, Aberdeen City Council had healthy reserves of over £23 million. The Accounts Commission has described a position five years on in which the council is without an adequate reserve and the value of revenue from sold assets is quickly swallowed up by a chronic deficit.
I am delighted that the commission has backed the Labour proposal for the appointment of an independent expert in local government finance in order to establish whether the council's proposed savings are accurate and achievable, and to monitor closely the delivery of the savings. In this context, the word "independent" is just as important as the word "expert". It is essential that such an independent expert has full access to the accounts of each and every part of the council. Only that way can he or she have the information that is required to ensure that everything possible is being done to realise savings in everything other than front-line services. Of course, the debate is not just about balancing the books; crucially, it is also about securing the future of schools and services that were sacrificed all too easily in the wild panic of budget cuts earlier this year.
I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will now act on the suggestion that I made to him on 9 April and permit the council to transfer funding from capital to revenue. If he does that, the council must be ready to take a different approach in addressing the current crisis. There must be no repeat of the unplanned, uncosted and illogical cuts that we have seen this year; nor can opposition parties be asked or expected to endorse planned savings that make no sense.
The Accounts Commission has laid out a plan for taking the council forward. I know that Labour councillors in Aberdeen are ready to work with others to implement that plan, and I expect ministers to give their support. However, in doing all that, we must not lose sight of what local government is about: the provision of schools and services. A council that succeeds in balancing the books only by closing schools in disadvantaged communities and taking away services from vulnerable people is still a failing council.
If Aberdeen is to succeed, it must start by putting schools and services back at the centre of the council's purpose, where they belong, bringing back effective financial management and winning back the trust of its citizens. Accepting in full the findings and recommendations of the Accounts Commission would be a good place to start.
Lewis Macdonald's final statement is correct. Everybody needs to work together on this and accept the Accounts Commission's recommendations in full—that applies across the board in Aberdeen City Council.
However, Lewis Macdonald and his colleagues on Aberdeen City Council have not addressed the realities—I refer to the motion before us. He is quick to tell us that the vulnerable are being targeted, but he has not identified where alternative cuts should be made. He has not disputed in any way the amount by which the budget is in deficit—indeed, the council's budgets have continuously been in deficit. Since 2002-03, which was firmly during the period in which the Labour Party was in charge of the budget, the council has spent more money than it has taken in. In that financial year, the council spent £4.8 million more than it budgeted for.
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me develop my point.
There was an overspend of £14.1 million on the 2003-04 budget, which was set by the outgoing Labour council and had to be implemented by the incoming Tory-Liberal council. Things continued in that way. In 2004-05, there was an overspend of £6.5 million, an overspend of £14.5 million in 2005-06 and an overspend of £10 million in 2006-07. That represents a total overspend of just under £50 million.
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me continue.
More recently, Lewis Macdonald and his Labour colleagues have suggested that there should not have been council cuts in a number of areas. They are entitled to disagree, but they have offered no alternatives. The council Labour group offered no alternative budget and since then, no alternative suggestions have been offered about which services need to be cut. Since 9 April, Aberdeen City Council's Labour group has made proposals to do with voluntary sector grants, bowling greens, Bon Accord baths, the school estate strategy, Glencraft, the taxi fare scheme, the ice rink, waste uplifts and winter maintenance. The additional costs that would fall on the revenue budget would be just short of £3.5 million. In addition, there would be a further £700,000 on the capital budget with no concomitant cuts. The Labour group has not balanced the books and it has no alternative plans. Members of that group are deceiving themselves—I do not think that they are deceiving the public—when it comes to offering realistic alternatives. Mr Macdonald and his colleagues need to tell us exactly how much of a transfer from capital to revenue they want, because it will take a lot to save £27 million.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
A position that has regularly been adopted is that the Marischal college project should be cancelled. It has been said that doing so would save £80 million. However, the reality is that we are not talking about the capital budget; we are talking about the revenue budget. This coming year, only a little more than £1 million has been committed to the Marischal college project. We deserve answers about where the other £26 million will come from to fund the changes. The same will apply in future years.
I welcome the opportunity to endorse the Accounts Commission's proposals, but I do not welcome the opportunity to endorse Labour's solutions. Labour has no solutions whatsoever.
I register a personal interest: my husband is the current Aberdeen City Council Conservative group leader.
I welcome the campaigners in the public gallery who have travelled down from Aberdeen and I congratulate Lewis Macdonald on securing the debate.
The cuts to services in Aberdeen as a result of this year's council budget have caused great distress to many groups in our community. I have visited a number of the threatened services and have seen at first hand the challenges that many have faced in their attempts to remain open. However, the motion raises false hopes, as we are now nearly three months into the council's financial year. Time has moved on, and some are now—sadly—facing up to the reality of service loss. I feel particularly sorry for the users of Choices, which provided a lifeline of respite and companionship for very vulnerable people, but has now closed its doors. I wish that it could have found an alternative means of funding its services, as the Aye Can Recycling project did.
The first phase of schools reorganisation is now over, with the decision taken to close Victoria Road and St Machar primary schools. The consultation on the future of the feeder primary schools in the Bridge of Don and Dyce areas is about to begin, with a decision expected in the early autumn.
Negotiations about Glencraft are on-going. It is hoped that it will have a future in more suitable premises and on a more secure financial footing. The council is also currently considering business plans from three organisations that are interested in taking over the running of the Linx ice arena and other sporting facilities in the city. That could well be a very positive outcome.
As I said, time has moved on. That is why I find it difficult to support the latter part of the motion, which refers to securing
"the future of schools and of public and voluntary sector services in the city."
I lodged an amendment to delete that part of the motion, which gained support from several MSPs including, initially, one Labour member, although their support was subsequently withdrawn.
I hear what the member says about not wishing to revisit decisions that have been made. Does she accept, however, that the proposition that further school closures for budgetary reasons should be averted is a different proposition from the proposition that we should revisit decisions that have already been made? Does she join me in urging the council not to consider further school closures this year?
That is, indeed, another matter. Nevertheless, the prime consideration must be the fact that Aberdeen City Council has been overspending.
I lodged my amendment in the hope that we could move on, with cross-party support, to remedy Aberdeen's situation in the best interests of its citizens. To quote the First Minister, I think that it is time for all sides to "stop the blame game" over Aberdeen City Council's financial problems. Frankly, the Labour Party witch hunt, which has been going on for the past few months, is not helping to find a way forward for Aberdeen.
I would have liked to see an examination of the council's financial history since it was set up in 1995, but the Accounts Commission chose to look only at the past three years and we must accept that. It is clear that Aberdeen City Council has been living beyond its means, which simply cannot continue. I welcome moves by the cabinet secretary to help the council to work through the problems that it is currently facing in order to regain a stable and sustainable financial footing.
It is crucial that we now move forward and that Aberdeen City Council implements the recommendations of the Accounts Commission. The recommendation to establish an all-party leadership board to drive forward an improvement plan must be implemented without delay. I hope that the special council meeting that has been called for next Monday will agree to set up a fully cross-party group—including the council's single independent member—to take things forward.
Aberdeen can no longer afford the luxury of the political posturing that has seriously undermined the council's reputation. I sincerely hope that members of all parties, both at Holyrood and in Aberdeen, will work together to secure a sustainable financial future for Aberdeen City Council in the interests of the citizens of Aberdeen.
An audit of best value is intended to identify how well a council is performing in relation to best value and community planning. As part of the agenda to modernise local government, it is meant to encourage a culture of continuous improvement and engagement with communities. That whole agenda challenges local government to find new ways of working across services and with other bodies to achieve the best results for citizens and service users.
The scale of that challenge varies from council to council on the basis of historical and cultural styles within each council. As Brian Adam said, the audit was carried out in 2006-07, but the problems that were identified had not appeared overnight. I have no doubt that they were rooted in a culture that was set in place some time ago—a culture that the council has said that it was striving to change.
No one could deny that the audit is a sobering read. Everyone has acknowledged the need for change, and Kate Dean has stated her determination to meet the challenges. Action has already been taken. The council has drafted an improvement plan and has sought outside help from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Government. John Swinney must respond to that request for assistance. He must step in and help the city financially. The low Government settlement and the council tax freeze this year certainly added to the council's woes at a most unhelpful time.
Historically, Aberdeen City Council has not fared as well as it might have at the hands of local government distribution formulae, but this year its share of funding fell. I am sure that there must be a fairer and more transparent way of allocating resources to local government, so I restate my support for a review of local government funding. The Liberal Democrats want the local government funding formula to be changed. If Aberdeen were funded at the same level per head of population as Dundee, it would have an astonishing £131 million extra to spend every year. If it were funded at the average level of all Scottish councils, it would have nearly £100 million extra. What help can the Government offer in light of that?
The scale of the reaction to the cuts, with protests and representations being made, demonstrates clearly that the services that were provided were valued. With fairer funding, they could continue to be provided. The city council must now work hard to build bridges with community groups and other organisations, and it must explore options for alternative service provision.
There is no getting away from the fact that the audit has said that the budget must be brought back on track. As other members have said, that will not be an easy task, and difficult decisions will have to be taken. All parties must work together through this period. It is no good the Labour Party saying that the finances must be sorted out but then refusing to countenance any changes at all.
Councillors and senior management must acknowledge—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am just closing. Councillors and senior management must acknowledge both the corporate and the individual responsibility that they carry to bring about the organisational change that is clearly needed. Ministers must try to offer real support. It will take a great deal of determination and resolve, but that is necessary to put the council on a firm footing for the future. The people of Aberdeen deserve that commitment.
I congratulate Lewis Macdonald on securing the debate and thank him for his tireless work on these vital issues for Aberdeen. For me, one of the few positive aspects of this difficult time has been the opportunity to work alongside Lewis Macdonald and our MPs, Frank Doran and Anne Begg, in the campaigns against cuts and closures, and to work with local people, of whatever political persuasion, who have fought so hard to save vital services and facilities.
I am pleased that we have campaigners with us here in Parliament today, fighting for local schools, for Glencraft, for Choices and for all the people and organisations that are affected by the cuts. Young people, disabled people and older people's groups are all fighting to save services and facilities that are crucial in their lives, as was eloquently encapsulated in Kevin McCahery's moving evidence to the Public Petitions Committee about the human impact of the closure of the Choices day centre for people with disabilities.
This has been a dispiriting time for Aberdeen. We need to go beyond the expert analysis of the situation that has been provided by the Accounts Commission and move towards solutions. I am pleased that a suggestion that was made by Labour—that external advice should be sought by the council—has been taken on board by the Accounts Commission, as the idea was initially rejected by the council administration. There has also been an unprecedented recommendation for a leadership panel drawn from the four main parties. If that proceeds on an equitable basis, we can work constructively through the severe challenges.
We must be persuaded that the city council's administration will move forward in the same spirit. For me, the most damning thing that the Accounts Commission said was that the administration did not fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation. It is not acceptable for the administration to absolve itself of fault while blaming everyone else. It will be for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to defend his settlement to Aberdeen City Council, but how can we genuinely move forward when the administration—indeed, the First Minister, whom Nanette Milne quoted as calling for us to work together, sought to do this at the weekend—seeks to implicate the Labour administration of five years ago, when the cuts and deficits were simply not happening. That makes collaboration difficult. I worry that the administration has still not acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.
It is welcome that the cabinet secretary has sought a speedy response from the council and that ministers have sought further responses to the Social Work Inspection Agency report on the council, which was damning and which praised the Choices centre, which has been closed. Ministers must also consider the fact that, in closing services for the disabled, the council has been in breach of statutory duties, leaving service users no choice but to take legal action.
I regret that other parties in the Parliament supported an amendment to the motion that sought to remove the lines about stopping cuts and closures. If we are not going to work together to stop cuts to education budgets, to stop the closure of successful and valued schools that serve some of the most deprived communities in Aberdeen, to stop the closure of facilities for our young people and to protect services for the most vulnerable people in the city, for the elderly, for the disabled and for the homeless—if we are not working towards the joint goals of saving those key services and, in doing so, restoring the reputation of our city, what is a new consensus for?
It is very sad and shows a paucity of ambition if members of other parties feel that there are no alternatives. We believe that there are, and we have proposed them locally, nationally and in this debate. I hope that we can take action together locally and in a way that is supported by the efforts of MSPs across the chamber.
I congratulate Lewis Macdonald again on securing the debate and I congratulate the people who have travelled here to show their determination to fight for the great city of Aberdeen. They will not give up on ensuring that our council works for our citizens. We should all join them in that goal.
I welcome the opportunity to debate an issue that is of considerable concern to the citizens of Aberdeen, although it is probably not of much concern to many other people.
I acknowledge the problems that the situation in Aberdeen has created for its citizens. I am a member of the Public Petitions Committee and I was present at the meeting on Tuesday, as were Lewis Macdonald, Brian Adam and Richard Baker. Richard Baker is right to point out the human issues that result from cuts in services, which we all acknowledge, whatever party we represent and wherever our experience lies. That is the nature of things. As I said at Tuesday's meeting, anything that the Government can do to improve the financial situation in Aberdeen must be welcomed.
I will take issue with a few comments that Labour members made, but first I accord Lewis Macdonald the opportunity of answering the question that Brian Adam asked him. Will he please say how much money he wants to be transferred from capital to revenue and where it will come from?
I am glad that Nigel Don showed me the courtesy that Brian Adam did not show when he refused to allow me to intervene. We said to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth two months ago that it is not in our gift or the council's gift but in his gift to consider a transfer of funding from capital to revenue. I see that the cabinet secretary is shaking his head, which makes me a little anxious. However, in the context of capital projects of the scale of the £80 million Marischal college project, there is scope for moving funding from capital to revenue, which might offer part of the solution.
I thank Lewis Macdonald for his response. I understand the point, but the response clarified that he has no particular number in mind, which is what I wanted to demonstrate.
I take issue with Richard Baker. There might have been reserves at the time, but overspending started on his party's watch, albeit that it has continued thereafter. I also take issue with the Labour Party's insistence on highlighting the situation in schools. It is abundantly clear to anyone who stands back and considers the numbers that if there are 30,000 school places and only 22,000 pupils, modification of what goes on on the ground is needed. We can all argue about which schools should have been closed or merged, but such arguments have gone on since schools were built in the city and are no different this time round. The Labour Party should be a little more careful about backing that particular horse. The process of providing schools where the people are must go on. We must ensure that we maximise funding for teaching and pupils rather than funding for buildings.
Will the member give way?
Forgive me, but I am struggling to keep to my time. There is much that we could say.
Aberdeen City Council has already created a budget monitoring board, which I understand has had at least one lengthy meeting. I have been told that opposition councillors were not present at the end of the meeting. If that is true—I think it is, because I have it on good authority—we need to send a message to the opposition parties on Aberdeen City Council that it is time to stop complaining and start contributing to discussions at council level on how to sort out the problems.
I acknowledge that the finances are not in our hands, but the cabinet secretary might have helpful things to say, although he might not—that is in his gift. The organisation of Aberdeen City Council is in the hands of councillors of every party. We must encourage councillors to pull their weight.
I, too, congratulate Lewis Macdonald on his hard work and endeavours on the matters that we are discussing. I also congratulate other members who are involved and the campaigners, some of whom I met today, who have done a sterling job to bring issues to do with Aberdeen City Council to the country's attention. I also congratulate the national press, working locally. The Press and Journal and the Aberdeen Evening Express have run vociferous campaigns to inform us about the challenges that the city faces—those used to be oft-quoted papers in Parliament, but they are not often quoted on the Government benches these days.
Members have spoken of political posturing. We are faced with one of the most damning reports on any local authority in Scotland. It is therefore right that we bring these issues to Parliament's attention. Lewis Macdonald and other Labour members have addressed the issues in a way that tries to provide solutions for some of the serious problems that the council faces. That cannot be called posturing.
On the subject of posturing, I watched an entertaining interview with Brian Adam on "Newsnight Scotland" in March, in which he said that we were scaremongering because the situation that the council is in happens every year. He said that all councils go through it, and that it is all about budget setting. Situations like this do not happen all the time. We have not seen a situation such as the one in Aberdeen for many years. [Interruption.]
Brian Adam can make sedentary comments, but if he looks at the transcript, he will see what he said that night—
It is in the transcript.
I say to the trade unionists, campaigners, and senior citizens who are losing services that of course this does not happen every year. A very special set of circumstances is involved.
Will the member give way?
I will finish the point.
Like his colleague Nigel Don, all Brian Adam has done is justify the cuts. He has done nothing to resolve the issue.
It is interesting to hear what the SNP has to say on schools. Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, is keeping a school open that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the council want to close not for economic reasons, but for reasons of educational value. The cabinet secretary is keeping a school in business and yet, when budget cuts drive education cuts, we hear nothing from her on the subject. Money counts on one occasion, but not on another. Educational value appears not to be the key issue in this instance.
I turn to the figures. The Accounts Commission was very clear about why the council is in the mess it is in. SNP members claim that the problems have been present in the council administration over the years, but that is a false claim. Ministers are saying that the pattern of significant overspending goes back to 2002, but that is not what the Accounts Commission demonstrated in its report.
I will go through the point in detail. In the seven years from 1996 to 2003, using provisional outturns—which was the Government's preferred measure of comparing budget estimates at the time—there was a range from a £4.75 million council overspend to an underspend of £2.7 million. The cumulative overspend during the seven years of Labour administration was £8.3 million—an average of less than £1.2 million a year. In my experience, such a figure is unexceptional, particularly for an organisation that has a budget of £300 million a year.
By exactly the same measure, in the four years from 2003 to 2007, the overspend was £6.5 million in the best year and £17.5 million in the worst year. That is a cumulative overspend in just four years of £48.1 million—an average of over £12 million a year. When it comes to the figures, we must not mess about. Let us focus on who is responsible for the situation. We need to ensure that we work together, but we also need to understand from where the problem has emanated.
It is ironic that we are having the debate on the day after the meeting between the First Minister and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in which he spoke about power to the people and the enhancement of powers to local government. The self-appointed emperor of Scotland, Mr Salmond, is fiddling while Aberdeen services burn. That is inappropriate. He does not understand the real issues that campaigners are bringing to Parliament. The First Minister has said that he will not leave Aberdeen in the lurch. I suspect that he will.
I congratulate Lewis Macdonald on securing the debate and on providing me with the opportunity to put on record the Government's position on the situation in Aberdeen City Council. I am also grateful for the opportunity to address some of the remarks that have been made in the debate.
The findings of the Accounts Commission and the report that the Social Work Inspection Agency published, along with the controller of audit's report on the property issues that relate to the council, make it clear that the difficulties that face the council are of long standing. Frankly, the council's present financial position is a product of years of avoiding the issues that faced it.
In its report, the Accounts Commission states that
"the council is in a precarious financial position."
As I recorded in my letter to Nicol Stephen of some weeks ago,
"the Council has spent … £50 million more than they had budgeted to spend in the period 2002-07."
That is an unsustainable position. Although we can endlessly exchange blame across the chamber about where the overspend has come from and where the money has gone, that is the reality that faces Aberdeen City Council. Nobody can doubt the statistic that I have just put on record: in the period from 2002 to 2007, the council spent £50 million more than it budgeted for.
Does the cabinet secretary nonetheless accept the point that Andy Kerr has just made that including 2002-03 in that series is entirely misleading, as that year is much more aptly included in the series of seven years of Labour administration, when the overspends at no point exceeded £5 million on provisional outturns? Indeed, the cabinet secretary will know that, on final outturns, in all those seven years, including 2002-03, there was an underspend by Aberdeen City Council.
Mr Macdonald can put on the record as many numbers as he wants to, but in the period from 2002 to 2007, the city council spent £50 million more than it budgeted for.
The Accounts Commission report sets out that the city council's financial position is "precarious". That is not the first time that that word has been used in connection with the council's finances. In 2005-06, precarious was exactly how the council's overall financial position was described in its external audit report. That substantiates my point that the issues have been around in the city council for some years and left unattended to.
The Government takes the findings of the Accounts Commission report and the Social Work Inspection Agency report extremely seriously. I have written to and met the leadership of Aberdeen City Council and made clear my strong concerns over the findings directly to the leadership. I explained that I expect the council leadership and all members of the council to take swift and effective action to make progress on the commission's recommendations and to address the issues that are raised in its report. I will monitor the situation closely to ensure that the council takes the swift and effective action that is necessary to improve its position. The council should be in no doubt that I reserve the right to use the statutory powers that are available to me should I consider that the council has not taken appropriate action.
If the council is to overcome the substantial challenges that it faces and meet the reasonable expectations of people in Aberdeen—I accept that many people in Aberdeen feel strongly about some of the issues that we are debating—everyone within it must play their full part in the process. The political administration must pursue the necessary improvements with pace, purpose and clear direction, never losing sight of the fact that its key purpose is to secure better services and outcomes for people in Aberdeen, now and in the future. I expect the political opposition to deliver on its commitment to work with the administration to bring about the necessary improvements.
I agree with Nanette Milne that it is time for everybody to focus on the way forward for Aberdeen City Council. Over many months, the citizens of Aberdeen have been treated to an exercise in trying to apportion responsibility. We now know the factual basis, from the Accounts Commission report. It is now time to focus on solutions. In that respect, the realities of the financial situation that faces Aberdeen City Council cannot be avoided by anybody, whether they are in the council leadership or the opposition. That is why it is important that, rather than play games, everybody subscribes to taking part in the leadership board that the Accounts Commission has said is required to ensure that the improvement plan that emerges from the city council leadership and is discussed by the city council results in the improvement and recovery that are required.
I confirm to the Parliament that I have received from the city council the draft improvement plan, which is designed to tackle the findings of the Accounts Commission and SWIA reports. The plan will be considered by the full council in due course. The council leadership has worked hard in recent days to produce the plan, with support from COSLA, the Improvement Service and a panel of councillors and chief executives from elsewhere in Scotland. I welcome the fact that the council leadership proposes to seek external assistance from its peers; that it is establishing an all-party leadership board; and that it will appoint an independent local government finance expert to assist in addressing its financial position. Those are welcome and swift responses from the council to the demand for action that I made during my meeting last Thursday.
Of course, the drafting of the improvement plan is only the start of a challenging journey for the council. However, at this stage, I am broadly satisfied that it reflects a reasonable and genuine effort to address the most pressing issues. I will take comfort if the council approves the plan and takes the necessary action on the issues.
I conclude with some words on the role of the Scottish Government. We have made it clear that we will review and revise the funding formula for local authority services in consultation with COSLA. In recent months, the Scottish Government has provided direct support to Aberdeen City Council in a range of ways. We have supported the partnership between the Government, the council and the Wood Family Trust to transform some of the council's services into social enterprises—a route that the Parliament should agree has merit.
A whole range of other interventions have been made to ensure that Aberdeen City Council can be supported through the difficulties. I have given a pledge to consider the capitalisation issues that Lewis Macdonald has raised, but I point out to him that any measures will require approval from the Treasury.
Aberdeen City Council must face up to the challenges raised by the Accounts Commission report. Every single member of the council must face up to them, and I will expect every member to contribute to the process.
Meeting closed at 17:55.