Glasgow, 'Rules' and Councillors' Expenses

The newspapers and social media have had lots to say about the expenses claims of Glasgow's Lord Provost in recent days.

In my opinion, some of these comments have been 'over the top' while others have tried to 'defend the indefensible' by arguing that the criticism of Eva Bolander has been unfair, unreasonable or politically motivated. 

A  number of absurd excuses have emerged in an effort to explain away what has been happening with the civic head's expenses in Glasgow including the completely bogus argument that £5,000 spending limit is an 'allowance' which the Lord Provost was perfectly entitled to spend. 

Nothing could be further from the truth as is shown below by the SLARC (Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee) Review and Report from 2008 which states in terms:

"We believe that it is for Councils themselves to determine what is a legitimate use of these funds."

Now since this business blew up Glasgow's Lord Provost has decided to put her hands up and apologise over her extravagant spending spree at the taxpayers' expense while adding that all her claims were 'within the rules'.

But what exactly are these rules because all Scottish councils (including Glasgow) were charged with drawing up proper arrangements for approving the expenses of civic heads? 

The leader of Glasgow City Council Susan Aitken is on record as saying that, "It's part of the Lord Provost's salary in Glasgow", which sounds like the exact opposite of a robust and rigorous approval process to me, so I'm keen to understand the details of the 'rules' referred to in Eva Bolander's apology letter.

Part of the problem is, of course, that the SNP Finance Secretary, Derek Mackay, effectively disbanded SLARC back in 2013 and so there is now no independent scrutiny or oversight of what Scottish councils are doing, in this and other areas.    

SLARC 2008 Report

Civic Head expenses

5.26 Currently the Allowances and Expenses Regulations allow for re-imbursement for civic expenses, restricted to Civic Heads, up to the limits set for each Council, to enable them to carry out their civic duties. These are in addition to any expenditure incurred on travel, subsistence and meals. The maximum annual sum which may be claimed is dependent on the Banding of the Council. These are:

• £2,000 for Band A Councils;
• £3,000 for Band B Councils;
• £4,000 for Band C Councils; and 
• £5,000 for Band D Councils.

5.27 It is clear from discussion with a number of authorities that they have not used these funds because there is a lack of clarity as to the types of use which may be made of them. There is also concern that the sums are restricted to Civic Heads even though on occasions his/her depute or others would undertake civic duties on his/her behalf.

5.28 We believe that it is for Councils themselves to determine what is a legitimate use of these funds. For guidance such funds may be used, for example, for:

• any additional necessary purchase or hire of clothes to attend civic functions; or

• any visits where the Civic Head would like to return hospitality to his/her host by purchasing a meal for them. Such visits may, for example, be twinning arrangements or other international events attended by the Civic Head; or

• personal hospitality.

5.29 We feel it is too early to say whether or not these sums are reasonable, given the slow uptake by authorities, and as such we do not propose any change to the maximum annual sums available at this time.

5.30 However, we believe that the sums should not be restricted to the Provosts and Lord Provosts (Civic Head) but (within the limits specified within each Council band) should also be able to be claimed by his/her deputes or others who undertake civic duties on behalf of the Provost or Lord Provost. This arrangement should be managed by the Council.