Councillors, Scottish Ministers and Conflicts of Interest
Here's a post from the blog archive containing an extract of the official (Feb 2013) report from the Scottish Parliament.
The now disgraced Derek Mackay was under pressure at the time because of the resignation of SLARC's remaining members which explains the grubby tactics and planted question from a fellow MSP Kevin Stewart, now a very well paid SNP minister.
The fact that no one from SLARC was invited to discuss these issues with the Scottish Parliament's Local Government Committee speaks volumes about the weakness of Derek Mackay's case and, of course, despite the minister's claims independent scrutiny of councillors pay and expenses was never reinstated by the Scottish Government.
Instead the SNP brought the issue under central control via Scottish ministers which has led directly to MSPs and MPs using large amounts of public money to hand out lucrative second and third jobs to their friends and political allies.
Now I am all in favour of councillors being well paid and properly rewarded for the jobs they do, but the present unregulated, free-for-all is wide open to abuse.
And what has become clear recently is that politicians are setting the public interest aside and exploiting the position to their own personal and/or party advantage.
In the process the SNP has created a toxic conflict of interest in Scottish local government with so many influential local councillors employed by MSPs, MPs and Scottish Government ministers.
Which means that in terms of speaking up for the interests of Scottish local government the SNP can be fairly described as 'the dog that didn't bark'.
Kevin Stewart
Tammany Hall Politics (February 14, 2013)
Tammany Hall politics became famous in the 1800s as politicians in America found new ways to achieve their ends through organisation and manipulation - instead of relying on the sense and power of their arguments.
And this style of politics is alive and kicking today as can be seen from the following extract form the Official Report of the Scottish Parliament from Thursday 7 February 2013.
Tammany Hall politics became famous in the 1800s as politicians in America found new ways to achieve their ends through organisation and manipulation - instead of relying on the sense and power of their arguments.
And this style of politics is alive and kicking today as can be seen from the following extract form the Official Report of the Scottish Parliament from Thursday 7 February 2013.
"Scottish Parliament - Official Report - 7 February 2013
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP):
5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee regarding its forward work programme. (S4O-01793)
The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Derek Mackay): I met the convener of the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee on 23 January 2013 and our discussion included the future work programme of SLARC. In line with the provisions of the legislation that created SLARC, I believe that there is no work to commission to SLARC at this time.
Kevin Stewart: I have spoken to many councillors across the country who believe that SLARC has been rather ineffective in carrying out its duties. What is the view of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue?
Derek Mackay: I have discussed the matter with COSLA and it is content with our approach and my view. I have also written to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament to seek its views. Many people would call for the abolition of SLARC, not least the leader of the Labour group at COSLA. We value its role, but there is no work to be commissioned at this time.
Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab): The committee was set up under statute by this Parliament. Is it not unacceptable that, rather than the minister volunteering that information today, the committee members have all resigned due to their feeling that the minister was completely uninterested in their work? Given that the committee has done some good work in the past on council remuneration and arm’s-length external organisations, would it not have been more appropriate to do work on this far in advance of all three members feeling that they had no option but to resign?
Derek Mackay: There is no work to do. I have to ask the Parliament: what is the point of appointing people to a committee with no work to do? That does not seem to be an appropriate use of public funds. If we require SLARC’s advice in future, we will be happy to take it. Sometimes we will agree with its recommendations, such as on ALEO places, and sometimes we will disagree with its recommendations, such as on substantial pay increases to councillors, which we do not feel are appropriate at this time.
We value SLARC’s role and, if we require its input in future, we will of course seek it in line with the provisions in the legislation."
Now the first point to note is that this is a 'planted' question - from one SNP MSP and former councillor to another - with both the questioner and Minister sharing similar backgrounds.
The next thing to pick up is the fact that the first SNP MSP (Kevin Stewart) makes disparaging comments about an independent advisory body (SLARC) without a shred of evidence to back up what he says, yet this chap is the Convener of the Scottish Parliament's Local Government Committee.
The Minister picks up on this rather unsubtle invitation and says - "I have also written to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament to seek its views. Many people would call for the abolition of SLARC, not least the Labour group at COSLA".
Now quite where that came from is a mystery who are the 'many people' referred to in the Minister's response and is not the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament the Local Government Committe, the Convener of which is none other than Kevin Stewart, of course.
So it's well worth noting that the first MSP (Kevin Stewart) is a former SNP councillor and Depute Leader of Aberdeen Council while the Local Government Minister is a former SNP councillor and Leader of Renfrewshire Council, as well as the former leader of the SNP group at COSLA.
For some reason the Minister felt the need to put on record the alleged 'hostility' of the Labour group at COSLA to SLARC without explaining this statement or, indeed, his own views while leader of the SNP group at COSLA.
I'm sure no sensible person would swallow the claim that any alleged antipathy towards SLARC from within COSLA or elsewhere is down to its overly generous stance on councillors' pay.
And the fact that councillors' pay is currently frozen does not represent a heroic act of self-sacrifice or leadership on the part of elected councillors, not least because this outcome was inevitable following the decision of Scottish employers to freeze the pay of their council employees.
So maybe I can help shed a little light on things.
Some time ago SLARC put in place, via Scottish Ministers, a new scheme to control councillors' remuneration (pay and expenses) in Scotland which was warmly welcomed at the time on an all party basis.
Yet behind the scenes lots of councillors (though not all) and many councils (though not all) kept pressing for councillors to have a much better package of pay and rations - which would have given every councillor a minimum salary of £25,000 and linked other senior councillor salaries to the salaries of MSPs.
The most vocal advocate of £25,000 and a link to MSPs pay was COSLA (with the support of its member councils) and in subsequent meetings with SLARC many councillors (both SNP and Labour) - said that they supported the COSLA line .
But these 'demands' were consistently rejected by SLARC after carefully weighing all the evidence which may explain why some councillors, some councils and the Labour group at COSLA (according to the Minister) seem to resent councillors' pay and expenses being dealt with by an Independent Committee.
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP):
5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee regarding its forward work programme. (S4O-01793)
The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Derek Mackay): I met the convener of the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee on 23 January 2013 and our discussion included the future work programme of SLARC. In line with the provisions of the legislation that created SLARC, I believe that there is no work to commission to SLARC at this time.
Kevin Stewart: I have spoken to many councillors across the country who believe that SLARC has been rather ineffective in carrying out its duties. What is the view of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue?
Derek Mackay: I have discussed the matter with COSLA and it is content with our approach and my view. I have also written to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament to seek its views. Many people would call for the abolition of SLARC, not least the leader of the Labour group at COSLA. We value its role, but there is no work to be commissioned at this time.
Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab): The committee was set up under statute by this Parliament. Is it not unacceptable that, rather than the minister volunteering that information today, the committee members have all resigned due to their feeling that the minister was completely uninterested in their work? Given that the committee has done some good work in the past on council remuneration and arm’s-length external organisations, would it not have been more appropriate to do work on this far in advance of all three members feeling that they had no option but to resign?
Derek Mackay: There is no work to do. I have to ask the Parliament: what is the point of appointing people to a committee with no work to do? That does not seem to be an appropriate use of public funds. If we require SLARC’s advice in future, we will be happy to take it. Sometimes we will agree with its recommendations, such as on ALEO places, and sometimes we will disagree with its recommendations, such as on substantial pay increases to councillors, which we do not feel are appropriate at this time.
We value SLARC’s role and, if we require its input in future, we will of course seek it in line with the provisions in the legislation."
Now the first point to note is that this is a 'planted' question - from one SNP MSP and former councillor to another - with both the questioner and Minister sharing similar backgrounds.
The next thing to pick up is the fact that the first SNP MSP (Kevin Stewart) makes disparaging comments about an independent advisory body (SLARC) without a shred of evidence to back up what he says, yet this chap is the Convener of the Scottish Parliament's Local Government Committee.
The Minister picks up on this rather unsubtle invitation and says - "I have also written to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament to seek its views. Many people would call for the abolition of SLARC, not least the Labour group at COSLA".
Now quite where that came from is a mystery who are the 'many people' referred to in the Minister's response and is not the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament the Local Government Committe, the Convener of which is none other than Kevin Stewart, of course.
So it's well worth noting that the first MSP (Kevin Stewart) is a former SNP councillor and Depute Leader of Aberdeen Council while the Local Government Minister is a former SNP councillor and Leader of Renfrewshire Council, as well as the former leader of the SNP group at COSLA.
For some reason the Minister felt the need to put on record the alleged 'hostility' of the Labour group at COSLA to SLARC without explaining this statement or, indeed, his own views while leader of the SNP group at COSLA.
I'm sure no sensible person would swallow the claim that any alleged antipathy towards SLARC from within COSLA or elsewhere is down to its overly generous stance on councillors' pay.
And the fact that councillors' pay is currently frozen does not represent a heroic act of self-sacrifice or leadership on the part of elected councillors, not least because this outcome was inevitable following the decision of Scottish employers to freeze the pay of their council employees.
So maybe I can help shed a little light on things.
Some time ago SLARC put in place, via Scottish Ministers, a new scheme to control councillors' remuneration (pay and expenses) in Scotland which was warmly welcomed at the time on an all party basis.
Yet behind the scenes lots of councillors (though not all) and many councils (though not all) kept pressing for councillors to have a much better package of pay and rations - which would have given every councillor a minimum salary of £25,000 and linked other senior councillor salaries to the salaries of MSPs.
The most vocal advocate of £25,000 and a link to MSPs pay was COSLA (with the support of its member councils) and in subsequent meetings with SLARC many councillors (both SNP and Labour) - said that they supported the COSLA line .
But these 'demands' were consistently rejected by SLARC after carefully weighing all the evidence which may explain why some councillors, some councils and the Labour group at COSLA (according to the Minister) seem to resent councillors' pay and expenses being dealt with by an Independent Committee.
So I think we should be told whether the Local Government Minister supported the COSLA policy on councillors' pay because I am not aware of any difference of opinion between the Labour and SNP groups at COSLA - nor of any dissent expressed by either Renfrewshire or Aberdeen Councils.
I believe what we have here is a case of politicians behaving badly, disingenuously by trying to face in two directions at the same time with their ill-disguised efforts to denigrate the role of an Independent Committee without declaring their prior interest and past history on the subject.
All I can say is that I'm looking forward to some answers since that might help to explain the attitude of these two MSPs (and former councillors) towards SLARC and their behaviour in the Debating Chamber on 7 February 2013.
I believe what we have here is a case of politicians behaving badly, disingenuously by trying to face in two directions at the same time with their ill-disguised efforts to denigrate the role of an Independent Committee without declaring their prior interest and past history on the subject.
All I can say is that I'm looking forward to some answers since that might help to explain the attitude of these two MSPs (and former councillors) towards SLARC and their behaviour in the Debating Chamber on 7 February 2013.
