CULTURE AND LEISURE TRUST
UNISON’s Twin Track Approach
Negotiations
are continuing with CLS regarding the imminent transfer of the department to Culture and Sport Glasgow.
While UNISON objects in principle to the transfer, talks have continued with a view to ensuring the protection of members’
jobs, terms and conditions. In tandem with this, we are obtaining legal advice
and campaigning against the principle of the transfer.
In our
last briefing we listed a series of issues which we raised with the council:
STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS ON THE COUNCIL FOR SERVICE PROVISION
The company will be required
to meet Statutory Performance Indicators. This information will be provided to the Council who will report to Audit Scotland.
TRUST GOVERNANCE PROPOSALS AND RELATIONSHIP TO GLASGOW
CITY COUNCIL
The council are currently
looking at overall governing structures.
The composition of the board
is to consist of six councillors, Lord Provost Liz Cameron, Steven Purcell, John Lynch, Archie Graham, Ruth Simpson and a
member of the opposition.
Four further individuals,
Lord McFarlane, Sir Angus Grossart, The Rt Hon George Reid MSP and Lord Stevenson were appointed by the council on the recommendation
of a Nominations Committee and the Chief Executive, Bridget McConnell.
It is the intention of the
Executive Director (Culture and Sport) to establish a shadow management team in addition to the Shadow Board.
COSTS OF AUDIT, INTERNAL AND EXTERNALREGULATIONS AND REPORTING STRUCTURES
During the transfer there
will be an interim management team as the working structures are yet to be established. We do know that there will be an audit
and HR sub committee. Council are still evaluating how this will be populated.
For the time being, personnel
procedures- for example grievances and absence management- will remain unchanged.
TERMS AND POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFAULT OR FAILURE
Should the trust fail, all
assets, buildings and contents would transfer back to the council. Staff would also transfer back without losing continuity
of service.
TAX BENEFITS
Substantial rate relief
and VAT relief have been predicted.
“POTENTIAL INVESTORS” PORTFOLIO
The figures used to illustrate
this section of the business case are highly speculative. The Council are using the recent Kelvingrove refurbishment appeal,
which raised £5million, as a model on which to build future fundraising campaigns. The company’s target is £3million.
To date, no list of potential donors has been provided.
CAPITAL ASSETS SURVEY AND INVESTMENT PROPOSAL
All property will remain
in council ownership. It will be leased to the company for 25 years at a peppercorn rent.
STAFF EMPLOYMENT OPTIONS APPRAISAL
Although secondment
of staff to the company was considered as part of the Outline Business Case, legal advice, obtained by the Council, opposed
this.
SUPERANNUATION RIGHTS
Employed pension
arrangements will be unaffected by the transfer.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Staff will transfer under TUPE regulations (Transfer
of Undertakings Protection of Engagements)
These ensure that staff carry existing terms,
conditions and benefits. These however can be the subject of consultation and change after transfer.
We have requested that members facing potential detriment as a result
of the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review will have an extension on protection to include any necessary time for retraining
and restructure beyond April 2009.
Effectively removes democratic accountability from large range of Glasgow services: -
including – Libraries (including the Mitchell); Museums (including the Burrell,
and newly – refurbished Kelvingrove); Sports, Leisure centres and swimming pools (including Scotstoun and Kelvin Hall);
all Glasgow’s Parks; arts development work, community arts etc etc. This means that elected councillors will have little or no influence in
the running of development of Cultural and Leisure Services, unless they happen to be the ’lucky’ six on the trust
board. Things like the expansion of centres like Scotstoun Stadium, and their use for events will be removed from effective
democratic accountability. Likewise what happens in Glasgow’s
Parks, the pressure to sell-off open space for development etc, will be down to the Trust – not the council.
Glorified tax-avoidance scheme: -
Only real financial advantage is by establishing this as a ‘charity’ and claiming
the tax and rate exemptions that apply. This is a tax dodge. Labour has (belatedly) realised this and
made a policy commitment for this year’s elections to ensure that the legitimate incentives that apply to charities
are not used as vehicles for outsourcing by local authorities. Indeed, this could mean increased financial pressure on the services that remain if it
became the norm, as a loss of business rates would surely lead to less money being passed on to councils.
Private donations haven’t delivered:- There is a lot of publicity about trusts’ increased ability
to raise private donations and become involved in joint partnerships with the private sector. However
the experience of previous ‘outsourcing’ both in England and
Scotland has produced no evidence that
more private money is coming in. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council in England
commissioned a detailed report – Moving to Museum Trusts - http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//M/museum_trust_report_part_1_9297.pdf - which found that any additional funding to museum trusts came from public funds. It is also not true that Glasgow
is not getting private donations. The work done by Lord Macfarlane in the refurbishment of Kelvingrove and the donation that
allowed Glasgow’s museums to stay open on Mondays, are
two examples. However, to rely on
such donations, and grants to run our services, put us in the high risk area of the voluntary sector. They (rightly) complain
about the uncertainty that such funding means. Why do we want that for our Cultural and Leisure services?
Staff are the scapegoats -
the people who do badly out of these transfers are staff. The loss of the ‘economies of
scale’ in things like HR, maintenance or procurement often means higher operating costs. There is no evidence that management
improves. This means increasing financial crisis, which in turn leads to increasing appeals to the council to ‘bail
them out’ and cuts in staff wages and conditions. Many trusts have cut jobs, increased casualisation, and reduced opening hours.
Annandale and Eskdale, Renfrewshire and many others are examples.
[Another example from down south in the P&I briefing on the issue – no 148 http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/briefings/leisuretrusts.html ]
Glasgow City Council demonstrates what it thinks
of its staff when they propose retaining the ownership of the physical assets, yet want to dispose of the staff to these tax-dodge
companies.
It’s bad for existing charities:-
Huge ‘pseudo-charities’ cut
from existing council services are not charities in the accepted sense. Because they are created simply to exploit the legitimate
incentives offered to existing charities, they a) give legitimate charities a bad name, and b) offer massive and, some would
say unfair, competition for the limited funds available from local councils for cultural services.
It’s bad for cultural entitlement:-
The Executive has ambitious plans to ensure that everyone has an entitlement to cultural services.
The duty of delivering this is devolved to local councils. To carve off the staff and services who are responsible for that
delivery to a different employer, only places more bureaucracy in the way. One of Glasgow’
proud boasts is of the free access to our museums. How long will that last once a trust gets into financial difficulties?
Currently Glasgow’s schools get free trips to the museums
and free access to leisure facilities. This is arranged by a cross charge system between two Council departments. Will this
remain when one is no longer a council-run service? Why create an extra barrier of bureaucracy.
The giving away or leasing of Glasgow’s
physical assets is of dubious morality and legality. Many of the collections in Glasgow’s
Museums and Libraries were given to the ‘people of Glasgow’
eg The Burrell Collection. To give (or even to lease) these away to a non-accountable body with no consultation with the people
is ethically (if not legally) wrong.
On the other side of the argument, is not a local
authority duty bound to get the most commercial price it can for public assets?
An attempt to avoid their own party’s policy!:-
The unholy speed with which the Council appear to be trying to rush this through seems to be in order
to avoid the commitment made by the Scottish Labour Party that legitimate charitable incentives are not used as vehicles for
outsourcing by local authorities. This was passed as part of the policy document at the recent Scottish Labour Party Conference
in Oban.
Questions to ask your candidates:
-
Are you in favour of handing over Glasgow’s Cultural and Leisure Services to a Private Trust?
-
How will the people of Glasgow exercise control over the decisions of the Trust?
-
If a decision is taken to hive-off the delivery
of these services, if elected will you argue for them to be brought back in-house?
Tell them you intend to publicise their answers
