Council may have to slash up to 1,500 jobs to tackle shortfall

By Gillian Duncan

Published: 19/11/2010

Aberdeenshire Council could be forced to cut up to 1,500 jobs to tackle a £58million budget shortfall over the next two years.

The local authority could also merge primary schools, increase charges, reduce opening hours, review museums and libraries – and even switch off street lights overnight in an effort to plug the shortfall.

Unions reacted by saying they were “deeply concerned” about the impact of the possible cuts.

The news comes a day after neighbouring Aberdeen City Council announced plans to cut 10% of its workforce, about 900 jobs.

Aberdeenshire Council is also proposing a 10% cut – 900 full time-equivalent posts, including teachers – or up to 1,500 jobs.

It hopes to save tens of millions of pounds across its operation over the next two years.

Councillors will discuss plans to slash £51million from the local authority’s budget over the next two years at a meeting on Thursday.

However, officers could be asked to find still more savings as the local authority is resigned to a £58million funding shortfall over the next two years.

It will not find out the scale of the cuts it will have to make until the Scottish Government announces its draft budget later this month. Proposed cuts going before councillors next week include saving £2million by merging primary schools and £400,000 by reducing the opening hours of visitor attractions and reviewing the value for money of the Archaeolink prehistory park at Oyne, near Inverurie.

“The future viability of Archaeolink is under review and the withdrawal of any future funding is a possibility,” a council spokeswoman said.

The council is also proposing to save £80,000 by reducing swimming pool opening hours, £200,000 on verge cutting and £130,000 on the maintenance of burial grounds.

A further £60,000 could be found by switching off street lights overnight in small communities, according to council officers.

Pennan Inn owner Peter Simpson said this plan may work in some hamlets but not in his village.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea,” he said. “It’s dangerous, especially down here, where our houses go straight down to the main road.

“Cars can drive quite fast along the road. It’s dangerous enough in the daytime, let alone in the pitch dark.

“Also, from a security aspect, a lot of people know Pennan is full of holiday homes and, with no people in them, there’s an increased opportunity for theft.

“There might be some places where it would be OK but I think it’s a bad thing here.”

Speaking at a special briefing on the proposed cuts, local authority chief Colin Mackenzie said yesterday: “It’s very easy to think that everything is going to be bleak in the future.

“We will still have a budget of more than £500million a year to invest in services in Aberdeenshire.”

The council’s head of finance, Derek Yule, added: “The exact impact on Aberdeenshire Council’s finances will be assessed once the Scottish Government announce their draft budget later this month.

“The proposals to be put before councillors outline savings of £51million over 2011-12 and 2012-13.

“Whilst the figures may appear to fall short of our mid-range financial projections of £58million, we are confident that, as we continue to be more financially prudent and efficient from now and into the future, we will be able to balance our budget.”

Scotland’s biggest teaching union said last night that 150 teaching jobs and 350 support posts could be under threat.

Aberdeenshire EIS representative Pat Flanagan said he had “serious concerns” about the impact on education of the possible cuts.

“The effect will be felt through nursery, primary, secondary and special schools,” he said.

“Pupils will be having less time with their teachers and that will have a direct impact on the quality of the teaching.”

Chairwoman of the Unison union’s Aberdeenshire branch, Kate Ramsden, said: “Aberdeenshire, like every council, has been put in a very difficult position by the unfair and unjust policies of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government at Westminster and the knock-on effects for Scottish spending.

“However, make no mistake, if 900 jobs go, people’s services will be seriously affected. Aberdeenshire was the best-performing council in Scotland last year, so we are not in this position because of waste and inefficiency.

“Why should Aberdeenshire folk pay the price for the crisis caused by the bankers?” Aberdeenshire councillor Martin Ford said if the local authority agreed to freeze council tax and other measures, it would have its government funding cut by about £10million.

If it does not agree to the freeze, it will lose about £30million.

Mr Ford said: “Far from reducing the impact of budget cuts arising from decisions at Westminster, the Scottish Government is adding cuts of its own.”

Reader's Comments

Lets start with all the politically correct non jobs eg. diversity equality gays etc that should save a few bob.
Alan Mackay
Report this comment

How about scrapping the AWPR? The money is going to be borrowed. Interest and capital repayments costs will be about £80 million per year. If we take the all up cost of a job as £40,000, that is equivalent to 2000 jobs. What do we want jobs or a road?
Don Duncan
Report this comment

I'm totally with you on that Don Duncan. The country can't afford a BILLION POUNDS to build a road that will mainly serve the property developers and not the people of Aberdeen. I'm not against a ring road in principle, but this madly expensive scheme (designed by Tavish Scott which says a lot!) is the wrong road in the wrong place and at a price that none of us can afford.
Colin Aberdeen
Report this comment

What's this billion nonsense? I say it will cost FIVE BILLION. Like Colin I have NO EVIDENCE for this, but it sounds good to make stuff up to enforce a straw man argument, doesn't it?
Jane Spencer
Report this comment

Think you have exaggerated the cost Don, and the Council is only contributing a 9.5% share.
Michty Me
Report this comment

I shall be reading with interest all comments posted here. There are non core activities that we can pull back from and we can reduce spending in some areas with some pain but manageable. However I am keen to preserve social work services and education as far as possible. The scale of saving we need are in the tens of millions ... And that won't be pain free. And I am very mindful in what I say that we are dealing with individuals jobs. I have been made redundant myself so I know what the uncertainty and the actuality feel like. So can I make a plea that we refrain from calling anyones job a waste of time ... Staff going though this difficult period do no need to be called names in public too. But please let's look at what we can change.
Debra Storr
Report this comment

You are, of course, right Debra. As I'm sure you'll agree, many local auhority functions are of a statutory nature. Perhaps if central government put it's mind to it, much of the baurocracy surrounding those functions could be reduced, giving savings.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

Wonder why I can't paste a link to the P&Js own "report" on "High earners wage bill rises by umpteen millions, half way down the news items? Duh!
Jock The Wrapper
Report this comment

So what do you think the final cost will be Jane? And where do you think the money will come from?
Don Duncan
Report this comment

Clearly, merging the councils is looking more appealing by the day. There must be savings to be made in terms of duplication of administration, offices etc? Don: Are you a quantity surveyor and have you done a detailed analysis of the scheme? If not, then I don't see how you are able to provide a more accurate estimate than that produced by the engineers to date. Why are you speculating on how much it "may" go over budget when the scheme hasn't even got a start date yet?
Ignacio Moreno
Report this comment

Ignacio. It's important to know the costs before the project starts. Everyone knows that the £295-£395 million range is far too low. And there is a fundamental question to ask - "Can we afford it?". The politicians will say that they will fund it, but that is because of the upcoming election. After the election their story will change.
Don Duncan
Report this comment

Don: You say that "Everyone knows that the £295-£395 million range is far too low", but why would that be the case? You need to provide some evidence before you categorically state that a scheme that hasn't even been put out to tender will go over budget. And as for "can we afford it?", I would say that Aberdeen can't afford not to build it, particularly as the councils pay for a small share of the costs. Everything in the current Local Development Plan is reliant on the road being built. It certainly looks like great value in comparison to similar schemes that are being green-lighted in the central belt, e.g. the M8/M73/M74 network improvements, which offer marginal benefit at greater cost. Why is investment in the North-East always so closely scrutinised and delayed, when lesser schemes are fast-tracked in the central belt?
Ignacio Moreno
Report this comment

Agreed it's important to know the costs before the job starts, so why quote ridiculous, unsubstantiated figures like a BILLION POUNDS? The construction industry is experiencing a severe downturn at the moment with tenders at their lowest for many years, this project would attract international interest and the question to ask is "can we afford not to do it?"
Jimmy Neep
Report this comment

Good point Jimmy, construction costs are falling with the scarcity of work, excellent time to build, if you have the finance.
Michty Me
Report this comment

The estimate was produced several years ago when the project was due for completion about now. So Ignacio and Jimmy, what do you think the final cost will be? And what are all these benefits that justify spending hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money? And it doesn't matter whether the funding comes from the councils, the Scottish Goverment or anywhere else, at the end of day we pay for it. Personally I believe we should be maintaining our important public services rather than building a road.
Don Duncan
Report this comment

Michty, but we don't have the finance. It's going to have to be borrowed and then paid back over many years including lots of interest.
Don Duncan
Report this comment

ACSEF funding to be withdrawn immediately, Ann Robertson tells Tommy Smith. Smith FURIOUS. Robertson PHILOSOPHICAL.
Shergar Nineteensentysevn
Report this comment

Don Duncan, Sot on it will just go the way of thew New Wembley. Another thing that Scotland had to help pay for. “These are just a few of the main events along the way although they do not give the whole story of the debacle which is the new Wembley project. Between 2003 and 2007 the cost of the project went from £240 million to £790 million with the UK taxpayer expected to give more and more towards the cost. This increased input from the taxpayer came from government funding as well as a number of smash and grabs on the National Lottery Fund” .propertycommunity.com/property-in-the-uk/110-is-new-wembley-the-great-hope-for-the-future-or-a-great-white-elephant.html
alan reid
Report this comment

Plenty of money for London projects. “The £16billion scheme, the largest civil engineering project since the Channel Tunnel, will provide a new rail route to the heart of the capital. It will ease congestion, create thousands of jobs and provide a multimillion pound boost to the economy, ministers have promised. When up and running, Crossrail will provide 24 trains per hour, straight into the centre of London from the east and west, improving rail links to the West End, the City and Docklands. The Crossrail Bill gained an unopposed third reading last night and now goes to the Lords. During debate, junior transport minister Tom Harris said the scheme would have an enormous effect on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, provide a huge boost to the economy and preserve London's role as the business capital of Europe. He said: "It will provide London and the South-East with a world class railway." ww.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23427566-16billion-crossrail-plan-clears-commons.
alan reid
Report this comment

Oops meant Spot on Don.
alan reid
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.