EXCLUSIVE
FEARS that the #50m deficit left by the former Strathclyde region might soar by up to #30m have been flagged up to officials of the 12 successor unitary authorities.
The additional debt relates to Government grant settlements dating from 1990 to 1996 which Strathclyde region officials assumed were due to their authority.
Some sources said Strathclyde officials had blundered by over-estimating what the former council had been entitled to, while others contended the #26m was not a bad debt at all and would be met in part by the Government.
There were even suggestions the situation was being used to erode the credibility of the former region, which was deeply resented for its alleged ''big brother'' attitude by some of the former district councils.
Last month, the Accounts Commission criticised the region for loss of financial control in its final year, leading to a deficit of #50m which would have to be met on proportional basis by the 12 successor authorities - Argyll and Bute, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Glasgow City Council, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, and West Dunbartonshire.
Glasgow City Council has been left with the job of closing Strathclyde's accounts and officials at the City Chambers are desperately trying to build up a picture of what happened in the final years of the region.
If the grant anticipated by Strathclyde was not paid in full by the Government, it would have to be written off, effectively increasing the deficit to between #76m and #80m that would have to be met by the new authorities.
However, the matter is currently the subject of delicate negotiations with the Scottish Office.
This latest crisis over Strathclyde's financial stewardship relates to Scottish Office grant and non-domestic rate income. If an authority collected more non-domestic rates than it estimated, the Government would claw back grant. If the local authority collected less, the Government would pay more grant.
Strathclyde might have under collected in terms of non-domestic rates and there might be further grant due from the Government. But if the Government felt it had settled up, the #26m to #30m would have to be met by the successor authorities.
One source said: ''The accounts are wrong for these earlier years. Strathclyde finance officers have made a wrong assumption in the accounts.''
However, another senior source said he would be surprised if this debt was not recoverable once it had been properly investigated.
He said: ''We're talking about former years' revenue support grant, so the debtor is the Government. I do not believe Strathclyde left debtors in there that could not be justified. Had they done so to the extent of sums like that, how come the Accounts Commission didn't pick it up?
''The situation of local authorities can change from the time grant is made, and it's not unusual to have redeterminations of grant going back a number of years - even four or five years. I don't think Glasgow has put in enough effort proving this bad debtor and defending the interests of the 12 successor authorities.''
Apologists for the former Strathclyde argued that the possibility of additional deficit was yet another consequence of a hurried reorganisation and the lack of a residual organisation dedicated to closing the accounts of what was the largest local authority in Britain.
Another source said: ''These grant-related debts appeared in Strathclyde's accounts year after year. They were not concealed from anybody. The Government should honour what was due to Strathclyde.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article