Philosphers have famously wondered ‘If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’

Well we can’t answer for the tree, but it has become clear that Council Leader Sir Albert Bore certainly makes a sound, even when there is no-one there to hear him.

In fact he certainly made a lot of noise at a recent scrutiny committee – even though there was no-one in the room.

By that I mean there was no-one at the committee who is not on the council payroll.

There were no members of the public or press present. At the same time us political anoraks hoping to watch from afar found the council’s “state-of-the-art” web casting system had collapsed for the second time in three weeks.

So it is likely Sir Albert thought himself among discreet friends when talking over the impending budget and impact of cuts.

As a result he was, by all accounts, unbelievably frank and even admitted on more than one occasion that he would not have said certain things if the cameras had been rolling and recording.

The Governance and Resources Scrutiny Committee were quizzing the leader over his role in the review of leisure centres.

This was the review which resulted in the closure of nine old sports centres and pools, and the construction of six new ones and the whole service contracted to outside management. Among those going is the highly contentious Moseley Road Baths in Balsall Heath.

The crux of the issue was how large a role Sir Albert had played in the whole affair.

Responsibility for leisure centres and pools lies with the ten local district committees – seven of which are Labour run, two Tory and one Lib Dem. But their budgets or, more accurately during this era of austerity, “savings targets” are handed down from the corporate centre.

Sir Albert told members that these districts had proved unable to grasp the scale of savings needed and their proposals had to be sent back for extra work.

My committee mole reports that Sir Albert said there was an “inability of officers and members to take seriously what was being put to them in terms of leisure services”.

He said that the first set of plans offered “could have been written by me on the back of a fag packet”. (“much like his transport strategy” joked another informant).

Sir Albert had concluded that the leisure services review “had to be taken back to the centre”.

Effectively he admitted that no matter what his claims on devolution to neighbourhoods, the control could be snapped back in an instant. He even said “if you don’t want devolution let’s stop it”, when challenged.

The executive could not escape criticism either as they were supposed to produce details of preferred contractors to take on the leisure facilities to the districts and had failed to do so.

Another committee member says it became clear the whole process had been a farce, that Sir Albert lacks confidence in many of his own councillors and staff and there is a lack of clarity and poor communication.

I would say it was a shame we missed it. But I don’t think things would have gone quite that way had anyone been paying attention.

This row with the districts highlights a further problem with the political system – the blame game. We have a situation where the Coalition Government is forcing unprecedented cuts on councils. But it is the councils who decide whether to cut libraries, parks or social care and bear the brunt of public disapproval.

Sir Albert’s “jaws of doom” analysis, which shows a £840 million city council funding gap between 2010/11 and 2017/18 unless massive cuts are made is about shifting the blame back to Messrs Pickles and Osborne.

But it appears the same stunt is now being pulled by Sir Albert and his cabinet on the ten districts who have been told to cut £5.7 million between them.

The districts will decide which libraries and community centres to close, which streets to stop sweeping and which youth or community groups get their grants cut and as far as the centre is concerned can carry the can. Some, including Sutton Coldfield, Hodge Hill, Yardley and Perry Barr, have even had their initial budget plans sent back and told to make further cuts. In some cases they are refusing to close libraries, instead looking to muddle through by reducing opening times or increasing volunteer staffing.

District leaders are closer to the communities who use these facilities and could prefer a stand off with the centre rather than being held responsible for boarding up a library.

There could be trouble ahead.

---

The Local Government Information Unit, which keeps councillors and staff updated with email news briefings, followed up my report that the word “commie” is on a four page list of offensive words banned by the council’s email system.

The only trouble is no one at Birmingham City Council got the LGIU report, because the email filter would not let it through.