An inconvenient truth

"Folk queuing up to sign our petition against the SNP's decision to shut down all the public toilets in Midlothian", tweeted Labour MSP Kezia Dugdale yesterday, attaching the above photo of said petition. I have no issue with the wording on their pamphlet, which correctly identifies that the decision was made by the SNP/Independent coalition with my support. It also fairly states that alternative provision will be made, although the alleged 'lack of consultation' is an issue I will come to later.

First though, some background to the budget process.

In the face of unprecedented cuts (£5 million to be precise), Midlothian Council is required by law to set a balanced budget. Every councillor therefore has a duty to propose or support a balanced budget of some sort. Although I could present a Green budget, without a seconder I felt this would be a futile gesture. Opposing both SNP and Labour budgets would, I feel, be morally wrong, and so at the start of the process I approached both groups seeking a meeting to discuss their proposals, with the intention of trying to influence them and ultimately supporting the one I felt more at ease with.

Disappointingly, the Labour group did not even respond, and they have now stated publicly that they will not be presenting an alternative budget. In contrast, the SNP Group discussed their proposals in detail with me and I raised a number of concerns. Some of the more contentious proposals were dropped, on most I was given reassurances I could live with, and on others I received a commitment to review the impact over the next year and to revisit them if necessary.

The closure of public toilets was one such concern. However, having listened to the Administration's proposals and seeing how the proposed scheme works in Perth & Kinross and Aberdeenshire Councils, I am convinced that not only will this save money, but it will help local businesses and will offer better facilities to the public. No public toilets will be closed until alternative facilities are in place.

When the council's public toilets were introduced, pubs were not open all day, usually opening around 5 pm. There are now cafes on every street corner, and libraries, health centres and leisure centres as well as many shops now have public toilets. The new scheme will involve paying local businesses like pubs an annual payment for public use of their services, putting money into local businesses at a time when 18 pubs are closing every week across the UK due to financial pressures.

As for the lack of consultation, true this specific measure was not publicised, but people were asked what their priorities for protecting services were and of the 3,500 responses, these proposals did not run counter to the feedback received.

Not putting forward a budget is quite convenient for the Labour Group. It has already demanded that at least half a million pounds worth of cuts are removed. When asked where this shortfall would come from, their response was that council officials should come forward with alternatives. And what if they didn't like those alternatives? Labour needs to say which services it would cut to keep public toilets open - how many Learning Assistants would it remove? Social workers? Or do they want library hours cut?

Labour has already expressed concern about the council's level of reserves. Demanding a huge reduction in cuts with no proposed alternatives is not the way to boost them.  Labour's dishonest tactics over the whole budget exercise, and in particular their headline grabbing opportunism over the public toilets issue, is hypocritical and cannot go unchallenged.

If Kezia Dugdale is so confident her party's colleagues in Midlothian are offering a credible alternative administration, then I challenge her to debate this in public. Let's have a public meeting on the issue where I will be happy to expose the Labour Group for what it is. If she doesn't feel up to it, a Labour councillor would do nicely. As I am not a member of the Administration, it shouldn't be up to me to defend its actions and I could have taken the same cowardly route Labour has done by sniping from the outside and opposing everything it says and does, but that's the way Midlothian politics has operated for far too long and it has to change.

Transparent behaviour and not so transparent funding

I learned something new this week. Well, two things actually.

First, it seems that ahead of the papers for council meetings, distributed a week in advance, 'draft papers' are issued to the Administration, which others don't get to see. I don't have a big problem with this, though I wonder why it's necessary. I only found this out because a formal complaint was made by someone in the Labour Group that I had acquired some of them.

It seems I made reference to this at a recent council meeting. As council meetings are now audio recorded, I have asked for a transcription of the words I used. However, it seems that I referred to the draft budget - by which I meant the original budget drawn up by council officials and which was available to all councillors. I am conscious of course that lurking in the system there may be something officially known as a draft budget which I am not entitled to see - in which case my terminology was wrong; at no point have I received documents to which I'm not entitled.

Paradoxically, the Labour Group continues to spread the lie that I am part of the Coalition (indeed, at a community council meeting this week, the Council Leader answered my question as to why Labour had not discussed their budget with me by saying "Because you're part of the Administration"). If I'm part of the Administration as they claim, why would they be bothered that I get access to their privileged information?

The second thing I learned was that the Labour Group, even almost a year since losing power, still has no intention of trying to bring me on side. This I deduce from the fact they are so ready to lodge spurious complaints. It seems the traditional view of "if you're not with us, you're against us" prevails and the fact that if they are to regain power over the next four years they need me far more than I need them, eludes the comrades still.

This is not something I will lose sleep over. Nor indeed will I fret about the fact I'll probably be in a minority of one or two over my next attack on councillors' privileges, the little known Environmental Improvement Fund.

Each councillor receives an allocation of £15,000 a year (which can be carried forward indefinitely) for spending in his or her own ward on environmental improvements or community projects - park benches and the like. Technically, I could save this up over 5 years and have a £75,000 fund to give away in election year and publicise in my leaflets - funds unavailable to candidates who are not sitting councillors. Democratic? Needless to say, this was introduced when Labour ruled the roost with a huge majority of councillors, but the fact the SNP is lukewarm on removing this is odd, given their stated commitment to more transparency.

I don't want to get rid of the funding - just the ability of individual councillors to decide on how public funds are distributed, something which goes against the principle of transparency. A similar fund, distributed on a ward basis or across Midlothian is fine, just so long as all 18 councillors make the decisions.

As with my proposal for webcasting, it's likely both groups will gleefully exhibit some cross-party co-operation and vote my proposals down (assuming that is, I even manage to get a seconder). That's fine by me - as with the webcasting issue, the feedback I'm getting from people is that they want more transparency in how their council is run.

Labouring a point

There was a surreal moment during last week's full council meeting when the Labour Group decided to abstain on a proposal to introduce a no compulsory redundancies policy at the council.

The plan is modelled on a scheme used successfully at Sunderland Council, run by the Labour Party with a large majority as it happens. It involves, as the name suggests, no compulsory redundancies, the use of a skills pool and the opportunity for staff to retrain or move to jobs more suited to their abilities or aspirations. Trainees and apprentices are brought in where possible to provide new blood and in Sunderland, this seems to have proved popular with the work force as well as providing significant long term savings. Staff are secure in their jobs, the council saves on redundancy payments, people have the opportunity to do more fulfilling work and training is given a high priority over bringing in highly paid recruits. What is there not to like?

The problem for the Labour Group it seems, is that the unions appear not to have not been involved in discussions to date and wanted to be represented at the council meeting. Naturally, this rang alarm bells with me - particularly as I've argued in the past for representation to be allowed at council meetings, particularly on an issue as sensitive as this which will directly affect union members.

However, on closer inspection, the proposal presented on the day contained only a commitment to introduce a no compulsory redundancy policy with immediate effect. Introduction of the Sunderland scheme (or any other variation) would be presented at a future date to the council following consultation with union representatives.

As Councillor Russell Imrie pointed out when I spoke in support of the wider proposal, I know nothing about how Sunderland operates this scheme. But it does bear a striking resemblance to the system used at my former employer - a private company which, although it did not have a no compulsory redundancy policy, used forced redundancy as a last resort. The flexibility and re-training opportunities allowed me to move from IT to running training courses - replacing a consultant who charged £1,000 a day and for me a more fulfilling job.

The same council meeting decided my proposal to webcast council meetings was deemed too costly and went for a 'compromise' podcasting service. I do have to question how it can come up with a cost of £16,500 a year - the equivalent of a member of staff spending half their time on this? My rather cheeky proposal to sell the Provost's number plate to help pay for it cut no ice, so the possibility of opening up how our council is run to public scrutiny has, for the time being, been scuppered ... to the private if not public relief of a few of the elected members, I'm sure.

Making a living

At last week's Scottish Green Party conference in Glasgow I was pleased to sign the Scottish Youth Parliament's Fair Wage pledge, along with all our councillors and MSPs. I was also very pleased to be part of a unanimous decision in August for Midlothian Council to introduce a Living Wage of at least £7.20 per hour by the end of this year.

For me, a living wage is more than justice, it also makes economic sense. It should also make sense to many people, particularly on the Tory Right, who consistently oppose it.

When the Minimum Wage was introduced, they, along with many employers, said it would destroy jobs and put companies out of business. It didn't.

They argue at the same time that the welfare bill is too high. What better way to reduce it than to stop subsidising the payment of unrealistically low wages by unscrupulous employers? If we believe there is a minimum income people need to live on, and that incomes below that level should be topped up by state benefits, then the responsibility in a free market is that this should be borne by the labour market and not by the state.

This market distortion also means that employers already paying a living wage are put at an economic disadvantage. Free marketeers know that producers have to live within certain constraints - they all have to abide by Health and Safety and environmental protection laws, for example. A minimum wage is just another such constraint, and so long as all companies have to abide by it, then the free market continues to apply.

So what would happen if we increased the level of the minimum wage to the living wage? Yes, some prices would rise, but as the cost of topping up benefits drops, the demand on tax payers would reduce. The cost of administering many means tested benefits would also be saved. Companies currently paying a living wage would see a marked increase in competitiveness and a level playing field introduced. Also, putting money into the pockets of those least well off is known to be the most effective way of boosting the economy as they are most likely to spend any extra income.

Then there's the 'benefits trap'. Tories and tabloids consistently moan about people on benefits being better off than working. If so, then give people an incentive to work, not a disincentive not to. Most unemployed people want to work and would be more productive if paid at a rate where they feel valued.

Despite the recession, disposable incomes are around the highest in history; I think it's about time we made sure everyone who goes out to work has at least something left over at the end of the week.

Scratching the surface

After I made several phone calls to the Procurator Fiscal's office a couple of weeks ago, the Crown Office suddenly announced last week that information provided by the police on the payments by Midlothian Council for the Bonnyrigg Rose car park 'did not disclose a crime'.

What 'information' I don't know, but I was told only a few weeks ago that the police had only asked the PF for advice and had not submitted a detailed report. I suspect therefore that the council's internal audit report never landed on the PF's desk either, despite the police holding on to a lot of information for well over a year.

However, now that police involvement is complete, the council has agreed to release its internal audit report to the public (Item 16 part 2, from this list). The five page Executive Summary is well worth a read and the report itself raises a number of questions.

Was the work signed off by the council? If not, why not, and if so then on what basis? More importantly, if, as I believe, the football club did not benefit, then who did? And why is the club not going after those (outside the council) who are responsible? After all, it had a contract with a building firm which has clearly not been fulfilled. There are 32 items on the detailed invoice. If any of these were not fulfilled by the builder, why has the club not taken action?

Under Item 4.3 it seems the club's committee were largely unaware of transactions regarding the car park, decided apparently at a committee meeting for which no minutes were taken.  Why was the club run 'almost exclusively on a cash basis' (page 151) and the Social Club kept unaware of proposed developments on its land (page 142)? Was no-one on the committee asking these questions or talking to the Social Club?

There is a lot of talk about openness and transparency in local government and I think Midlothian Council has been commendable in investigating what went wrong at its end. I know there are people associated with the club who have not been happy with my investigations, but hopefully after reading the report they will see that it too has been a victim of this sorry mess. I would hope that, realising they have been kept in the dark about various aspects of it, they too will start asking questions. Only then can the whole truth come out and we can call closure on it all.

Power to the people!

The Scottish Greens' policy on Local and Community Government begins "The Scottish Green Party strongly favours decentralised government. Government should be carried out at the most local tier possible".

With only 32 councils for a population of over 5 million, Scots are more remote than anyone else in Europe from their own 'local' councils. Contrast this with 36,000 councils in France and you see what I mean.

We do, of course, have community councils. However, with most attracting insufficient interest to hold elections and with little influence let alone power to do anything, they are largely seen as platforms for people with particular interests, agendas or budding political careers. I know, I was one of them. And with turnout at all elections on a downward spiral, politicians need to do something fast to re-engage with people - and that engagement needs to be a two-way process.

Thankfully this has started happening. Edinburgh City Council, led by Labour council leader Andrew Burns, is endeavouring to make the city a Co-operative Council. Many councils across the UK are now webcasting their meetings, with Edinburgh currently running a pilot scheme. I have been promised cross-party support for a motion I will be presenting this month to Midlothian Council to do the same. Also the Scottish Government is consulting on its proposed Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill.

All of these measures will, it is hoped, give individuals and communities the information and tools to start influencing decisions - and more importantly, get involved in the running of some of the services which directly affect them.

We also need to change the culture inherent within the decision making process. Instead of asking what can be done, we need to ask why can something not be done. This week I managed to borrow a map of the Bonnyrigg ward showing land owned by the council. It's disturbing how little is still left in public hands - after discounting areas used by council housing, schools and public buildings there are a few parks and that's about it.

Also, with much of the ward already designated for housing (and currently being built on) and land towards the Borders Railway considered a high priority for housing, the future looks grim if simply left to the god of 'Economic Development' to make decisions for us.

With the Midlothian Local Development Plan up for renewal shortly, now is the time for communities to get organised and to say what they want before it's too late. I've already been speaking to the local Community Development Trust to see how we can work together to ensure as much land as possible is earmarked for green spaces and community use, but this needs to happen across the whole of Midlothian. If we wait until the plan is agreed, it could be 2032 before we get another chance.

I'm currently reading Andy Wightman's book The Poor Had No Lawyers, which gives a detailed history of why most of Scotland was essentially misappropriated by "legal" means. Today the same thing is happening but in a different way - land which should be available to communities as recreational space is being lost in the name of economics. When land is lost to development, the 'planning gain' always contributes towards further development - new schools and roads. That's not a bad thing in itself, but why shouldn't it also be in the form of protection from further development - park land, community woodland and the like?

Decentralised government does not mean stopping at Scotland's 32 local authorities. It means  decision making at community level with everyone having a voice and those voices being listened to.  Let's make sure this happens.

Captain's log supplemental

As I stated in my earlier post, at the council meeting held on 3 July, Labour Group Leader Derek Milligan referred to the SNP/Independent/Green coalition. I am grateful to Provost Joe Wallace, who immediately intervened to correct this.

Sitting next to Derek was Labour colleague Councillor Adam Montgomery. Why then did Adam, in a letter published in this week's Midlothian Advertiser, three times refer to the 'SNP/Independent/Green' coalition, if not to convey to the general public a position he knew well to be untrue?

In the same issue, another letter from the prolific letter writer 'Name and address withheld', also referred to 'my coalition'.

At the same council meeting, there was discussion relating to the make-up of a committee, during which Derek claimed I should not be a member as I am effectively part of the administration on the basis that I have voted consistently with the SNP. This is disingenuous. Leaving aside the votes where I was committed as part of my agreement to vote with the SNP (i.e. elections of Provost and Council Leader), there have only been two or three votes taken - as most decisions so far have not been taken to a vote. On the remaining votes, I have not been persuaded by Labour's arguments.

Provost Wallace succinctly pointed out that the previous Labour administration had never expressed a similar view of the Liberal Democrats, who had consistently voted with Labour over the previous five years. Quite. 

One of those issues, which Labour has rightly highlighted, is the move from a 4-weekly to 6-weekly cycle of council meetings. I voted for the change as a compromise. I supported Labour's opposition to reducing the size of two committees, and negotiated the removal of that change in return for supporting the change to the meeting cycle - as I was assured by the SNP that council officials were very much in favour on the basis of greater efficiency.

I now feel this may have been a mistake. However, had the Labour Group approached me before the decision and appraised me of their concerns, I may very well have supported them rather than being forced to make a decision in the middle of a meeting and without the full facts at my disposal.

If, as Derek Milligan claims, “The smart money is this group won’t last till Christmas", then what is the Labour Group's Plan B? If they have any hope of regaining power, surely I should be somewhere in that plan, rather than driving me into the arms of the opposition.

I have read a lot over the past week about the late Bob McLean. I didn't know Bob very well; we exchanged pleasantries and the occasional chat when I saw him, usually in the Co-op in Bonnyrigg. Having read more about him, I wish I had got to know him more. Clearly he was a shining light in the Midlothian Labour Party, and it's a pity he didn't become more active in 'front line' politics. Midlothian and Midlothian Labour would have been greatly enriched were he to have been a councillor. Perhaps he's the best councillor Midlothian never had.