It's a strange thing but the subject which has sparked by far the most number of emails in my inbox in the last two weeks isn't even happening in my ward. However, it is an issue which will ultimately be decided by all 18 councillors - the planned replacement for Newbattle High School and, more to the point, what will happen to existing facilities like libraries, leisure centres and swimming pool in the communities of Mayfield, Newtongrange and Gorebridge.
The cynicism of your average voter towards politicians is well known and often justified, but at Monday evening's public meeting on the issue, held at the current Newbattle High, I was struck by how embedded the feeling was among the 250 or so people present, that both officials and councillors had already made up their minds to close local facilities.
Now unless I've been sleeping through council meetings (I haven't, I assure you), then I'm absolutely sure no formal decision has yet been made on this by councillors. However, reading the consultation brochure, I do worry about the way the options are being presented.
The council has come up with four possible scenarios - (1) Build a new High School and 'Hub' (i.e. containing combined community facilities) and close all existing facilities in the three communities, (2) build a new school only and keep all existing facilities open, (3) build a new High School and Hub and also keep all existing facilities, and (4) the same as scenario 1 but to 'explore' the provision of local facilities by community groups.
These can be readily narrowed down to two - option 3 simply ain't going to happen in the current economic climate, although there is the possibility of keeping some facilities in Gorebridge given its distance from the new school location in Easthouses. Option 4 would be great in an ideal world, but I'm afraid Midlothian is a long way from the level of maturity in Community Capacity Building and Empowerment (despite my prodding) required for this to be realistic in the time scales involved, particularly given the range of facilities we're talking about. I also think that promoting it as a viable option at this stage has added to people's cynicism, and not without reason - specifically as it puts the onus on the community to fill the gap while the council takes the credit for providing spanking new facilities at the hub.
So we're left with options 1 and 2. Option 1 is presented as brand new facilities with lower running costs and Option 2 with buildings at the end of their life and with higher running costs. It's not hard to see why people think there's a hidden agenda. My own cynicism here is fuelled by a recent revelation that whilst during consultation for the Lasswade hub the estimated repair costs of retaining the Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre were £250,000 the true figure was only £90,000 (this revised figure is now accepted by the council as correct).
More to the point, why no mention of the non-financial implications? Like the fact that a library is an integral part of a community, close to primary schools and somewhere people drop in for a chat and a chance to meet people? We are told that preventative spend and early intervention are high on the council's priority list. So what will be the long term impact of youngsters no longer dropping into the various book clubs and family events the council has been very successful in running, simply because their parents either don't have the time or bus fare to travel to the hub?
What about the longer term future? Have we learned nothing from the closure of the Waverley line, now being reintroduced at much greater cost years later? And ironically it's the re-built Borders railway which will bring new houses to Newtongrange and Gorebridge and with them new customers for those closed down facilities - but unlike the railway, the sites where those valued facilities once stood will be gone, sold off to developers on the back of land values inflated due to the presence of the line itself. A cruel irony indeed, and a paradox which the Green Party's Land Value Tax policy would neatly solve by putting some of those windfall land value increases to public use.
Despite the comparisons, this is no Lasswade hub we're being offered. Unlike Lasswade, we would not be simply moving libraries and leisure centres down the road, still to be within walking distance of most of the people who use them. We would be ripping the heart out of the close knit communities of Newtongrange, Mayfield and Gorebridge and forcing them to become a single suburban sprawl. The parallels between shopping locally and driving to an out of town superstore are too stark for my comfort.
I am grateful to the many people who have spent the time to contact me on this issue, not least because it's reassured me that the kind of society I want to see is shared by so many people. I will not be voting to close down your local facilities and look forward to the time when we can replace and enhance them where they belong - in the heart of the community.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Sunday, 31 March 2013
Midlothian's Carbon Mismanagement Plan
It may not sound the most interesting of committees on Midlothian Council, but Audit committee has has a habit of unearthing the most interesting information. Chaired by the able Peter Smaill (we may not see eye to eye politically, but he does the job extraordinarily well), Audit is the guard that guards the guards, so to speak, and as members we are encouraged to be as probing as possible. And so we are.
It was this committee which probed the fallout of the Bonnyrigg Rose car park fiasco and ensured we should have no repetition. It has dealt with council fuel mysteriously disappearing, inaccurate recording of performance indicators and keeps a close eye on how the council manages its finances. This is not a committee to fall asleep in if you want to keep tabs on what's really going on behind the scenes.
So it was with particular interest that I noticed this month's meeting had an item entitled 'Carbon Management Reduction/Energy Saving', in its words 'aimed at providing assurance that the Council fully complies with the CRC ESS which was introduced by the Government in 2008'.
The audit was carried out by East Lothian Council (a reciprocal arrangement where we also carry out an audit on them). The report was presented to the committee by the council's Risk and Audit Manager who said it was a very positive report. I beg to differ.
Amongst the few 'strengths' are "Appropriate Council officers on the certificate", "Billing downloads and automated meters were found to be accurate", "Energy saving targets appear achievable" and "Various energy saving initiatives are in place".
Weaknesses include that the Carbon Management Plan is still in draft form (since 2008?), no Carbon Management Board is yet in place, no reports presented to the Corporate Management Team, a lack of transparency and audit trail to be able to verify data, no independent checking of figures, all expertise and knowledge vested in a single officer, and basic procedures not even developed. Very positive? I don't think so.
That Midlothian Council pays only lip service (if even that) to carbon reduction has been a depressing and common theme for years. In 2007 the council signed up to the Climate Change Declaration. In the same year it produced a Landscape Capacity Study for wind developments which determined that nowhere in Midlothian is suitable for large scale wind generation. I argued the case at a recent Planning Committee meeting, where one such development was being considered, that it is simply not acceptable to state that 'they can't go anywhere' and was tantamount to producing a local plan which stated no houses could be built anywhere. As a result, I won a commitment to have the Landscape Capacity Study reviewed.
All well and good, but that 'review', contained within the Midlothian Local Development Plan, is considered briefly in the Main Issues Report, now out for consultation, and which states (paragraph 8.16) "the Council’s preferred approach is to roll forward its current policy stance on large-scale wind energy development into the MLDP." So much for a review.
Midlothian Council is building a state-of-the art high school in Bonnyrigg. State-of-the art in all respects except for not having a single watt of renewable energy, despite the cost of solar PV installation halving in the last year. The second phase of new council housing is being built, again with solar panels not even being considered. In contrast to Dumfries and Galloway's plan to replace 24,000 street lights with low energy bulbs (reducing energy costs by three quarters and greatly reducing maintenance costs), Midlothian is reducing its annual replacement from 200 to 100.
Whilst we have a Scottish Government dedicated to building an economy on oil, we have a Midlothian Council which harks back to the golden days of coal and refuses steadfastly to move on. And so long as its Audit committee is asked to endorse a 'very positive' report which says we're doing nothing, and a local plan which recommends a future just like the past, our councillors need to be leading from the front and not just following what council officials come up with if anything is going to change.
It was this committee which probed the fallout of the Bonnyrigg Rose car park fiasco and ensured we should have no repetition. It has dealt with council fuel mysteriously disappearing, inaccurate recording of performance indicators and keeps a close eye on how the council manages its finances. This is not a committee to fall asleep in if you want to keep tabs on what's really going on behind the scenes.
So it was with particular interest that I noticed this month's meeting had an item entitled 'Carbon Management Reduction/Energy Saving', in its words 'aimed at providing assurance that the Council fully complies with the CRC ESS which was introduced by the Government in 2008'.
The audit was carried out by East Lothian Council (a reciprocal arrangement where we also carry out an audit on them). The report was presented to the committee by the council's Risk and Audit Manager who said it was a very positive report. I beg to differ.
Amongst the few 'strengths' are "Appropriate Council officers on the certificate", "Billing downloads and automated meters were found to be accurate", "Energy saving targets appear achievable" and "Various energy saving initiatives are in place".
Weaknesses include that the Carbon Management Plan is still in draft form (since 2008?), no Carbon Management Board is yet in place, no reports presented to the Corporate Management Team, a lack of transparency and audit trail to be able to verify data, no independent checking of figures, all expertise and knowledge vested in a single officer, and basic procedures not even developed. Very positive? I don't think so.
That Midlothian Council pays only lip service (if even that) to carbon reduction has been a depressing and common theme for years. In 2007 the council signed up to the Climate Change Declaration. In the same year it produced a Landscape Capacity Study for wind developments which determined that nowhere in Midlothian is suitable for large scale wind generation. I argued the case at a recent Planning Committee meeting, where one such development was being considered, that it is simply not acceptable to state that 'they can't go anywhere' and was tantamount to producing a local plan which stated no houses could be built anywhere. As a result, I won a commitment to have the Landscape Capacity Study reviewed.
All well and good, but that 'review', contained within the Midlothian Local Development Plan, is considered briefly in the Main Issues Report, now out for consultation, and which states (paragraph 8.16) "the Council’s preferred approach is to roll forward its current policy stance on large-scale wind energy development into the MLDP." So much for a review.
Midlothian Council is building a state-of-the art high school in Bonnyrigg. State-of-the art in all respects except for not having a single watt of renewable energy, despite the cost of solar PV installation halving in the last year. The second phase of new council housing is being built, again with solar panels not even being considered. In contrast to Dumfries and Galloway's plan to replace 24,000 street lights with low energy bulbs (reducing energy costs by three quarters and greatly reducing maintenance costs), Midlothian is reducing its annual replacement from 200 to 100.
Whilst we have a Scottish Government dedicated to building an economy on oil, we have a Midlothian Council which harks back to the golden days of coal and refuses steadfastly to move on. And so long as its Audit committee is asked to endorse a 'very positive' report which says we're doing nothing, and a local plan which recommends a future just like the past, our councillors need to be leading from the front and not just following what council officials come up with if anything is going to change.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
An inconvenient truth
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.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
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.
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.
Monday, 15 October 2012
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.
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.
Friday, 14 September 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)