"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?". It is a quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes, and one which some councillors and officials on Midlothian Council would do well to reflect on from time to time.
A couple of months ago I changed my mind on the issue of whether the Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre should be demolished, and I did so because the facts, and to a large part the presentation of them, had changed and, indeed, continue to change.
A few years ago, a public consultation exercise was carried out as part of the plans for the new Lasswade High School hub, and this included what to do with the building which would be surplus to requirements. The main use of the building comprises the Gym and swimming pool and these facilities would move to the hub. Community organisations were not interested in taking on the building as we were told it would cost £250,000 to bring it up to useable standard and a similar amount annually in running costs.
As the building is in a King George V Park, it can not be sold commercially and if retained must be for community use. It has been suggested that the council was not aware of this until after consultation had closed and that Fields in Trust, who regulate such parks, was not informed.
Midlothian Council decided at its meeting of 23 February 2010 (see 9th item and within which, Para 15(d)) to 'dispose' of the building. Although demolition is one form of disposal, this has never been explicitly agreed by the council and no record can be found of any reference to it in any council documents, including those associated with the consultation exercise. Yet references are being made to 'a decision to demolish'.
Nevertheless, with no one willing to take on the building, and the alternative being a derelict and potentially vandalised building on the council's hands, I could see demolition to be the only practical solution at the time.
Within the last year, the Bonnyrigg & Sherwood Development Trust came forward with a plan to use the back hall of the building and negotiations have been taking place for this to be retained and the remainder of the building demolished.
Further, demolition, we were told, had been incorporated into the council's contract for the new High School and a decision not to go ahead could involve additional costs should demolition subsequently be required.
Fast forward to a few months ago, when local resident Darius Namdaram, previously unaware of the plans, and concerned that a sound building with about 20 years' life was to be pulled down, decided to investigate. This revealed that the £250,000 'repair' costs were in fact a little over £90,000 (most of which is cosmetic, the remainder being up to £30k). The running costs include £75,000 for heating a swimming pool (no longer needed) and about the same in rates (which are not applied if the building is run by a Community Trust).
However, I still had my doubts. £30,000 for priority repairs is achievable, but £100,000 a year running costs with no Business Plan? The solution to this is what ultimately changed my mind. Social Enterprises such as this normally break even in 3 - 5 years, and with a cash strapped council, some lateral thinking was required. The centre currently runs profitable soft play in the front of the building with parties in other parts of the building. So why not keep the front of the building up and running with income from soft play and vending machines, supplemented by continuing with the parties? Running costs would be low, the building might be viable from Day 1 and the community can decide over the next 12 months how to develop the rest of the building.
I also discovered that there is no contract for demolition in place; funds (up to £100,000) have been set aside for the job and if the building is retained long term, the council saves the money.
Probably the most disappointing part of this whole saga was the response I received from a council official when I asked if the council could go through the figures with the campaign group (the council, after all, will know if simply continuing those existing services would be feasible). The response? "It's not our job to put together a Business Plan for this group; they need to do it themselves". Community Empowerment and Development?
So much for the figures. What about the intangible benefits? This it seems is where Midlothian Council thinking fails to join up. Soft play will not be provided at the new Lasswade Centre. Longer term plans for the Leisure Centre could include a youth drop-in centre (and there is huge demand in the town for this). Following closure of the Public Hall, Bonnyrigg Seniors' Forum no longer have a place to meet. Many people have come forward with ideas, from community groups, schools' parent councils, school children, parents, and that's before any formal consultation.
Working with the Bonnyrigg and Sherwood Development Trust, I believe this could be a thriving community hub, in a building which will last 20 years and which would cost millions to build from scratch.
Ironically, within a month of the proposed demolition, Midlothian Council will begin consultation on the Bonnyrigg Neighbourhood Plan. This involves asking as many individuals and community groups as possible what facilities they would like in the town. Wouldn't it be ironic if the one facility the community says would provide most value has been reduced to rubble before they were even asked? A consultation on this basis would be a sham and would be seen to be a sham.
At this week's Petitions Committee, Mr Namdaran presented a compelling case. I proposed that before the council makes its decision on 25 June, council officers work closely with the Keep Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre group and the Bonnyrigg & Sherwood Development Trust to look for a low risk solution to keeping the building alive for 12 months - to give the whole community breathing space to decide how it can best be used.
My proposal was defeated on the casting vote of the chair. The reason? Because consultation closed years ago and you missed your opportunity. When consultation closed, no-one was interested in the building; today over 600 people have 'liked' the group's Facebook page, 248 people have signed a petition, as a ward councillor I've received about two dozen emails, Bonnyrigg & Lasswade Community Council has given its unanimous backing, and the chair of Fields in Trust has written to the council.
The facts have clearly changed, so isn't it about time some minds did too?
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Newbattle plans prompt a new battle for localism
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)