Proposed Biomass ‘Renewable Energy’ Plant at Leith Docks, Edinburgh

Application by Forth Energy under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989

I object to the application for a Biomass Plant at Leith Docks made by Forth Energy and detailed above. I am a City of Edinburgh Councillor representing the Scottish Green Party in Leith Walk ward, which adjoins the ward in which the Plant is proposed.

My objection is on the following material grounds:

1.     Location;

2.     Visual impact;

3.     Air quality;

4.     Traffic Congestion;

5.     Marine ecology.

I wish to raise these additional points:

1.     Sustainability and fuel security;

2.     Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions;

3.     Market for district heat.

1.     Location

The location of a major power station in a heavily urban environment is inappropriate. It conflicts with existing Plans, in the form of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and the Leith Docks Masterplan. The Edinburgh City Local Plan does not identify this site for power generation, and was fully consulted on as a guide for development in this area at this time. The Leith Docks area adjoins significant residential, retail and leisure areas. The reason why the Edinburgh City Local Plan does not identify this site for massive industrial facilities is that the increase in vibration, noise, light and general nuisance associated with the site would substantially diminish quality of life for residents in the immediate vicinity and across the north of Edinburgh.

2.     Visual Impact

The proposed development is massive in scale. It would dominate the Leith skyline, and detract from the newly built residential, commercial, government and leisure buildings in the area, as well as the historic Leith architecture. An imposing building such as this is likely to inhibit future development as well as seriously diminishing the amenity of existing residents.

3.     Air Quality

Air quality is a very serious material concern. Burning biomass creates emissions, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter, which are can cause serious health problems. Irritant gases, such as nitrogen dioxide, can trigger respiratory conditions in otherwise healthy people and can be potentially deadly to those already vulnerable, which includes children and old people.

There are a number of schools and nurseries within a mile of the proposed site. Even small amounts of dioxins and heavy metals (possible emissions from burning chemically treated wood) can cause cancer and birth defects. This is an unacceptable health risk to the local population.

Great Junction Street, less than a kilometre from the proposed site is an Air Quality Management Area, so significant problems already exist with air quality in the area. The Biomass plant will only exacerbate these problems.

4.     Traffic Congestion

The proposed development will be fuelled substantially by seaborne biomass. There will, however, be a significant increase in HGV movements in the greater Leith area as a result of additional fuel being delivered and the removal of ash. The areas affected are largely residential or commercial, with schools and other public amenities.

The application can be read to suggest that around 20 000 heavy lorry trips will be generated per year. As already mentioned, there is an Air Quality Management Area in Great Junction Street, where emission levels are at a level that is already unacceptable. By adding thousands of lorry journeys to the already over capacity roads of Leith, emission levels will rise well above acceptable levels.

5.     Marine Ecology

The discharge of cooling water, post-generation will raise ambient water temperatures. This may cause thermal shock to fish and will diminish levels of suspended oxygen, diminishing the marine biodiversity of the Forth.

OTHER CONCERNS:

1.     Fuel Security

Anticipated demand for biomass far outstrips supply. This means that any plans to burn shipped-in biomass may not be sustainable. Rises in the prices of orthodox biomass may result in burning of ‘recycled’ wood. This is a fuel that may be highly toxic. There is a real concern that a plant designed to burn biomass will end up burning a wide variety of other materials including cardboard and paper. There is no binding commitment on fuel sourcing in the application, so the operator would be free to burn whatever was available and cheap. This is likely to exacerbate all of the material concerns detailed above.

2.     Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas emissions

The nature of biomass power generation is such that it substantially shortens the carbon cycle of the material being burned. Because burning immediately releases carbon, it is only when the substitute biomass crop reaches maturity that this carbon is again fixed. This creates a ‘carbon debt’ that is only repaid once replanted tree crops reach maturity. Even where material would otherwise go unused, burning releases carbon more quickly than almost any natural process of biodegradation, and so the plant will make no contribution to Scotland’s Greenhouse Gas targets by 2030 and may make a very small contribution to targets for 2050.

3.     Market for District Heat

The sustainability of the project, both financial and environmental, is based on supplying local district heat networks. These networks do not exist at present, nor is there any substantive indication of how they would be created. This means there are unlikely to be available clients for district heat from the early operation of the plant, and there may well be few if any at any stage of the plant’s operation.

In summary, this proposed development is wholly inappropriate.
I call on you to reject it outright.

This year, the process was certainly an improvement on previous years, and I thank Cllrs Wheeler and Elliott-Cannon for their more open approach this time around, including the opportunities we had to contribute to discussions, and also the phasing of the release of information and decision-making by the publishing of the three different packs over the last 5 months.  However, this process is still not ideal; there is still scope to improve both the consultation with members of the public, community groups, trade unions, and other stakeholders, not to mention other political groups.  The budget process must be made more effective and efficient.

Largely because of this, we agreed to amend the Labour budget, the only budget available before 10am on budget day itself; it is a budget that shows we can avoid cuts to education, cuts to grants to the voluntary sector, that we can protect the most vulnerable members of our society, and pay our employees a Living Wage.  The approach that Labour has taken by engaging with both the Green and Conservative groups is also a clear demonstration that there is a better way of handling this whole process.  It is regrettable that the Administration budget was not made public before budget day to allow for a better negotiation process on the only budget that could pass.

Having said this, I always knew it was going to be very difficult to get all-opposition agreement to an alternative budget, given the varying ideological positions of the opposition parties.  Greens could never agree to the Conservative approach to the Alternative Business Model project (i.e. privatisation of services), for example.  And, it was clear that the negotiations and concessions required to get opposition agreement were not going to be pain free.  But showing that the whole process could be done differently was worth the pain and the compromises.

But enough about process, for now at least …

The financial climate we face means that we, as a council, are being forced into the most unwelcome position of having to secure drastic savings, implementing damaging cuts, for several reasons.

Firstly, we have to contend with the gun to our head that is the Council Tax Freeze.  The SNP Administration in Holyrood has chosen easy vote-winning politicking over getting the best for the citizens of Scotland.  Whilst most in the Chamber acknowledge that Council Tax is a regressive, unfair tax, it is the only means by which we can raise meaningful sums of money.  Until we see legislative changes that allow us to raise revenue, by the implementation of a bed-tax, for example, we should not be rendered so utterly impotent.

Secondly, restrictions on what can and cannot be protected have been passed down to us from Holyrood, but also from Westminster.  We are being forced to do the dirty work of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Administration in London.  It is the poorest and most vulnerable that will bear the brunt of these ideological cuts, and everyone, save the very wealthy, faces a pretty bleak future, thanks to the Westminster Government’s desire to destroy the public sector.

So, we need to be sure that we do not damage the livelihoods and opportunities of our citizens as a result of either the ideological cuts, or the removal of local autonomy.  This council needs to focus its efforts on protecting the most vulnerable from tough financial times as well as the hardship faced as a consequence of the unsustainable use of environmental resources.  So, were the combined opposition budget to have passed, we would have prioritised our children’s present education and future options; we would have ensured the continuity of support for those with short and long term disabilities or illnesses; and we would have promoted sustainability within the Council, to support a sea change in attitudes to sustainable development and climate change.  We must avoid racking up costs for the future by protecting the essential preventative services – debt advice, community health groups, youth clubs and community facilities.  Prioritising the preventative work that so many of our voluntary and community organisations deliver would ensure sustainability of communities and the increase in social capital in our city … that’s the kind of capital accumulation that Greens like!

I will conclude by stating again the Greens’ commitment to an open, transparent and inclusive budget process, and I hope that, next year, we will be able to negotiate one budget, not two, or three, or four.  I am grateful for the concessions and negotiations that went on behind the scenes to get us to where we were with the combined opposition budget, and I am very proud to be a part of the change that this will bring to future Council budgets.

More significantly for many in the UK, however, it was the beginning of a very slippery slope.

Tuition fees were first introduced in the UK by the Labour Government under Tony Blair, and students who began their undergraduate degrees with me that October had to fork out up to £1,250 for the privilege.  And this was means tested, whether or not parents/family were prepared to offer support.  University applications decreased for the first time in a while that year, and UCAS data show that it was the poorer students who were put off most.

In 2006, students in England and Wales had Top-Up fees imposed on them, also by the Labour Government, taking the price of a degree to over £3,000 per year.  Unsurprisingly, university applications took a dip that year too.  In Scotland, the case was slightly different, with a graduate endowment being imposed instead of up-front fees.  This was scrapped by the SNP in 2007.

The proposed trebling of tuition fees from 2012 will have a catastrophic effect on education, young people’s lives, and the economy.  How many young people, aged 17, come from families that can afford £9,000 a year for a degree, on top of the ever increasing accommodation and other living costs?  What does it say about the current coalition Government that they have decided not to invest in education, but instead have chosen to price the majority out of this public good?

As a lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University, I know what it means for people to be the first in their family to come to a university, to become independent thinkers and learners, and to graduate in spite of difficult circumstances.  If Scotland had tuition fees, most of my students would not be at university at all.  Scotland has always valued education differently to the rest of the UK, and thankfully so.  So we must very definitely and defiantly stand up with our colleagues in England and Wales, and fight against the proposals that will see generations of young people deprived of the right to broaden their minds, simply because Mummy and Daddy couldn’t afford to send them to Eton.

I am angry about the proposals of this coalition government to treble fees, especially when this means breaking a promise to abolish fees.  But I am angrier at those who opened the floodgates 12 years ago.  The party of the people?  I think not.  We said then that the increasing of fees would be inevitable after they were introduced … and sadly, we were right.  Labour laid the foundations for what we see now: a government determined to attack the poor and the young in order to make the rich richer.  Why is it ok for the wealthiest 1000 people to increase their wealth by £77 billion last year (that’s more than one third of our £167 billion deficit!), but not ok to fund Higher Education?  Student fees, and the public services cuts that are being introduced alongside them, are not necessary.  They are a choice made on behalf of the rich against the poor and most vulnerable.  I will not take this sitting down.

Neither should you!

Twenty five projects, from Pulse of the Place (drumming for young people) to the Friends of Montgomery Street Park improvement plan, gathered at Leith Academy (currently celebrating its 450^th anniversary!) to make a pitch for a share of the £16,602 that the Leith Neighbourhood Partnership had set aside for community activities.  Each project was asked to make a 3 minute presentation for their share of the money. The audience turnout was fantastic despite the night-before’s blizzard having left the pavement uncomfortably iced over, and at the end of the afternoon 21 groups received a share of the money. It was a fantastic exercise in giving the community ownership over how their money is spent.

The process we used is called Participatory Budgeting.  This gives communities control over funds allocated for a specific purpose.  It extends democracy beyond the ballot box and into the budget process and is important as it gives people more confidence in how their money is spent.  It was remarkable how no-one I spoke to at the event thought a penny of the money had been wasted … that’s not how most people feel about public expenditure most of the time.

Each person attending, however old or young, was allowed a vote on each of the projects, which had been grouped into four categories; Community, Children and Young People, Environment, and Employment Skills.  Each category attracted a wide range of projects.  Some of the presentations were impressively designed and the drumming by Pulse of the Place certainly got everyone’s attention at the start.  The presentation by Hermitage Park School Association featuring giant daffodils was clearly the result of a great deal of work, and the Friends of Leith Primary’s presentation for a climbing wall was very well put together.  Bethany Christian Trust had a touching speech from a man recovering from alcohol abuse who wanted a cooker to help him and others with substance problems to learn how to cook.

The most important lesson from £eith Decides is that there is a real public appetite to be involved in the process of allocating funds.  The most important challenge is how we encourage the Council to move from its over-centralised and exclusive budget system to allocating money in the transparent and accountable way that Participatory Budgeting events like £eith Decides allow.

In Brazil and in cities like Hamburg people are often engaged in widespread decision making on how government money is spent.  The result is a virtuous circle of more engagement and more satisfaction with how money is spent.  Even where people lose out they are happier having had the opportunity to go in front of their peers, than having decisions made behind closed doors.

On a personal level I particularly enjoyed being able to announce the results surrounded by excited children, whose projects were getting money to do great things.  I hope the Leith Neighbourhood Partnership will be able to continue with this process.  I particularly hope that it will pressure the Council to be more transparent and accountable in its spending.  And I hope that everyone who participated in the event on Saturday found it as useful as did I.

Project/groups funded:

-        Hermitage Park School Association: Eco-garden and infants’ play space (Environment Category)

-        Hermitage Park School Association: Smartboard for nursery children (Children & Young People Category)

-        Pulse of the Place: Portable drum kit for ‘travelling’ workshops (Community Category)

-        Citadel Youth Centre: Youth volunteer project (Employment Skills Category)

-        Friends of Leith Primary: Climbing wall in play area (Environment Category)

-        FABB Scotland: Drake music technology workshop (Children & Young People Category)

-        Saheliya: Sessional counselling and support worker (Children & Young People Category)

-        Dr Bell’s Family Centre: Play area (Environment Category)

-        Bethany Christian Trust: New cooker for men’s residential centre (Community Category)

-        Pilmeny Development Project Youth Clubs: Laptop, printer and computer games (Children & Young People Category)

-        Friends of Montgomery Street Park: Community Orchard (Environment Category)

-        Access to Industry: Media training for vulnerable people (Employment Skills Category)

-        Families Together in Leith: Family-focussed weekend (Community Category)

-        Stanwell Nursery School Parents’ Committee: Courtyard development for wildlife (Environment Category)

-        154th Leith Scout Group: Tents for scout camps (Children & Young People Category)

-        Leith Festival Association: Foot o’ the Walk Christmas celebrations (Community Category)

-        Leith Acorn Centre YMCA: 2-night residential trip (Children & Young People Category)

-        Access to Industry: Food Hygiene course and work experience (Employment Skills Category)

-        Leith Central Community Council: Leith Walk improvement plan(Environment Category)

-        Victoria Primary Parent Teacher Association: Bulb planting (Environment Category) – partly funded

Project/groups not funded:

-        New Leith Division 53 Brownie Pack: Pack holiday for Centenary of girl guiding (Children & Young People Category)

-        Home-start: Sessional worker for interior design workshops (Community Category)

-        Citadel Arts Group: Plays for Jameson Place Sheltered Housing (Community Category)

-        Newhaven Community History Group: Recording and soundproofing equipment for Newhaven stories at Victoria Primary (Children & Young People Category)

-        Friends of Hillside and Calton Area: Improvement of Hillside Crescent Gardens (Environment Category)

I love snow, despite all the disruption it causes our busy lives.  But perhaps it is good to be forced to slow down a bit, to think carefully about what the day will bring, and to consider the effects of our movements on others in ways that we don’t usually have time for.

Sitting on the bus earlier, watching the white world go passed, I also decided to get back to my blog, which has been sadly neglected for a few months.  So, here goes …

We were there because we are angry, appalled and disgusted at the way the Israeli State continues to flaunt international law and opinion, not least by boarding the flotilla carrying humanitarian supplies for blockaded Gaza, just a week ago. This behaviour and the further killings that happened over the weekend show just how determined the Israeli government is to maintain its siege.

The siege brings death and destruction on the people of Gaza every day. Whether as a result of disease, malnourishment, or at the barrel of a gun, the people of Gaza face an everyday threat to their existence.

I am a South African. In South Africa we had a government that denied human rights to people on grounds of race. This was widely condemned by the international community. The boycott of apartheid South Africa, its sporting, economic and cultural activities, forced that government to negotiate not only the end to apartheid, but also the consequent democratic reform that saw Mandela welcome South Africa back into international legitimacy. Eventually international condemnation and an international boycott brought down the apartheid regime. Only similar international condemnation will stop the racist Israeli state from denying human rights to Palestinians.

When I was last in Palestine, I saw the results of the devastating oppression Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Israeli state, demonstrating to me the urgent need to promote peace and justice for Palestinians. I saw children ill and malnourished, students terrified to go to class for fear of being shot in the back as they made their way between home and university, fields and fields of olive trees cut down at ground level so that Palestinian farmers could not make a living for themselves.

But, I also saw something else in the people I met: an extraordinary hope, an overwhelming optimism, and a solid belief in reconciliation that means peace is possible. But that peace can only be secured with the full participation of the Israeli state.

It is very easy, and very tempting, to want to punish the Israeli state with violence, to kill Israeli civilians, to do to them what they’ve done to so many thousands of Palestinians. However, violence will only serve to legitimise – in some people’s eyes – an escalation of violence and terror by the Israeli state. The resolution to the siege on Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank, the ever-extending Israeli settlements, has to be achieved peacefully. I believe that peace in Israel/Palestine is possible, and that it can be a just peace; a peace in which all people enjoy freedom and human rights, where no one is blockaded, where everyone is able to pursue their lives free from military threat, where the ill can get medicine, and where justice is central.

This does not mean that we should stand by and watch as Israel continues the injustices that it has got away with for decades. It does not mean that we should not be angry. It means that we need to channel our anger in productive and constructive ways. We must be angry at the wilful violence of the Israeli state, and let the world know that we are angry; by demonstrating peacefully, by visiting Palestine to show solidarity, by being on the next aid flotilla to Gaza, by supporting the Israeli peace movement, by making our politicians and our government act to support Palestine and against the vested interests of the Israeli state.

But perhaps the most powerful tool we have as communities and individuals is the choice to refuse to prop up the Israeli economy, and so to boycott Israeli products and organisations. We must encourage others we encounter to do likewise. The anti-apartheid boycott of South Africa was a no-brainer in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. A boycott of Israel should be just as obvious. We must continue to act; for peace, for justice and for Palestine.

In my last post, I discussed why the tendering of care and support services was such a bad idea, after Edinburgh Council was forced to abandon its tender process.  The independent review stated that the process was not implemented meticulously or thoroughly enough, that there remained concerns about the ranking of the bidding service providers, and that it opened up the Council to legal challenges from unsuccessful bidders.

Given all of this, it was astonishing that, at last week’s Finance and Resources Committee, the LibDem/SNP administration decided that it was perfectly OK to set the rate of Direct Payments based on the outcome of the flawed tender – at a value of £15.04.  Direct Payments (DPs) are sums of money given to people requiring care and support in lieu of that care and support.  They are popular amongst some service users who want to be given more freedom and choice over who provides their care.  DPs also offer service users a degree of financial independence and autonomy.

The administration insisted, last week, that this level was over and above what was necessary, and that service users should just be happy with it.  Officers and administration councillors defended this rate to the hilt, saying it was reasonable enough, especially given the ‘consultation’ with service users and advocates that had happened prior to Christmas.  Lesley Hinds and I argued that it was completely inappropriate to base the DP level of the abandoned tender process, and that we desperately needed a more concerted effort to consult and communicate with service users AND providers to reach an appropriate DP level that would allow adequate funds to deal with what are often very complex individual care needs, as well as to reestablish the trust in the Council that had been so comprehensively lost over the past few months.  We we mocked and pilloried, and ultimately brushed aside.

However, again using that most valuable of Standing Orders (the one which resulted in this issue going to Full Council in the first place back in October), we managed to get the decision of the DP level referred to Full Council.

Much to my astonishment (and that of Lesley and the service users, I think), the Administration tabled an amendment to their decision of the previous week throwing out the DP level of £15.04, and stating that more dialogue was necessary.  The second U-turn in as many months!

This U-turn signifies several things:

Firstly, it exemplifies the power of the people!  Without the campaigning effort, the sweat and tears that service users and their advocates have put in over the last 4 months, this outcome would never have been achieved.  The work of organisations, individuals, and family members deserves all the credit – you all did fantastic work, and inspired so many other people to action.  Well done, and thank you!

Secondly, this outcome highlights a deep, structural flaw within the relationship between the LibDem/SNP administration and the Council officers.  There is an arrogance within the Administration that not only prevents them from listening to people, but also seems to absolve them of all responsibility.  Over the course of the tendering process, I constantly reminded them that tendering was problematic, that the consequences needed to be adequately thought through, and that the overall strategy of care provision required clearer thinking and planning.  The procurement bandwagon was all too easily jumped on; afterall, if we employ procurement specialists, of course tendering opportunities are going to be designed, whether appropriate or not.  The Administration failed to heed the warnings many of us gave them during the process, and constantly reaffirmed the process, despite the absence of a wider strategy.  Then, when it went wrong, it was all the officers’ fault.  Talk about lack of judgement and leadership!

Thirdly, and perhaps most controversially, this U-turn indicates the lack of ability within the current Administration to lead a city like Edinburgh.  They are closed to constructive criticism, absolutely determined that they have all the answers, and completely unable to take the blame when they mess up.  I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I would like to think that I am able of listening to others who might have some of the answers I don’t.

However, yesterday was a good day for the people of Edinburgh requiring Care and Support services.  I hope to be a part of the dialogue over the coming weeks to help rebuild the trust between them and the Council, and ensure we come to an agreement about the best way forward for dealing with their care requirements.

On the face of it, this is good news.  It means that people currently receiving care and support services should not experience a change in provider, and they should not have to move to Direct Payments (more on this later), unless they want to.  So far, so good.  However, the competitive tendering of these services is not going to go away.  We will get, some time in the summer, a Commissioning Strategy for the Council will be brought forward.  I have no doubt that further tendering processes will be carried out on the back of this strategy.

I am instinctively against the automatic competitive tendering of services, and have argued this position consistently over the last nearly three years as a councillor.  Putting services out to tender, rather than coming to agreement with service providers via Service Level Agreements drawn up on the basis of specific requirements and localised principles, raises several issues:

Firstly, it assumes that the market is the best place for deciding the cost of service provision.  Despite protestations to the contrary, quality factors necessarily take a back seat in such a process; if Best Value is the bottom line, then lower prices are what will score more points, regardless of the quality of the service that can be bought for that price.  Quality issues are considered, but the line between quality and cost is very difficult to maintain, and the details are often obscured.

Secondly, tendering often results in the smaller organisations (often local, community-based voluntary organisations) losing out to larger companies that can afford to bid lower because they have a larger financial cushion.  The effects of this on employees and communities cannot be overestimated.  Small organisations have the potential to respond to individual needs more appropriately, especially when their employees live and work in the same communities as the service users.  Relationships between service users and their carers have to be built on trust, respect and compassion; characteristics that are all too often lost in larger organisations with little direct connection to the communities they serve.  Small organisations might also feel pressured into restructuring and merging with others to reduce overhead costs.  Whilst this can be hugely beneficial for all involved, and can result in robust, sustainable organisations, assuming that it will be automatically, without any proper support or consultation, is both naive and patronising.

Thirdly, if some service providers lose out to larger ones, and their viability as organisations is jeopardised, their staff are not guaranteed employment in the new service provider organisations.  The lack of income security experienced in tender processes is not good for anyone.  Even if the new service providers can employ staff from the unsuccessful bidders, there is little or no guarantee that their pay and conditions will be as good as they were prior to the tendering process.  Yes, there are regulations governing the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) – or TUPE – but there are loopholes and caveats in such arrangements that can mean staff face pay or condition reductions within weeks of their transfer.  I firmly believe that it is the Council’s duty to ensure that the workers in our city are treated fairly – and we have seen too many examples where TUPE just hasn’t worked.

These are just some of the reasons why competitive tendering is problematic.  Granted, there may be justifiable reasons for going down this path, but only once the impacts on individuals and communities have been fully thought through.

Whenever any service redesign is considered, consultation and communication with all the different parties involved is crucial; and this should not just be a discussion of decisions to be taken.  Rather than presenting a couple of options to people, if we want to be truly consultative, then we should include them right from the beginning in the design of what the various options might be.

There is more to be said on all of this, including the key issue of Direct Payments that were set at £15.04 today, but these will have to wait for the next post …

This coming Thursday, a reconvened meeting of the Finance and Resources Committee will be discussing the outcome of the independent review of the process (overview report available).  In December last year, Deloitte were commissioned (at a cost of about £80,000) to review the tendering process for these services.  The report from Deloitte received mid-January indicates that:

• the tendering process was neither as meticulous nor as thorough as might have been expected;
• the quality scorings of different tenders changed during the process; and
• the viability of the business case would need revisiting because of the higher than expected level of Direct Payment applications.

There are other fora to discuss the relative merits and details of the tenders, the quality rankings, and the Direct Payment levels.  What this review outcome does highlight, however, is a structural problem within the Council’s working.  Paul Edie, the Health, Housing and Social Care convener, stated several times, in public and private, that the process was robust, and that everything was fine.  Jenny Dawe, the Council Leader agreed with him.  Administration councillors flocked to their defense in meetings, brushing off the concerns of opposition councillors, some council officers, service users and their advocates, and union representatives, as mere politicking and scare-mongering.  However, it appears that the concerns were well justified; if a superficial review undertaken in less than a month finds holes in the process, surely they were there for administration councillors and officers to see all along?

We must ask, then, why it took several council meetings, campaign deputations, and in camera discussions for the powers that be to realise that there were serious flaws in the process?  Why did we need to cause so many vulnerable people so much distress?  Why did we allow them to be further marginalised?  Why did we ignore past experience of employees negatively affected by just such tendering processes?

I still struggle to find any convincing answers for these questions.  I can only assume that Paul Edie and his colleagues are so determined to be ‘just different’ to previous Council Administrations that they do not care about the impacts their callous decisions have on people.  They clearly didn’t show compassion in meetings with service users.  They did not appreciate the effects on staff that the loss of local service providers would have.  They did not seem to care that the loss of local providers, as larger contractors (the successful bidders) take over the service provision market, would have serious detrimental effects on communities and the people who live and work in them.

The current administration just doesn’t seem to care about people or communities; the short-term bottom line is all that matters to them.  I, personally, don’t want to be a part of a council that treats its residents in this way, and I am very glad that this fiasco has ended the way it has.  I am only sorry for all the distress caused in the mean time.  The next few months are going to be interesting indeed!

Next Thursday (4th Feb, at 2pm) the Finance and Resources committee will reconvene (again!) to discuss the tendering.  But, from the agenda released yesterday, it looks like we’ll only be discussing the contract for the provision of care and support for the Lochend Project (although the report has not been circulated yet).  What happened to the other projects/providers/services that we were asked to approve back in October?

Assuming that the report on Monday, that leaves less than four days to go through it, discuss it with service users and their advocates and families, and consider fully the implications of the proposals … how on earth does this represent ‘best practice’ consultation?  I do wonder at people sometimes … surely the Administration realises what this will mean for them?