And the people looke at possible designs, and the overall plan was formulated, and we went back unto the people and showed them the combination of their ideas and planning realities.

We all had different views about how good it really was, but we all agreed it was better than what we currently have.

Here we see some designs I snapped on a trip to China. What do you think of them? Would you like to live somewhere like this?

Look at the pictures of old Beijing with new Beijing, starkly contrasted on either side if the “Bund”. Do the old buildings look more solid, more imposing, if a little less tall?

Is the bin a bit  of smart but simple design? Is the waterfall more in line with what we should have got in Prestwich?

These thoughts were whizzing though my head when I was travelling around - even thousands of miles away I was obsessed with how good we could make my home town look!

See some of the pictures here. They were from the discussion strategy meeting for the regeneration of Prestwich a couple of years ago. Present were members of the TCR Group, Officers, Councillors and interested parties, trying to work out what was wrong with Prestwich.

  

So then we look at townscapes, planning preferences, what we actually prefer to see, and what would we want from Prestwich?

Jo went to the Northern Counties Pony Trials on Sunday, supported by some friends, myself & her mum. She won enough awards throughout the season to merit getting to the Northern finals, held in Cheshire.

She competed in the lightweight cob class, and came a respectable fourth, for which she got a rosette and a mighty prize of £5! I reckon the day probably cost a few hundred quid in total, but hey-ho, it’s the competing that counts!

I enjoyed the day, delivering some leaflets early doors, then washed, vac’d & waxed my car, and took the mother-in-law there with the roof down. A most pleasant time on a wonderfully warm September Sunday.

D

Planning Committee gave the green light to the redevelopment of the Town Centre on Tuesday, with approval of the outline plans put forward by HMG, the owners of the shops. I spoke for the application as Chair of the Town Centre Regeneration Working Group, but 3 mins was nowhere near enough time! I did warn about some elements - like ensuring the developers continue to liaise with the public, and take on board concerns about losing the Longfield Suite, or buildng too high.

Last night was EET (Economy, Environment & Transport) Scrutiny Committee, where we look at the work of sub-groups scrutinising the Executive, and/or preparing reports for taking through into policy.

Allotments

A member of the public came & asked questions about allotments - fortunately I was well briefed because I’d just seen the written answer to a question submitted by the LibDems at Full Council. 96% of allotments in the Borough are let, there are 516 plots and a waiting list of 450 people. It is less clear what the Council are actually doing to improve access to allotments, how they’re funded, or how well they’re managed.

Housing Scrutiny

I sit on HIAG, the Housing Issues Advisory Group, who scrutinise the work of the providers of our Council Housing, and also of the work of the “Strategic Housing Unit” of the Council. HIAG reports to nobody, and as a result has no teeth. Senior Managers of Six Town Housing basically ignore HIAG, and will not attend to report their actions there. This is therefore being subsumed into a sub-group of EET, called “Housing Services Sub-Group (HSSG). The voting rights have to be taken away from the non-elected representatives, and it gets 3 Tories, 1 Labour & 1 LibDem, which our Democratic Services Officers tell us reflects the political balance of the Council (26 Tory, 16 Labour, 9 LibDem). I disagreed, but the debate went on & on, and as we’d only ever had one vote on HIAG, we accepted the position & moved on.

Parking Services

We got an annual report from Officers on the issues affecting this department. Lots of stats, and it made fun reading. I asked lots of questions, but felt that there was little evidential substance to the  answers, so will be taking it further. Basically, 1 in 4 tickets are rescinded or cancelled, which means we are paying NCP to do wasteful work on our behalf. Officers said the REAL figure was more like 8%, but did not provide enough evidence to substantiate this. There was no comparison with other Boroughs, so we couldn’t see how Councils who deal with their own parking arrngements get on, or how we fared before 2002, when we “outsourced” to NCP.

I also raised the farce that is currently ongoing about parking around Prestwich Centre, which was always enforced by the Council, and now is being done by “Central Ticketing” on behalf of Riddell’s, the managing agents for HMG, who own the Longfield Centre shops, and who we just gave planning consent to regenerate!

They claim they own some bits of land, but we’ve got double yellows there which indicates it is managed by the Local Authority. Tickets are £100, or £65 if paid early, and apply to disabled-badged vehicles as well. This has never before been enforced, and is catching a lot of people out. I have said that I will rip down the posters & charge Riddells a couple of thousand for my services, handing the cash back to those affected by the parking charges. I ‘ve arranged an urgent meeting with the Council’s Officers & Riddells & me to sort it out. If it is not sorted at that meeting, I will very publicly take action to protect the rights of the people of this Borough!

Private Sector Housing Financial Assistance Policy

Our SHU (see above) develop policies to fund adaptations to housing, for the sick, elderly, and others. The new policy explains how the funding is allocated, but most of the detail was skimmed over. The headline is that Govt. has matched any funding we in Bury have paid into this, but it appears that Bury Council under the Tories may cut this in the future. The SHU are banging the drum for their funding for next year, and the Tories may give in to their demands if enough bad press comes their way!

Street Lighting

Our Senior Enginner brought forward a report to explain some of the considerations & options. It missed some stuff off, pointed out by LibDem & Labour alike. I have stepped back from the argument now, with Vic D’Albert (see link to the left) sitting on the sub-group to scrutinise this before early December. There is some possibility of gaining Govt. grants to help pay for this, but we need to move fast, so we’re taking tenders from consultants to help prepare our begging bowl bid.

ELR Update

We all got a copy of the proposals from East Lancs Railway on their future plans. No comments were passed on this, as it was past 9pm and the meeting began at 6.30pm.

SubGroups Update

We updated the Scrutiny Committee upon the work that we’ve been doing in our sub-groups.

Urgent Business

The deletion of the 95 bus affects many wards in the south of Bury, as well as in Little Lever & beyond. Tony Isherwood for Labour tabled this asa concern on “Community Transport”, especially affecting kids going to school at Phillips High from Radcliffe.

It’s already been reported to GMPTE, and Officers & Councillors have been asked to get more information & report back to this Committee for the next meeting. If no improvement is noted, we may need to take serious action. Wait & see….

D

This morning I woke with a realisation in my head! It’s all about achievements - that’s what we’re judged upon.

The meeting on Wednesday  got 3 of our motions passed, that’s an achievement for a party of 9 in a Council of 51 Councillors. We also got to ask some pertinent questions which will be useful ammunition in the forthcoming elections.

We clearly punch above our weight, and we exceed the performance of those around us.

So far, since becoming a Councillor in Prestwich, I’ve achieved a fair bit, but not nearly as much as I would like to get done. Along with my LibDem colleagues, we can lay claim to invigorating the area, and helping to establish the following:

We have the realistic regeneration prospect for Prestwich, the outline proposals are coming to Planning Committee next week. A multi-million pound development, which never saw the light of day under Labour or Tory rule in Prestwich.

We have an attitude of “take back our streets”, with anti-graffiti campaigns, and far greater partnership working with the Police.

We have a month-long Prestwich Festival, celebrating all things “local”.

We have a thriving town centre, with a working fountain and a farmers market!

We have outlying shopping centres now believing in the regeneration, and wanting a slice of the action.

We have a “can do” attitude, with people wanting to get involved in all sorts of improvement projects.

We have Tenants & rsidents Associations improving housing estates all over the area.

There is still much to do, but I woke this morning and realised that we have helped to improve the area, and some of that is down to me, and that makes me proud! Hurrah!!!

The Tories made a farce of democracy last night at Full Council. We put forward a motion on opening up democracy, having an all-party review of the Scrutiy process, and this was what was suggested at the all party “away-day” recently. Labour supported our motion, but the Tories (despite some disagreeing with their Leadership) all voted to water it down, so the Scrutiny Management Committee should review it & bring a report back to Council. This is like asking someone to make their own role redundant!!!

Then, I put forward a fairly reasonable motion about Bury getting active in the Olympics, perhaps hosting a nation, having a mini-olympics to get us in the mood, and asking central Govt what was to be our promised “lasting legacy”? This was defeated by the Tories & Labour having a “love-in” which watered it right down, so there are no promises to fulfil, no targets to try to achieve, just a vague wishy-washy hope that we can continue to provide some support to others who actually pull their finger out! I doubt any winning Olympians would want to be associated with such crass objectives - it is hardly in the aspirational spirit of the Olympics!

Vic D’Albert, our PPC put forward a motion on the surveillance powers used by the Council. Again, the Tories were aided by Labour to amend the motion so that it had not teeth, ambition or guts.

There were shed-loads of questions, almost entirely blagged off by Bibby & Co with “We’ll have to get back to you in writing about that”, and the written questions from the public were simply avoided by not being answered whatsoever! The Tory Executive simply referred to topics they wished had been asked! This is not democracy, this is pantomime time from some very poor imitation “politicians”.

On the up side, I got home from the meeting to watch the England game on ITV.

70 years after the outbreak of a second world war, we seem only a little further on in the search for peace, love & understanding.

We’ve had any number of peaceful protesters, love-ins, and calls for tolerance, but few seem to have grasped the nettle and actually made it happen. So what does make peace a reality?

Well, in Northern Ireland I think it was an “accord” where the British Govt. accepted that population growth was going to vote them out of power and hand it over to the Republic within a couple of decades, so they opted for peace and re-building instead. The Catholics got power-sharing, and it’s starting to become a lovely place once more.

In far flung corners of the world such as Indonesia recently, the Tamils were simply defeated and eradicated, or annihilated if you believe the Channel 4 news.

In China, a place I visited last year, it seems that the maintenance of peace is by a fairly oppressive management regime, where dissent is tolerated if it’s private, but public dissent is “dissuaded”. This effectively maintains the peace.

In the US & UK, we are allowed to air our beliefs, but not in front of foreign dignitaries, politicians or VIP’s. The dictatorial manner in which our dissent is now legally subjugated is oppressive and excessive. However, if people aren’t allowed to remonstrate with their leaders, this “keeps the peace”, as far as the police are concerned. It does not engender a peaceful existence however.

So how would I have delivered “Peace in our time”? Could I have got Hitler to step back from the precipice of war? Could Churchill have managed it? Could anyone?

I suspect that Hitler was so egotistical, self-centred and confident that no one person could have prevented it. Only the reversal of financial fortunes for a resurgent Germany could have prevented it, and that would have meant their opponents working in financial unison before war was declared, which itself would have been an act of aggression.

However, nowadays with the widespread knowledge of history, we surely should be able to avoid inter-national conflicts. The Balkans in the 90’s; Chechnya now; Afghanistan and god-knows how many African conflicts? Below is a list of “conflicts” where UN peace-keeping forces are CURRENTLY deployed (with thanks to the UN website - see http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/currentops.shtml )

Current Operations

Africa

• United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
• African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID)
• United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
• United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI)
• United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)
• United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
• United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
• United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi (BINUB) ⁽¹⁾

Americas

• United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)

Asia and the Pacific

• United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
• United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
• United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) ⁽²⁾

Europe

• United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
• United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)

Middle East

• United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
• United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO)

This proves that humans are not very good at being peaceful, and perhaps is a reason to suspect that we’ll never have “Peace in our time”, but if we don’t strive for it, and recognise that others have a right to exist, then we’ll never achieve it . So when someone asks me, “Do you support Israel or Palestine?” my answer is “Neither”.

Those who choose war rather than find a mutually beneficial solution to disagreement are not deserving of anyone’s support. In the same way, I did not support the “Catholic” cause in Northern Ireland, despite being a first-generation Catholic, whose parents originate from Northern Ireland.

Ask yourself - do you support one side over another because those you know are involved, and fight on that side? That is not enough reason. In fact, that is an emotional but crass response. You are given a brain to think with. Most of us are educated enough to read a selection of articles from different perspectives, and apply reason to a situation. Try it, and see how much better you feel!

Donal

I was fortunate to have listened to the very considered opinion & speech given by Kenny MacAskill on the day he agreed to release al-Megrahi. He criticised the Labour Westminster Govt for failing to give him advice on the position (whose job it is to deal with “foreign policy” matters) and had to consider the release only on “home justice” policy considerations.

He said that he’d taken on board the considerations of those families of victims, some of whom he spoke to directly; the legal position of the conviction & normal “compassionate release” procedures; and other matters of importance. In fact, this is the pertinent section of his speech:

“Let me be absolutely clear. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland it is my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. These are my decisions and my decisions alone.

In considering these applications I have strictly followed due process, including the procedures laid down in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and in the Scottish Prison Service guidance on compassionate release. I have listened to many representations and received substantial submissions.

Let me be quite clear on matters on which I am certain. The Scottish police and prosecution service undertook a detailed and comprehensive investigation with the assistance of the US and other authorities. I pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and the complexity of a world-wide investigation. They are to be commended for their tenacity and skill. When Mr Al-Megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. And I pay tribute to our Judges who presided and acted justly.

Mr Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. He was given a life sentence and a punishment part of 27 years was fixed. When such an appalling crime is perpetrated it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed.

Mr Al-Megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. As I have said consistently throughout, that is a matter for him and the courts. That was his decision. My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed.

I realise that the abandonment of the appeal has caused concern to many. I have indicated that I am grateful to and proud of those who have served in whatever capacity in bringing this case to justice. I accept the conviction and sentence imposed. However, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.

This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry.

I now turn to the matters before me that I require to address. An application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and an application for compassionate release have been made. I now deal with them in turn.

Prisoner Transfer

Firstly, the prisoner transfer agreement.

The Libyan Government applied on 5 May 2009 for the transfer of Mr Al-Megrahi. Prisoner Transfer Agreements are negotiated by the United Kingdom Government.

Throughout the negotiations and at the time of the signing of the PTA with Libya, the Scottish Government’s opposition was made clear. It was pointed out that the Scottish Prison Service had only one Libyan prisoner in custody. Notwithstanding that, the UK Government failed to secure, as requested by the Scottish Government, an exclusion from the PTA for anyone involved in the Lockerbie Air Disaster. As a consequence Mr Al-Megrahi is eligible for consideration for transfer in terms of the agreement entered into by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Libya.

I received numerous letters and representations, and recognised that a decision on transfer would be of personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. Accordingly, I decided to meet with groups and individuals with a relevant interest.

I met with the families of victims: those from the United Kingdom who had relatives on board the flight, as well as those whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes in Lockerbie; a lady from Spain whose sister was a member of the cabin crew; and I held a video conference with families from the United States. I am grateful to each and every one of them for their fortitude on a matter which I know is still a source of great pain.

I also spoke to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. I met Minister Alobidi and his delegation from the Libyan Government to hear their reasons for applying for transfer, and to present to them the objections that had been raised to their application.

I have noted and considered all the points presented, and also relevant written representations I received.

Prior to ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it was scrutinised by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Jack Straw, UK Secretary of State for Justice, gave a commitment that in cases where applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr Al-Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations, and he chose to do so in person. Therefore I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.

It was clear that both the United States Government and the American families objected to a prisoner transfer. They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made, prior to trial, regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted.

The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy Attorney General to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland. Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they placed upon these assurances over the past ten years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.

I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.

Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.

It is for that reason that the Libyan Government’s application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi I accordingly reject.

Compassionate Release

I now turn to the issue of compassionate release.

Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds.

The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.

On 24 July 2009 I received an application from Mr Al-Megrahi for compassionate release. He was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in September 2008. I have been regularly updated as to the progression of his illness. I have received numerous comprehensive medical reports including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. It is quite clear to the medical experts that he has a terminal illness, and indeed that there has recently been a significant deterioration in his health.

In order to consider the application for compassionate release, I was provided with reports and recommendations by the Governor of Greenock Prison, the doctors and prison social work staff. Also, as laid out in statute, I have consulted the Parole Board. This is the normal process for consideration of an application for compassionate release and my decision is in accordance with all the advice given to me.

It is the opinion of his Scottish Prison Service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him during each of these stages, that his clinical condition has declined significantly. Assessment by a range of specialists has reached the firm consensus that his disease is, after several different trials of treatment, “hormone resistant” - that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis therefore has moved to the lower end of expectations.

Mr Al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3 August. A report dated 10 August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner - he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me. That medical advice has been made available to the United States Government at their request and has been published on grounds of public interest.

It has been suggested that Mr Al-Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland. Clear advice from senior police officers is that the security implications of such a move would be severe. I have therefore ruled that out as an option.

Conclusion

Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made.

Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.

However, Mr Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.

In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.

Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.

But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

For these reasons - and these reasons alone - it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.”

From the above speech you can see that this was not decided upon a whim. You can see that great care & deliberation was taken. Whether the British Govt. secretly did a deal with Libya to improve trade is not important in this single decision (although it is of course important, with Libya’s economy being a fantastic place for Britain to trade!). Whether this would upset the US Govt. was not a job which Mr MacAskill had to deal, that was a job for Gordon Brown and his Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

Clearly, a failure by Miliband (either of ability or in practicality) to negotiate with the US has damaged our “special relationship” with the US, which was pretty much in shreds as a result of their foreign war-monger politics in Iraq (I do not include Afghanistan in this - that is a war that probably did & definitely now DOES need to be fought).

So we come to my opinion of the decision:

• Was it right to release Al-Megrahi?

Based upon the information I can get hold of, yes. It was a compassionate action, and that factor outweighs the need for ensuring a criminal is punished, in this situation at least (especially as the UN consider it a miscarriage of justice!). This does not make me a “soft liberal”, merely someone who wishes the legal system to be correctly administered.

• Could we have done more to reduce the impact of this release?

Yes - by negotiating properly with the Libyans & the US, and setting out the criteria for such release.

• Will the UK benefit from this decision?

If it doesn’t, then Miliband & Brown have failed, Libya have been seen to “win”, and we have further alienated the US.

Donal