Yesterday there was a fascinating piece in the Guardian about “civic life” and ethical citizenry. Now this may sound highbrow, but in fact all it said was:

“Should we let free market capitalism continue unabated, or should we take stock, and all take some responsibility for improving our community for all?”

Clearly, the way the piece was written, and the “liberal/social” based newspaper it was written in would give you an indication of the answer they suggested, but I have to say that I tend to agree. And that surprised me a lot!

I thought that earning a good wage, occasionally being able to splash out on something unnecessary, and aiming for the top were core elements in my make-up. I still think that a desire to win is deep in my blood (ask anyone who races me in a go-cart, or plays 5-a-side against me!), but the active participation I have enjoyed in civic life has changed my perceptions about the nature of community and the role we all have to play in it.

Morally, I feel we should almost all engage in a basic understanding of politics. This would involve it as a compulsory subject at primary & secondary school, in prisons, and in public houses. We should all be able to explain why we want to vote in a certain direction, and be able to split this from the way our forebears voted (the number of Labour voters who fail to think for themselves & simply say “My dad did!” is astonishing, and a symptom of poor education).

Do we vote socialist because our wish to see eqaulity outweighs our personal desire for wealth? Do we vote liberal because the need to ensure fairness in a political and social system exceeds all others? Do people vote conservative because their natural tendency is conserving their current advantage over others? 

How many people actually analyse why they vote a certain way? Does anyone other than a philosophy student actually consider what would be in the best interests of the locality, the region, or the nation for the long term?

What role do ethics play in this big debate, and should we strive for increased emphasis on morality (whatever your creed or beliefs), or should we simply enact more laws to prevent people over-stepping the mark? My simplistic answer is that we should use more “soft focus” emphasis to bring people to recognise the importance of their social and physical neighbours.

I mean that there should be more emphasis (in education; social gatherings of all sorts; politics; sport; newspapers and magazines; theatre, tv & the arts etc.) on the way we can altruistically improve the lot of our neighbours by the way we interact. Asking someone their opinion & taking heed of their concerns would be a good start. Less emphasis upon personal wealth, fame & celebrity status would also improve things. More emphasis upon sport for the sake of enjoyment & simply winning (and not the cash/status you get as a result of winning) would be a simple improvement.

Daley Thompson, perhaps the greatest all-round athlete these islands have produced in the modern era, is quoted as saying, “My parents believed in the value of hard work. My generation of sportspeopledidn’t train and work hard because we wanted fame or wealth. We were motivated by the thought of glory, and of doing something for our country.” Compare that view of success to the likes of any well-known Premiership footballer. I know who gets my respect and who has yet to earn it…

I am a football referee. I would ref. a game for free, because I don’t need the money, because we need fair & firm referees, and because I need the exercise. I take the £25 because it pays for my petrol to get to/from a game, because it helps to continue a disciplined mentality in the teams that play (refs. have a quantifiable value to them) and because it doesn’t undermine those refs. who do need the money. My view of football is that it is a game, not a business. Anyone who makes a living from it is lucky, and should expect that luck to change at any moment, and take it with good grace.

The likes of Alex Ferguson, Neil Warnock and all the pundits who criticise refs., but don’t have the guts to get in the middle and do it themselves, should hold their heads in shame at the way they abuse another human (I know Mr warnock does it occasionally for charity, but he still abuses refs. on a regular basis - so he should really know much better!)

I would like to see refs. on televised games stop the game when they are abused, put the microphone on to speakers in the ground and on tv, and rebuke those who abuse them, shaming them to the stands, or better still, outside the grounds (my view is that “the vicinity of the field of play” includes anywhere you can see physically the game). They could also do the same for any player who swears at them, probably reducing many games to abandonment due to fielding insufficient players (you can’t play with less than 7 on the pitch, I think!). Enough ranting - back to the main point:

So do I referee more because they need me than I need them? Not really. My need for exercise and interaction with a bunch of like-minded blokes probably comes close to giving it balance.

What about being a Councillor - is that an ethical or altruistic decision? First of all, it’s not my decision (voters choose), but my willingness to stand and the work I’ve done since being elected is generally motivated by 3 things:

1. I believe in Proportional Representation, and will not cease until this country accepts that it is the only real fair system of voting, and adopts it. The only mainstream party who advocate this are the LibDems. The more Cllrs the LibDems get, the more chance they have of being a power to change in Whitehall. So I stand for that.
2. I have the time and inclination to do the work, and a work ethic to get things done. Whilst this is at the expense of my “soft side” (empathy is not a strong point!) I feel I provide the balance that we need in the Council, which seems full of people with a soft side (including officers of Council but excluding most of the Tories, I must say!)
3. I believe I can do a better job than others. This is not being big-headed, I just feel that others may faff & fiddle, whilst my no-nonsense approach (whilst being a bit “bish-bash-bosh”) is a strength that many others do not have.

 So how do we improve civic life, and make people more “morally accountable” to themselves & others?

The framework is already in place, it’s been around for nearly a hundred years. All we need is the will to implement a sense of natural belonging and pride. The Labour Government has done as much to harm this country by it’s continuance along the Maggie mold as John Major’s before it. What has been missing is a group ideal. A joint view that what is best for all clearly overrides what is best for individuals. Sounds idealistic, I know - ubt if we don’t aim for ideals we’ll only get the pits, in my view.

Those who seek only their own benefit don’t deserve our time or adulation. The Simon Cowell’s of this world - where do they fit in? They benefit a few at the expense of the many, and in the process get hugely wealthy (and whilst he may be helping some instead of none, is this better than the alternative that could be on the tv? I think not). Andrew Lloyd Webber seems no different, simply ripping off the BBC to make his own West End show a success. So let us cut clear of these people and make tv a bit more representative, with a lot fewer “luvvies” and a lot more shows of real worth. The only way to make this happen is to stop watching car crash tv. Unfortunately, with cash pressures on producers, this won’t happen any time soon. Hopefully the internet, iPlayer, cheap books in Charity shops and home-brew beer may help an anti-crass tv resurgence!

So in terms of “Civic Life”, why don’t we all try to think a little more locally, and change what we can around us for the better, and as a combined result we’ll alter the way central govt. (of any persuasion) finances, listens to, and behaves with local govt?

This means supporting local business; attending local theatre; drinking local beer; using local “civic” facilities; demanding more from your local council; asking your national politicians what they have achieved locally, and generally taking an interest in your neighbours. It means taking heed of others’ needs; being a bit more social etc.

I’m not telling you what to do, just giving you ideas, and letting you know that I’ll try to adopt them too.

D

A Fair Start for Children

Posted February 1, 2010

Today at a speech to Barnado’s Nick Clegg announced one of our four key policies for the General Election campaign ahead - A Fair Start for Every Child.

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today pledged to give every child a fair start in life by investing an extra £2.5bn in schools which could be used to cut class sizes, offer one-on-one tuition and provide catch-up classes.

In a speech to Barnardo’s this morning, Nick Clegg set out the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge to introduce a Pupil Premium which would raise the poorest children’s school funding to private school levels.

Commenting, Nick Clegg said:

“One of the biggest challenges we face as a country is breaking this link between financial deprivation at home and educational under-achievement in the classroom.

“Despite all the money that has been spent by Labour, schools taking disadvantaged children aren’t getting the money they need to break this link by cutting class sizes and providing them with extra support.

“As we work our way out of this recession and rebuild a country which is fairer, we must ensure our school system gives every child a chance to fulfil their potential irrespective of their background and where they live.”

View a full copy of the speech here.

The Policy in Brief
To give every child a fair start, Liberal Democrats will spend an extra £2.5bn on schools. The money will be targeted at schools taking on children who need more help, but will benefit every child in every school. The cash can be used to cut class sizes and provide one-to-one tuition or catch-up classes, ensuring every child gets the individual attention they need. An average primary school could cut class sizes to 20. An average secondary school could see classes of just 16.

Why is it Necessary?
Performance at school is closely linked to children’s background. The poorest children are only half as likely to get five good GCSEs as other children. Too often, the poorest children start school already struggling and fall further behind as they grow older.

Schools taking disadvantaged children aren’t getting the money they need to cut class sizes and provide them with extra support. The existing methods for distributing deprivation related funding are confusing and inconsistent. Nearly one in three pupils entitled to Free School Meals at secondary school attend relatively affluent secondary schools. Area based targeting therefore misses a large proportion of the poorest pupils – including in many rural areas. As a result, there is a huge gap between poor children in different parts of the country: in Kensington and Chelsea, 59% of poor children get five good GCSEs, while in Rutland, it’s 14%.

Policy Detail
The Pupil Premium would be available to the school which each disadvantaged pupil attended. It would be attached to those children entitled to Free School Meals – the million poorest children. The Pupil Premium would be set nationally and it would top up a national per-pupil base funding figure. It will raise the poorest children’s school funding to private school levels, with the average school receiving around £2500 extra for every child entitled to free school meals on their roll.

Figures are available for the predicted amount of money each local authority will receive, and can be calculated for individual schools.

Costs/Savings
This policy costs £2.5bn a year, and will be introduced in the second year of the Parliament after our jobs stimulus package, paid for from savings in Government such as our proposed reforms to tax credits (which will save £1.5bn) and administrative savings in the Department for Education and quangos (which save an additional £1bn).

Yes - it was a bit like “Save our Souls” at Full Council last night, but the SOS above refers to Save Our Suite! More on that later…

Full Council 3.2.10: 

Last night I attended Full Council - mostly boring stuff with the occasional glimmer of hope. The only public question was asked by Alf Wentworth about Civic Suites, the health benefits of dancing, and the importance the Longfield plays in keeping people out of hospital via it’s very frequent dances. The Executive Member for Healthier Communities (Bev Sullivan - she may be up for election this year, hint hint!) gave a fairly bland answer, and on we went (The Tories took away people’s rights to ask additional questions, and ones that hadn’t been scribed in blood and submitted four decades before the meeting!).

There were no recommendations from the Executive, and in the Leader’s statement he referred to the excellent work of the EET Highways Scrutiny Sub-Committee (chaired by yours truly) and mentioned me in despatches four or five times. This was in an attempt to blame me for the failure of his Council to cope adequately during the recent poor weather.

 So - what did my Sub Group do to deserve such praise?

We studied the 127-page “Winter Service Policy & Operational Plan”, and put it forward to the full EET Scrutiny Committee as a sound document. The policy outlines the legislation we must adhere to; a statement of intent; explains the road hierarchy; routes; priorities for keeping clear; salting & snow clearance practice; where we get our weather data from; response times; the decision-making process; performance monitoring; equipment to be used; how many grit bins we have and where; fuel stocks; what the rate of salt spread should be; includes individual route plans; information on treatment of footpaths etc.

The document is sound (given the dire financial state of the Borough announced every year since the year dot!), and we put it forward to the Full EET Committee subject to the proviso that further investigation work be done by taking it to Local LAP’s for the public to add comments about where else they wanted gritting, grit bins etc. and why. This was done in December, and as far as I can tell, absolutely nobody in Prestwich put forward any written recommendations (although I stand to be corrected if someone did - that info. dates from about 15th Jan).

The problem was that most people would say it was not put into practice. So, what specifically can we say did not occur?

Well, to do that we need to review the Operational Plan against the performance data that should have been collected. Unfortunately, the sat-nav units didn’t work, because some edgit located them in the engine bay, and it would seem that nobody checked after installation that a signal was being received! So we can’t tell where the trucks were.

So what about rate of spread - surely that data can be analysed? Again, this would appear not to be the case, as the measurement is based on the moving element of the unit, and does not check the data against the amount in the truck or hopper by weight. This means that the practice I call “Ghost Gritting” (flashing lights, lots of noise, but nothing useful coming out of it - a bit like the Tory Party in Bury who run the Council!), witnessed by so many residents of Prestwich, has no appropriate checks & balances. Thus, we can’t say how much salt was laid, we can only tell that from the fact that the bulk storage nearly ran out.

And the questions we were going to ask about the “winter service plan” (mine was about the area around Butterstile School) were not allowed to be asked because we timed-out once more (my question was eighth on the list). However, they do have to be answered in writing, so I’ll add them when I get them.

Questions that were put and got a response (although I think in NO case did an “answer” appear!) included the following:

1. What went wrong with the refuse collection service & how much cash did we save by this cock-up change?
2. Why did the “balanced council” in 2007 prevent the Leader from taking action on the Civic Suites during 2007?
3. What’s the progress at Whitefield Town Hall?
4. Are we going to get more £ for road repairs as a result of the second consecutive bad winter?
5. What’s the Council doing about gee’ing up the PCT into action about the Whitefield Health Centre?
6. If a General Election is on the same day as the Council Elections, will the count for the latter occur the following day? (we got a straight answer to this, because it is not a decision that can be taken by anyone from a political background - “yes”!)
7. Is the Bury times correct about the “out of court settlement” offer announced in the Bury Times, and why was “Trev the Union Man” informed by this method instead of via an internal email/conversation etc?

There were then 2 motions, one by us about Police Funding, and one by Labour about Employee Pay. Ours succeeded in gaining the full support of all those present (albeit with an amendment by Labour), and the Labour one failed.

Questions to “Joint Authorities” (police/fire/transport etc.) followed a brief report by the Councillor on the police board, but my questions again couldn’t be put because despite the Deputy Leader (Yvonne Creswell) saying she was going to be brief in answering Richard Baum’s question about the failure of the Metrolink during the bad weather, she then blabbed on about “the weather was not confined to us, it was all ‘over the country…” - as if we hadn’t noticed!?! At this point I was bored & fed-up: The football was over, there was nothing of interest being said, and we all wanted to go home. I asked the Mayor to ask Yvonne to get to the point so we could get on, and the Mayor brought proceedings to a close! (Deos that count as another win for us?)

Save Our Suite:

At a meeting this week a few changes were made to the make-up, and decisions about what to do next were made. Labour & us are in accord, and it seems we have support from Cllrs Wiseman & Redstoone from the Tories too.

The “consultation questionnaire” is out, and it is the weakest, most lily-livered piece of crud I’ve seen in ages! There are no clear questions, so how they can draw reasonable conclusions from it are beyond me - I am sure the appropriateness of this will be brought into question. MAKE SURE YOU ALL COMPLETE IT!

HEATON PARK “GOALS SOCCER” ZONE:

I have written an email to the Officer responsible for this process at Manchester Town Hall, and asked for it to be dispersed amongst the Councillors on the Planning Committee there. Some of it can be seen in a previous posting below.

I have had a discussion with St Monica’s Head Teacher about it too, and will be sending him a copy of the full email which goes into more detail. I must repeat - I am not against the facilities, I am against their particular siting (at the furthest edge away from Manchester) where almost all the negative factors will affect the people of Prestwich, and all the positive factors (discounted access etc.) will be for the people of Manchester.

‘Nuff said! D

Let’s think about the big things this week - Haiti earthquake; Snow locally; DNA Database figures; Rubbish TV; Football, Donal & IT!

Haiti:

My heart goes out to those in Haiti who have lost their family, friends, homes, businesses and hope. The actions of governments and charities the world over is to be commended, but we have to ask why on earth it took so many days for search teams to get onto the ground, and why food, water & medical supplies still aren’t in the areas needed? We all know that the aid began arriving at the airport the following day, but it was another 2-3 days before there was even any word of professional search teams getting out into the worst-hit areas. How many people can survive under a collapsed building without food & water for 96 hours?

It is a poor reflection when the Aussie TV reporters pull a child from the rubble, and we know of no reports of international search teams doing the same. How come reporters can get onto the ground the next day, but the “helpers” can’t?

This isn’t criticism, a simple observation that many have made, and one that I put to my sister who works for a major international charity. She couldn’t answer, but I hope that those in charge try to do so to improve such responses for the future.

Local Snow:

Ok, the country was hit by heavier snow than we’ve had in 3 decades, nearly. However, the response was dismal again, as it always seems to be in Britain.

In Bury, gritters were witnessed to be “ghost gritting” before the directive from central govt. to conserve grit stocks. (Ghost gritting is the practice of sending gritting wagons out with lights flashing but not actually dropping any grit). My investigations have indicated that this may be  a widespread issue across the North West to act as a pacifying or “placebo” effect to the public.

Interestingly, despite the promises of SatNav controlled trucks to track & identify the exact location of the gritters at all times, I am now told that this didn’t work all the time because of where the aerials were located. Did nobody check this when we paid for the equipment to be fitted to the trucks?!?!

I actually enjoyed the snow, because the roads were clearer of heavy traffic, I got the chance to walk places rather than drive all the time (an issue of time & tasks to complete rather than preference), and the area looked cleaner than it has done in decades!

Further, I got to drive Jo’s mini, which was quite fun when she wasn’t with me in the car to worry! She spun it 180 degrees on Lowther Road on Friday, trying to stop on black ice as there was a 3-car pile-up in front of her. She went up the hill to stop vehicles coming round the blind bend and adding to the carnage, and when I commented how “publicly-spirited” this was of her (she stood there for an hour in the rain, stopping traffic ’til the police arrived) she corrected me by explaining that she didn’t want anybody to smash into her cute mini! Hmmm….

The point to learn for the Council is that we now have a 3-vehicle & 1 bicycle RTA on the stretch of road which narrows, which makes the stats look much worse, and hopefully requiring further road improvements to Lowther Road. It should also mean that the Council should provide more grit here, and those people nicking the road grit for their drives should be a bit more ashamed that they contributed to this carnage. (Yes, I too took grit, but it was for the dangerous parts of Lowther Close, not just personal use!)

DNA Database:

Figures obtained by the LibDems prove that for every single person removed from the police DNA database, another 250 are added. The UK Labour Govt. are still adding innocent people to a database of people, despite the European Courts ruling that the practice is illegal.

Add to this the outrageous numbers on “stop & search”, and the new “whole-body x-ray” at airports, and it really does feel like we are living in a totalitarian police state. Even the local Council gets in on the act, it was reported that Bury has 104 people entitled to enter homes without a warrant, 3 times the number of nearby Trafford, who are a larger Council! We have bin tagging, more CCTV per head of population than anywhere else in the western world, and yet we still don’t feel safe - could it be that the Government is twisting our thoughts towards fear, so we don’t start looking at how bad they really are?

Rubbish TV:

The poor weather probably meant that I stayed in more than I normally would, and I bought a TV (only the second in our house!) so probably watched a bit more over the last month than I previously had. It was dire!

Reality & D-list celebrity dancing, singing, skating and slobbing comprises most prime-time shows. Add to this innane cop, ambulance, and town-centre binge-watching, and it’s no wonder we don’t seem to mind the CCTV cameras!

Why don’t more people just turn it off, and either listen to a talk radio show whilst doing something useful, or take a hobby to prevent the crass getting into their heads?

Football:

I’ve played and reffed very little recently - it keep getting called off. However, I plan to do quite a bit more to work up my fitness for the elections, and also to give my energy levels a boost, as they’ve been sapped by over-indulgence in all things bad over Christmas!

City are doing well, United are stuttering, Liverpool are abysmal, and Arsenal & Chelsea play the nicest flowing footy in the Premiership at present (unfortunately!). I wonder what further acquisitions Mancini will make this month? A couple of clever midfielders and a spare defender or two wouldn’t go amiss. We’re too close to the cup derby match to make a difference now, but I hope he continues to strengthen the squad.

Bury are doing well, I hope to be able to get to a couple of games shortly, but it’s another thing in my wish list, where time is the biggest problem!

Donal & IT:

OK - never got those pics downloaded (see last blog). I loaded the camera s/ware, and connected the camera, but the pc doesn’t even see the camera, no idea why! I’ve tried different cables and stuff, perhaps it’s because previously I loaded pics via my smart printer. Maybe have to go for a new printer (last one went back to my previous employers when I left).

I’m also getting to grips with my new work Blackberry. It’s ok, but when I get a message that a meeting’s cancelled, I won’t believe it in future!!!

Much of the casework I now get is via email or phone, very few letters. It’s much nicer to get them, but I understand how much easier it is to deal with something instantly.

Enough for now, I’ve got household chores, post, and emails to the Council to write!

Prestwich Local Area Partnership Meeting this week, at 6.30pm, Thursday 12th November, Heaton Park Primary School.

Prestwich Local Area Partnership will showcase Prestwich Winter Wonderland which kicks of on Sunday 22 November with a bumper Prestwich Christmas Farmers Market and Christmas Lights Switch On at The Longfield Shopping Centre with not only top Coronation Street Star Katherine Kelly (Becky) to switch on the lights.

There will be lots of family entertainment to enjoy this splendid day with top local entertainment, Dave K, a Town Cryer, Besses o’th Barn Brass Band, Pop Star Academy, Prestwich Arts College Choir, Sweeky the Clown and Santa’s Grottos of course. Prestwich Library have pulled its own cracker for the visitors at the Farmers Market to drop in with their children to enjoy Carnival of the Animals Story time and mask-making 11am-12 for children under aged 10 and under in Prestwich Children’s Library and a FREE prize draw for a big cuddly blue teddy bear. (Please contact the library to book your place), a chance for children to write your letters to Santa and post them in the post-box at the Santa Grotto, Local History Displays – with Craig Brisbane, Guitar Class & Art Society Demonstrations and a one off Computer Taster Session – ‘Shop till you Don’t Drop!’ teaching shoppers how to online shop from the comfort of your home 11-1pm. There’s even a chance to pop in and see Prestwich Hospital Exhibition. What a Cracker!

Chair of Prestwich LAP Cllr Vic D’Albert said “We put out the message to the Prestwich Community that’d we would highlight any Winter Events and in LovePrestwich Winter Wonderland What’s On Guide was born. I promise you that LovePrestwich Winter Wonderland What’s On Guide will have something for everyone for all ages and faiths so don’t miss this chance to get a sneak preview. I am delighted that we’ll will celebrate the first Prestwich Community Carol Service at St Mary’s Parish Church on Monday 21 December followed by a reception at Church Lane Community Centre. As well as Christmas we celebrate Chanukah, Fast of Tevet, Eid-Ul-Adha, Al-Hijira (Islamic New Year) and National Holcocaust Memorial Day which has particular importance to our Prestwich Community. Prestwich has had a wonderful year this year having enjoyed a wonderful LovePrestwich Festival and to finish with a LovePrestwich Winter Wonderland is the icing on the cake.”

Other reports at this months meeting will include The Local Development Framework, The Big Clean and Police Report.
To download papers click this link

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

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

Gordonballs has done it again!

He sees the public are fed up with the rubbish MP’s, the tax evasion, the expenses debacle, even the whole false system of Govt, and he pledges a solution. Then he delivers a woolly vague blurb that may, at some undetermined date in the future, lead to a bit of change.

Make Votes Count is a group I support, their aim is to make our voting into a fair system. Here is their Press Release on Gordon’s latest bilge:

The Prime Minister’s statement on democratic reform was not as bold as billed; in fact on electoral reform he has been far more timid than the circumstances demanded.

There is a real urgency to implementing reforms, to restore public trust in MPs and in politics as a whole. Voters have shown they are impatient with the main parties, and want real change in the way we do politics. So why does the Prime Minister continue to dither on opening up the debate and on timescales for implementing electoral reform?

Gordon Brown talks the language of quick change and ending the Gentleman’s Club when it comes to expenses. But he fails to bring that approach to the other area MPs still self-regulate and is now under scrutiny - the way in which MPs are elected.

Elections affect all of us. Decisions on how they are conducted certainly shouldn’t be in the hands of the politicians, whether those on the National Council for Democracy or on the Opposition benches, whose jobs-for-life are at stake. Is it no surprise that David Cameron is leading the resistance to change: he and his party stand to benefit the most from the status quo. It is more of a surprise that Brown wasn’t even willing in his statement to repeat the 1997 Labour manifesto promise of a referendum on the introduction of a proportional voting system.

The Prime Minister talks about starting up the debate on electoral reform. But we’ve been having that debate for over ten years. In January 2008 the Government published as “a contribution to the ongoing debate” its long-awaited review of those proportional voting systems already introduced. The Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) was a system recommended by the Jenkins Commission back in 1998 after long and careful deliberations involving plenty of opportunities for public engagement and debate.

There is still just enough time left for completing an open public debate and then holding a referendum before or at the time of the next election. The referendum would give voters the chance to register their feelings twice: once to get rid of a tainted MP in the General Election; and once in a referendum to choose whether to get rid of a rotten system and change things for good.

Even after his statement today, Gordon Brown still has the opportunity to be bold and start exploring this referendum option; to show he is able to go beyond the self-interest of the political elite and give power back to the man and woman on the street.

NB:1) Make Votes Count’s goal is to reform the House of Commons with a voting system that balances the principles of: (i) Broad proportionality (ii) Stable government (iii) Extending voter choice and (iv) Maintaining a constituency link. These principles would be met by the AV+ voting system recommended by the Jenkins Commission. But Make Votes Count will campaign for a yes vote in a referendum on any system that advances these criteria.

2) Make Votes Count has joined together with a broad range of civil society organisations and individuals to call for a referendum on the day of the next general election to change the way we elect our MPs. See the ‘Vote for a Change’ campaign website http://www.voteforachange.co.uk

If you agree with these sensible aims, join in the debate now, because Gordon’s hoping that time will heal this wound by the next election!

Donal

The short answer is “no”.

Mr Brown has done some things wrong, and is not the most effective leader, but he is not so bad as to go just yet. He should not be forced to go by the press, and even if his own party force him out, it probably would not be the best thing for the Country.

The thing that we need is a revised political voting system, and this needs to be in place before the next general election.

James Purnell’s resignation is a shot in the leg for Brown, but one he could get over if his advisors get it right. They probably won’t though, because they’ve got so much wrong recently.

If we just replace the Labour party with the Conservatives, we will not improve anything. We will make things much much worse!

So my suggestion to Gordy is to wait, wait and wait some more - allow me to do some preparation, and allow Nick Clegg to get some more messages across, to make Davey Cameron look as inept as he really probably is!

The public will not get a “proper say” in who leads us, if the system of choice is “first past the post”, which is unfair and allows bizarre arrangements to skew the results.

Let us have a realistic system that provides fair representation, and then give us the leaders we truly deserve.

D

Tonight we have the pleasure of hearing a live concert by Oasis just about a mile away. I am no big fan, but it’s a good thing in most respects for the area, bringing 70k revellers into the area, using the shops and facilities, and seeing what Prestwich has to offer the public.

I hope it goes well, my brother is there and seems to be enjoying “Casbian” as his wife calls one of the support bands!!! I actually like “Twisted Wheel” from what I’ve heard of them on Revolution Radio (before it was spoilt by Penky buying it!)

The Councils (Manchester, Rochdale & Bury) and their support teams seem to have managed to bugger up some of the simple functions they had to perform - get leaflets to people in advance of the concerts; set up a helpline for residents etc. However, let’s face it, if you put several Councils together you compound the cock-ups rather than reduce them - just look at Manchester Airport!!! That’s owned by AGMA (The Association of 10 Greater Manchester Authorities) and it’s still crap, a year after I wrote how bad it was in the  MEN. Admittedly, they do now have enough Immigration Officers employed, but the hideous building work is still ongoing, the layout is poor which leads to queues upon queues, the escalators are often off, and there are too few information desks or offices.

This week I’ve been to Birmingham, and found the centre to be reasonably laid out, albeit a work in progress. It reminds me of the Prestwich Regneration project, and how we need to encourage the public and concerned businesses to put in their comments about the revised proposals, so we can rally have an angaged process. Go into the library and look at the plan, and put your comments in the box - we need your input!!!

I have also attended a concert at St Margaret’s Church by the “Eccles Singers”, who played a really diverse range and did so really well. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and by my meagre estimation was at least as goo as what I can hear from Heaton Park right now (especially as it’s constantly interrupted by police sirens!)

I’ve been looking at the slimmed down Prestwich & Whitefield Guide, and comparing it to the paper it was a year ago. The quantity and depth of reporting is much less - clearly the move to Bolton is to our detriment. Perhaps their competitor in the north of our Borough will start to thrive and provide serious competition for them?

Compare the quantity and depth of the reporting in the Bolton News. There is corruption; ineptitude and humour in equal measure, but they don’t even send a reporter to most of the Council Scrutiny meetings, and it’s the same Company! And why do they put letters about Oasis Concerts by me in the Bury Times but not the P&WG? Do they not know the geography of the areas they are supposed to be reporting on?

Ah well, time to listen to Oasis now, but let me just say well done to Jo, my wife on winning at Crown Green Bowls 21-8 tonight.

D