Unravelling the mystery of tapestry finances

The £40,000 report commissioned by Scottish Borders Council from Jura Consultants - a document which apparently persuaded 20 elected councillors to spend millions of pounds on a shiny new centre at Tweedbank to accommodate The Great Tapestry of Scotland - includes comparisons between our expensive venture and other tapestry galleries elsewhere in the United Kingdom and beyond.

But while the Jura report claims to "provide a summary of attractions which bear similarities to the proposed vision of the Great Tapestry of Scotland" no mention is made of the actual balance sheets of these comparable facilities such as The Quaker Tapestry Exhibition Museum in Kendal, Cumbria, or The Knutsford Millennium Tapestry in Chancellor George Osborne's Cheshire constituency.

Perhaps a few extracts from the annual accounts of these long-established tourist lures would have been helpful before a healthy majority of Borders councillors voted for a vast investment of taxpayers' money to pay for a risky venture in the backwater that is Tweedbank. They may or may not have been swayed by Jura's upbeat forecasts of profitability resulting from the hordes (40,000 to 50,000 a year) who we are assured will flock to see the tapestry once the Border Railway is up and running in September 2015.

A few minutes of internet research would have revealed that far from being roaring financial successes, the Kendal and Knutsford centres both lose money despite sizeable grants and donations from both the public and private sectors. But not many of our modern-day elected servants bother to ask questions or ascertain the full facts before sticking their hands up in a "non roll call" vote.

The Quaker Tapestry's latest accounts reveal total income of £221,354 and expenditure of £255,296. The income included grants totalling over £80,000 from 10 organisations including Cumbria County Council, South Lakeland District Council, Kendal Town Council and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Income from admissions fell from £12,077 in 2012 to just £10,587 in 2013.

The trustees say: "The cost of running the cafe remains a challenge, partly because of the variability of customer numbers. Donations are particularly important to bridge the gap between trading income and expenditure." The catering side of the operation alone lost £6,000 last year.

Is this what happens when the novelty of a new attraction starts to wear off? The Quaker tapestry panels were started in Somerset in 1981, and over 4,000 people in 15 countries were involved in making the 77 embroidered panels tracing the history of the movement from 1652.

Even the Jura report admits: "Challenging economic times have resulted in some financial difficulties [for the Quaker Tapestry Museum]. An annual review emphasises its need to continue to control operating costs, increase earned income and maintain charitable support".

Meanwhile the Knutsford Heritage Centre, which houses another tapestry, has also been recording financial losses in recent years. The 2013/14 accounts reveal income of £35,221 and expenditure of £37,260. The figures include grants of £9,720 and donations of £8,920.Those returns marked an improvement on 2012/13 with income of £27,628 and spending of £41,467.

The Jersey Occupation Tapestry, which took 228 workers 30,000 hours and seven and a half million stitches to complete is not included in the consultants' report. But our local councillors may be interested to know that the Channel Islands attraction only survived a potentially fatal financial illness in 2009 thanks to an £800,000 bail out from the States of Jersey government. The tapestry, part of Jersey's Maritime Museum, had to be closed in the winter months to save money.

It seems the financial outlook for these works of art is, in many cases, wobbly and uncertain. So is there any guarantee the Tweedbank scheme will not struggle for stability, despite Jura's positive predictions? It is to be hoped Borders council taxpayers are not asked to fill the proverbial begging bowl should this new attraction run into choppy fiscal waters!

An issue of great interest!

As predicted in these columns many moons ago, the Borders will be playing permanent host to the Great Tapestry of Scotland whether we like it or not, and even though a local referendum would have returned a resounding 'No' vote for this reckless, unwanted venture.

Now, thanks to a score of misguided councillors, we are saddled with a £3.5 million millstone to meet the cost of building a home for a potential white elephant plus a further £6 million in interest payments over the next 30 years. Apparently there was a miscalculation which means the annual loan charge "only" works out at £208,000 rather than the original figure of £275,000. Whew, that's a relief!

But back here in the real world it's worth taking a closer look at the amount of money Scottish Borders Council has to find just to service its massive debts and an ever increasing portfolio of borrowings.

There's also the small matter of paying for three Public Private Partnership (PPP) secondary schools, another irresponsible decision which has left us with £225.6 million outstanding plus interest of just over £41 million. In 2013/14 alone the bill for PPP came to £8.763 million. The demands on the local authority's purse will grow as time marches on, and the debt will be on the balance sheet for a generation.

According to Scottish Government figures SBC's total debt at the end of the last financial year (2013/14) stood at £193.114 million, equivalent to £1,698 per head of the Borders population. But the actual figure depends on which formula you care to adopt.

The council's own set of accounts tell us that more than a third (37%) of the £27.6 million capital expenditure programme last year was funded by borrowing. Meanwhile interest payable and similar charges for the 'carrying amount' on the range of outstanding debts totalled £11.908 million in 2013/14. So the decision by councillors to add another £208,000 to that annual bill doesn't matter much, does it?

How many teachers would that kind of money pay for? Or how many service cuts could have been avoided had the spiral of borrowing and the collection of debts not existed? Pressures on budgets meant SBC had to find £6.3 million in efficiency savings during the last financial year, yet that was only a fraction of the money required to service loan charges.

If all this sounds distinctly downbeat, then its only fair to point out there's an even scarier set of figures included in the accounts under the heading of Fair Value of Loans. The eye watering total stands at £239.899 million.

An accompanying explanatory note tells us: "The fair value is higher than the carrying amount because the council's portfolio of loans includes a number of fixed rate loans where the interest rate payable is higher than rates available for similar loans in the market". The average rate of interest on the various loans was 5.2% last year.

Taken together, the £12 million of interest payments together with the £8.763 million to keep the PPP payments on schedule works out at more than twice the entire Cultural & Related Service budget (£10.552 million) and is also well in excess of the £15.9 million spent on Roads & Transport.

As long as the open-ended permission to borrow even more from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) continues to be available, and while we have irresponsible elected members who don't particularly care how high SBC's debt mountain rises then there will be no chance of cutting this scandalous level of indebtedness. Many more millions of pounds of public money are certain to be flushed down the pan as the black hole of near insolvency becomes a veritable galaxy.

Open letter to all Borders councillors

Dear elected member,

Scottish Borders Council - like every other local authority in Scotland - may be on the verge of bankruptcy, with accumulated debts of more than £170 million. And millions more will have to be found from existing revenue budgets by cutting services still further over the coming financial years.

Yet on Thursday of this week (December 18th) each one of you will be invited to sanction expenditure of £3.5 million on a single capital project, the construction of a purpose-built 'shed' at Tweedbank to house The Great Tapestry of Scotland. It is a crazy venture which we Borders taxpayers simply cannot afford, and you have the chance to confine it to the dustbin of local government history when you're called upon to vote on the issue.

This is not the time for vanity projects dreamed up by council leaders without any thought for the long term financial implications which, as the report to council points out, will be hanging round our necks like the proverbial albatross for 30 years.

When interest re-payments coupled with instalments on the original £3.5 million are totted up the actual cost appears to come in at £8.25 million. So the burden of bringing the tapestry here - it has no link or direct connection to the Scottish Borders whatsoever - will join our extremely costly PPP/PFI secondary schools in syphoning tens of millions of pounds from the council's near-empty coffers. A number of other 'Consent to Borrow' successes simply add to the drain on cash.

The document compiled by your officers suggests there will be revenue surpluses resulting from the £10 admission charge for visitors to the Tweedbank tapestry venue. There's even a prediction of between 40,000 and 50,000 visitors a year although those numbers cannot be guaranteed.

And the plan to take money from visitors does not appear to be in line with the objectives of The Great Scottish Tapestry Charitable Trust which state: "The Trustees will endeavour to transfer the tapestry to a public museum or other public body of similar status where it will be held for the benefit of the nation and be made available for viewing at no cost to the public."

The proposal to find a home in our midst for this large textile should have been strangled at birth. Instead it looks as though the cash-strapped council taxpayers of the Borders are about to be presented with an unwanted Christmas stitch-up, if you'll pardon the pun.

But it is not too late to save the day...and a great deal of money which would need to be borrowed at considerable expense if this daft project is to proceed.

All it takes is for each and every one of you to vote 'No' when the motion is proposed. So show a bit of backbone and do us all a favour. You never know, you might just reap your reward at the next council election. Whichever way you vote I'm sure many of us have long memories!

Who'll take the rap for this classic cock-up?

Nine months in and it seems Scotland's first and only municipal DECYCLING scheme is working a treat with a record fall in the amount of household waste being composted or recycled and spiralling tonnages of refuse going straight to landfill.

While virtually every other local authority in mainland Scotland is participating in a Government led drive to hit ambitious recycling targets and an eventual aim for zero waste, Scottish Borders Council's latest set of statistics on the garbage front can only be described - perhaps appropriately - as rubbish.

Our sharp-eyed chief reporter Doug Collie warned earlier this year there would be grim repercussions after the councillors who hold the reins and crack the whips at SBC took the puzzling and daft decision to suspend collections of garden waste and render tens of thousands of green wheelie bins redundant.

However Collie was not alone in condemning the move which lacked credibility during the 'green' age we live in. There was bound to be fall-out as gardeners grappled with the issue of disposal of grass cuttings, rotting apples from Borders orchards, and the vast collection of dead bedding plants at the end of another growing season.

But we haven't even had to wait that long for the proverbial manure to hit the fan! SBC has been kind enough to publish the evidence of its own tumbling recycling rates which we now see were on the slide by the end of the first quarter of 2014/15, a couple of months after garden waste collecting was binned.

Few councils can have achieved a ten per cent fall in their own recycling levels within the space of a year by taking direct action to halt composting of garden waste. But that's exactly what has taken place in the Borders with recycling now down to an embarrassing 34.52 per cent against 44.44 per cent in the first quarter of 2013/14. It should be borne in mind that all Scottish councils were supposed to be striving for a 50 per cent figure by 2013 and 60 per cent in the year 2020.

The same locally elected members who decided on this unique waste disposal strategy will, in all probability, not give a hoot when they're told the amount of household rubbish going to landfill has increased by a distinctly unimpressive 12 per cent in the two comparable quarters...up from 7,281 to 8,152 tonnes.

In quarter one of 2013/14 the cost of sending Borders waste to landfill was £524,205. In the corresponding quarter of 2014/15 the cost was £652,160, that’s an increase of £137,955 or a massive 26.32%. And remember this is the increase in costs for just one quarter. Multiply the £137,955 by four and you get the possible annual increase in landfill costs - £551,820. How does that sit alongside the alleged “savings” from scrapping the green bin collection?

So there you have it. Another potential half-million pound legacy for council taxpayers thanks to the sheer incompetence of those running local services.

But if you're waiting for someone to put up a hand and plead guilty to a bout of stupidity or admit responsibility for sending our recycling rates to the bottom of the Scottish league table, then please don't hold your breath.

There's no doubt that heads should roll after this latest classic cock-up in the annals of Borders local government. But with so many previous examples of councillors getting it wrong I don't suppose yet another costly error at taxpayers' expense will result in drastic action to ensure the perpetrators are held to account. Why change a flawed system that's aye been?

Council job cuts: myth or reality?

Despite “savage” reductions in their budgets, the removal of a wide range of local government services altogether, the privatisation of many operations through the formation of so-called trusts, and tens of millions of pounds spent on severance/redundancy and early retirement packages, staffing levels in many Scottish local authorities are significantly higher than they were fourteen years ago.

Back in 2000 council taxpayers enjoyed a far better standard of service than they do in 2014, yet it appears those services were delivered by a smaller payroll than the current staff numbers. It may be tempting to ask how this has happened as the public sector continues to complain about multiple job losses and is still paying out huge sums supplied by taxpayers to terminate the employment of high earners.

The thousands of employees who have left local government service in Scotland in recent years have only enabled their employers to reduce the bloated staffing levels of 2005/2006. Between the year 2000 and 2006 the number of so-called Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) in the public sector soared from 238,400 to 263,400.

According to the Scottish Government’s latest figures the combined total of FTEs  on the books of 28 local authorities (excluding the four city authorities) now stands at 151,600 – 900 higher than the 2000 total of 150,700.

No fewer than 18 councils have more FTEs now than in 2000, eight authorities have reduced their employee numbers while two have reported identical figures for 2000 and 2014.

While councillors and senior officers whine about front line staff being cut to the bone it would appear from the statistics there's a fair layer of fat remaining to be trimmed. It seems logical that employee numbers should be below 2000 levels rather than above them given the decimation of services over the last seven years.

Some of the increases within individual councils are both eye catching and breathtaking. Aberdeenshire's statistics show FTEs up by 2,500, Falkirk 800 higher than in 2000 and Fife by 600. Here in the Borders the local council's FTE count is 100 higher than it was 14 years ago.

The data for the 28 authorities is as follows with statistics for the second quarter of 2014 given first and the equivalent numbers for 2000 in brackets: (figures rounded up or down to the nearest 100)

Aberdeenshire 10,400 (7,900); Angus 4,400 (4,200); Argyll & Bute 3,700 (3,900); Clackmannanshire 2,100 (2,000); Dumfries & Galloway 5,600 (5,400); East Ayrshire 5,100 (4,800); East Dunbartonshire 3,700 (4,000); East Lothian 3,500 (3,400); East Renfrewshire 3,800 (3,100); Eilean Siar 1,600 (1,600); Falkirk 6,400 (5,600); Fife 15,900 (15,300); Highland 8,000 (8,700); Inverclyde 3,500 (3,900); Midlothian 3,600 (3,300); Moray 3,700 (3,200); North Ayrshire 5,500 (5,600); North Lanarkshire 13,000 (13,300); Orkney Islands 1,700 (1,300); Perth & Kinross 4,900 (4,600); Renfrewshire 6,900 (7,200); Scottish Borders 4,400 (4,300); Shetland Islands 2,300 (2,100); South Ayrshire 4,300 (4,800); South Lanarkshire 12,500 (12,400); Stirling 3,500 (3,300); West Dunbartonshire 4,800 (4,800); West Lothian 6,800 (5,700).

Perks for SBC staff: where's the press release?

I'd been tempted to pen a few lines about Scottish Borders Council's largesse towards their own hard working, dedicated staff who are to receive an attractive range of perks, including discount cards, as a reward for having to suffer an outrageous pay freeze - part of the 'savage cuts'.

But I thought it better to keep my powder (and ink) dry until the Council had time to cobble together a press release explaining to cash-strapped taxpayers how they had managed to find £18,550 hidden down the back of the proverbial sofa in such straitened times.

Alas the spinners from the well staffed media team at the Newtown St Boswells HQ have (so far) failed to produce the goods. No doubt they were fully occupied with the usual selection of positive propaganda which finds its way into our media outlets with alarming regularity.

Unfortunately too many of our newspapers and broadcasters fall for the daily supply of positive guff and pass it on to readers and listeners without bothering to ask questions. The fact that these hand-outs are often far from newsworthy doesn't seem to matter as long as they fill space or time.

You see, everything in the municipal garden is always rosy. There's no room for negativity, and anything which might attract public criticism or threaten a council taxpayers' revolt receives very short shrift.

The failure to issue a release on the 'discount deals' means we have had to rely on direct coverage from inside the council chamber. This is why we need robust, inquisitive journalists to hold our councillors and senior officers to account.

The fact that the new range of perks received the unanimous backing from elected members seems to suggest everyone concerned believed the rewards were justified.

No doubt they agreed with the sentiments expressed by Councillor Michael Cook, the deputy leader, who apparently told the meeting: "It hardly sends a positive message that we value our staff if we are quibbling about spending £18,550 over three years. Let's not be so damned miserable and get on with this".

In the same week that Mr Cook and his colleagues were proving they were not going to be 'damned miserable' so far as their workforce was concerned, we were told that vulnerable clients of the Borders social work department will have to find an extra £464,000 to pay for essential services..

Even the press release on this topic, which will be bad news for those who pay for the support they rely on, carried a positive spin. The sizeable increases for the services were being levied following 'a review conducted with care and attention.' This resulted in : "A much fairer system based on solid principles of equity, transparency and consistency, in line with national guidance".

Just a thought. At the next council meeting perhaps a member of the administration could outline plans for a discount card for the elderly and disabled clients of their social work department. After all there must be a few more unused wads of our hard-earned cash concealed in the well upholstered Newtown sofa. Every little helps!

Tenth anniversary of FOI...nothing to celebrate

Ten years after the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation, an Act of Parliament allegedly devised to make public authorities more accountable, we are told that Scottish Borders Council is putting "new procedures" in place to ensure requests are handled more efficiently. Probably not before time, given the council's abysmal track record in the field of FOI.

Time after time SBC has failed to respond to requesters within the 20 working days allowed, and like most other councils, health boards and Scottish Government departments, our local authority frequently uses the long list of exclusions available within the confines of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA) to keep sensitive or embarrassing stuff under wraps.

At the same time council leader David Parker complains that the 1,000 requests his officials receive each year represent a "significant burden" on council resources. Apparently more staff are being taken on to resolve the problems within the FOI system, and this will undoubtedly ramp up costs still further.

Perhaps our councillors could consider a cheaper option....publish more information and statistics as a matter of routine without having to be asked.

Why should publicly funded bodies only have to release information after receiving a specific request? Unless your question is tightly and precisely worded they usually manage to avoid telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Let's have regular disclosures of credit card spending by senior officials, numbers of assaults on teachers and other council staff, and a host of other topics which regularly feature in FOI requests. That should cut the workload on hard-pressed administrative staff.

SBC's Information Management Team (IMT) is being transferred to the council's legal services department which means qualified lawyers will scrutinise FOI requests from now on. Is that likely to increase the flow of information when far too much council business is already conducted in private?

Meanwhile, according to the Scottish Information Commissioner's (SIC) website, a conference to "celebrate" the tenth anniversary of FOI will be held in Edinburgh next month. Speakers will include First Minister-in-Waiting Nicola Sturgeon, Lord Jim Wallace, and the Commissioner Rosemary Agnew.

It is to be hoped the conference does not issue a communique declaring that FOI has been an unqualified success. For given the number of failures by authorities to abide by the rules, and the equally depressing failure of the SIC to prosecute or even pursue the miscreants, the only people with anything to shout about are the public officials who enjoy a relative level of protection under FOISA.

Commissioner Agnew recently expressed her concern at the growing number of FOI requests which are not attracting responses within the statutory time even though the 20 working days allowed appears to be more than generous.

Unfortunately none of the authorities which break the law are ever hauled over the coals. So there is no incentive for these cavalier organisations to get their acts together and respond to the council taxpayers who keep them in business. Instead of "celebrating", the forthcoming conference would serve a more useful purpose if it considered how FOI might be improved for the benefit of the general public.

English MPs for a Scottish Issue?

A few hours after the majority of voters in the Scottish Borders rejected the chance to vote for an independent Scotland we witnessed the first divisions among Better Together campaigners with David Cameron's Downing Street dawn declaration promising English MPs for English laws. The slanging match surrounding the unsolved West Lothian question was well and truly under way.

The unholy alliance of Labour and Conservative politicians, and the eleventh hour intervention by a forgotten Fife MP by the name of Brown, may have salvaged the shaky Union. But it didn't take long for the uneasy bedfellows to switch to a "ferrets in a sack" posture after the No vote was delivered.

Cameron's pledge to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English matters in return for greater powers at Holyrood certainly received a warm reception south of the Tweed. But does it mean that under tit-for-tat reasoning three of his own MPs - Messrs Menzies, Paice and Reevell - will be precluded from further involvement in an important issue affecting the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway?

Earlier this year we brought you news of yet another Government backed 'probe' into the economic ills of the South of Scotland, a topic already done to death by an endless series of previous inquiries and investigations. Having already endured the 1968 Johnson-Marshall report which recommended a major injection of population to make the Sheep Country economy more stable, and a 1998 effort chaired by Scottish business and industry minister Gus Macdonald, there seemed little mileage left in such a tired old chestnut.

However, the current membership of Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee (SAC) certainly didn't accept they were flogging a dead horse when they embarked on their own voyage of discovery earlier this year. Apparently they've already found out that the people of the Borderlands - their word not mine - are not getting as good a deal as they should. You don't say!

But surely if any of those previous investigations stretching back 45 years had been worth a candle then the Borders and its neighbour to the west should have been competing on the proverbial level playing field by now. These costly projects appear to have achieved the square root of absolutely nothing, and there must be a fair chance the current round of visits and consultations by the SAC will also fail to deliver a remedy for our complicated set of issues and problems even though a more generous allocation of resources would probably do the trick.

Which leads me back to the dilemma soon to face Menzies, Paice and Reevell, all of them Tory members of the SAC but representing English constituencies. Mark Menzies, who represents Fylde (Lancashire), Sir James Paice, the MP for South-east Cambridgeshire, and Simon Reevell, (Dewsbury, Yorkshire) sit on the committee because their Party doesn't have more than one elected MP in Scotland, and he's a junior minister in the Scotland Office.

If you haven't already sent in your written submission to the SAC with evidence of how they might improve the lot of us Borderers then you'd better get your skates on as the deadline for the consultation is Friday November 28.

But if Mr Cameron succeeds in his bid to banish Scottish MPs from debates featuring English subjects then should the three English Conservatives from his Party who serve on the SAC be allowed to read your submissions then discuss and vote on an exclusively Scottish subject? Not that it is likely to make much difference unless the Committee breaks the mould and produces something positive and useful.

Quest for truth closed down by MSPs

Every public body in Scotland will have taken time out for a huge sigh of combined relief today after members of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee snuffed out attempts aimed at forcing councils, health boards and government departments to tell the truth.

It may come as a surprise to many, but there is no obligation under the present Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) for your local authority to furnish you with an honest and accurate response when you submit a Freedom of Information request.

It has been claimed that up to 25 per cent of the 60,000 answers supplied by FOI compliant bodies in Scotland may be inaccurate as they attempt to conceal the truth or distort the facts. The ability to mislead the people they are supposed to serve renders the entire Freedom of Information system virtually worthless. And the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) - the so-called guardian of FOISA - has shown a consistent reluctance to prosecute authorities which flout the law by withholding information or by issuing false responses to FOI requests.

In a bid to have an "honesty" clause inserted into the legislation, a petition was lodged at the Parliament earlier this year. It attracted support from ordinary citizens, some of them telling the petitions committee that they had been misled after submitting FOI requests.

But unfortunately the petition also attracted a totally hostile reaction from the Scottish Government and the SIC. Both of these organisations dismissed the proposed change in the law as both unnecessary and unworkable. The committee was even invited by its own clerk to close the petition down in April before the members had heard a shred of evidence. Hardly an example of democracy at work.

Those authorities whose wrongdoings might be exposed by a more robust version of FOISA had too much to lose. They were never going to allow a sensible amendment or addition to the Act to eliminate the wriggle room which allows dishonest public officials to avoid disclosing accurate, and potentially embarrassing information.

The completely gutless performance of the SIC, who has failed to promote a single prosecution since Freedom of Information legislation was introduced a decade ago, was highlighted by one supporter of the petition, a Mr M.

In a written submission to the petitions committee Mr M described how he provided evidence to the SIC after being misled by his local authority in their handling of his FOI requests.

He added: "The SIC investigating officer left me with a clear impression that pursuing a case under
Section 65 of FOISA was virtually impossible, had never been done, and would require me
to have already provided him with firm supporting evidence of 'criminal intent to withhold'
on the part of one or more individuals."

But the saga did not end there. In a bizarre twist, Mr M was invited to meet the chief executive of the council concerned who "acknowledged the Council's responses to my requests for information could have been handled better and offered the Council's apology.

"I presented the Chief Executive with correspondence and records which made a sufficiently compelling case - of Council Officers' inescapable awareness of apparent non-compliance with statutory obligations (for which they were also responsible) and of them having misled me whilst failing to provide records (which they could hardly be unaware of) I'd requested under FOISA - that the Chief Executive undertook to commission an independent investigation into the matters arising from my freedom of information requests.I did not request that meeting nor did I suggest that she commission an independent investigation."

But even strong testimony like that failed to convince MSPs on the committee that there were serious issues surrounding Freedom of Information which needed to be addressed. They preferred the evidence of the SIC and of other civil servants who maintained the present flawed FOISA should be left alone.

At their meeting earlier this week the elected members closed ranks with the Establishment in deciding: "The Committee agreed to close the petition, under Rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government has stated it shares the view of the Scottish Information Commissioner that the changes being proposed are not needed and would be unworkable."

As the petitioner told the Committee: " At the moment any requester who has evidence of dishonesty or inaccuracy by a responding authority stands no chance of achieving redress given the complete failure or unwillingness by the Commissioner and the police to even submit reports with a view to prosecution. Regrettably, that sad state of affairs is set to continue."

Borders Railway property costs well above estimate

EXCLUSIVE - by Doug Collie, Staff Reporter

The amount of money spent on the acquisition of residential and commercial properties blighted by the Borders Railway Project far outstripped the estimates set out in the scheme's original Business Plan, according to figures disclosed by Transport Scotland.

Statistics obtained via a Freedom of Information request and passed on to the Not Just Sheep and Rugby office show the rail developers had to fork out 50 per cent more for homes and businesses in the Scottish Borders and Midlothian than originally planned. And that overspend has taken place despite fewer acquisitions than were originally envisaged by the Scottish Government and the construction companies working on the project.

The Waverley Railway Outline Business Case suggested it would be necessary to purchase 51 residential properties together with three commercial premises in the Borders to make way for the reinstatement of the line between Edinburgh and Tweedbank. The cost of the acquisitions was put at £5.555 million.

At the same time the project team claimed it would be necessary to buy 12 houses and two businesses in Midlothian at a total cost of £2.17 million. The business case concluded that by re-selling some or all of the affected properties some £4.1 million would be recouped once the project was completed.

Transport Scotland has now confirmed that 38 residential buildings and nine commercial properties have been acquired or are in the process of being purchased in the Borders involving a total outlay of £7.8 million which is 40% higher than the original cost estimate.

Meanwhile the amount spent in Midlothian on the purchase of 11 houses and two businesses adds up to £3.8 million, 75% above the figure contained in the Business Plan.

The Freedom of Information response adds: "No resale value has yet been achieved as resale of the properties is unlikely to take place before twelve months has elapsed after the new line opens. Network Rail need to be confident that in operating the line they have retained control of all operational land."

Latest estimates for the total cost of the Borders Railway put the final figure at £353 million, well over double the original sum quoted when the project was first mooted.

It has also been claimed that Scottish Borders Council's hopes of paying their share of the project - some £8 million - through developer contributions from house builders have already been dashed because of much lower levels of activity by the construction industry than anticipated.

Trains are expected to be running to and from the Central Borders by September 2015. The Waverley Line closed in 1969, a victim of the Beeching Report which recommended the withdrawal of uneconomic rail services from many parts of the country.

Referendum coverage an insult to Scots' intelligence

With just a couple of days left till polling day I suppose any hopes of sourcing a measure of balanced coverage of the Great Debate have completely disappeared. Quite frankly the contribution made by the print press has been disgraceful and woeful; they should hang their combined heads in shame.

I'm old enough to recall previous campaigns asking us if we wanted Scottish devolution and European Union membership when the papers concentrated for the most part on straight, factual reporting without pushing the views of their proprietors down our throats at every opportunity.

In those days there was a clear division between the news pages and the Opinion column where the leader writer put forward his or her views sedately and without rancour. The readers were then left to make up their own minds.

But nowadays fact, opinion and pure fiction can be found in the same paragraph of an article purporting to be news. Little wonder newspaper sales are collapsing as their once loyal readership cry "Enough!" and stop buying the title they'd been taking for a generation.

The influence of the press also seems to be diminishing fast. Even though the vast majority of titles have offered strong support for Better Together, the Yes camp appears to have closed a 20 per cent gap to create a neck-and-neck contest. So much for the host of ridiculous scare stories and half truths that have filled many a column from day one of the current campaign.

How many potential No voters have switched allegiance after reading some of the bilge washed up in the pages of the Scottish Daily Mail, for instance? They've resorted to every trick in the book from world markets crashing at the very thought of Scottish Independence to allegations of bullying by fanatical nationalists, or cybernats as the Mail has dubbed them.

The truth of the matter is the pound fell by just under a cent against the dollar on one particular day last week, and both the value of sterling and the stock market recovered fully within 24 hours. And there has been no mention of the No campaigners who have vowed to make life hell for Yes supporters once the referendum is done and dusted.

The Mail, which once branded Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister in the entire history of the United Kingdom, and blamed Alistair Darling for the economic crash of 2008, recently afforded both of these gentlemen hero status for their roles as the 'big beasts' of Better Together. How cynical and opportunistic is that? Even 'Red' Ed Miliband, another of the Mail's hate figures, suddenly became lovable as he urged voters to stick with the Union.

On the other side of the fence the Sunday Herald - the first title to declare for Yes - has been equally blinkered in its presentation of the case for separation. The disadvantages of splitting from the rest of the nation have been set aside and virtually ignored in an all-embracing rush to persuade readers to plump for independence.

So where does an undecided voter turn for a straight down the middle presentation of the pros and cons? Well even the BBC is tainted with allegations of bias, and closer to home the coverage of referendum issues in some of our local Borders weeklies has hardly been even handed.

Maybe half their readership has been alienated in the process, something weekly papers should avoid at all costs with circulation in a continuous downward spiral.

According to the pundits social media has been the main player in disseminating information in 2014. But when you read some of the nasty stuff on Facebook and Twitter those outlets can hardly be trusted either.

I'm sure like me many of you have felt insulted by some of the crass articles written by so-called journalists who have been programmed to deliver a certain message, mainly it seems for the benefit of the No lobby. It's as though we are all wee bairns, incapable of making our minds up by carrying out our own research before deciding which way to cast our X on the ballot paper.

Whichever way you vote on Thursday here's hoping you get the result you desire. But before casting your vote remember this: don't believe everything you read in the papers!

Callants Club: 'Hawick should have Great Tapestry of Scotland'

The controversial proposal to locate The Great Tapestry of Scotland in a £5 million visitor centre at Tweedbank has sparked a fierce war of words between Hawick Callants Club and David Parker, the leader of Scottish Borders Council (SBC).

Club members have been angered following a failed attempt to bring the tapestry to Hawick, regarded by many as the principal centre for textiles in the Borders. And they have made their strong feelings known in correspondence with Mr Parker who is championing the Tweedbank option.

Local MSP John Lamont has also been dragged into the dispute with accusations of his "lack of action" in pressing Hawick's case.

In a letter to Mr Parker, Derick Tait, the Callants Club president, wrote: "Your attempt to shift the blame for inaction on to John Lamont is quite shameful and does you no credit."

Mr Tait claims Hawick is the ideal location for the Borders to capitalise on the Tapestry. He adds: "The late President of the United States, John F Kennedy had a saying - 'An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it'.

"Quite obviously an error has been made in choosing Tweedbank as a location for the tapestry. By recognising the real worthiness of Hawick as the best location you can avoid your error becoming a mistake."

Hawick was discarded as a potential host town for the tapestry because there was said to be no suitable building capable of housing it, a conclusion hotly disputed by the Callants Club.

But Mr Tait and his colleagues have vowed to fight on. Their letter to the council leader concludes: " We would urge you to heed the advice given and recognise that if the tapestry is to come to the Borders, then Hawick has the strongest case, and as such is the obvious location."

The council has commissioned a £40,000 feasibility study into the Tweedbank proposals, and the findings are due to be considered later this year. But an announcement last month - credited to First Minister Alex Salmond - suggesting the project would be developed at the southern end of the Borders Railway, took many people by surprise.

It has since been confirmed that the Scottish Government will become a funding partner along with SBC and any external sponsorship that can be attracted for the Tweedbank venture. It means the council will have to commit money to the scheme if it goes ahead.

In a robust rebuttal of Mr Tait's claims, Councillor Parker writes: "I reject entirely your comment that my actions are shameful over the issue of John Lamont MSP's inaction. From everything I have been told, Mr Lamont called the meeting [in Hawick], agreed to follow up one potential site but never made contact again with the two other representatives who were at the meeting.

"From September 2013, John Lamont was well aware the Trustees [of the Tapestry] were seeking a home for the tapestry and it is a reasonable proposition to question whether Mr Lamont could have, and should have done more if he truly wanted the Tapestry located in Hawick".

Mr Parker also explains the recent announcement concerning the project at Tweedbank is still subject to approval by the elected members, with the study, business case and other elements likely to be considered in November.

He adds: "As the leader of Scottish Borders Council it is my role to do what is best for the whole of the Scottish Borders. The fact that we may have secured the Great Tapestry of Scotland for our region, at the expense of other parts of Scotland, must surely be welcomed."

Mr Parker warns that the Trustees have a number of other potential sites that are attractive to them outwith the Scottish Borders that they have indicated they will take forward in the event that Tweedbank is not secured.

Borders 'Bin-gate': a saga of briefing and bungling

At least one of the regulatory bodies responsible for competency and ethics in Scottish local government may be asked to investigate recent developments and dealings linked to the Borders Waste Management Strategy, elements of which smell almost as bad as some of the rubbish the council has to deal with on a daily basis.

To claim the strategy itself is in tatters would be an understatement as those responsible for the mess attempt to juggle various pots of money while overseeing a significant reduction in the amount of waste being recycled.

The revelations in a Scottish Borders Council briefing note, leaked to the media this week, appear to confirm that when councillors decided last December to withdraw garden waste collections from towns in the Borders they were unaware that a bid for money to pay for the mandatory introduction of food waste uplifts next year was in trouble because it had been lodged too late. So was the decision to bin the green bins taken on a false premise and with incomplete information?

By the time SBC had submitted its application to Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS), that organisation's £20 million pot, which was available on a first come first served basis, had been fully allocated. Now we learn that the cost of garden waste collections - the figure appears to have mysteriously risen from £475,000 to £610,000 - is virtually identical to the amount needed to implement the food waste service. A remarkable coincidence!

Our neighbours in Dumfries & Galloway secured £1.6 million, but SBC, which had been strongly against food waste collections from the outset, got nothing. Had a timely and successful bid been made to ZWS then Borders gardeners may have expected to keep their fortnightly green bin uplift as well as being able to put out their food scraps for the bin men.

The extraordinary briefing note, which was only given to the council administration's inner circle until the press got wind of it, also sets out to demolish the sterling efforts by former Hawick councillor Andrew Farquhar to petition the council for the restoration of the green bin service.

Mr Farquhar's petition may have already attracted hundreds, if not thousands, of signatories. But months before the Petitions Committee at Newtown St Boswells has had the chance to consider the matter senior councillors have set out to rubbish the campaign, if you'll pardon the pun, by briefing against it. A highly questionable method aimed at undermining a noble and worthy cause.

The briefing note discusses measures which would allow a report to be prepared with the cost of reinstatement 'inflated' by adding in the cost of vehicles, and for supplying households with green bins after the council initiated a scheme to take those same bins away.

And the note goes on: "We would add that of course in re-introducing any service there would be a challenging “equality issue” in respect of rural proofing to be addressed." So much for democracy.

Along the way the messenger gets shot with allegations of "misleading" press reports concerning the issue. Then comes an admission that officers did not secure available funding, but they apparently had no indication from ZWS that the funding well was dry.

The majority of Scotland's local authorities beat SBC to the punch as the following statement from ZWS confirms: " Zero Waste Scotland has provided 21 funding awards to local authorities in Scotland to roll out food waste collections. This funding was distributed on a first-come first-served basis, and other local authorities submitted their bids earlier in the process than Scottish Borders Council."

Surely this fiasco with its undertones of incompetence, briefing notes and cover-up is worthy of investigation. At the very least Borders council taxpayers are due a full explanation.

Breathtaking complacency on railway funding

The recent disclosure that it could take Scottish Borders Council 117 years to raise the £8.75 million it needs to pay its share of the Borders Railway from house-builders development contributions might have triggered concerns in some quarters, but certainly not within local government circles.

It has taken all of ten years to collect the first £750,000 at a snail's pace average of £74,000 a year which means the outstanding £8 million needs to be garnered in the remaining 24 years allowed under the scheme's business plan.

Unless there is a housing boom of unprecedented proportions sometime soon then at some point the severely cash-strapped council will be forced to take money from its diminishing collection of services and budget heads to meet its railway commitments. A contingency plan is surely a minimum requirement, and council taxpayers should be told where the money will come from should the construction industry fail to fulfil its role as a cash cow.

But in a statement oozing complacency the council's has obviously refused to accept it has a potentially serious financial issue on their hands. According to their man: "The Borders Railway will boost economic activity in the Central Borders. As a consequence it's anticipated there will be an increase in house-building to accommodate a population increase. As the railway is not yet running it is too early to judge how this will turn out in practice - ie over what period we will see more housing contributions."

He went on to concede there had been a slowing down in housing completions in the Borders. But inevitably the slow-down would be followed by growth as the economy recovers. He added: "It is a bit early to get alarmed about underpayment."

There's an unswerving belief within council ranks that even if the levy on new houses lets them down money will be no object. The council's gross budget will be £10 billion over the next 30 year, they argue, so there's loads of scope for wriggle room. And in any case the council is allowed under a legal agreement signed with Transport Scotland to re-phase the annual payments due should the developer contributions not match expectations.

Just two days after the statement predicting an upturn in house-building the Galashiels-based local director of DW Hall, a national firm of chartered surveyors, revealed that the impending delivery of the £350 million Waverley Railway had so far failed to have any dramatic or even discernible effect on Borders property values.

He wrote in his blog: "Local opinion is strongly in favour of the new link, but this has not translated into a general uplift in prices. The significant interest when the project was announced in 2004 appears to have developed into a wait-and-see approach and the likelihood of price increases seems to have been postponed until the line and stations are actually up and running.

"Where the line has had an effect is on seller expectations. Recent prospective sellers in the railway 'catchment area' have been disappointed that their properties have not appreciated as much as they anticipated and in many cases they are selling at or below home report valuation."

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the railway's likely impact on the housing market.

In fact local property prices have a very long way to travel just to get back to 2007 levels. According to the home.co.uk website the average asking price for detached houses in Galashiels has decreased by 21% in the last seven years to £225,183 while flats are down by 43% to £83,800 with the average for all property sales in the town dropping a massive 61%.

There's been little sign of a recovery even in the last twelve months with asking prices for detached properties pitched 15% below August 2013 levels, semi-detached homes down by 9% and flats by 4%. Under those circumstances the construction of new private homes accompanied by the council's £1,734 developer contribution, may not prove to be such an attractive proposition.

Stand by for a remake of The Iron Horse?

Mrs Forrester insisted on a trip to Galashiels on August Bank Holiday Monday to indulge in a bout of light shopping. We hadn't been near the retail capital of the Borders for some time, and I was interested to see how vibrant and bustling the place had become as local businesses and residents gear up excitedly for the railway's return.

We were in for a bit of a shock.

Government agencies and the Borders council may have lavished millions on Gala in recent years to the virtual exclusion of other towns and villages in sheep and rugby country. But the impact appears to have been less than positive and we were certainly not left with the impression that the reopening of the Waverley line in 2015 was generating much confidence among the shopkeeping fraternity.

There appeared to be more empty retail premises than you'd have found in a Wild West town after the gold prospectors left, there didn't appear to be many potential customers about, and had there been a favourable wind I fully expected the tumble weed to be drifting down Channel Street and into the ornately restored Cornmill Square.

Surely by now the development department, or whoever arranges for the arrival of new retailers should be snowed under while trying to cope with demand if the Borders Railway is providing an advance energy boost for the local economy.

On the contrary, this week's Border Telegraph informs us there are 36 empty shop units in Galashiels alone, and there's talk of a special 'task force' being required to address the issue. The council's own report on town centre footfall for 2013 puts the vacancy rate at 15 per cent with similar levels of unused units in Hawick (16%) and Selkirk (15%).

The actual footfall figures paint an equally depressing picture with the Galashiels total down from 9,500 in 2007 to 8,100 last year, a drop of 15 per cent over seven years. Hawick and Selkirk have both suffered massive falls in their totals in the same period - Hawick down from 9,680 to 6,200 (36%), and Selkirk from 3,690 to 2,420 (34%).

Perhaps it is time for a promotional movie about the new Waverley line based on John Ford's classic film The Iron Horse (1924). The beautiful Borders countryside would provide the perfect backdrop for Iron Horse Two (or is it Three), celebrating the end of sheep and rugby country's status as a remote frontier and a new dawning of industrial and commercial conquest.

The 2014 epic could show the outside world how our £350 million rail project is about to forge our individual settlements into a new railway community. Like Ford, the maker of Iron Horse 2/3 could bring in large numbers of Cheviots and Aberdeen Angus, then fade them out to illustrate the industrialisation of Border Country.

In the interests of tourism - maybe VisitScotland will agree to sponsor this particular clip - I hope the producer retains one marvellous story line from the original version. It features a scheming businessman who likes to dress up as a Comanche warrior and scalps people to further his money making schemes. I reckon that would be a real crowd puller, and it shouldn't be too difficult to find a local entrepreneur who'd be perfect for the part..

The Iron Horse towns of the 1860s and 1870s - the period in which the film was set - were flimsy affairs. A town is constructed at the furthest end of the unfinished railroad for workers and hangers-on, "a seedy place, always about to erupt into violence."

When the railroad moves on, this town is abandoned, and the residents build another town further west. Could this be the future for Tweedbank and Hawick? Ah well that's the happy ending sorted!

£6 million black hole in council's rail bill?

Research findings from an investigation into Scottish Borders Council's proposals for meeting its £8.75 million share of the £353 million reinstatement of the railway from Edinburgh to Tweedbank suggest the local authority could face a £6.2 million deficit when it comes time to pay the piper.

It probably won't concern those in charge of Borders local government right now as they're unlikely to be in office by 2038 when the account is due to be finally settled. But future generations of local taxpayers will undoubtedly be saddled with any huge outstanding debt. The project's Business Plan makes that abundantly clear.

Back in 2004 when SBC's Executive members endorsed the railway proposals they decided to rely on house builders to contribute £1,000 towards the cost of the Waverley Line from each new dwelling constructed in the Central Borders and North Ettrick & Lauderdale.

They estimated 7,500 new homes would go up in the area between 2004 and 2038 which would cover the original £7.4 million SBC would have to find. When their share of the cost escalated to £8.75 million there was ample wriggle room to increase each developer contribution to £1,500.

Unfortunately the formula appears to have fallen drastically behind schedule from the outset with much lower volumes of construction than expected. And although the levy per house has soared to £1,734 with another review due in April next year only £743,127 had been collected in the ten years from 2004 to June 2014. The mathematicians among you will be able to conclude that another £8 million needs to find its way into SBC's coffers before the Scottish Government calls in the debt.

One of the most worrying aspects of the investigation's conclusions must be the fact that developer contributions have only brought in about £48,000 in the last three years. If the current level of progress is maintained then the "rail fund" will stand at £2.5 million rather than £8.75 million by 2038.

So clearly there is an issue in need of urgent attention. But will the council face up to the fact that its chosen strategy is in deep trouble or will the administration bury their collective heads in the sand and store up the grief and financial problems for their successors while praying for the costs to be written off by a benevolent Scottish Treasury?

It could get even messier. The joint contribution from SBC, Midlothian and Edinburgh councils is currently capped at £30 million at 2012 prices. But if the original 85:15 cost share of the project between national and local government was to be fully implemented at some point in the future then the Borders share could shoot up to £15.35 million. A fairly frightening prospect.

But then again, at the end of the 2012/13 financial year Scottish Borders Council's total debt on General Fund services stood at £193.114 million, equivalent to £1,698 per head of its population. Another £6.2 million wouldn't make much difference, would it?

Energy Agency fails to spark

EXCLUSIVE - by Doug Collie

Ambitious plans for a Borders Energy Agency, which received the full backing of local councillors two years ago, have had to be mothballed before the project could even be launched after the venture failed to attract any funding. The agency is now said to be "hibernating".

A number of organisations, including Scottish Borders Council, were involved in studies and discussions for more than a year before detailed proposals and a final business plan  for the BEA were presented to the local authority's Executive members in February 2012. The impressive collection of reports and other papers suggest a considerable amount of time, effort and resources had been devoted to the project.

A joint report from council chief executive Tracey Logan and Director of Environment & Infrastructure Rob Dickson concluded: "The establishment of a Borders Energy Agency will support a range of council objectives and it is intended that although the organisation will be wholly independent, it is important the council should recognise, support and empower the BEA.

"There are specific service areas which could in future be delivered jointly, including fuel poverty/home energy advice, carbon reduction advice to communities and energy management advice on public buildings".

Councillors were told by Ms Logan and Mr Dickson that funding for the BEA had yet to be finalised, but the council was already talking to the main energy companies with wind farms in the Borders and asking them to contribute by providing cash over a 25 year period. Approaches had also been made to two banks specialising in renewable energy funding, plus national and local agencies, and bids would be made to the Climate Challenge Fund and various European Union programmes to help fund the agency.

BEA was to have three members of staff initially, according to the Business Plan, including a £50,000 project manager, and would require a total budget of £150,000 in its first year.

The Executive members who rubber stamped the joint report were assured: "The drive towards a low carbon economy, renewable energy and energy conservation is certain to continue and BEA should prove to be a model which can be transferred to other areas across the country and to similar agencies across Europe and beyond."

But now another of the 'partners' involved in the venture has revealed that far from being a blueprint to be rolled out across Europe, BEA has in fact been shelved meantime after failing to attract any financial backing. It is not clear whether that decision has been conveyed to councillors, and the local authority has made no announcement to either confirm or deny that the project has proved to be a veritable damp squib.

The annual report of the Trustees of the Southern Upland Partnership says: "Our efforts to promote community-scale renewable energy have also continued to be frustrated by the fact that the Borders Energy Agency (which we helped to set up) has not been able to attract any funding. The BEA is currently hibernating in the hope that circumstances change. It seems to be widely agreed that the need for such an agency is still great."

The BEA has been a registered charity since February 2012. But according to the Scottish Charities Register it has not received any income and has recorded no expenditure since its formation.

Beware of the Great Tapestry stitch-up

An item on BBC Scotland's evening news probably had a few of us in sheep and rugby country spluttering with a mixture of rage and disbelief tonight as we were informed by broadcaster Cameron Buttle that a custom-built heritage centre was to be developed at Tweedbank to accommodate the Great Tapestry of Scotland.

I could have sworn a decision had yet to be taken on this controversial and highly expensive idea which not all of us favour. We are already faced with a £40,000 bill from consultants who are supposed to be assessing the pros and cons of the venture on behalf of Scottish Borders Council. But I'd no idea the project had been given the proverbial green light.

In fact this week's Border Telegraph carries a report in which our local government supremo and Tweedbank resident David Parker is quoted as saying a preliminary report is expected in October, and an announcement might be made about additional funders in the not too distant future. One thing was for certain, he added, there was no prospect of the tapestry being located in Hawick. So there!

As Mr Buttle disappeared from the TV screen the re-wind button on Sky Plus went into overdrive as I sought confirmation of what appeared to be a BBC exclusive. And yes, sure enough, there was the intrepid reporter at the southern extremity of the Borders Railway route announcing to the world: "This is going to be the home of the Great Tapestry of Scotland" courtesy of that purpose-built heritage centre, which we already know could involve spending up to £5 million of someone's money.

So had the consultant's report been rushed out? Had council leader Parker, a dab hand at cancelling council meetings of late, called the troops in for a special assembly to nod through a recommendation for approval? No mention of it on the council website.

Councillor Parker did appear before the camera to inform us the £350 million railway, due to start operating on September 6 next year, would become one of the most used tourist lines in the country, and we just had to make sure we reap the maximum benefit from it.

 I suppose that could have been a hint that many more visitors would flock south if the large collection of textile panels just happened to be hanging out in Tweedbank. But he didn't mention the tapestry by name.

Mr Buttle's next interview was with Alistair Moffat, the award winning writer, and one of the team which developed then produced the tapestry. Mr Moffat appeared to be standing in front of the tapestry as he assured viewers the Borders would soon have the busiest tourist line in Scotland, and so it would be good to have a world class attraction in place. But he didn't mention the tapestry by name.

It appears Mr Buttle had jumped the gun slightly by declaring "this is going to be the home of the Great Tapestry of Scotland" But at the same time the promoters of the project were giving it The Hard Sell, and it will be akin to a miracle if the council decides at the end of the day to shelve the plan completely or even consign it to the back burner. It seems The Great Tapestry of Scotland will be coming to Tweedbank whether we like it or not.

They come bearing gifts....

Another Freedom of Information revelation from Scottish Borders Council allows me to pose the following question - what do four bottles of Smirnoff vodka, a day at Kelso races, a golf outing to Turnberry, flights to London with hotel accommodation and dinner, and a £20 box of Thornton's chocolates have in common?

Answer: They were all gifts or hospitality offered to members of the council's staff by private companies during the last three years, and have been logged on the local authority's in-house hospitality register. Apparently every enticement from firms the council has dealings with has to be recorded, but without that FOI request the details would not have been published on SBC's website. Time for a public register perhaps.

Although a significant number of gifts were turned down, a fair number were accepted, and in some cases the register contains comments explaining why the offer received the approval of department managers. But the names of the individuals who were wined and dined, took that trip to London or devoured the chocolates have been carefully blacked out.

We now know that the BTS department (Business & Technology Solutions) at SBC took delivery of the four bottles of Smirnoff (valued at £70) in October 2013 from a company called AVM Education Ltd, of Sunbury-on-Thames, specialists in audio visual and video conferencing.

There is no apparent reason for the gift, and in the manager's comments column the entry reads: "This was accepted by the staff who were unaware of the policy re-gifts etc. The vodka is in IT and we have suggested it is donated to charity."

BTS were also the beneficiaries of Dell/Microsoft's generosity in January 2012 with invitations to a Burns Supper at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre (value £150). The invitation was accepted.

 And the same department was offered a £69 Amazon Kindle by the Scottish Information Assurance Forum (SIAF), which was received in December 2012, but was later returned to the organisation. SIAF specialises in information security, and charges public bodies, including Scottish Borders Council, an annual membership fee of £450.

Another supplier called Exactive, whose mission is "to transform the way people work" paid for flights to London (£120), hotel accommodation (£140) and dinner (£80) in a package worth £340. Yet again BTS were the beneficiaries but no details of why the trip was made.

The staff at Newtown St Boswells appear to have been bombarded with at least seven offers from Baillie Gifford, one of the council's four pension fund manager, although all but two appear to have been turned down. The exceptions were a pre-conference dinner at Glengoyne Distillery in March this year,( hospitality valued at £80, according to the register), and dinner at another conference in Dundee in 2013 (£50).

Another staff member in finance received wine worth £60 from the Local Government Chronicle as a thank you for taking part as a speaker in a conference.

A member of the Legal Department enjoyed drinks and dinner at Kelso Races (value £50) courtesy of Walker Love, the company used by the council as Sheriff Officers when court orders are required to pursue council tax debtors.

The register includes an intriguing entry for that £20 box of Thornton's, gifted by Lloyd's TSB to 'Resources' at the council. The manager writes: "This was checked with me before accepting - to return would cost more than chocs and there had been extensive disruption".

And finally, a £65 dinner invitation, also for 'Resources' from Thomas & Adamson, an international construction and property consultancy. The event, the Women in Property annual dinner at Edinburgh's Balmoral Hotel warranted a manager's comment: "Good for the council to be represented at such events as a property owner and sends the message that the council takes gender equality issues seriously".







.

Problems aplenty, but no need for meetings

The problems and issues confronting local government in the Borders may be well documented... the proposed transfer of cultural services to a trust, public disquiet over changes to the school week, formation of an arms length company to deliver community care, never ending budget cuts, and the abysmally low volume of investment by national agencies in the local economy.

It constitutes a list of topics ripe for debate, a dripping roast of an agenda for any councillor worth his salt to sink his teeth into, and an opportunity to hold our less than perfect administration to account.

Sad to say there will be no verbal exchanges across the Newtown St Boswells chamber this month on any of these important subjects after the ruling group cancelled August 28's full council meeting 'due to a lack of business'. And to make matters worse the cancellation has taken place without any consultation with members of the opposition. A crushing blow for local democracy.

But it gets worse! A quick scan through the programme of meetings displayed on the SBC website reveals that two other meetings scheduled for August have also been abandoned. We are told the Environment & Infrastructure Committee get together planned for August 21 has been cancelled because there is 'no substantive business'

Meanwhile the Petitions Committee, scheduled for the same day, will not meet due to 'lack of substantive business'. Who took these unilateral decisions?

Apparently the cancellation of the full council meeting was conveyed to elected members via email. The reason? Historically, the August meeting is very quiet with only a small number of reports to consider.

But surely reports could have been prepared earlier or the opportunity could have been taken to talk about some of the more pressing issues. Are our councillors unable to debate topics of THEIR choice without a crib sheet filled with hyperbole and gobbledegook  from their paid staff? That certainly seems to be the case. Come on boys and girls, take the initiative for a change: give democracy its head.

The fact that members of the Environment & Infrastructure Committee could not or were not allowed to assemble an agenda demonstrates a complete lack of practical sense and imagination. The latest landfill tax figures for the Borders - up by a whopping 27 per cent in two years to £2.9 million require urgent scrutiny, a report on the public reaction to the withdrawal of green bin collections would have been extremely informative, and there must be a host of questions to be asked about the greatest local infrastructure project for more than a century, the £353 million Borders (or is it Waverley) railway.

There hasn't been a meeting of the full council since June 26, and following this month's cancellation our 34 salaried representatives wont assemble as a single entity again until September 25. Money for old rope I hear you cry!

Not so. A proposal by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland - the deadline for public consultation and submissions falls on the same day as those meetings of the environment and petitions committees should have been held - could reduce the number of Borders councillors from 34 to 32.

Cue bluster and outrage at council HQ. In a response SBC warned such a cut in their ranks would almost certainly lead to "overloaded councillors". Larger council wards would mean not only increased workloads, but also increased travel and travel time.

The statement went on: "With fewer councillors, the standard of and length of time for engagement with the public could reduce, response times could be longer or time spent with individual constituents could decrease as councillors would face responsibility for more members of the public".

In light of this week's regrettable cancellations maybe some of you would care to let the Commission have your views on councillor numbers by next Thursday.

Borders landfill tax...why not just burn £2.9 million?

The day after our Borders garden waste collections were withdrawn on March 31 this year by our feckless council administration the landfill tax across the UK went up from £72 to £80 per metric ton. One wonders if any of the 19 elected members who voted to consign the green bins to the scrap-heap were even aware of the looming eleven per cent hike in the landfill levy.

Now we hear of elderly pensioners having to hire taxis to take their lawn clippings to the recycling centre, and there are disturbing tales of garden fires spreading out of control and damaging neighbourhood property.

It must also be a matter of considerable concern to the green lobby, not to mention those of us who are forced to sponsor Scottish Borders Council via the council tax, that the levels of landfill payments flowing out of the Newtown St Boswells coffers and into HM Revenue and Customs is increasing at a phenomenal rate...27% in two years to be precise.

Official council figures for landfill tax paid over the last three financial years are as follows: 2011/12 - £2,325,199; 2012/13 - £2,652,668; 2013/14 - £2,950,752. Scotland's waste strategy tells us those statistics should be heading in the opposite direction if ambitious recycling targets are to be met.

There will be no chance of that happening in the Borders this year given the plain daft decision to scrap the fortnightly green bin uplifts which allowed 7,526 tonnes of garden waste to be composted in 2012.

Send the equivalent of that tonnage to the Easter Langlee tip for landfill and the tax bill shoots up by another £602,000 against the saving made by abolishing the collections (£475,000) and you're into the economics of the madhouse.

SBC sent 52,861 tonnes of household waste to landfill in 2012 (55.7%), recycled 22,648 tonnes (42.8%) and recovered 777 tonnes (1.5%), according to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The proportion recycled/composted fell by 3.5% from 46.3% in 2011 at a time when the national average recycling percentage increased by more than a full percentage point.

This year, as a direct result of the green wheelie bin fiasco Borders recycling rates are predicted to fall by five per cent to somewhere around the 37% mark, according to the council's own calculations. Meanwhile a significant number of Scottish local authorities are proudly achieving recycling rates in excess of 50%. Talk about being off message.

The nonsensical policy to place obstacles in the way of recycling as introduced by our municipal masters conjures up a vision of lorry loads of paper currency...2,950,752 crisp £1 notes to be precise...being carted to the outskirts of Galashiels before being tipped into the Easter Langlee incinerator. That would probably make about as much sense as filling out a cheque in the name of George Osborne so that an equivalent amount of Borders council taxpayers' money can be syphoned off to Westminster.

Planners exceeding powers, claims duke's lawyer

A leading expert in planning inquiry advocacy, who represents Scotland's largest private landowner in a bid to block a highly contentious wind farm scheme, claims Scottish Borders Council is acting outwith its statutory powers, and any decision taken in the case could face a legal challenge.

Buccleuch Estates are among hundreds of objectors to the planned wind farm development at Windy Edge, close to Hermitage Castle, described as "the guard house to the bloodiest valley in Britain". Last year Infinis Energy submitted a planning application for 17 turbines, each up to 121.5 metres high right in the heart of wild Border Reivers country.

Opponents - including Historic Scotland, the custodians of the Thirteenth Century castle - warned the windmills would introduce a feature into the landscape of Liddesdale which would challenge the monument and its setting.

In a written submission to the council Historic Scotland state: "Hermitage Castle is one of the great medieval fortresses of Scotland, associated with stories which are historic, heroic and horrific. Some true - Mary Queen of Scots' visit, some less believable like the story of the evil Lord Soulis and the Cout of Kielder, a giant with magic chain mail."

In an attempt to meet concerns for the castle Infinis wants to reduce the number of turbines at Windy Edge from 17 to 9 by removing the so-called eastern array closest to Hermitage. At the same time the remaining towers would extend up to 125 metres, and there's a community benefit fund worth £135,000 per annum on offer to the Newcastleton area. But consideration of the proposals is set to drag on until at least the end of this year.

Borders planners have indicated the authority will accept the change from 17 to nine turbines as "further environmental information", and a revised application will not be required. The variation does not, in the view of planning officer John Hiscox, constitute a substantial difference in the description of the development for which permission is sought.

However, Alastair McKie, head of planning and the environment at law firm Anderson Strathern has taken issue with the planners' stance. He represents Buccleuch Estates as well as the local Hermitage Action Group, which is fighting the proposed wind farm tooth and nail.

The expert in planning law, regarded as a leader in his chosen field, specialises in development inquiry advocacy. Buccleuch Estates own 240,000 acres of land in the Borders, Dumfries & Galloway and Northamptonshire with an estimated value of £800 million to £1 billion.

Mr McKie says he cannot see how the proposed changes could be anything other than substantial because of their effects and impacts, some of which will increase. The current application should therefore be withdrawn and a fresh one submitted.

In an email exchange with Mr Hiscox he adds: "My clients maintain that your council is acting outwith its statutory powers in this matter. I specifically reserve my clients' right to challenge any decision made by your council in its determination of the application".

Infinis, which currently generates seven per cent of the UK's renewable energy from 16 wind farms, say they have cut the number of proposed turbines at Windy Edge from 17 to nine despite advice from two independent archaeologists that the original layout would have an effect of minor significance on the setting of Hermitage Castle.

Why should we have to ask?

Just days after my previous outpourings, which concentrated on the abject failure of many public bodies - our local council included - to achieve high standards when dealing with Freedom of Information requests, I could have sworn the Scottish Information Tsar (sorry Commissioner) had experienced a 'Eureka!' moment.

In a special report to Parliament on Thursday, Rosemary Agnew expressed serious concerns about the continuing unacceptable attitude of some councils, health boards and other agencies who simply fail to respond when we have the audacity to ask them questions. Hope you heard the penny drop.

Ms Agnew claims in a 33-page report that Scotland's well-regarded FOI set-up could be undermined unless authorities which have been simply ignoring requests over the last nine years change their errant ways. Sorry Commissioner, but the ducking and diving I referred to in that previous article is set to continue unless the culprits face meaningful sanctions.

The latest collection of Freedom of Information requests to Scottish Borders Council, and the responses, were posted on the SBC website this weekend. Because there is no obligation on public bodies to diligently publish answers on a regular basis, we've had to wait a couple of months for an update, and some of the stuff dates back to May.

Surely this flaw in the arrangements should also be addressed for there is not even an obligation on the organisations providing public services to publish requests and answers at all. In other words the information should be out there, but it isn't. Why not publish the FOI list once a month?

I'm grateful to the FOI requesters who asked about payments to external law firms, the amounts of cash SBC handed out in employment tribunal settlements, and the number and size of redundancy and severance packages for those leaving the Good Ship Newtown St Boswells.

For the record, law firms engaged by SBC earned more than £275,000 over the last four financial years, and 48 tribunal settlements accounted for £477,955 plus another £25,000 in costs for the council to defend the cases.

The facts and figures on redundancies are included in the recently published annual accounts so I wont repeat them her, and my own search to see how much had been spent on private consultancy firms failed to produce a recent set of figures.

Rest assured, it will amount to a tidy sum for I see from a previous FOI request in 2012 there was a running total at that time of over £400,000.

Under the present arrangements requesters like us will continue to quiz the public sector in search of information which we are entitled to have. But on the other side of the divide some clever-dick official will be dreaming up yet another dodge to deny access to the facts in cases where disclosure could cause embarrassment or lead to calls for some kind of investigation.

So what could be done to prevent the obfuscation and confusion outlined in the Commissioner's special report? Well I don't see why we have to ask for much of the information in the first place. Why not make it compulsory for councils and others to publish how much they spend on outside law firms and consultants every three months, details of each local authority department's credit card expenditure - say twice a year - and so on? And I'm sure many other categories of information could easily be included on a statutory list.

The effect would be to reduce the number of FOI requests while also reducing the pressure on the Commissioner and her staff who seem to spend at least 25 per cent of their time chasing those organisations who don't respond in time.

Our right to know? You must be joking!

Nine years on from the introduction of the Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA), and those of us who think it matters how Scottish Borders Council spends our money should be awash with facts and figures covering every subject under the local government sun. After all, under FOISA, we have a RIGHT to know even if the council would rather we didn't.

Unfortunately, so far as I can see, FOISA has failed miserably to deliver, and as far as SBC is concerned the same off-hand and sloppy attitude towards Freedom of Information (FOI) requests is on display far too often. This will be an attempt to show that when it comes to responding to requests for information our council has not changed its attitude much, if at all, since 2006 when the first disputed case was submitted to a higher authority.

But first it has to be said the FOI system is stacked against any individual who might wish to question his or her local authority or other public body covered by the legislation.

The first major obstacle is the lack of any clause or section within FOISA which demands that our public servants respond with honest and accurate answers. So they can tell you virtually anything, and get away with it. Then there's the small matter of exempt information, a long agenda of items which they'd rather keep out of reach of inquisitive taxpayers, and frequently achieve that objective.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block of all is the complete lack of fines and other sanctions within the regulatory system. Disputes involving FOI are administered by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC), but there has never been a single referral with a view to prosecution under FOISA.

The extremely light touch means agencies which are less than honest or efficient on the FOI front merely suffer a meaningless slap on the wrist then move on to their next demeanour. But at least it keeps the Commissioner and her staff of 22 with their annual budget of £1.5 million in employment.

A requester must give the council two shots at providing a satisfactory answer, including the chance to review the original response which is due to be delivered within 20 working days. If that fails to settle the matter then you can lodge an application with the Commissioner for a final decision.

Since 2006 there have been 38 "referrals upstairs" by SBC requesters, and in 25 (about 68%) the SIC has either found in favour of the applicant or partially upheld their plea. That represents a high 'offending rate' on the part of the council, but they show little sign of changing their ways.

In July 2006, shortly after FOISA's introduction, a requester asked for detailed information about the cost of an investigation within the architect section of the Council. SBC did not bother to respond at all. A repeat request was lodged on August 23; again there was no response so an application was made to the SIC for a decision.

It read: "The Commissioner finds that the council did not deal with the request for information according to requirements and failed to comply with Part One of FOISA".

Fast forward to 2014, and two recent decisions from the Commissioner. In the first case, on February 19 a
requester asked SBC about complaints made against school departments in each of the previous five years. The council did not respond, so on April 21 the questioner requested a review. Astonishingly, the council totally ignored that request too. The SIC was approached on May 28, and finally received written submissions on June 16.

SBC acknowledged its failings. The council initially failed to log the request and there were further delays in collecting accurate information after the request for review. SBC claimed "a review of procedures" was under way, something that should surely have been undertaken after the 2006 debacle. But it seems the local authority had also failed to take heed of previous SIC decisions and had done little or nothing to clean up its act.

Weeks later SBC was back in the SIC "court" on virtually identical charges. This time a requester lodged questions with the council on April 2 2014 for information about data protection breaches. There was no response by May 6 when a request for review was submitted. But yes, you guessed, again no response from the council.

And to compound matters SBC did not even take the trouble to offer the SIC a written explanation when invited to do so after the application for a decision was made on June 18.

In her written decision the Commissioner warned: " ENFORCEMENT: If SBC fails to comply [by responding to the requester by August 29] the SIC has the right to certify to the Court of Session that SBC has failed to comply. The court has the right to inquire into the matter and may deal with SBC as if it had committed a contempt of court."

As long as public bodies can continue to flout Freedom of Information legislation in this manner without fear of sanction or even conviction then surely the entire system is fatally flawed. After nine years of ducking and diving their time should be up. FOISA must be completely overhauled with all of the advantages on the side of the citizen rather than the body corporate.

Pension records in the skip, still a cause celebre

It may be almost a year since Scottish Borders Council wriggled off the Information Commissioner's £250,000 hook after forking out a small fortune in defence fees in the infamous "Pension Records In The Skip" case. But the ramifications and ripples for those working in the information rights industry continue with finger pointing and a fierce war of words still raging across cyberspace.

The council was hit with the quarter-of-a-million pound "fine" after failing to notice their regular data processor had dumped up to 1200 paper files carrying personal details of members of the local authority's pension scheme in a supermarket waste bin at South Queensferry.

It was only when the bins overflowed that the horrendous breach of security came to light. The man who had held the council's processing contract for years later told the press that, unbeknown to his employers, this had been his normal, if somewhat careless method of disposing of SBC's redundant paperwork.Shredding might have been a better option.

In the eyes of the hundreds of potential victims, whose names, addresses, National Insurance numbers and bank details were left fluttering in the breeze, the potentially catastrophic episode can only have been regarded as a record breaking breach of the Data Protection Act. On the face of it a £250,000 penalty seemed fully merited.

But experience tells us it is extremely rare for any public authority to take the rap for wrongdoing of any kind. So, armed with council taxpayers' cash SBC engaged specialist lawyers Brechin Tindal Oatts (BTO) to mount a successful appeal against the Information Commissioner's 'conviction'. It mattered little to our councillors and their officials that BTO would pocket more than £28,000 in legal fees while expert witnesses commissioned on the council's behalf would account for another £19,000. Throughout the entire sequence of desperate efforts to 'clear' SBC's name there was little, if any thought given to the individuals blighted by the council's gross neglect and lack of control over processing.

Proceedings finally ground to a halt in August 2013 after almost two years of hearings and debate, and SBC hailed the outcome as a veritable triumph despite the unnecessary financial outlay to cover their dreadful errors. There was no mention of the £48,000 racked up in legal fees and other charges, and when the time and effort devoted by SBC's in-house legal team over the two-year campaign to strike down the 'fine' is added into the equation then the true cost may well be adjacent to £100,000.

BTO solicitor advocates Paul Motion and Laura Irvine were SBC's saviours, and could rightly claim a stunning legal victory over Information Commissioner Christopher Graham. They had persuaded the appeal tribunal the Commissioner's reasoning behind his financial penalty was flawed as the breach of data protection, though serious, was not likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress.

That seemed to be that. But now, in an article written to mark the upcoming first anniversary of the landmark ruling Mr Motion and Ms Irvine claim the ICO does not appear to have learned lessons from the SBC case and continues to dispense identical monetary penalties which cannot be justified.

They say: "Out of the 19 fines issued during the last year by the ICO, three were imposed for the loss of personal data that – like the SBC appeal data - was not classed as sensitive. However in all three cases the ICO nonetheless felt able to assert that it was likely that the contravention would have caused substantial damage by exposing the data subjects to identity fraud and possible financial loss. In our view given the decision in the SBC appeal, the ICO would have struggled to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the contravention in these three cases was of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress."

There is no direct reference to the Borders case in Mr Graham's recently published annual report, but he has complained about the outcome of SBC's appeal in newspaper interviews. According to BTO Mr Graham had been 'miffed' by the ruling.

In what amounts to clear criticism of the Commissioner the BTO lawyers write: "The likelihood of damage must be based on more than conjecture and distress has to be more than mere irritation. If evidential thresholds are getting in the way of monetary penalties the answer is to provide the requisite evidence, not to call for the lowering of the threshold and potentially criminalising conduct that is undeserving of such categorisation."

But information rights expert Tim Turner, a former policy manager at the ICO who now runs his own training company, claims in his blog that Motion and Irvine's review of recent action is "eccentric, even myopic".

He agrees the ICO approach is flawed and inconsistent. But Mr Turner supports monetary penalties for breaches of Data Protection.

He adds: "I fear Irvine and Motion have lost sight of the purpose of the legislation. It is there to protect the public and to facilitate lawful, legitimate business activities. Personal data should be respected and handled with care. Some organisations will comply without sanction, but we need a strong effective regime for those who wont."

I'm sure those members of the SBC pension fund whose confidential, personal papers were scattered around that South Queensferry car park on September 10 2011 would wholeheartedly agree.

Not just sheep and cricket!!

We're remembering the fifty-fifth anniversary of the Two Boy Test Match between England and India...or at least I am. I haven't a clue where the other obscure cricketer is now, so obviously I cannot say whether he is raising a glass in celebration this week.

I concede from the outset that this contribution may only appeal to a very limited readership. The Scottish Borders and the extremities of North Northumberland have never been cricketing hot-spots, and those who have played the game in these parts have tended to do so virtually unnoticed.

For those of us who love the sport there's an exciting Test series in progress just now with England and India level at one victory apiece with two matches to play. Perhaps it was the arrival of those Indian tourists earlier this year which triggered flashbacks to the glorious summer of 1959 when the Borders provided the backdrop for an epic contest between Willie and me.

It was an era when English cricket enjoyed near world domination with the likes of Peter May, Ken Barrington, Colin Cowdrey, Fred Trueman, Godfrey Evans and Brian Statham combining to thrash an emerging Indian side 5-0. But things were a little bit different in our back yard where fortunes fluctuated throughout the long, hot school holidays.

I wonder if many kids nowadays could be bothered to prepare for, then participate in their own Test series. The modern generation of emerging teenagers is surrounded by counter-attractions and the ever developing world of new technology. Down on the farm we had a couple of home made bats, a set of crude stumps and bails, a few battered tennis balls and very fertile imaginations.

Our cricket pitch wasn't so much The Oval as The Oblong; a concrete expanse measuring maybe eighty yards in length by 30 yards across. In winter it was home to piles of turnips or farmyard manure, but in summer it was available for cricket seven days a week.

An eight-foot high wall ran down one side while the other was bounded by a barn. A hit over the wall into the adjoining field of grain resulted in dismissal, and there were other quirky by-laws and restrictions which I've long forgotten about.

The physical shape of the 'ground' meant straight drives were the only scoring shot allowed. A single for getting the ball past the bowler; two if it ran on past the next marker, and so on to the boundary which doubled as the farm road to the outside world.

A faint air of authenticity was added to proceedings with the construction of a scoreboard fashioned from strips of discarded linoleum tacked on to plywood. Pieces of cardboard bearing the players' names were slotted between the lino, and scores were painstakingly updated at the end of each over.

Willie was a year older - and bigger than me - so he was able to 'be' England each time we took to the concrete. While Willie posed as May or Barrington I became Desai or Surendranath when bowling or Manjrekar or Borde when wielding the bat. An unusual collection of boyhood heroes for a schoolboy from the Borders in 1959, but they only stayed with me for one cricket season. Dennis Compton was the real star in my firmament although his Test career had ended in 1957.

Play at The Oblong was usually under way before nine in the morning, and continued until noon when the farm staff returned for lunch (or dinner as it was known back then). Whoever happened to be batting was also saddled with the task of providing a running account of play in the style of BBC radio's John Arlott, the greatest commentator of them all.

We were out on the square again after a 30-minute break, giving it our all till tea time. In the evenings it was my job to fill in the score book - a pilfered school jotter to be honest - in my finest copperplate writing, copying the style of the BBC's Maurice Ryman, the most talented of calligraphers, who lovingly crafted the TV score cards before technology rendered him redundant.

The outcome of the Two Boy Test Series may be lost in the mists of time. And Willie has probably forgotten all about our boyhood exploits. But it would be nice to think that somewhere right now a couple of lads are staging their own Two Boy Test Series having adopted temporary heroes from the current England and Indian teams.