Conferences: valuable events or expensive junkets?

GUEST WRITER NORM D'PLOOM discusses council attendance at conferences

According to newly published information on corporate credit transactions staff from Scottish Borders Council attended around 45 different conferences, seminars and 'out of town' meetings in 2018 at considerable cost to the public purse.

No doubt some readers of this article will appreciate the benefits of a trip to London or Edinburgh or even the Highlands of Scotland for a get-together to consider the latest developments in one's specialist field.

But at a time when every local authority in the land is struggling to make ends meet while carrying record levels of debt there will be others among you who feel more might be gained by keeping the workforce at home to concentrate on the day job.

Down the years the local press in Scottish Borders and elsewhere have been quick to deploy the words jaunt or junket when writing about a particular conference which they considered to be a complete waste of money. But no doubt those who made the trip on behalf of the local taxpayers who funded their travel costs, accommodation and meals would point to the necessity to 'keep abreast of the latest trends'.

There was a brief period in Borders local government history when cash was so tight that a particularly prudent administration suggested axing conference visits altogether.

However this was watered down somewhat when spending committees - education, transport, planning, roads, policy & resources or water and drainage - asked chief officers to justify the expenditure on each event in advance before granting or withholding permission to attend.

But nowadays the committee structure with its ability to scrutinise spending in each area of activity has been largely dismantled with most of the power vested in a single executive body. One of the poorer transformations in Borders local government, in my view.

There is one 'jaunt' undertaken by a large delegation of councillors and officials from this locality which sticks in the mind and has been criticised often as a complete waste of money.

In October 2014 SBC staged a "fact-finding" trip to Avonmouth, Bristol where they were shown a waste treatment facility being operated by now defunct New Earth Solutions Ltd (NES), the firm which had been handed a £80 million contract to deal with Borders rubbish over 24 years.

Here are the names of those who made the journey (by various means) to south-west England:

Tracey Logan	Chief Executive
Rob Dickson	Project Sponsor
Cllr Davidson	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Renton	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Brown	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Campbell	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Ballantyne	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Mountford	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Scott	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Gillespie	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr White	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Edgar	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Paterson	Nominated by Political Group
Cllr Parker	Council Leader
Kirsty Robb	Project Accountant
Jenni Craig	Project Board Member
Ewan Doyle	Project Manager
Ross Sharp-Dent	Project Board Member

Information gained via Freedom of Information showed the total cost of the trip was £3,939.35 made up of: Travel: £1656.20: and Accommodation (DB&B): £2283.15.

According to the FOI response: "NES provided a presentation on: Introduction to New Earth,

*         New Earth Advanced Thermal

·         SBC Project Background

·         Easter Langlee Integrated Facility

·         Delivery Strategy for Scottish Borders

·         Interim Treatment Option

·         Avonmouth Introduction

·         Summing Up"

The large squad of Borders representatives returned mightily impressed by what they'd seen. Unfortunately, just a few months later, the 'cutting edge' SBC project was abandoned in disarray with a net loss of £2.4 million for council taxpayers. The Avonmouth technology could not be made to work while the project funders based in Douglas, Isle of Man, did not have the money to pay for the scheme.

Back to 2018's conferences which attracted delegates from SBC. The details are included among corporate credit transactions approved by senior officials during the course of last year. I'm not qualified to judge whether there was merit in attending the various conferences, exhibitions, visits or seminars but here is a selection sanctioned by members of the executive team.

Tracey Logan, chief executive - East Lothian Health & Social Care Delivery Plan event: accommodation and parking £108.99. Borderlands meeting: fares, parking and accommodation £811.37; CIPFA event, Edinburgh - accommodation £166.50.

David Robertson, chief financial officer - Accommodation for 4, Highland Council Literary Strategy visit £483.92; Pension Fund meeting, fares and accommodation for 3 £1,478.90; Apple Technology event, accommodation and taxi fares for 3 £1,593.

Rob Dickson, executive director - South of Scotland Enterprise event, accommodation and meals for 3 £200.19; Timber Transport conference £137.99; Business Gateway meeting, accommodation £91.

Clair Hepburn, service director HR - Transforming the Way We Work event, accommodation and transfers for 2 £411.20; Business World conference fees and accommodation £454.80; fares and accommodation for three officers at local government pensions conference, London, £2,234.41.

Philip Barr, executive director - annual winter maintenance conference and exhibition £536.40; Ecology & Environment autumn conference £150; Borderlands meeting, fares, accommodation and meals for 2 £996.65.

For the record the total spend by each card holder in 2018 was as follows: Tracey Logan £5,956.76; David Robertson £11,096.92; Rob Dickson £3,869.18; Clair Hepburn £6,193.92; Philip Barr £14,556.25; and Martin Joyce, service director, assets and infrastructure £72,707.02.

Border family's incredible success story on the egg front

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

It began almost 60 years ago as a 'one woman venture' into farm diversification in rural Peeblesshire and has become one of Scotland's most successful business with net assets of £81 million, annual turnover of £53 million and a newly posted profit for the year of more than £5 million.

John and Catherine Campbell moved into Glenrath Farm, near Lamancha, in 1959 to rear sheep and beef cattle. Now Sir John and Lady Catherine own 5,000 acres of land and their company Glenrath Farms Ltd. produces more than a million eggs per day.

The company's website tells how "Cathy Campbell diversified into egg production. Cathy reared hens, gathered eggs and delivered the eggs door to door. The egg business expanded due to the demand for good quality locally produced eggs. The business has grown with the Campbell family and is proud to employ 220 people."

The Campbells are now in their eighties but remain leading directors of Glenrath Farms which is still very much a family business. In fact three generations of Campbells are involved in running one of the largest egg producing organisations in the United Kingdom.

In his latest annual report for the 12 months to May 2018 Sir John writes: "I am pleased to report on another sound financial performance, During the year our profits were £5.15 million before tax which is a reduction of 18.43% compared to the previous year.

"Despite the reduction I do feel given the present economic climate and market circumstances this is a very good result."

The report shows Glenrath's net assets have grown by six per cent to £81.492 million.

But Sir John explains: "We have not revalued our business assets for many years now and our land holdings would have increased in value significantly. The company owns and farms in excess of 5,000 acres".

He adds that the latest results were achieved in a very competitive market.

"We claim to be perhaps one of the most successful egg production and packing companies in the UK. Over 80% of our egg sales are produced in-house, the rest are produced by our loyal contracted suppliers..

"In the market place competition continues to grow. Smaller packers selling to larger retailers continue to be very competitive. Fortunately the Group remains in a very strong position to compete in the market place and we are reacting to the challenges we face".

Colony or cage production of eggs is set to cease in the UK and the rest of Europe by 2025. The Campbells intend replacing colony production with so-called barn production, a move which will cost £25 per bird.

Sir John's chairman's report says: "Our substantial investment in our processing facility has proved to be a sound investment. Weekly tonnage in the last twelve months has increased significantly utilising our second quality eggs. The liquid egg market is extremely competitive. We have further invested in this part of the business during the year".

Glenrath Farms has also invested in state of the art egg grading machinery. The egg grader has 10 cameras which detects and rejects eggs with defects.

Credit card 'update' is two years late!

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The corporate credit card transactions by service directors at Scottish Borders Council during 2016 and 2017 have finally been made public disclosing items purchased on cards over the two years ranged from a £12.99 book on etiquette to air fares, rail tickets, accommodation and meals at numerous conferences.

Despite a statement on its website promising regular updates of credit card expenditure there had been no such update since the 2015 data was published. The new itemised statistics for 2016 and 2017 have only been made available publicly following a Freedom of Information request asking for the missing years' details.

According to council sources the lengthy "delay" stretching back over more than two years was down to "changes to staff roles and responsibilities". The FOI had been lodged before Christmas, and SBC said it would publish the relevant information by a specific date in February. It is expected the 2018 material on corporate credit cards will be posted soon.

As we reported recently the use of credit cards by the council has stirred controversy in the past with local Tory MP (then a member of the Scottish Parliament) John Lamont obtaining the payment details via Freedom of Information [FOI].

Mr Lamont's January 2014 disclosure revealed there had been nearly 1,000 transactions over the previous three years with two departments – the chief executive and environment & infrastructure – emerging as the most prodigious users of plastic cards.

Lists of all items and services bought by this method were released by Mr Lamont ( MSP for Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) who claimed Borderers would be “staggered” at the level of spending.

At that time the Border Telegraph reported a council statement which said:“Elected members play no part in sanctioning the use of the credit card…” 

According to the Telegraph the list provided to Mr Lamont showed that, between April, 2012 and November 2013, the chief executive’s department made credit card purchases worth £28,398, compared to £18,057 between November, 2010 and March, 2012.

The newly published lists would suggest use of the cards has been scaled back. Council taxpayers who are interested in the latest data can peruse it for themselves on the SBC website. In the meantime Not Just Sheep & Rugby has taken note of a few items which caught our eye.

Payments made in 2017 - TRACEY LOGAN, chief executive – July 2017 Uplift and return of works vehicle to Council HQ £695.70. Parking charges £6 and £10.

ROB DICKSON, executive director - Feb 2017 - Accommodation - Oil Pollution Course £239.70.

PHILIP BARR, executive director – more than £3,000 on purchase of Edinburgh parking permits during the course of 2017.

DAVID ROBERTSON, chief financial officer - Pension Fund meeting - Meals, Accommodation and Tube Tickets for 3 Officers £1,009.00.

CLAIR HEPBURN, SERVICE DIRECTOR HR – Over the year a total of  £1,500 for Staffing Service Award Vouchers.

Payments made in 2016 - Tracey Logan - Lord Provost Glasgow Event - Accommodation & Expenses for 2 Officers £359.00. Train tickets for 2 - Institute of Directors course £406.47.

Rob Dickson - Conference - 9 places at Federation of Scottish Theatre event £576.00. Book - Titles and Forms of Address - A Guide to Correct Use £12.99.

Philip Barr - Accommodation for 4 Officers - Cleaning Event £361.96. Project Search Conference Accommodation and Airline Tickets for 2 Officers £701.22. Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) - On-line MOT sessions £820.00. Borderlands meeting, and meeting with Secretary of State for Scotland - Accommodation, Breakfast and Dinner for 2 Officers, Taxi Fares £1,384.49.

David Robertson - Accommodation for 3 Officers - Pension Fund Event £1,089.60. Google Site Search - Annual Subscription and Foreign Exchange Fee £1,684.55.

Jeanette McDiarmid, chief executive’s department - Airline tickets for 3 Officers - National Conference Commemorating Gallipoli Campaign £335.72.

Was SBC mis-sold a £6 million loan?

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

The decision by seven English local authorities to raise a joint court action against Barclays Bank in a bid to wipe out 49 'toxic' loans worth a combined £573 million will no doubt be closely monitored by other councils throughout the UK who have similar arrangements with the bank.

Barclays sold the so-called LOBO (Lender Option Borrower Option) loans to the claimants between 2005 and 2008. Interest rates on the loans were pegged to LIBOR, a benchmark rate set by a group of London banks, including Barclays. In 2012 it was revealed the banks had been manipulating the rate, and Barclays was fined £290 million.

The local authorities – Leeds, Greater Manchester, Newcastle, North East Lincolnshire, Nottingham, Oldham and Sheffield – allege that due to Barclays’ role in the rate rigging, the banks knew customers would rely on LIBOR rates when deciding whether to enter into contracts.

The councils are asking the High Court to cancel the loans without exit penalties, and also restitution for sums in interest they have already paid the bank.

Campaigning group Research for Action which claims high interest payments linked to LOBO loans are at least partially responsible for cuts in public services has welcomed the decision by councils to sue Barclays.

The organisation said it was hopeful the case would bring justice to local authorities that had fallen prey to "the toxic combination of conflicted advisers, LOBO loan mis-selling and benchmark rate rigging".

Legal actions taken by councils in relation to LOBO loans should not be restricted to LIBOR rigging alone, Research for Action claimed.

"We hope to see further legal actions taken by local authorities in relation to ISDAfix manipulation and the role of council financial adviseors (Butlers/ICAP and Capita) and the various banks involved in the mis-selling of LOBO loans which were never designed or promoted in either the council or taxpayers best interests."

In May 2005 Scottish Borders Council signed up for a £6 million LOBO loan from Barclays. The interest rate was to be 2.87% until 2009, then 4.4%. The 60-year loan is not due for repayment until June 2065, and in 2017 it was revealed via a Freedom of Information request that the fair value of the SBC loan was £10,644,275. 

The council's Treasury advisers when the loan was arranged was Butlers.In all SBC took out eleven LOBO loans with various banks. The interest rates payable are all higher than the rate currently being charged by the UK Government's Public Works Loans Board.

Councils with LOBO loans are being urged by Research for Action to re-finance these debts with the prospect of saving many millions of pounds in interest.

A few local authorities have re-financed. The campaign group said: "Following the announcement of loan refinancing savings, we conducted an analysis into savings that could be obtained by other councils that have taken out LOBO loans. Taking the average interest rates and years to maturity from each council’s loan portfolio and using 2.21% as the PWLB rate, we calculated potential savings by multiplying the annual difference between LOBO loan & PWLB loan rates, and multiplying savings by the years to loan maturity.

"We found that for just the top 10 borrowers of these risky and expensive bank loans, they could save £4 billion over 40 years by refinancing via the PWLB. For the 240 councils that have taken out LOBO loans, savings could reach £16 bn over the lifetime of the loans. These substantial savings could relieve pressure on strained budgets, free up cash for local services and prevent further unnecessary cuts."

Council IT contract delivers less than half 'required' savings

by DOUG COLLIE

A £92 million IT contract awarded to CGI Ltd in 2016 has delivered only 46% of 'required' savings for Scottish Borders Council so far which means more than £1.7 millions has had to be temporarily removed from other local government budgets.

The council's deal with CGI received a high profile launch in March 2016 when a SBC press release promised it would bring a Scottish Centre of Excellence to the Scottish Borders and inject over £100 million into the local economy. In addition 200 highly skilled new jobs would be created in the Scottish Borders with apprenticeships at Borders College.

Other features of the long-term contract outlined in the news release included: 

"A new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) solution will replace our current Finance and HR systems. A modern digital platform will be implemented to make it simpler for residents to interact with us and receive feedback.A showcase of options to address some of the major connectivity challenges that exist in the Borders. This includes the unbundling of six exchanges to allow CGI to deliver a superfast broadband offering to schools, communities and businesses."

So far public pronouncements from SBC on progress with the IT transformation project under the thirteen-year deal with CGI have been scarce. But a council minute which records a question and answer regarding the topic does give some insight into what is happening.

At a recent meeting of SBC Councillor Stuart Bell (SNP), leader of the opposition group at Newtown St Boswells asked: "In March 2016 the Council agreed a contract for delivery of ICT services. Associated with that were transformation programme savings dependant on the delivery of a step change in the ICT services; starting in 2016/17. What were these targeted savings per year through to the present financial year and what is the level of savings actually achieved per year, on a permanent basis, up to the present date?"

The response from Councillor Simon Mountford (Con), Executive Member for Transformation and HR [Human Resources] covered a variety of headings. But information on savings shows the contract did not live up to expectations in its first three years.

Councillor Mountford told Councillor Bell: "The original business case for ICT services approved by Council in March 2016 contained ambitious targets which were dependent upon the delivery of new technology. 

"The savings required in 2016/17 per the business case was £0.747 million. The saving required in 2017/18 was £1.393 million and in 18/19 was £1.164 million, an incremental total over the 3 years of £3.304 million. The savings actually delivered against this original target were zero in 2016/17, £0.572 million in 17/18 and £0.942 million in 18/19. Savings have increased year on year. To date recurrent permanent savings of £1.514 million have been delivered on an incremental basis. The savings on a cumulative basis are £ 2.086 million to date.

"Since 2016/17 the Council has delivered 46% of the savings originally envisaged by the Business Case on a permanent basis. The remaining 54% of savings required by the Business Case were delivered on a temporary basis from other budgets. The Council’s budget was balanced overall in 2016, 2017 and 2018 with small under spends delivered in each year."

The reply from Councillor Mountford also told Councillor Bell: "The contract with CGI is designed to place SBC at the forefront of technology in local government in Scotland. The benefits to be delivered go way beyond financial savings. 

"To date the benefits delivered include:- addressing under capacity and vulnerabilities associated with key person risk within the former in-house ICT staffing structure, removing risk associated with ICT recruitment, providing access to the technical expertise of a major international ICT provider, major investment undertaken to future proof the Council’s ICT infrastructure, including:- a new help desk, moving file storage and backup facilities to the cloud, increased broadband capacity in our schools, providing greater resilience to ever increasing cyber security threats and a planned full refresh of the Council’s curricular and office based desk top estate.

"Much work, often not obvious to end users, has been completed to date to address legacy issues with the council’s complicated ICT infrastructure and ensure this is fit for purpose both now and in the future. The contract is also designed to deliver significant financial benefits through the introduction of new systems and ways of working and where delays have been encountered these have been reported to members along with performance monitoring information. Where necessary the associated savings have been re-profiled with alternative temporary measures put in place."

Issues associated with the delivery of ICT infrastructure had impacted on the Council’s transformation programme, added Councillor Mountford.

In an upbeat conclusion to his answer he claimed: " It is anticipated that IT transformation savings required by the budget will be realised in full in the longer term during the course of the strategic partnership with CGI and more savings than originally envisaged may be possible."

Could Scotland Office's days be numbered?

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The need for the UK Government's Scotland Office which has an annual budget of more than £28 million and a total payroll of over 100 staff to remain in business has been questioned by politicians of every hue as part of an investigation into the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood.

Michael Moore, a former Borders MP who served as Secretary of State for Scotland from 2010-13 in the Tory-Lib. Dem. Coalition, was one of the witnesses invited to give evidence to the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee.

And David Mundell (Conservative) , another MP for part of the Scottish Borders, currently holds the office of Scottish Secretary.

A recent evidence session before the Committee heard several members and a number of 'elder statesmen' advocate abolition of Mr Mundell's department by posing the question "why is it still there?" It was suggested the Scotland Office could be replaced by a senior minister for the regions and nations who would carry far more influence in Cabinet.

Lord McConnell, who was Scotland's First Minister from 2001-2007 told the committee:"If I am being absolutely honest, I was surprised in 1999 that there was still a Secretary of State for Scotland. I had assumed that that position would just go. I think 20 years on, what you need here is a big decision, a big change—not a wee incremental change, a big change—and in that way you would move on and move into a new era."

His views were echoed by Lord Wallace, a former Deputy First Minister of Scotland. He said: "I adopt what my noble friend Lord McConnell has said about a very senior Minister who would have responsibility for the nations and regions. David Lidington (so-called Deputy Prime Minister) does quite a lot of work in dealing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is something embryonic here. I suspect he carries more clout for Scotland’s interests, if I dare say so, than Mr Mundell does. No disrespect to Mr Mundell but David Lidington probably has clout."

SNP MP Tommy Sheppard, a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, asked witnesses: "What is the point of the Scotland Office? If its relevance was being questioned in 2003, surely two decades after devolution it needs to be questioned further. Could I invite you, if you wish to, to make the case for the continuation of the Scotland Office or to speculate on whether there might be any adverse consequences of it being wound up?"

Lord Wallace told him: "You will probably find me on record, from the early days of devolution, saying that there should not be a Scotland Office. I think you will find I am on record—from possibly even before the Scottish Parliament was established—saying that the natural consequence of this might be that you did not need a Scotland Office, as such, and there could be an office that looked over general constitutional issues."

John Lamont (Con), a current Borders MP and a colleague of Mr Mundell warned the committee:  "Some argue that we need to have a structure whereby the Scottish Government could potentially block or need to give consent to things that the UK Government are doing that impact on Scotland. From my perspective, that is not acceptable because, when we have the stand-off scenario that Kirstene (Hair MP) described, effectively the Scottish Government would have a veto over the ability of the UK Government to take action on a UK-wide basis. Where is that special place where we can get the Governments working together but we do not have one Government, for whatever reason, exercising some sort of right of veto?"

Recalling his time as the Scottish Secretary, Mr Moore, whose constituency is now represented by Mr Lamont, said: "The Scotland Office led presentations and lots of different things in terms of negotiations and relationships, but it had the resources of a wider Whitehall that it could adapt and deliver.

"Sometimes the politics and the egos and the policy thing will be challenging, but that goes to the heart of the reason for this inquiry. Are the intergovernmental relations fit for purpose in a very different world to the one we were in 20 years ago? I do not want to preempt your findings, but I would suggest my feeling is no and that it needs to catch up with reality.

"The Scotland Office, as I have already remarked, changed in its nature in the short period I was there, from a period where it might have been guilty and open to the criticisms Mr Sheppard and others made in the previous session about, “What is it for? Why would it be there?” My party and others suggested it should be abolished until we were in the office and then of course we wanted to stay."

Even a former top civil servant cast doubts on the future of Mr Mundell's office.

Alun Evans - between 2012 and 2015 Head of the Scotland Office during the Edinburgh Agreement and the independence referendum - remarked: "When I was there, there were about 90 people in total. I think there is a need for a Department of the Nations and Regions. The nature of the Scotland Office and particularly the Wales Office—Northern Ireland is slightly different—is not tenable in the post-devolution system we work in now. It would be far better for Government and governance as a whole, and the way Cabinet works, if there could be a Department of nations and regions headed by a powerful Secretary of State/Deputy Prime Minister."

He was reacting to a question from Tory MP Ross Thomson.who asked witnesses: "Just in my experience, having been in Dover House and the offices in Edinburgh, there are still a lot of personnel there, a lot of people who are Deputy Directors and policy people. I still do not understand what their role or contribution is. Does this have to change?" 

Borders services deteriorate in wake of council cuts

by EWAN LAMB

The latest set of statistics from Scotland's Local Government Benchworking Framework (LGBF) shows expenditure on the Borders roads network is less than half the Scottish average even though almost 40% of the region's A routes and more than 45% of B roads are in need of repair.

A spend of just £4,897 per kilometre in 2017/18 by Scottish Borders Council in its role as roads authority compares very unfavourably with the £10,547 per kilometre average recorded by the country's other 31 local authorities. The Borders figure is the second lowest in Scotland and is even below the amount spent in 2013/14 (£5,084).

The LGBF tables reveal 38% of A class roads in Scottish Borders need attention, the fourth highest percentage and well above the 30% average. The position is even more serious for Borders road users when it comes to B routes;46% of those are in need of repair - the second highest proportion in Scotland and a full ten per cent higher than average.

There has also been a fall in the spend per primary and secondary pupil in Borders schools since 2013/14, a trend experienced across Scotland as councils reacted to the impact of public spending austerity.

The figures in this section show SBC spent £4,837 for each primary aged pupil and £6,658 per secondary pupil in 2017/18. Scotland's average sums were £4,974 and £5,014 respectively. Back in 2013/14 Borders expenditure for each primary school child stood at £4,959 while secondary pupils accounted for £6,899 per head.

Information is also available on spending and performance levels across a number of other local government departments including Corporate Services, Adult Social Care, Economic Development and Environmental Services.

A previous article looked at LGBF's data on Culture & Leisure Services which appeared to show low levels of satisfaction with Borders libraries, museums and galleries and sports facilities. SBC has produced its own set of figures which paint a much brighter picture so far as these services are concerned.

SBC devotes 7% of its total running costs on administration - two per centage points higher than the Scottish average of 5%. The gender balance in more senior posts at SBC at 42.6% compares with a Scotland wide level of 54.6%.

The Borders local authority spends far less her house on council tax collection (£4.24) than the national average (£7.35), and has a very impressive 97% collection rate for the tax, ahead of the 96% average.

But according to the LGBF website while SBC is good at collecting cash it is not so keen to part with it. A meagre 78% of invoices were paid on time in 2017/18, the 'worst' percentage in Scotland's local government system where councils averaged 93%.

The number of Borders council buildings deemed to be in satisfactory condition (62%) is the second lowest with an average of 86% of Scottish municipal properties classed as 'satisfactory'. In 2013/14 the Borders figure was 91.6%, way above the average 80.9%.

The Economic Development section shows only 4.2% of unemployed people were assisted into jobs by the SBC service in 2017/18 - Scotland's average was 14.4%.

Borders council was near the top of the league table for efficiency in dealing with planning applications. The average time taken to process and decide an application was 6.7 weeks, the third shortest in Scotland and well ahead of the average 9.3 weeks.

The percentage of procurement spend on locally based small and medium enterprises was 23% in the case of SBC against the median of 27% while the amount of expenditure on economic development and tourism at £43,132 per 1,000 people was far less than average (£91,806).

Numbers of properties in the Scottish Borders receiving super-fast broadband shot up from 30% in 2013/14 to 81%. Scotland's average currently stands at 91%. The number of vacant town centre properties at 12% is the same as the average figure.

The Borders recycles 40% of its household waste compared to a 46% average while the spend of £12,224 per 1,000 people on environmental health is short of the Scottish average (£15,496).

Confusion reigns over performance statistics

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

Scottish Borders Council has found it necessary to 'correct' national data which appears to show public satisfaction with the region's libraries, museums and galleries is lower than in any of the other 31 local authority areas in Scotland.

According to the latest figures published on Scotland's Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) website only 52.3% of people give Borders libraries the thumbs up compared with an average 73% across Scotland. Between 2012 and 2015 the satisfaction level for local libraries stood at 66.3%, but even then the figure was well below the 80.3% Scottish median.

In the case of museums and galleries - like libraries now managed for the council by Live Borders - the LGBF rating is a dismal 40.7%, again the 'worst' in Scotland which enjoyed an average satisfaction level of 70%. Borders museums and galleries had an approval rating of 58% in the 2012-15 period against Scotland's average of 76.3%.

LGBF also includes figures for satisfaction with local leisure facilities, and here again Scottish Borders performs poorly at 59% (the second lowest percentage in the country) and trailing the average 72.7%. The data for 2012-15 awarded Borders a 68.7% approval rating in this category while Scotland averaged 78%.

Although it would seem Borders councillors should be concerned by the Framework statistics, the authority's Executive will hear on Tuesday (February 12th) that approval ratings for libraries and museums are in fact well over 80% with the standard of sports and leisure facilities satisfying 77% of local residents.

These levels of approval would place the region's culture and leisure services near the top of Scotland's league table but must confuse anyone who has taken the trouble to peruse LGBF's returns. So why are SBC's conclusions so radically different from those of the Benchmarking team?

The report which the council's influential Executive will have before them relates to the Scottish Borders Household Survey, conducted by the council in 2018. It includes the following passages:

"Local services managed by Live Borders (a) At first glance the levels of satisfaction with services managed by Live Borders, on behalf of the Council, appear to be low. However, the number of respondents that do not have an opinion/don’t use the services does have a significant effect on the results. When only the responses from those that expressed an opinion/use the service are analysed satisfaction increased markedly.

"(b) The Scottish Borders Household Survey 2018 shows satisfaction with sports and leisure facilities at 77%; satisfaction in the LGBF is 59%. Similarly satisfaction with libraries is greater in our local survey (86%) than the results from the national Scottish Household Survey used in the LGBF (52%). Satisfaction with museums and galleries is 87% compared to 40% in the LGBF."

Public doubts concerning the reliability of the figures will only be compounded when attention turns to satisfaction levels with local schools. In this case the Borders household survey produced a low 44% approval rating.

But the survey report explains: "Overall satisfaction with schools initially appears to be low at 44% however when the ‘don’t know’ and ‘do not use’ responses are discounted the overall satisfaction increases to 73%. These results are favourable when measured against the Scottish Household Survey which shows satisfaction with schools in the Scottish Borders as 62% and 70% for Scotland."

However the LGBF says satisfaction with Borders schools stands at 67% (Scottish average 72.3%). Back in 2013/14 the Borders figure was 71.7% while the Scottish median was recorded as 81%.

The age old phrase "Lies, damned lies and statistics" may well apply in this case.

More financial woes at Borders council

by DOUG COLLIE

The local authority which recently splashed out almost £10 million to buy a country estate and borrowed a similar sum from the Public Works Loans Board is now facing revenue deficits at the end of the financial year which will require another round of cuts to public services.

Scottish Borders Council's financial plight is outlined in a report to be considered by the Executive Committee next week.

In it chief financial officer David Robertson details the budget pressures which will see a significant overspend for 2018/19,

The report warns: "At this stage in the financial year the Council continues to experience considerable financial pressures, primarily in Assets & Infrastructure and Health & Social Care, attributable both to increased costs and to delays in the delivery of planned savings required by the revenue budget. The underlying pressure in the account indicates that these pressures could result in an adverse variance at the year-end of around £1 million unless further action is taken." 

Mr Robertson says the council's Corporate Management Team (CMT) has reviewed the position and taken action through a range of alternative measures to identify savings which, if delivered as intended, will offset this position and deliver a balanced budget by the 31st March 2019. 

Local government services in the Scottish Borders have been decimated in recent years as the council imposed millions of pounds of spending cuts annually after their allocation of cash from the Scottish Government was reduced.

But in December it was confirmed SBC had paid the Hamilton family £9.6 million to buy the remainder of their Lowood Estate, near Melrose, to accommodate housing and industrial development. There has been criticism of the decision to spend millions on a custom-built gallery to house the Great Tapestry of Scotland in Galashiels, a project due to get underway in the spring of this year.

In a reference to that particular scheme Mr Robertson writes: "There has been an acceleration of revenue costs from 2019/20 relating to the Great Tapestry of Scotland project which are being funded from budget transfer from elsewhere in the Council.".

The report to councillors states: "Compounding the service pressures are costs associated with national pay agreements for 2018/19. These costs are projected to be in the region of £2 m in 2018/19, over and above thee costs originally budgeted for. Of this total £1.019 m of this total will attract assumed funding from the Scottish Government to fund additional teacher pay costs above the original Scottish Government pay offer.

"The remaining costs relate to the SJC / Chief Officers pay offer and will fall to the Council. These additional costs are based on best estimates of a complicated and currently still evolving position which does not yet have the agreement of the Trade Unions."

It is increasingly evident. claims Mr Robertson, that the Council is finding it more and more difficult to balance the revenue budget given the sustained service demands e.g. in the number and costs of care packages being commissioned by Adult Social Care, and the pressures associated with pay and price inflation.

"It is essential to ensure the financial sustainability of the council that the revenue budget is balanced and that this is achieved through the delivery of permanent savings in line with the timescales approved in the financial plan. CMT has recognised the need to enhance the delivery of service change and savings through a revised approach, which if approved will commence in 2019/20.
"Inevitably, in a change programme of this size some areas are lagging behind expectation or have been subject to revision requiring revision to original plans. The original plan for £3.3 m of savings delivered temporarily in 2018/19 will now be addressed on a permanent basis from new proposals as part of the 2019/20 financial planning process.

"These revised plans will result in permanent cost reductions and as such they have been reflected as being delivered on a permanent basis. The remaining £4.650 m of planned permanent savings, which were delayed in the current year and required to be offset temporary measures, will now be delivered on a permanent basis in 2019/20."

In a section of his report dealing with SBC's cash balances, Mr Robertson reports: "The total of all usable balances, excluding developer contributions, at 31 March 2019 is projected to be £21.071 m, compared to £28.793 at 31 March 2018." It appears the available money in the council's coffers has decreased by nore than £7 million or some 25% in the space of 12 months.

Turning to Risk and Mitigation, the chief financial officer writes:"The major risks associated with this report are that the level of projected balances proves to be insufficient. Service budget pressures plus unexpected liabilities are the most likely sources of pressure on reserves. Current pressures being highlighted through the 2018/19 revenue monitoring process increase the likelihood of a draw down from reserves being required in 2018/19."

It looks as though elected members will have some tough decisions to make before the 2019/20 budget is set and new council tax demands are fixed.

A council critic commented: "“It looks as though the budget has been appallingly managed. Those in charge appear to have failed miserably to get on top of the finances which means the council budget this year is about £3 million light.

"Yet more cuts will be necessary and the nature of the savings may be revealed by the end of February. An alternative budget proposed by the non-Tories will no doubt be presented but the Conservative-led majority will win and we can look forward to significant cuts in services due to  incompetent management."

Liquidators not giving up despite court defeat

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The joint liquidators of the Isle of Man recycling investment fund which was supposed to build a £23 million waste treatment plant for Scottish Borders Council will continue to quiz the former directors over the loss of £170 million of shareholders' cash.

Alex Adam and David Craine, the liquidators investigating the failure of New Earth Recycling & Renewables (Infrasturucture) [NERR] and two feeder funds have updated creditors in the wake of a decision in the Manx courts. The judge rejected their request to bring NERR directors Michael Richardson and John Bourbon before a court to be examined under oath.

The lengthy and extremely complicated liquidation - so far it has generated more than 200,000 documents - is being funded by the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (IOMFSA) which has been heavily criticised for an alleged failure to investigate NERR and other investment businesses managed by Premier Group Isle of Man (also insolvent).

In their latest report to creditors Mr Adam and Mr Craine explain: "Further to the winding up of the Company, the appointment of the Joint Liquidators and our earlier updates, the Joint Liquidators write to confirm the outcome of the application to interview Messrs Richardson and Bourbon in Court in relation to their role as two of the controlling minds of the Company.

"Regretfully in a judgement dated 14 January 2019 the Isle of Man Court rejected the Joint Liquidators’ application. The Joint Liquidators are extremely disappointed by this outcome. Such applications are rare (because directors typically cooperate with office holders). In circumstances where the directors had presided over a c £170 million loss to investors and refused to voluntarily attend for oral interview, we had expected that the Court would appreciate the office holders’ understandable desire to ensure that matters were not delayed further than was absolutely necessary."

Unfortunately, the Court ruled that the Joint Liquidators had not sufficiently demonstrated that there was no alternative other than an oral examination.

But the report adds: "Whilst we do not agree, when the Court exercises its discretion in such matters there is little prospect of a successful appeal and, in any case, any appeal would result in further delay.

"Nevertheless, the Joint Liquidators remain committed to fully investigating the circumstances which led to the failure of NERR (and its feeder funds) and will continue to seek to obtain information from the directors through written correspondence. Unfortunately, this process is now likely to be more protracted and costly than oral interviews. It is worth noting that the Court has left open a further application in the future, should written correspondence prove ineffective."

Scottish Borders Council's involvement in a multi-million pounds contract with waste treatment specialists New Earth Solutions (also insolvent and now dissolved) and their investment partners NERR cost local taxpayers at least £2.5 million.

The cash was spent - mainly on expensive consultants and lawyers - between 2011 and 2015 in a vain attempt to deliver the urgently needed treatment facility for Borders rubbish at Easter Langlee, Galashiels. The project had to be abandoned when New Earth Solutions could not provide fit for purpose technology and NERR failed to come up with the cash.

The fact that NES, NERR and Premier Group are all now bankrupt tells its own story. And yet the regulatory authorities here in Scotland, including Audit Scotland, refused to investigate the council's actions throughout the sorry saga.

Tweedbank retail fears countered by developer

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

The claims made by objectors that a £14 million retail park including a 71-bedroom Premier Inn hotel at Tweedbank in the Central Borders will have a devastating impact on the economy of nearby towns as well as inflicting environmental damage have been dismissed by representatives of the developers.

Fears have been expressed that local businesses in Melrose and Galashiels will be forced to close once the proposed scheme is up and running as it will attract customers and footfall away from the high streets.

In addition experts say the loss of a large number of mature trees to make way for the construction work is unacceptable. Many of those trees are the subject of a Scottish Borders Council TPO (Tree Preservation Order).

But an Economic Impact report prepared for the project applicants, Edinburgh-based Manor Place Developments, includes some big numbers on job creation, investment and expenditure by additional visitors.

The study by Turley Economics, of Manchester, explains the project constitutes:: • 71-bedroom Premier Inn hotel with landscaping and car-parking • 2,044 square metre foodstore  • 167 square metre Costa drive-thru restaurant ; and • BP Petrol Filing Station with M&S/Wildbean Kiosk (Sui Generis). The application site covers about 5.8 hectares and has never been developed, despite being land zoned for development for around 40 years as part of the Tweedbank Industrial Estate.

Turley's report in support of the planning application says: "The construction phase will support important investment in the construction sector, equating to £14.25 million, inclusive of professional fees and infrastructure costs. Investment of this scale could be expected to support a gross average of 95 FTE (full time equivalent) construction-related jobs on site over the anticipated  15 month construction period."

An assessment of Investment and Gross Employment  concludes: "Applying the appropriate GVA (Gross Value Added) measures to the net additional employment impact generated by construction indicates that an additional £9.3 million in GVA could be generated".

The report then examines net additional employment following completion. It says: "Evidence supplied by the client shows  the development will support a total of 125 gross jobs on site during its operational phase. Once splits between the number of full and part-time workers have been accounted for, the gross FTE jobs supported will number 75."

And Turley predict a bonus for the council in the shape of extra business rates. Analysis of similar properties indicates that the business rates to be collected annually by the council once the businesses are operational, will equate to some £370,000 per annum.

The new Premier Inn's guests will also bring benefits to the local economy, claims the assessment document. 

The 71 hotel rooms are expected to accommodate about 29,250 overnight stays on an annual basis. The accommodated guests could be expected to spend up to £1 million annually in the local economy. This figure represents wider spending that will be generated on retail and leisure activities, not inclusive of expenditure on accommodation and transport to and from the destination.

In conclusion Turley say: "- Both the temporary construction and lasting operational economic impacts of the proposed development will support local and national policy commitments to driving sustainable economic development. Positive impacts in terms of employment and productivity will be generated, and will therefore support and drive further growth in Scottish Borders’ economy, particularly in terms of the local tourism industry."

The developer's planning consultant Phil Pritchett states in an email to council planners: "It should be noted that the Premier Inn is focused on providing high quality and reliable bedroom accommodation with a limited food and beverage offering. The new visitors expected would therefore seek out food and beverage offerings locally. Melrose in particular stands to gain significantly from the locational qualities of the hotel and there will therefore be a positive knock on effect on the town as a result."

In a reference to concerns over potential losses caused by tree felling on site Mr Pritchett says: "It does not appear to have been mentioned by respondents regarding the overall quality of the TPOd trees and also the fact that a large swathe of trees within the same TPO area were removed by the council when it was considering sites to accommodate the Great Tapestry of Scotland.

"The proposed use was not in that instance for employment use whereas the council supported the location and also the removal of all of the trees. This remains a material consideration in the determination of this planning application as the reasons given for locating the Great Tapestry for Scotland at Tweedbank are similar to those which we have given in support of this tourism related proposal."

710-page file makes interesting reading

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

The publication of a thick file of information provides a detailed insight into payments made by Scottish Borders Council to its suppliers over the last two years.

A Freedom of Information request to SBC by Nikhil Prabhu who has lodged similar FOIs with local authorities throughout the UK asked for "all transactions over £500 from 1st April 2017 to 31st December 2018".

The council supplied Mr Prabhu with 710 pages of data which he has posted on the What Do You Know website. SBC's own FOI archive has not been updated for a year which means Freedom of Information request 12570 may not be available locally for some time.

Each entry on the file gives a date, the name of the business receiving the cash and the amount paid to them. In many instances multiple payments are recorded as having been made to the same supplier.

Details of the goods or services provided are not included in the disclosure so any of the items featured in this Not Just Sheep & Rugby article will be reproduced without comment.

The amounts vary from repeat transactions running into millions of pounds to Scottish Borders Education Partnership which manages three Public Private Partnership schools and IT specialists CGI to individual payments involving Borders pubs and restaurants.

Law firms and consultants including a selection of recruitment firms have been paid sizeable sums for services. At the more modest end of the financial scale SBC has paid money to a diverse range of suppliers from Eskdale Shooting Services which, according to its website, provides "luxury bespoke game shooting packages" (£5,194 and £1,680) to Where's The One - music workshops and team building - seven payments totalling some £20,000.

A £1,000 payment was made by SBC on 21st July 2017 to "BRS Conservatives" and on June 14th 2018 £1,560 was paid to offshore law firm Mourant Ozannes. Their website indicates they advise on the laws of British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guernsey and Jersey.

Council taxpayers will no doubt wish to browse the document to see for themselves where their cash ended up. The remainder of our selection - including a number of multiple transactions - is published in the form set out in the file sent to Mr Prabhu. By way of explanation each item has a date followed by the name of the recipient, then the amount paid.

Audit Scotland - Scotland's public spending watchdog -181003 Audit Scotland 6,664.00 181003 Audit Scotland 8,000.00 181003 Audit Scotland 90,076.00 180523 Audit Scotland 6,663.00 180523 Audit Scotland 8,000.00 180523 Audit Scotland 92,077.00 180131 Audit Scotland 3,600.00 180126 Audit Scotland 6,663.00 180115 Audit Scotland 8,000.00 180115 Audit Scotland 88,077.00 171122 Audit Scotland 5,823.00 171117 Audit Scotland 90,057.00 170913 Audit Scotland 6,570.00 170811 Audit Scotland 5,824.00 170811 Audit Scotland 6,570.00 170621 Audit Scotland 92,390.00.

Baillie Gifford - asset managers - 181206 Baillie Gifford & Co 43,872.46 181206 Baillie Gifford & Co 132,808.64 180913 Baillie Gifford & Co 39,764.80 180913 Baillie Gifford & Co 136,657.22 180503 Baillie Gifford & Co 37,577.11 180503 Baillie Gifford & Co 148,089.79 180131 Baillie Gifford & Co 42,791.15 180131 Baillie Gifford & Co 146,901.53 171018 Baillie Gifford & Co 40,907.38 171018 Baillie Gifford & Co 139,176.37 170809 Baillie Gifford & Co 137,281.70 170719 Baillie Gifford & Co 40,067.02 170524 Baillie Gifford & Co 41,408.27 170524 Baillie Gifford & Co 136,616.45.

CGI IT UK Ltd, awarded a £92 million contract by the council in 2016 to include the creation of 200 new jobs -  181123 CGI IT UK Limited 120,000.00 181114 CGI IT UK Limited 3,375.60 181114 CGI IT UK Limited 556,581.14 181031 CGI IT UK Limited 27,166.80 181019 CGI IT UK Limited 556,581.14 181017 CGI IT UK Limited 24,000.00 181017 CGI IT UK Limited 421,532.40 181003 CGI IT UK Limited 14,794.80 181003 CGI IT UK Limited 556,581.14 180815 CGI IT UK Limited 561,893.30 180706 CGI IT UK Limited 21,780.00 180704 CGI IT UK Limited 571,686.97 180615 CGI IT UK Limited 565,492.30 180613 CGI IT UK Limited 120,000.00 180511 CGI IT UK Limited 576,261.60 180413 CGI IT UK Limited 617,372.40 180404 CGI IT UK Limited 4,290.00 180404 CGI IT UK Limited 180,260.40 180323 CGI IT UK Limited 9,616.02 180321 CGI IT UK Limited 53,469.60 180314 CGI IT UK Limited 118,768.80 180307 CGI IT UK Limited 577,690.80 180226 CGI IT UK Limited 24,000.00 180223 CGI IT UK Limited 586,162.80 180221 CGI IT UK Limited 5,911.20 180221 CGI IT UK Limited 6,506.40 180221 CGI IT UK Limited 7,473.60 180216 CGI IT UK Limited 3,375.60 180216 CGI IT UK Limited 59,155.20 180214 CGI IT UK. Limited 3,375.60 180214 CGI IT UK Limited 6,979.20 180214 CGI IT UK Limited 75,194.40 180214 CGI IT UK Limited 89,552.40 180131 CGI IT UK Limited 7,473.60 180131 CGI IT UK Limited 7,473.60 180131 CGI IT UK Limited 8,920.80 180129 CGI IT UK Limited 7,473.60 180110 CGI IT UK Limited 578,113.20 171208 CGI IT UK Limited 578,113.26 171120 CGI IT UK Limited 4,737.60 171108 CGI IT UK Limited 6,795.34 171108 CGI IT UK Limited 579,073.20 171106 CGI IT UK Limited 288,775.80 171009 CGI IT UK Limited 580,258.80 170927 CGI IT UK Limited 142,815.60 170915 CGI IT UK Limited 120,000.00 170913 CGI IT UK Limited 580,258.80 170908 CGI IT UK Limited 3,870.00 170904 CGI IT UK Limited 8,433.60 170825 CGI IT UK Limited 71,224.20 170823 CGI IT UK Limited 30,000.00 170823 CGI IT UK Limited 144,000.00 170816 CGI IT UK Limited 2,752.80 170816 CGI IT UK Limited 3,834.00 170816 CGI IT UK Limited 8,253.60 170809 CGI IT UK Limited 581,427.60 170807 CGI IT UK Limited 78,028.80 170726 CGI IT UK Limited 4,391.63 170707 CGI IT UK Limited 420,000.00 170707 CGI IT UK Limited 586,882.80 170705 CGI IT UK Limited 48,920.40 170621 CGI IT UK Limited 60,000.00 170621 CGI IT UK Limited 150,000.00 170621 CGI IT UK Limited 180,000.00 170621 CGI IT UK Limited 585,517.20 170613 CGI IT UK Limited 831,600.00 170607 CGI IT UK Limited 831,600.00 170602 CGI IT UK Limited 60,000.00 170524 CGI IT UK Limited 585,517.20 170426 CGI IT UK Limited 687,674.40.

Further information from the 710 pages of data may be included in a follow-up post on this site. Meanwhile the document in its entirety can be accessed here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/543397/response/1300013/attach/2/FOI%2012570.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Hawick councillors at loggerheads

by DOUG COLLIE

A bust-up at local government election time between a veteran Hawick councillor and two other elected representatives from the town ended up at the door of the Standards Commission which was asked to look into potentially "misleading and disrespectful" Facebook posts.

But the spat involving former amateur boxing champion Davie Paterson (Independent) on one side of the dispute, and Watson McAteer (Independent) and Stuart Marshall (Independent) on the other has ended with the complaint against Mr Paterson being dismissed by Bill Thomson, Scotland's Standards Commissioner without the need for an investigation. All three were and are serving members of Scottish Borders Council.

The complaint from Messrs McAteer and Marshall was submitted because they considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook relating to both men to have been inaccurate, misleading and disrespectful.

But Mr Thomson has told the complainers: "I have given detailed consideration to the copy Facebook postings which you have provided, together with the additional explanatory information which you have supplied. I note that all of the comments made by Councillor Paterson appear to relate either to political matters, or to actions or decision making on the part of the Council and/or its officers."

In his assessment of the complaint, the Commissioner said he noted that the complainer (Mr McAteer) had considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook during the election period in 2017 to have potentially given rise to an infringement of electoral law.

"But consideration of such matters falls outwith my jurisdiction, and accordingly I am unable to deal with this aspect of your complaint", said Mr Thomson.

He added: "Secondly, as I have indicated and as you have alluded to in your correspondence to me, the application of the Code must take account of other applicable legislation. In particular, I am required to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Section 10 of the ECHR guarantees a right of freedom of expression.

"As applied by the courts, enhanced protection applies to those who engage in or who comment on matters of  'political expression'. The term is not specifically defined. Essentially, it covers matters of public concern including, but not limited to, issues of political contention and public administration. The protection is wide and can even extend to comments which some may consider to be inappropriate, offensive or insulting. It seems to me that the respondent’s [Mr Paterson] comments are protected in this way, notwithstanding the obvious upset which they have caused you."

In closing the case Mr Thomson stated: "Accordingly, taking account of the circumstances and the detail of your complaint, I am satisfied that the alleged conduct could not amount to a breach of the Councillors’ Code and that there is, therefore, no basis for me to investigate your complaint. I appreciate this outcome will offer you no comfort, but I hope you will realise that I must operate within prevailing legislation and the powers conferred on my office."

Councillor Paterson had aimed criticisms at his fellow councillors (or candidates as they were at the time) over their apparent support for changes to the council's controversial grass cutting frequencies. The alterations meant the fortnightly cutting of grass in council owned open spaces was to be reduced to one cut every four weeks.

His attack on Mr McAteer and Mr Marshall also centred on moves to take the Hornshole site outside Hawick into the care of the town's Common Good Fund. Hornshole was the location for a famous skirmish in the Sixteenth Century when local men defeated an English raiding party. The site is the scene of an emotional ceremony at the annual Common Riding.

Mr Paterson had strongly opposed taking Hornshole out of private hands and into the Common Good which is administered by the council. He believed it would land the local authority with unwanted maintenance costs.