Contrasting fortunes within a small Borders community
It is remarkable how often an internet search for information about Peebles and Peeblesshire throws up the adjective 'affluent' in descriptions of the perceived financial well-being of the Borders county's local residents.
The beautiful town by the River Tweed - home to around 8,000 citizens - and its equally attractive pastoral hinterland peppered with idyllic looking villages and hamlets all give off an aura of prosperity. Surely one of the most desirable parts of Scotland in which to live and work.
That affluent tag crops up time and again.
For example estate agents Edwin Thompson, in the blurb accompanying a property advertisement, describe Peebles as having become "a relatively affluent commuter town to the city (of Edinburgh)".
And Scottish Field magazine, in a recent feature on an upmarket local eatery under the heading Bordering on Beautiful declared "Peebles, with its affluent population of Edinburgh commuters...".
Meanwhile Montagu Evans, another property agent, tells us in an ad for premises available to rent "The town itself boasts a population in excess of 8,000 people, with an affluent surrounding catchment area".
However, it should be said not everyone living in Peeblesshire is suffering from affluence, as the recently published annual report for 2018/19 of the county-wide food bank demonstrates with a succession of alarming statistics.
Peeblesshire Food Bank, a registered charity and part of the Trussell Trust network, reported "The demand for crisis food parcels continued to surge during the year".
The number of referrals shot up by 59% from the previous year (311 compared to 196) while the number pf people fed by the food bank's volunteers increased from 330 to 523 (up 58%).
Perhaps the most shocking statistic of all concerned the number of children included in the total receiving emergency help - 131 compared to 73 in 2017/18, a monster (some might say monstrous) hike of 79% in the space of twelve months.
The value of food distributed totalled £17,278 (£14,649 in 2017/18).
And the report continued: "So far in the current year (2019/20) the increase in demand has continued, but thankfully at a lower rate, but still significant at 30% to 40% for children.
"Food donations from the generous people of Peeblesshire generally kept up with the increase in demand in the year under review. But in 2019/20 the food bank has increasingly had to purchase some essential items".
Tuesday, 24 December 2019
Monday, 23 December 2019
No contest for £4 million council contract
EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
A so-called transparency notice published by Scottish Borders Council today shows the local authority awarded £4 million worth of business to a local bus operator without seeking competitive tenders for the work.
According to SBC which spends around £3.5 million a year to subsidise loss-making bus routes in the Borders, only Berwick-on-Tweed based Borders Buses is able to deliver the required services on several core routes.
The VEAT (Voluntary Ex Ante Transparency) notice declares: "Scottish Borders Council intends to enter a strategic partnership arrangement for a number of key routes which mainly form the core supported bus service network across the area."
A so-called transparency notice published by Scottish Borders Council today shows the local authority awarded £4 million worth of business to a local bus operator without seeking competitive tenders for the work.
According to SBC which spends around £3.5 million a year to subsidise loss-making bus routes in the Borders, only Berwick-on-Tweed based Borders Buses is able to deliver the required services on several core routes.
The VEAT (Voluntary Ex Ante Transparency) notice declares: "Scottish Borders Council intends to enter a strategic partnership arrangement for a number of key routes which mainly form the core supported bus service network across the area."
And the notice explains it is the objective of the Council to ensure that the core
bus network in the Scottish Borders remains in place and provides economic
growth and social inclusion.
"The Operator and the Council shall work in
partnership to ensure the services are economically sustainable, relevant to
the communities they serve and be geared for growth. The core network is
Services 51/52, 60, 67 and 68. The arrangement will also include service E13."
The services 'awarded' to Borders Buses are Jedburgh-Edinburgh via St Boswells, Earlston and Lauder (51/52), Galashiels to Berwick (60), Galashiels to Berwick via Kelso (67), Galashiels to Jedburgh (68) and Earlston-Galashiels (E13).
The notice makes it plain that the 'deal' with Borders Buses is a "negotiated procedure without prior publication". Justification
for this selected award procedure is, says the council, on the following grounds: "The works, supplies or services can be provided only by a
particular economic operator for the following reason: absence of competition
for technical reasons."
A more detailed explanation for the fairly unusual procedure states: "It is clear from detailed market research, particularly
considered alongside the geography of the Borders area that there is no
commercial or other type of market operator in a position to bid for the group
of services in question.
"All other relevant factors have been considered and it
is therefore considered that the proposed award of a contract to Borders Buses
meets with the requirements of EU Directive 2004/18/EC, Annex B as incorporated
into Scots Law by the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations."
Borders Buses, previously known as Perrymans, is owned by Craig of Campbeltown Ltd which purchased the Borders business several years ago. In 2018 Borders Buses reported annual turnover of £9.645 million (£8.056 million in 2017).
The 2018 gross profit of £1.069 million increased from £855,393 in the previous year. Company accounts show an operating profit of £317,530 for 2018 (£167,616). The firm employed 194 staff in 2018, up from 173 in 2017.
In his Review of Business, director Colin Craig reported: "The company has continued working to enhance local and long distance services and to improve fleet quality, in co-operation with local authorities and Regional Transport Partnerships whilst consolidating its core activities.
"2019 will see further significant investment in fleet and personnel and, where opportunities arise, route coverage. Continuing uncertainties over fuel prices, funding of concessionary travel and Bus Service Operators Grant schemes, along with potential cutbacks in local authority budgets are all expected to contribute to another challenging year".
Thursday, 19 December 2019
Interesting stuff in the FOI vault
DOUG COLLIE presents a few nuggets from the recent Freedom of Information updates at Scottish Borders Council
The Freedom of Information archive which forms part of Scottish Borders Council's sizeable website had, until recently, lain untouched since July. But now requests and responses for the four missing months up to November can be seen on the updated web pages.
Here at Not Just Sheep & Rugby a few of the recently published entries caught our eye.
They encompass a wide range of topics from staff relocation costs and pothole compensation to the cost of the Borders Schools Public Finance Initiative (PFI) and the amount spent on agency staff at Scottish Borders Cares, the company which provided home care for elderly and vulnerable clients until it had to be wound up at the beginning of December.
The Freedom of Information archive which forms part of Scottish Borders Council's sizeable website had, until recently, lain untouched since July. But now requests and responses for the four missing months up to November can be seen on the updated web pages.
Here at Not Just Sheep & Rugby a few of the recently published entries caught our eye.
They encompass a wide range of topics from staff relocation costs and pothole compensation to the cost of the Borders Schools Public Finance Initiative (PFI) and the amount spent on agency staff at Scottish Borders Cares, the company which provided home care for elderly and vulnerable clients until it had to be wound up at the beginning of December.
A requester asked the council for the number of employees
who have had relocation costs covered to work in the local authority, and the
amount paid to those employees since 2011. The applicant also wanted the information broken down by job type.
The following details were released by SBC:
Year Relocation Costs Paid £
2011/12 19233.00
2012/13 6991.34
2013/14 12807.39
2014/15 6572.33
2015/16 8694.78
2016/17 4190.74
2017/18 12219.16
2018/19 4539.89
The council added: "Unfortunately we are unable to provide the post title and
the number of employees where relocation expenses have been paid as per your
request, as Scottish Borders Council does not hold this information in a
recorded format."
The poor state of some of the region's roads appears to have cost the authority a significant sum during financial year 2018/19 with 350 claims from drivers who suffered pothole damage to their vehicles.
A FOI request was made in the following terms:
1. I am wondering what your pothole/road defect compensation
claims process is. Is it internal or passed out externally to a company?
2. How
many Pothole compensation claims did you receive in the last financial year?
April 2018 to April 2019.
3. What was the total value of pay outs for these
claims?
4. What was the highest amount of compensation paid out for
a single claim in this time period?
Response:
1. Public Liability claims relating to potholes/road defects
are passed to Scottish Borders Councils insurers, Zurich Municipal.
2. 350
3. Payments so far have totalled £31,317.00
4. £2,797.37.
The highly controversial 2007 initiative to construct three new Berwickshire secondary schools (Eyemouth, Duns and Earlston) under the extremely expensive PFI arrangements was the subject for an information request lodged in August.
Here is a comprehensive copy of the request and response which appears on the website: Request -
1) The projected total (whole life) cost of the scheme, in
£, detailed when the scheme was first agreed (i.e. the original projected cost
of all Unitary Charge Payments over the full life of the scheme).
2) The projected total (whole life) cost of the scheme, in
£, as at August 1, 2019 (i.e. the real cost for previous years and projected
cost for future years of all Unitary Charge Payments over the full life of the
scheme).
If there is a difference between 1 and 2, please can you
provide details of:
A) The date(s) the projected costs changed
B) The reason(s) the projected costs changed
Please can I also request: 3) A copy of the original
contract/agreement;
4) An itemised list of any payments made to the PFI
contractors for services not included in the original PFI deal, from the
beginning of the deal to the current date, and to include exact details of what
was being paid for.
Response
1) £312,902,351 at
financial close
2) £302,237,514 at 31
March 2019
A) At handover and every year with inflation adjustments.
B) Phased implementation and annual RPI
movements.
3) Redacted copy
attached, Some third party personal information has been redacted from the
attached document as it is exempt from disclosure under 38(1)(b) of FOI(S)A
2002, There is some further information
redacted, The Freedom of Information
(Scotland) Act 2002 allows a public authority to withhold information in
response to a request, where one or more exemptions listed in FOI(S)A applies.
In this case Scottish Borders Council believes the following exemption applies:
S33(1)(b) Protecting Commercial Interests. We have considered the public
interest test and it will always be in the public interest for the Council to
obtain best value and by disclosing this information would prejudice this.
4) None
Finally, the ill-fated SB Cares LLP, the company set up by SBC to run home care services from 2015 onward appears to have required the services of agency staff during its relatively short existence.
In September a FOI requester asked:
Please list the total amount of money SB Cares has spent on
Home Care Agency Workers during 2016/17, 2017/18 and to the date of processing
this FOI request. Please include a
breakdown of wages, travel expenses, accommodation costs and any subsistence
allowance. Please list the Agencies which SB Cares has used for
delivering Home Care.Please list the
locations where Agency workers have had to travel from in order to deliver home
care in the Borders.
Response:
2016/17 Caddon
Healthcare £10,301.06 - total £10,301.06.
2017/18 Scottish Nursing Guild £6,502.62 Caddon
Healthcare £942.42 Ranstead Care £677.95
Total - £8,122.99.
2018/19 Scottish Nursing Guild £137,878.92 Caddon
Healthcare £27,098.73 McSense Communication £200.25 Total - £165,177.90.
2019/20
@27/09/19 Scottish Nursing Guild
£21,796.66 Caddon Healthcare £14,522.00 Total -
£36,318.66.
There isn’t this level of breakdown on the
invoices that we receive from the agencies, therefore the Council is not able
to provide the information regarding breakdown of wages, travel expenses,
accommodation or subsistence allowance nor the
locations where Agency workers have had to travel from in order to
deliver home care in the Borders.
Sunday, 15 December 2019
BIG deal - big running costs!
by EWAN LAMB
A fully staffed office costing over £500,000 a year to run will be required to deliver the Borderlands Inclusive Growth (BIG) deal, it has been revealed. A programme manager's post will carry a £97,000 salary.
The cross-Border economic initiative involving five local authorities in the North of England and the South of Scotland is expected to inject up to £345 million into the so-called Borderlands over 10-15 years with the money coming from the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It has been estimated that £150 million of the total will be invested in Dumfries & Galloway and the Scottish Borders.
Details of the amounts each council will pay towards the running costs are contained in a report to be considered this week by Scottish Borders Council. Their partners in the first Scotland-England co-operative venture of its kind are Dumfries & Galloway Council, Carlisle City Council, Cumbria and Northumberland county councils.
The report shows the BIG deal will need a PMO (Programme Management Office) to be set up at a cost of £531,000 in its first year including £242,000 for staffing costs. Staff members will include the programme manager (£97,200), two programme officers (each £57,400) and an administration officer (£29,200). Non staffing costs are expected to add up to £145,000.
BIG deal partners have already commissioned a law firm to draw up a 79-page collaboration agreement which includes details of a number of boards, committees and a proposed Economic Forum which will nominate representatives from the private sector.
The amount of money to be paid by each local authority will be linked to the portion of BIG deal money received. It works out like this:
However, there is a warning that management costs may rise as the deal proceeds.
Scottish Borders Council is told: ". It should be noted that the budget requirement may increase as the PMO requirements of the Deal expand and that this will be the subject of future reports to Members."
It is claimed in the report prepared for Borders councillors: "The Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal supports the Scottish Borders Economic Strategy 2023 as the outcomes from the Deal seek to achieve inclusive economic growth.
"The Inclusive Growth Deal complements the opportunities presented by the establishment of the South of Scotland Enterprise and the preparatory work for the new Agency being carried out by the South of Scotland Economic Partnership. It will also complement the projects being implemented as part of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal."
And according to the document: "Until now the Borderlands Partnership has operated on an informal basis under the principles of a Memorandum of Understanding where each of the partners agreed to co-operate to reach agreement on the Heads of Terms for a Deal.
"The arrangements relating to the Borderlands Partnership now need to move towards a formal governance arrangement in order to proceed to Final Deal Agreement. Given that the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal extends over two countries this presents challenges in terms of putting in place appropriate governance arrangements.
" Burness Paull, Solicitors, were appointed by the partners to provide advice on governance for the Deal. It should be noted that there are no existing precedents for Scottish and English local authorities participating in an integrated initiative of this kind."
A section dealing with the proposed Economic Forum says: "UK and Scottish Governments have requested that there is private sector representation and engagement in the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal. It is planned that an Economic Forum will be established to provide the mechanism for achieving this.
"Each of the five local authorities will nominate two private sector representatives to join the Economic Forum following an open recruitment process. In addition to the ten positions, there will be an additional four places to include Cumbria LEP, North East LEP and two places for South of Scotland Enterprise, or other agreed organisation. The members of the Economic Forum will nominate a Chair who will become a member of the Borderlands Partnership Board."
A fully staffed office costing over £500,000 a year to run will be required to deliver the Borderlands Inclusive Growth (BIG) deal, it has been revealed. A programme manager's post will carry a £97,000 salary.
The cross-Border economic initiative involving five local authorities in the North of England and the South of Scotland is expected to inject up to £345 million into the so-called Borderlands over 10-15 years with the money coming from the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It has been estimated that £150 million of the total will be invested in Dumfries & Galloway and the Scottish Borders.
Details of the amounts each council will pay towards the running costs are contained in a report to be considered this week by Scottish Borders Council. Their partners in the first Scotland-England co-operative venture of its kind are Dumfries & Galloway Council, Carlisle City Council, Cumbria and Northumberland county councils.
The report shows the BIG deal will need a PMO (Programme Management Office) to be set up at a cost of £531,000 in its first year including £242,000 for staffing costs. Staff members will include the programme manager (£97,200), two programme officers (each £57,400) and an administration officer (£29,200). Non staffing costs are expected to add up to £145,000.
BIG deal partners have already commissioned a law firm to draw up a 79-page collaboration agreement which includes details of a number of boards, committees and a proposed Economic Forum which will nominate representatives from the private sector.
The amount of money to be paid by each local authority will be linked to the portion of BIG deal money received. It works out like this:
COST
APPORTIONMENT %
Carlisle/Cumbria
34.9% - £185,319
Dumfries
and Galloway 24.3% - £129,033
Northumberland
22.2% - £117,882
Scottish
Borders 18.6% - £98,766
Total - £531,000.However, there is a warning that management costs may rise as the deal proceeds.
Scottish Borders Council is told: ". It should be noted that the budget requirement may increase as the PMO requirements of the Deal expand and that this will be the subject of future reports to Members."
It is claimed in the report prepared for Borders councillors: "The Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal supports the Scottish Borders Economic Strategy 2023 as the outcomes from the Deal seek to achieve inclusive economic growth.
"The Inclusive Growth Deal complements the opportunities presented by the establishment of the South of Scotland Enterprise and the preparatory work for the new Agency being carried out by the South of Scotland Economic Partnership. It will also complement the projects being implemented as part of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal."
And according to the document: "Until now the Borderlands Partnership has operated on an informal basis under the principles of a Memorandum of Understanding where each of the partners agreed to co-operate to reach agreement on the Heads of Terms for a Deal.
"The arrangements relating to the Borderlands Partnership now need to move towards a formal governance arrangement in order to proceed to Final Deal Agreement. Given that the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal extends over two countries this presents challenges in terms of putting in place appropriate governance arrangements.
" Burness Paull, Solicitors, were appointed by the partners to provide advice on governance for the Deal. It should be noted that there are no existing precedents for Scottish and English local authorities participating in an integrated initiative of this kind."
A section dealing with the proposed Economic Forum says: "UK and Scottish Governments have requested that there is private sector representation and engagement in the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal. It is planned that an Economic Forum will be established to provide the mechanism for achieving this.
"Each of the five local authorities will nominate two private sector representatives to join the Economic Forum following an open recruitment process. In addition to the ten positions, there will be an additional four places to include Cumbria LEP, North East LEP and two places for South of Scotland Enterprise, or other agreed organisation. The members of the Economic Forum will nominate a Chair who will become a member of the Borderlands Partnership Board."
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
Liabilities pile up at troubled waste treatment plant
by EWAN LAMB
The group of companies which own the Avonmouth Bio Power gasification plant near Bristol - a facility which wowed a delegation of Scottish Borders councillors during a visit - have run up multi-million pound liabilities as a result of the malfunctioning plant's closure since June 2016.
Annual accounts for the various businesses which, in some cases, were published three months late on the Companies House website, show the spiralling level of debt since the group took over the 'cutting edge' facility from bankrupt New Earth Solutions.
Although Scottish Borders Council at one time hoped to adapt the technology at Avonmouth for a custom-built waste treatment centre to deal with the region's rubbish the plant has been dogged with various technical issues since its opening.
When Avonmouth Bio Power Energy Ltd and its parent Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd. decided to suspend operations in 2016 it was originally hoped to have the centre producing power from waste again by 2018. But it was subsequently confirmed the plant would not reopen until 2020 although there is no mention of a date for the restart in the latest set of accounts.
Avonmouth Bio Power Energy (formerly called New Earth Energy [West] Operations) now owes creditors £14.634 million (2018 figure £14.412 million). The firm's net current liabilities total £13.494 million (£12.637 million).
A report signed by director Ian Brooking says: "The financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis notwithstanding the company's net current liabilities of £13.494 million which the directors beliueve to be appropriate for the following reasons:
"The company is dependent for its working capital on funds provided by the parent company Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd.. The parent company has provided the company with an undertaking for at least twelve months that it will continue to make available such funds as are needed by the company.
"This should enable the company to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future by meeting its liabilities as they fall due for payment. The directors acknowledge that there can be no certainty that this support will continue although they have no readon to believe that it will not do so".
Meanwhile sister company Avonmouth Bio Power Property Ltd (formerly New Earth Energy [West] Ltd) owes creditors £8.222 million, the same figure as last year. Net current liabilities stand at £7.049 million (£7.010 million).
Financial statements for the parent Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd which were lodged on time show creditors are owed £33.668 million (£15.524 million) with net current liabilities of £13.142 million (£5.003 million).
According to these accounts: "The company is dependent for its working capital on funds provided to it by its shareholders, Aurium Avonmouth LLP. The shareholders intend making funds available as are needed by the company, and in particular will not seek repayment of the amounts currently made available.
"This should enable the company to meet its obligations in relation to works required for redevelopment activities".
The 'officers' of Aurium Avonmouth LLP are listed as Aurium Capital Markets Ltd, Aurium Developments Ltd and Cogen Ltd. The principal activity of Aurium Avonmouth Ltd. is as a holding entity for an 85 per cent equity investment in Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd.
Aurium Capital Markets' officers include two companies - Barrowby Investments Ltd and Maybridge Ltd - both registered in the Cayman Islands.
The proposed development of a £23 million waste treatment plant for the Scottish Borders by New Earth Solutions was abandoned in February 2015, only four months after the visit to the Avonmouth facility by elected members and top brass from the Newtown St Boswells-based local authority. The failed venture cost Borders taxpayers £2.4 million.
The group of companies which own the Avonmouth Bio Power gasification plant near Bristol - a facility which wowed a delegation of Scottish Borders councillors during a visit - have run up multi-million pound liabilities as a result of the malfunctioning plant's closure since June 2016.
Annual accounts for the various businesses which, in some cases, were published three months late on the Companies House website, show the spiralling level of debt since the group took over the 'cutting edge' facility from bankrupt New Earth Solutions.
Although Scottish Borders Council at one time hoped to adapt the technology at Avonmouth for a custom-built waste treatment centre to deal with the region's rubbish the plant has been dogged with various technical issues since its opening.
When Avonmouth Bio Power Energy Ltd and its parent Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd. decided to suspend operations in 2016 it was originally hoped to have the centre producing power from waste again by 2018. But it was subsequently confirmed the plant would not reopen until 2020 although there is no mention of a date for the restart in the latest set of accounts.
Avonmouth Bio Power Energy (formerly called New Earth Energy [West] Operations) now owes creditors £14.634 million (2018 figure £14.412 million). The firm's net current liabilities total £13.494 million (£12.637 million).
A report signed by director Ian Brooking says: "The financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis notwithstanding the company's net current liabilities of £13.494 million which the directors beliueve to be appropriate for the following reasons:
"The company is dependent for its working capital on funds provided by the parent company Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd.. The parent company has provided the company with an undertaking for at least twelve months that it will continue to make available such funds as are needed by the company.
"This should enable the company to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future by meeting its liabilities as they fall due for payment. The directors acknowledge that there can be no certainty that this support will continue although they have no readon to believe that it will not do so".
Meanwhile sister company Avonmouth Bio Power Property Ltd (formerly New Earth Energy [West] Ltd) owes creditors £8.222 million, the same figure as last year. Net current liabilities stand at £7.049 million (£7.010 million).
Financial statements for the parent Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd which were lodged on time show creditors are owed £33.668 million (£15.524 million) with net current liabilities of £13.142 million (£5.003 million).
According to these accounts: "The company is dependent for its working capital on funds provided to it by its shareholders, Aurium Avonmouth LLP. The shareholders intend making funds available as are needed by the company, and in particular will not seek repayment of the amounts currently made available.
"This should enable the company to meet its obligations in relation to works required for redevelopment activities".
The 'officers' of Aurium Avonmouth LLP are listed as Aurium Capital Markets Ltd, Aurium Developments Ltd and Cogen Ltd. The principal activity of Aurium Avonmouth Ltd. is as a holding entity for an 85 per cent equity investment in Avonmouth Bio Power Ltd.
Aurium Capital Markets' officers include two companies - Barrowby Investments Ltd and Maybridge Ltd - both registered in the Cayman Islands.
The proposed development of a £23 million waste treatment plant for the Scottish Borders by New Earth Solutions was abandoned in February 2015, only four months after the visit to the Avonmouth facility by elected members and top brass from the Newtown St Boswells-based local authority. The failed venture cost Borders taxpayers £2.4 million.
Sunday, 1 December 2019
Financial nightmare for the Dream Team
EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE
They are the only English football club playing in Scottish league and cup competitions, and once humbled the mighty Glasgow Rangers to become world famous giant killers back in 1967.
But despite their unique status and rich history Berwick Rangers FC are on a long losing streak on and off the field although their annual wage bill of £192,000 adds up to less than a Manchester City super star's earnings in a single week.
The plight of the 'Wee Rangers' has been laid bare in a new set of annual accounts for the year ending May 31st 2019, although for some reason there is no mention in the Review of Business that the abysmal Berwick performances in Scotland's League Two last season cost the club its cherished senior status.
After their humiliation in the pyramid play-offs in May at the hands of Highland League side Cove Rangers, the so-called Dream Team now languish in the lower reaches of the Lowland League alongside the likes of Vale of Leithen and Gretna.
So having suffered a sharp decline in turnover while the players and their hapless manager embarked on a disastrous losing run in the second half of the 2018/19 campaign there seems little doubt far fewer fans will bother to turn up and pay their hard earned cash over the course of the current campaign.
Board chairman John Bell writes in the latest depressing accounts: "Turnover is heavily influenced by the performance of the club in league and cup competitions and there is a delicate balance between maintaining costs within turnover and fielding a good quality competitive playing squad.
"Turnover reduced by nine per cent during the year which produced a loss of £43,229 (2018 £49,796). This was primarily due to a poor run in league and cup competitions".
According to the accounts the total wage bill for players and other staff (total workforce 30) came to £192,920 in 2018/19, considerably less than the previous year's figure of £229,886. The donation from the Supporters' Club - the main shareholder in Berwick Rangers - prevented the financial situation from being a whole lot worse. The supporters handed the club £28,710, down from £34,118 the previous year.
In recent days the directors have made a plea for new investment on the club website via a post on the club's website.
They are the only English football club playing in Scottish league and cup competitions, and once humbled the mighty Glasgow Rangers to become world famous giant killers back in 1967.
But despite their unique status and rich history Berwick Rangers FC are on a long losing streak on and off the field although their annual wage bill of £192,000 adds up to less than a Manchester City super star's earnings in a single week.
The plight of the 'Wee Rangers' has been laid bare in a new set of annual accounts for the year ending May 31st 2019, although for some reason there is no mention in the Review of Business that the abysmal Berwick performances in Scotland's League Two last season cost the club its cherished senior status.
After their humiliation in the pyramid play-offs in May at the hands of Highland League side Cove Rangers, the so-called Dream Team now languish in the lower reaches of the Lowland League alongside the likes of Vale of Leithen and Gretna.
So having suffered a sharp decline in turnover while the players and their hapless manager embarked on a disastrous losing run in the second half of the 2018/19 campaign there seems little doubt far fewer fans will bother to turn up and pay their hard earned cash over the course of the current campaign.
Board chairman John Bell writes in the latest depressing accounts: "Turnover is heavily influenced by the performance of the club in league and cup competitions and there is a delicate balance between maintaining costs within turnover and fielding a good quality competitive playing squad.
"Turnover reduced by nine per cent during the year which produced a loss of £43,229 (2018 £49,796). This was primarily due to a poor run in league and cup competitions".
According to the accounts the total wage bill for players and other staff (total workforce 30) came to £192,920 in 2018/19, considerably less than the previous year's figure of £229,886. The donation from the Supporters' Club - the main shareholder in Berwick Rangers - prevented the financial situation from being a whole lot worse. The supporters handed the club £28,710, down from £34,118 the previous year.
In recent days the directors have made a plea for new investment on the club website via a post on the club's website.
It says: "Berwick Rangers FC will hold their AGM for the 2018/19
season on Monday 6th January 2020, and are expected to announce significant
losses once again for a season which saw the Club lose it’s place in the SPFL.
"Chairman John Bell has extended an invitation to any group or individual
willing to invest in the Football Club to get in contact, with any credible
options being put before the shareholders in seven weeks’ time."
Mr Bell writes: "The current Board is making huge efforts to halt the slide
of recent years, but with relegation bringing declining league subsidy, gate
money, advertising and hospitality, it’s only right that we seek to explore
every option for securing the future of Berwick Rangers.
"One area where we
achieved significant improvement was in shirt sponsorship, and we’re very
grateful to the three businesses who stepped forward. I said in August that we needed the support
of fans and the local business community to stabilise the Club’s finances, and
having made an early exit from the Scottish Cup, we know this is going to be
another very tough year.
"I would ask any
party who feels that they can contribute to the future of the Club to get in
touch before the 7th December and have an open and honest dialogue with the
Board and major shareholders, so we can work up some proposals at least a month
before the AGM. Guaranteeing that we have a Club to support in future years may
require tough decisions to be made in the New Year, and expectations adjusted
accordingly.”
"The largest shareholder, the Supporters Club, announced last
month they were willing to listen to offers for their stake in Berwick Rangers,
and the Supporters Trust, which is the second-largest shareholder is also open
to new ideas about the governance of the Club."
It is to be hoped someone of financial substance does step forward after recent misfortunes which have seen the a once respected and competitive club slide into obscurity on the road to threatened oblivion. Perhaps Raheem Sterling or even Pep Guardiola would care to donate a couple of days' pay for a very worthy cause!
Saturday, 30 November 2019
The Borders anti-Semite Tory MP -part two
DOUGLAS SHEPHERD concludes our feature on Captain Archibald Ramsay
The Borders Tory MP who peddled anti-Jewish propaganda before the outbreak of World War Two denied being a fifth columnist or a saboteur even though the British Government saw fit to have him banged up in jail for more than four years.
Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay had been educated at Eton, and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, before serving with the Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916. He was subsequently based at Regimental H.Q., at the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of The Great War.
In 1920 he became a Member of His Majesty's Scottish Bodyguard. And in 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Peebles and Southern Midlothian, defeating the sitting Labour MP Joseph Westwood by 8,250 votes. But Ramsay's margin of victory was cut to just 1,462 in the 1935 election.
The reasons for his incarceration in Brixton Prison were made public in 1952 when Ramsay published his controversial biographical story under the title The Nameless War.
Ramsay was not charged with any crime after being detained on May 23rd 1940 on returning to London from a fortnight's break in Scotland. But a lengthy 'charge sheet' setting out the particulars justifying his detention was handed to him by the authorities.
The schedule read as follows: The said Captain Archibald Maule RAMSAY, M.P. (i) In or about the month of May 1939, formed an Organisation under the name of the "Right Club," which ostensibly directed its activities against Jews, Freemasons and Communists. This Organisation, in reality, was designed secretly to spread subversive and defeatist views among the civil population of Great Britain, to obstruct the war effort of Great Britain, and thus to endanger public safety and the defence of the Realm.
The Borders Tory MP who peddled anti-Jewish propaganda before the outbreak of World War Two denied being a fifth columnist or a saboteur even though the British Government saw fit to have him banged up in jail for more than four years.
Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay had been educated at Eton, and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, before serving with the Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916. He was subsequently based at Regimental H.Q., at the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of The Great War.
In 1920 he became a Member of His Majesty's Scottish Bodyguard. And in 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Peebles and Southern Midlothian, defeating the sitting Labour MP Joseph Westwood by 8,250 votes. But Ramsay's margin of victory was cut to just 1,462 in the 1935 election.
The reasons for his incarceration in Brixton Prison were made public in 1952 when Ramsay published his controversial biographical story under the title The Nameless War.
Ramsay was not charged with any crime after being detained on May 23rd 1940 on returning to London from a fortnight's break in Scotland. But a lengthy 'charge sheet' setting out the particulars justifying his detention was handed to him by the authorities.
The schedule read as follows: The said Captain Archibald Maule RAMSAY, M.P. (i) In or about the month of May 1939, formed an Organisation under the name of the "Right Club," which ostensibly directed its activities against Jews, Freemasons and Communists. This Organisation, in reality, was designed secretly to spread subversive and defeatist views among the civil population of Great Britain, to obstruct the war effort of Great Britain, and thus to endanger public safety and the defence of the Realm.
(ii) In furtherance of the real objects of the Organisation,
the said RAMSAY allowed the names of the members of the Organisation to be
known only to himself, and took great precautions to see that the register of
members did not leave his possession or control ; and stated that he had taken
steps to mislead the Police and the Intelligence Branch of the War Office as to
the real activities of the Organisation. These steps were taken to prevent the
real purposes of the Organisation being known.
(iii) Frequently expressed sympathy with the policy and aims
of the German Government ; and at times expressed his desire to co-operate with
the German Government in the conquest and subsequent government of Great
Britain.
(iv) After the formation of the Organisation, made efforts,
on behalf of the Organisation, to introduce members of the Organisation into
the Foreign Office, the Censorship, the Intelligence Branch of the War Office,
and Government departments, in order to further the real objects of the
Organisation as set out in (i) hereof.
(v) After the outbreak of war, associated with and made use
of persons known to him to be active in opposition to the interests of Great
Britain. Among such persons were one, Anna Wolkoff, and one, Tyler Kent, a
Coding Officer employed at the Embassy of the United States of America. With
knowledge of the activities in which Wolkoff and Kent were engaged, he
continued to associate with them and to make use of their activities on behalf
of the "Right Club" and of himself. In particular, with knowledge
that Kent had abstracted important documents, the property of the Embassy of
the United States of America, he visited Kent's flat at 47, Gloucester Place,
where many of the said documents were kept, and inspected them for his own
purposes. He further deposited with the said Kent the secret register of the
members of the "Right Club," of which Organisation Kent had become an
important member, in order to try and keep the nature of the Organisation
secret.
(vi) Permitted and authorised his wife to act on his behalf
in associating with, and making use of, persons known to him to be active in
opposing the interests of Great Britain. Among these persons were Anna Wolkoff,
Tyler Kent, and Mrs. Christabel Nicholson.
In a statement given to the Commons Speaker and MPs by Ramsay from Brixton
Prison he declared: "All the particulars alleged as grounds for my detention are based on
charges that my attitude and activities in opposition to Communism, Bolshevism,
and the policy of organised Jewry were not genuine, but merely a camouflage for
anti-British designs.
"I became finally
convinced of the fact that the Russian and Spanish revolutions, and the
subversive societies in Britain, were part and parcel of one and the same Plan,
secretly operated and controlled by World Jewry.
"I now took the decision to proceed at once with the
formation of a group similar in character to the group of representatives of
Christian and patriotic societies, which I had worked with up to the emergence
of the Jewish problem ; but this time a group which would place opposition to
that menace in the forefront of its activities. The group was finally
inaugurated in May 1939, and was the Right Club. The first object of the Right
Club was to enlighten the Tory Party and clear it from any Jewish control.
"Together with many members of both Houses of Parliament, I
was fully aware that among the agencies here and abroad, which had been
actively engaged in promoting bad feeling between Great Britain and Germany,
Organized Jewry, for obvious reasons, had played a leading part."
Despite the catalogue of 'particulars' laid against him Ramsay was able to draw his £600 a year MP's salary throughout his lengthy stay in prison.
He did not seek re-election at the 1945 General Election. Labour captured the Peebles and Southern Midlothian seat from the Unionists when David Pryde - defeated by Ramsay in 1936 - achieved victory by 6,496 votes.
Archibald Ramsay died in 1955.
Friday, 29 November 2019
Anti-Semitism of a jailed Borders Tory MP
SPECIAL
FEATURE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
The continuing furore over anti-Semitism which has dominated coverage of the 2019 General Election campaign might be regarded as relatively insignificant compared to the hateful propaganda against Jews being circulated exactly 80 years ago by an extreme right wing Scottish Borders Tory MP.
Captain Archibald Ramsay, who sat in the House of Commons for the Peebles and Southern Midlothian constituency from 1931 to 1945 was considered to be a threat to British security, and was detained without charge in Brixton Prison for more than four years during World War Two.
In 1939 he formed an organisation called The Right Club whose aim was "to co-ordinate the activities of all the patriotic bodies which are striving to free this country from the Jewish domination in the financial, political, philosophical and cultural sphere."
The list of members of The Right Club was kept a closely guarded secret in a large red book although the organisation was soon infiltrated by the nation's secret service. Ramsay and others who ran the club had close links with Oswald Mosley, the notorious leader of the Black Shirts while most of those involved were sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's cause.
It was suggested at the time that Ramsay had been selected to be Hitler's Gauleiter [governor] of Scotland following an invasion although the MP strongly denied the allegation and threatened to sue.
Another leading member of The Right Club was Anna Wolkoff, whose father had been aide to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. During the 1930s she visited Germany several times where she held meetings with Rudolf Hess before returning to her home in London. Wolkoff was eventually jailed for ten years for passing secrets to the Germans.
The Thirties was also a time when Viscount Rothermere and his newspaper The Daily Mail were not unsympathetic towards Hitler, and Rothermere met The Feuhrer on several occasions.
The activities of Ramsay's Right Club have been written about in considerable detail by Tim Tate, the highly respected journalist and author in his book Hitler's British Traitors The Secret History of Spies Saboteurs and Fifth Columnists.
And according to the book: "Suitable candidates [of The Right Club] were invited to send applications to Ramsay, care of his office in the House of Commons. He then assigned the new members, according to his perception of their descending levels of social status or ability, into a series of ‘classes’: Wardens, Stewards, Yeomen, Keepers and Freemen.
"Membership costs ran from a £25 joining fee, with a further £10, 10 shillings annual subscription, for the most senior class (Wardens), to 2 shillings and sixpence or the lowest (Freemen). Once accepted, each member was sworn to secrecy and issued with a specially manufactured badge: an eagle killing a snake and bearing the initials “P.J.” – universal British fascist shorthand for “Perish Judah”.
However, the true purpose of Ramsay's secret organisation was to promote a fascist revolution in Britain via a military takeover of the country. He is said to have told the club's inner circle: "Personally, I should welcome a civil war with shots fired in the streets.”
The Right Club membership register had been seized by Special Branch officers and retained its status as a classified document for more than half a century despite requests by politicians to have its contents published from the 1940s onwards.
But in 1952 Ramsay published his own version of events in a book he called The Nameless War. It included numerous ant-Jewish passages and praised Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Reviews of The Nameless War included he following contributions: "There is no limit to the depths of human depravity. Captain Ramsay ... seems to have made a very determined attempt to plumb those depths." - The Jewish Chronicle. And "The publication of such a book, at this time, underlines the urgent need for the law to be reformed so as to make it a crime to preach racial hatred or publish libels on groups in the community." -The Daily Worker.
Ramsay tells readers of his book: "Ever since the fall of Mr. Chamberlain's Government, the interests of the Jewish Empire have been advanced as prodigiously as those of Britain and her Empire have been eclipsed.
"Stranger than all this — should any dare to state the truth in plain terms — the only response is an accusation of anti-Semitism. The phrase "anti-Semite" is merely a propaganda word used to stampede the unthinking public into dismissing the whole subject from their minds without examination : so long as that is tolerated these evils will not only continue, but grow worse."
TO BE CONTINUED
FEATURE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
The continuing furore over anti-Semitism which has dominated coverage of the 2019 General Election campaign might be regarded as relatively insignificant compared to the hateful propaganda against Jews being circulated exactly 80 years ago by an extreme right wing Scottish Borders Tory MP.
Captain Archibald Ramsay, who sat in the House of Commons for the Peebles and Southern Midlothian constituency from 1931 to 1945 was considered to be a threat to British security, and was detained without charge in Brixton Prison for more than four years during World War Two.
In 1939 he formed an organisation called The Right Club whose aim was "to co-ordinate the activities of all the patriotic bodies which are striving to free this country from the Jewish domination in the financial, political, philosophical and cultural sphere."
The list of members of The Right Club was kept a closely guarded secret in a large red book although the organisation was soon infiltrated by the nation's secret service. Ramsay and others who ran the club had close links with Oswald Mosley, the notorious leader of the Black Shirts while most of those involved were sympathetic to Adolf Hitler's cause.
It was suggested at the time that Ramsay had been selected to be Hitler's Gauleiter [governor] of Scotland following an invasion although the MP strongly denied the allegation and threatened to sue.
Another leading member of The Right Club was Anna Wolkoff, whose father had been aide to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. During the 1930s she visited Germany several times where she held meetings with Rudolf Hess before returning to her home in London. Wolkoff was eventually jailed for ten years for passing secrets to the Germans.
The Thirties was also a time when Viscount Rothermere and his newspaper The Daily Mail were not unsympathetic towards Hitler, and Rothermere met The Feuhrer on several occasions.
The activities of Ramsay's Right Club have been written about in considerable detail by Tim Tate, the highly respected journalist and author in his book Hitler's British Traitors The Secret History of Spies Saboteurs and Fifth Columnists.
Mr Tate revealed how MI5 formally asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to
charge Ramsay and his wife Hon. Ismay Lucretia.
"The request was not granted: instead, Ramsay was interned in
Brixton Prison under Defence Regulation 18b. Here, like his fellow fascist
detainees, he was allowed regular visits from friends and his wife without explanation, entirely free – who were
allowed to bring their loved ones additional supplies of food and even wine.
"Ramsay
was also permitted to retain his seat in the House of Commons, his annual MP’s
salary of £600, and to lodge Parliamentary Questions from his prison cell throughout
his internment. When he was finally released, in September 1944, he returned to
the House as if nothing untoward had happened."
And according to the book: "Suitable candidates [of The Right Club] were invited to send applications to Ramsay, care of his office in the House of Commons. He then assigned the new members, according to his perception of their descending levels of social status or ability, into a series of ‘classes’: Wardens, Stewards, Yeomen, Keepers and Freemen.
"Membership costs ran from a £25 joining fee, with a further £10, 10 shillings annual subscription, for the most senior class (Wardens), to 2 shillings and sixpence or the lowest (Freemen). Once accepted, each member was sworn to secrecy and issued with a specially manufactured badge: an eagle killing a snake and bearing the initials “P.J.” – universal British fascist shorthand for “Perish Judah”.
However, the true purpose of Ramsay's secret organisation was to promote a fascist revolution in Britain via a military takeover of the country. He is said to have told the club's inner circle: "Personally, I should welcome a civil war with shots fired in the streets.”
The Right Club membership register had been seized by Special Branch officers and retained its status as a classified document for more than half a century despite requests by politicians to have its contents published from the 1940s onwards.
But in 1952 Ramsay published his own version of events in a book he called The Nameless War. It included numerous ant-Jewish passages and praised Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Reviews of The Nameless War included he following contributions: "There is no limit to the depths of human depravity. Captain Ramsay ... seems to have made a very determined attempt to plumb those depths." - The Jewish Chronicle. And "The publication of such a book, at this time, underlines the urgent need for the law to be reformed so as to make it a crime to preach racial hatred or publish libels on groups in the community." -The Daily Worker.
Ramsay tells readers of his book: "Ever since the fall of Mr. Chamberlain's Government, the interests of the Jewish Empire have been advanced as prodigiously as those of Britain and her Empire have been eclipsed.
"Stranger than all this — should any dare to state the truth in plain terms — the only response is an accusation of anti-Semitism. The phrase "anti-Semite" is merely a propaganda word used to stampede the unthinking public into dismissing the whole subject from their minds without examination : so long as that is tolerated these evils will not only continue, but grow worse."
TO BE CONTINUED
Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Jedburgh listed building to be pulled down
by DOUG COLLIE
The iconic baronial property which has often featured in Visit Scotland brochures to promote the delights of Jedburgh is set to disappear after planning officers reluctantly sanctioned demolition of the listed structure, now neglected and abandoned by its group of absentee owners.
There have been a small number of representations from conservationists urging the retention of the 1866 tenement overlooking Market Place on the corner of High Street and Exchange Street. But the shops and residences which have been shrouded in scaffolding for several years are too far gone to be salvaged, according to experts.
A report published by Scottish Borders Council (SBC) confirms the local authority's planners, using delegated powers, have approved the so-called Listed Building Consent application from their colleagues in the council's architects' department.
But it is also revealed that because SBC will almost certainly have to promote a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to acquire the worthless building the council will probably have to write off expenditure of some £400,000 which has been spent to safeguard the public and shore up the crumbling edifice.
Objectors maintain the proposal to demolish the building appears to be directly at odds with the aims of the Conservation Area. Its loss would be an irresponsible course of action. its protection would be of great value to the town, and it should be restored to a high standard and marketed in a way that presents the history and character as a premium asset, economically.
Save Britain's Heritage object to the total loss and high level of adverse harm caused to the Jedburgh Conservation Area. They claim the building is important owing to the age, materiality and physical character, and historical value which combine to achieve significant group value.
But the council report, in a section headed Marketing, declares: "Given the current NIL value of the building and the ongoing costs being incurred by the council marketing the building is simply not a realistic proposition. The Council is currently negotiating with the owners or will use CPO to acquire the whole building, which would also require writing off the costs incurred."
And the report adds: "There is a convincing, yet regrettable, case for demolishing this listed building. These proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance. There is a considerable financial deficit illustrated for its repair and re-use; we must conclude this is unlikely to happen and its retention is likely untenable".
Euan Calvert, assistant planning officer at SBC writes: I witnessed the buttress scaffolding, dry rot infestation, failed gutters, water ingress and failed roof joists. Over and above these issues I also observed the significantly poor condition of stonework on the principal elevation.
All properties are now uninhabitable and the building has been demonstrated to be structurally unsound. It remains in control of five different interests by 15 different persons. Given the length of vacancy and the time taken to arrive at this application is quite clear that there is little will to reconcile these building problems collectively. It is therefore impossible for the Council to present firm evidence of the building being formally marketed.
The iconic baronial property which has often featured in Visit Scotland brochures to promote the delights of Jedburgh is set to disappear after planning officers reluctantly sanctioned demolition of the listed structure, now neglected and abandoned by its group of absentee owners.
There have been a small number of representations from conservationists urging the retention of the 1866 tenement overlooking Market Place on the corner of High Street and Exchange Street. But the shops and residences which have been shrouded in scaffolding for several years are too far gone to be salvaged, according to experts.
A report published by Scottish Borders Council (SBC) confirms the local authority's planners, using delegated powers, have approved the so-called Listed Building Consent application from their colleagues in the council's architects' department.
But it is also revealed that because SBC will almost certainly have to promote a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to acquire the worthless building the council will probably have to write off expenditure of some £400,000 which has been spent to safeguard the public and shore up the crumbling edifice.
Objectors maintain the proposal to demolish the building appears to be directly at odds with the aims of the Conservation Area. Its loss would be an irresponsible course of action. its protection would be of great value to the town, and it should be restored to a high standard and marketed in a way that presents the history and character as a premium asset, economically.
Save Britain's Heritage object to the total loss and high level of adverse harm caused to the Jedburgh Conservation Area. They claim the building is important owing to the age, materiality and physical character, and historical value which combine to achieve significant group value.
But the council report, in a section headed Marketing, declares: "Given the current NIL value of the building and the ongoing costs being incurred by the council marketing the building is simply not a realistic proposition. The Council is currently negotiating with the owners or will use CPO to acquire the whole building, which would also require writing off the costs incurred."
And the report adds: "There is a convincing, yet regrettable, case for demolishing this listed building. These proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance. There is a considerable financial deficit illustrated for its repair and re-use; we must conclude this is unlikely to happen and its retention is likely untenable".
Euan Calvert, assistant planning officer at SBC writes: I witnessed the buttress scaffolding, dry rot infestation, failed gutters, water ingress and failed roof joists. Over and above these issues I also observed the significantly poor condition of stonework on the principal elevation.
All properties are now uninhabitable and the building has been demonstrated to be structurally unsound. It remains in control of five different interests by 15 different persons. Given the length of vacancy and the time taken to arrive at this application is quite clear that there is little will to reconcile these building problems collectively. It is therefore impossible for the Council to present firm evidence of the building being formally marketed.
The officer's report says: "Sadly I agree wholeheartedly with Save Britain's Heritage
that it is impossible to reconcile this proposed demolition with the principles
of conservation and the aims and objectives of heritage management. This
building is in the heart of Jedburgh and a further "gap site" will
blight the town and the Conservation Area.
"A mass of financial information has been presented which is
compelling and indicates that the building could be repaired, but the costs and
hence the viability of such an approach are prohibitive. The Council has
amassed a massive bill for scaffolding on this site to protect public safety."
There is also a stark warning that the building in question could be posing a danger to and inflicting damage on neighbouring notable listed properties.
According to the report: "
"I will apply conditions to ensure details are
provided of the treatment of the party walls and details of raking shores to
mutual gables. Anecdotally, I am aware that the internal of the A listed
building is affected by the dry rot outbreak.
There is a real risk that the Council becomes involved in a wider issue
beyond this red line boundary which will necessitate further Listed Building
Consents."
The report concludes: "The building has been vacant and neglected for some time and
it is not the first time the Council has intervened in its maintenance. There
has been no inclination from the private owners to repair and renovate the
building or market the site for redevelopment.
"Reports submitted with this
application have indicated that the building is capable of repair and
renovation but with significant conservation deficit. The market value of the property is now
effectively NIL and there is no means of closing this funding gap.
"This is the start of a proposed compulsory purchase process
to acquire and demolish the entire building, clear the site and make good the
properties on either side. Successful
compulsory purchase of the site by the Council will allow it to dictate
redevelopment and ensure any proposal is in keeping with the overall character
and appearance of the Conservation Area."
Sunday, 24 November 2019
SB Cares makes it three business failures in a row
by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
A report lodged at Companies House by Scottish Borders Council admits its soon to be dissolved arms length company SB Cares "has struggled to realise the full potential of the model originally envisaged".
Councillors paid consultants Care & Health Solutions £160,000 for that model in a venture which has ended with the local authority having to take the adult social care services delivered by SB Cares and its 850 staff back under council control. The switch is scheduled for December 1st, a mere four and a half years after the company started trading.
The business racked up liabilities of over £7 million in four years, prompting external auditors KPMG to warn in their 2018/19 audit: "We draw attention to the profit and loss account of the financial statements which indicates that the LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) incurred a net loss of £2,851,000 for the year (2018: net loss of £735,000) and had net current liabilities of £7,556,000 (2018 net current liabilities of £4,705,000), and the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon continued funding from Scottish Borders Council and Borders’ Integration Joint Board, which is in turn dependent upon the outcome of a strategic review being undertaken within Scottish Borders Council.
"These events and conditions, along with the other matters explained in the accounting policies, constitute a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
It is worth noting that two other semi-private businesses set up by English local authorities on the advice of Care & Health Solutions have suffered similar fates to that of SB Cares.
As Not Just Sheep & Rugby reported several weeks ago, Buckinghamshire Care Ltd, sanctioned by Bucks County Council in 2013 had to be rescued at the end of 2016 following the emergence of financial problems and concerns over the level of care being delivered.
Then there is the case of Olympus Care Services, a business with 775 staff and an annual budget of £32 million which took over the running of social care services for Northamptonshire County Council in 2013. But after suffering a £3.8 million loss in 2017 Olympus also had to be taken back in-house. Auditors again sounded dire warnings about its financial stability.
At the same time government inspectors were sent in to Tory-run Northants council because of its chronic money problems which had brought the local authority to the brink of insolvency.
The failure and demise of SB Cares means three of the seven arms length businesses structured by Care & Health Solutions have ultimately collapsed.
In the SB Cares annual report available on the Companies House website the 2018/19 comprehensive loss is given as £2.593 million, less than the figure of £2.851 million quoted in the original unaudited version of the company's accounts. The net liabilities are stated as £7.298 million as opposed to the £7.556 million included in the unaudited accounts.
As the report goes on to record: "On 26th September 2019 members took the decision to reintegrate SB Cares LLP and SB Supports LLP back into SBC on December 1st 2019. Members have agreed to voluntarily terminate the LLPs on December 1 and begin the process of reintegrating the services delivered, as well as the assets and liabilities held by the LLPs into the council from that date. Accordingly the members have not prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis".
The report concludes that while SB Cares has delivered financial and service benefits since inception, "it has struggled to realise the full potential of the model originally envisaged.
"After careful consideration, it is the view of the council management team that the benefits of the ALEO (arms length) structure for SB Cares no longer outweigh the challenges and risks now facing the business. The risks, which are likely to increase in future, make it appropriate for the council to now reintegrate SB Cares and SB Supports into the council".
The move marks a complete volte face for the management team and the elected members of SBC. They were told and agreed in 2014/15 that to continue delivering adult social care in-house was 'not an option' and would lead to increased financial issues and a reduction in service standards.
A report lodged at Companies House by Scottish Borders Council admits its soon to be dissolved arms length company SB Cares "has struggled to realise the full potential of the model originally envisaged".
Councillors paid consultants Care & Health Solutions £160,000 for that model in a venture which has ended with the local authority having to take the adult social care services delivered by SB Cares and its 850 staff back under council control. The switch is scheduled for December 1st, a mere four and a half years after the company started trading.
The business racked up liabilities of over £7 million in four years, prompting external auditors KPMG to warn in their 2018/19 audit: "We draw attention to the profit and loss account of the financial statements which indicates that the LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) incurred a net loss of £2,851,000 for the year (2018: net loss of £735,000) and had net current liabilities of £7,556,000 (2018 net current liabilities of £4,705,000), and the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon continued funding from Scottish Borders Council and Borders’ Integration Joint Board, which is in turn dependent upon the outcome of a strategic review being undertaken within Scottish Borders Council.
"These events and conditions, along with the other matters explained in the accounting policies, constitute a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
It is worth noting that two other semi-private businesses set up by English local authorities on the advice of Care & Health Solutions have suffered similar fates to that of SB Cares.
As Not Just Sheep & Rugby reported several weeks ago, Buckinghamshire Care Ltd, sanctioned by Bucks County Council in 2013 had to be rescued at the end of 2016 following the emergence of financial problems and concerns over the level of care being delivered.
Then there is the case of Olympus Care Services, a business with 775 staff and an annual budget of £32 million which took over the running of social care services for Northamptonshire County Council in 2013. But after suffering a £3.8 million loss in 2017 Olympus also had to be taken back in-house. Auditors again sounded dire warnings about its financial stability.
At the same time government inspectors were sent in to Tory-run Northants council because of its chronic money problems which had brought the local authority to the brink of insolvency.
The failure and demise of SB Cares means three of the seven arms length businesses structured by Care & Health Solutions have ultimately collapsed.
In the SB Cares annual report available on the Companies House website the 2018/19 comprehensive loss is given as £2.593 million, less than the figure of £2.851 million quoted in the original unaudited version of the company's accounts. The net liabilities are stated as £7.298 million as opposed to the £7.556 million included in the unaudited accounts.
As the report goes on to record: "On 26th September 2019 members took the decision to reintegrate SB Cares LLP and SB Supports LLP back into SBC on December 1st 2019. Members have agreed to voluntarily terminate the LLPs on December 1 and begin the process of reintegrating the services delivered, as well as the assets and liabilities held by the LLPs into the council from that date. Accordingly the members have not prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis".
The report concludes that while SB Cares has delivered financial and service benefits since inception, "it has struggled to realise the full potential of the model originally envisaged.
"After careful consideration, it is the view of the council management team that the benefits of the ALEO (arms length) structure for SB Cares no longer outweigh the challenges and risks now facing the business. The risks, which are likely to increase in future, make it appropriate for the council to now reintegrate SB Cares and SB Supports into the council".
The move marks a complete volte face for the management team and the elected members of SBC. They were told and agreed in 2014/15 that to continue delivering adult social care in-house was 'not an option' and would lead to increased financial issues and a reduction in service standards.
Monday, 18 November 2019
Borders Council 'money spinner' lost millions
EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE
The arms length company set up by Scottish Borders Council to take over adult social care services, and which was supposed to make profits totalling £2.2 million in its first five years ended up losing more than £7.5 million before the decision was taken in September to kill it off.
An investigation which has compared figures in the SB Cares confidential Business Plan of 2014 with the company's actual financial performance appears to show the forecasts which convinced councillors to sanction the venture were divorced from reality.
The 75-page plan, now released by SBC following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, was drawn up by Care & Health Solutions, a firm of consultants who received more than £160,000 in fees for their trouble.
According to the Business Plan: "The Profit and Loss Account provides details as to how profitable the LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) is and how it is reducing the price charged to SBC over the 5 year period by increasing its own income streams: overall the model makes a gross contribution of £5.156 million after direct costs and provides a retained surplus of £2.257 million available to the Council for investment in other services or to contribute the savings."
SB Cares, said the consultants, was set to record annual surpluses as follows: Year one (2015/16) £265,515; year two £463,874; year three £466,906; year four £454,425; year five (2019/20) £606,243. Grand total £2,256,962.
However, the financial fortunes of the soon to be dissolved operation turned out very differently from those upbeat forecasts.
In 2015/16 there was a comprehensive (net) loss of £1.294 million. That was followed by losses of £2.676 million, £735,000 and £2.851 million in the ensuing three financial years. The combined deficits add up to £7.556 million.
The arms length company set up by Scottish Borders Council to take over adult social care services, and which was supposed to make profits totalling £2.2 million in its first five years ended up losing more than £7.5 million before the decision was taken in September to kill it off.
An investigation which has compared figures in the SB Cares confidential Business Plan of 2014 with the company's actual financial performance appears to show the forecasts which convinced councillors to sanction the venture were divorced from reality.
The 75-page plan, now released by SBC following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, was drawn up by Care & Health Solutions, a firm of consultants who received more than £160,000 in fees for their trouble.
According to the Business Plan: "The Profit and Loss Account provides details as to how profitable the LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) is and how it is reducing the price charged to SBC over the 5 year period by increasing its own income streams: overall the model makes a gross contribution of £5.156 million after direct costs and provides a retained surplus of £2.257 million available to the Council for investment in other services or to contribute the savings."
SB Cares, said the consultants, was set to record annual surpluses as follows: Year one (2015/16) £265,515; year two £463,874; year three £466,906; year four £454,425; year five (2019/20) £606,243. Grand total £2,256,962.
However, the financial fortunes of the soon to be dissolved operation turned out very differently from those upbeat forecasts.
In 2015/16 there was a comprehensive (net) loss of £1.294 million. That was followed by losses of £2.676 million, £735,000 and £2.851 million in the ensuing three financial years. The combined deficits add up to £7.556 million.
SB Cares annual accounts for 2018/19 include the following observation by
external auditors KPMG:
“We draw attention to the profit and
loss account of the financial statements which indicates that the LLP incurred a
net loss of £2,851,000 for the year (2018: net loss of £735,000) and had net
current liabilities of £7,556,000 (2018 net current liabilities of £4,705,000),
and the LLP’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon continued
funding from Scottish Borders Council and Borders’ Integration Joint Board,
which is in turn dependent upon the outcome of a strategic review being
undertaken within Scottish Borders Council.
"These events and conditions, along
with the other matters explained in the accounting policies, constitute a
material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the LLP’s ability to
continue as a going concern.”
Councillors have not called for an investigation into this worrying set of statistics, deciding instead to quietly wind up and dissolve SB Cares together with its sister company SB Supports and return the vital services to full council control.
In recommending the radical switch to a form of privatisation, the authors of the Business Case told SBC in 2014: "This is an important shift in how SBC provides social care
services and as with any Business Case the high level significant risks are
identified and what mitigations are required to minimise them.
"Not only are
significant risks identified but what would happen if the business was to fail
or if the Council wanted to exit from the arrangement. The fact that this is a
Council owned company mitigates risks as the services could be brought back into
Council if required in future.
"It is our view that the level of scrutiny of the
performance of a Council owned independent organisation is much greater than
that of any other independent provider and as partner the Council would have
plenty of warning if the LLP was not achieving its planned performance or is
likely to become unviable.
"There would therefore be an early opportunity to
implement an improvement plan to bring the performance back in to line or if it
is felt that this is unlikely, to look at the other alternatives discussed
within the exit plan. These could involve bringing the services back into the
Council, or a controlled transfer to the private market."
This high risk venture may end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds with no benefit for adult social care's 12,000 clients. And what was the cost of staff time required to implement the flawed Business Case?
Care & Health Solutions wrote at the time: "Implementation involves a complex programme of work that
would set-up and create the new business, undertake the necessary work to
separate out and transfer a number of services, functions and ultimately staff
to the new organisation which would engage a significant number of other
Council departments in achieving it. In our experience this process takes
between seven to nine months."
Sunday, 17 November 2019
Designers of failed council firm were paid £160,000
EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB
The 'specialist' firm of consultants brought in by Scottish Borders Council to set up the ill-fated arms length company SB Cares received more than £160,000 of taxpayers' cash for their work after warning the local authority adult social care services could not remain in-house.
Twelve separate payments were made by SBC to Wolverhampton-based Care & Health Solutions in 2014 and 2015, according to figures released via Freedom of Information [FOI].
The lucrative fees included four invoices for a business case totalling £58,400, a sum of £20,000 for the original options appraisal and seven different sums for 'implementation work'. The total consultancy bill came to £160,854.
The switch of the care services from SBC to SB Cares in 2015 included the transfer of a thousand front line staff and involved significant expenditure on set-up costs and branding.
But after SB Cares, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), failed to meet financial targets and could not maintain adequate standards of care councillors decided in September this year to dissolve the semi-privatised organisation and return the adult care service to full local authority control.
According to a council insider the venture had been a 'shambolic failure'. Now SB Cares and its sister company SB Supports are set to be wound up and dissolved by the end of 2019. The hundreds of clients who receive the service have received assurances from the council that nothing will change under the 'new' arrangements.
The FOI request also shows that none of the 34 elected members voted against the establishment of SB Cares when the previous SBC administration sanctioned the move in 2015.
According to SBC: "There was unanimous agreement for the decision from those present at the meeting at the time. Six Councillors had given apologies; one Councillor left the meeting prior to the decision being taken; three Councillors declared an interest and left the Chamber, taking no part in the decision."
In a report to the full council in September it was stated: "The delivery of savings has been variable over the first four years of operation and it is doubtful whether there is capacity within the business to generate further significant financial benefits under the current operating model.
"It seems reasonable to conclude, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the majority of benefits have not been delivered solely due to the nature of the LLP and several could have been delivered by the council adopting similar approaches.
As we have reported previously, Care & Health Solutions used the example of SB Cares on their website to promote their work until after SBC axed their flawed ALEO. The consultants were also involved in the creation of Buckinghamshire Care, another arms length council care company which failed. In that case the county council had to take the services back in-house.
The contents of the seemingly flawed Business Case for SB Cares will be discussed in a future article.
The 'specialist' firm of consultants brought in by Scottish Borders Council to set up the ill-fated arms length company SB Cares received more than £160,000 of taxpayers' cash for their work after warning the local authority adult social care services could not remain in-house.
Twelve separate payments were made by SBC to Wolverhampton-based Care & Health Solutions in 2014 and 2015, according to figures released via Freedom of Information [FOI].
The lucrative fees included four invoices for a business case totalling £58,400, a sum of £20,000 for the original options appraisal and seven different sums for 'implementation work'. The total consultancy bill came to £160,854.
The switch of the care services from SBC to SB Cares in 2015 included the transfer of a thousand front line staff and involved significant expenditure on set-up costs and branding.
But after SB Cares, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), failed to meet financial targets and could not maintain adequate standards of care councillors decided in September this year to dissolve the semi-privatised organisation and return the adult care service to full local authority control.
According to a council insider the venture had been a 'shambolic failure'. Now SB Cares and its sister company SB Supports are set to be wound up and dissolved by the end of 2019. The hundreds of clients who receive the service have received assurances from the council that nothing will change under the 'new' arrangements.
The FOI request also shows that none of the 34 elected members voted against the establishment of SB Cares when the previous SBC administration sanctioned the move in 2015.
According to SBC: "There was unanimous agreement for the decision from those present at the meeting at the time. Six Councillors had given apologies; one Councillor left the meeting prior to the decision being taken; three Councillors declared an interest and left the Chamber, taking no part in the decision."
In a report to the full council in September it was stated: "The delivery of savings has been variable over the first four years of operation and it is doubtful whether there is capacity within the business to generate further significant financial benefits under the current operating model.
"It seems reasonable to conclude, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the majority of benefits have not been delivered solely due to the nature of the LLP and several could have been delivered by the council adopting similar approaches.
"Recently
concerns have emerged with regards to the safety of some individual services,
and the challenge of meeting the requirements of the Care Inspectorate.Given
the limited capacity issues which exists within the stand alone business it is
not considered likely, however, that the arms-length model will be able to
drive forward significant further improvements in quality scores."
The damning document showed SB Cares had come up £822,000 short in predicted efficiencies
for its first four years.
Savings of
£3.65 million were achieved, which included £600,000 from a change in
accounting policy, £220,000 by closing its Bordercare alarm centre in
Galashiels, the closure of catering kitchens, a review of management structures
and staff rotas, and tighter absence management.
But the
savings came at a cost to Scottish Borders Council with the local
authority's Human Resources, payroll and IT staff providing dedicated support and services. And
the report showed it cost an additional £360,000 to run SB Cares every
year as an arms-length company.
The council has released a number of confidential papers linked to the formation of SB Cares, including the final Business Case, a 75-page report from Care & Health Solutions. There is no indication in any of the documents as to which member of staff or elected councillor came up with the idea for the arms length company. And no-one has "claimed" responsibility for the ALEO's palpable failure.
As we have reported previously, Care & Health Solutions used the example of SB Cares on their website to promote their work until after SBC axed their flawed ALEO. The consultants were also involved in the creation of Buckinghamshire Care, another arms length council care company which failed. In that case the county council had to take the services back in-house.
The contents of the seemingly flawed Business Case for SB Cares will be discussed in a future article.
Tuesday, 22 October 2019
A positive 'spin' if ever there was one!
by EWAN LAMB
The official publication of a 'best value' assessment of Scottish Borders Council services by the national spending watchdog - a report brought to you in instalments by Not Just Sheep & Rugby a week ago - has sent the local authority into positive spin overdrive.
A reaction statement from SBC does not even mention the list of issues, shortcomings and problems which have combined to hamper and frustrate local government service delivery in the region even though they are identified in the Accounts Commission document.
Instead, SBC's news release even has a sub-heading entitled 'Strengths highlighted'.
The statement says: "We are welcoming the Best Value Assurance report published by Audit Scotland. The report recognises the steady progress and significant efforts we have made since the last Best Value review in 2010 to transform our services during a time when the financial outlook, as for most other councils, remains challenging."
The official publication of a 'best value' assessment of Scottish Borders Council services by the national spending watchdog - a report brought to you in instalments by Not Just Sheep & Rugby a week ago - has sent the local authority into positive spin overdrive.
A reaction statement from SBC does not even mention the list of issues, shortcomings and problems which have combined to hamper and frustrate local government service delivery in the region even though they are identified in the Accounts Commission document.
Instead, SBC's news release even has a sub-heading entitled 'Strengths highlighted'.
The statement says: "We are welcoming the Best Value Assurance report published by Audit Scotland. The report recognises the steady progress and significant efforts we have made since the last Best Value review in 2010 to transform our services during a time when the financial outlook, as for most other councils, remains challenging."
"A number of key strengths are highlighted, including good
performance in education and social work, effective financial planning and the
key role we have in joint working to deliver ambitious economic initiatives.
Tracey Logan, Chief Executive at SBC commented: "Looking after our most vulnerable people and giving our
children the best start in life are key priorities for the Council and we are
justifiably proud of our track record across these areas.
“However, the report recognises that as a small rural
authority covering a huge geographical area we face many challenges in order to
improve and sustain high performance across all our service areas.
“We will take on board Audit Scotland’s feedback and recommendations,
many of which we had already identified ourselves and are taking action on, and
continue to drive forward transformational change across all our services
through our Fit for 2024 programme.
“For example, we are already actively working with NHS
Borders to improve joint working, and we also recognise that we need to do more
to respond to the Community Empowerment Act in order to encourage and enable
people to play their part more easily in their communities.
“A key priority for us going forward will be to improve our
performance monitoring and measurement to demonstrate on a regular basis that
the Council’s services are continuing to meet best value and identify quickly
areas where further improvements are needed."
However, the Audit Scotland press release accompanying publication of the report contains a little less "sweetness and light".
According to the watchdog: "Scottish Borders Council has made steady progress as it
continues to transform the way it delivers services. Working with other
organisations will be key to the council achieving its ambitions for further
changes.
"A report by the Accounts Commission, Scotland’s local
authority watchdog, says the council must have clear plans to enable it to
deliver its ambitious programme of transformation. The programme, called Fit
for 2024, aims to improve how the council is run and save £30 million within
the next five years.
"The Commission says it is important for the council to be
clear about the senior level staff it needs and have the right mix of skills in
its workforce to deliver services differently. It is also crucial that that all
council staff contribute to the transformation plans.
"Although education, economic development and some social
care services continue to improve, many services are performing below the
national average. The council must do more to understand where and how these
services need to improve."
Graham Sharp, Chair of the Accounts Commission, said: “The
continued progress Scottish Borders Council has made to transform services is
encouraging. Now it must focus on several critical areas including tackling
under performing services, ensuring councillors have the right training to
enable them to fulfil their responsibilities and getting to grips with both
staff and community engagement.”
Hardly a ringing endorsement!
Sunday, 20 October 2019
Culture shock! And more budget cuts to come.
EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE
The number of admissions at libraries and museums in the Scottish Borders fell significantly in 2018/19, and the Trust responsible for cultural and leisure services faces a tough financial future as the local council is to cut its management fee by three percent over the coming two years.
An annual report from Live Borders, which runs an extensive portfolio of sports facilities, libraries and museums for Scottish Borders Council, warns of the continuing financial challenges facing the Trust's directors and 400 staff.
At the same time a performance report for the last financial year shows a healthy increase in attendances at sports facilities but a disappointing slump in the numbers turning up at Borders libraries and museums.
During 2018/19 Live Borders invested £11.257 million in delivering its leisure, recreation and cultural services which were transferred from the council in 2016.
But SBC's financial contribution to the Trust fell from £5.520 million in 2017/18 to £5.475 million last year. And local authority money will drop further, to £5.315 million this year, and to £5.189 million in 2020/2021.
The accounts point out that Live Borders will have to fund all budgetary pressures, adding: "Live Borders continues to discuss the potential impact of these pressures with Scottish Borders Council".
In a section of the report headed Risk Management, Live Borders state: "One of the biggest risks facing the Trust will be maintaining financial stability and service delivery in the context of managing a large property portfolio and ambitious income generation targets alongside reduced levels of local authority funding".
The portfolio includes 15 sports facilities including six swimming pools, two sports halls, an outdoor sports complex and bowls hall, three artificial pitches, two high school sports centres, six libraries, 12 museums, an outdoor visitor centre, 14 community halls, ten community centres, a multi-function cinema, theatre and office complex, and an archive hub.
In 2018/19 Live Borders reported a deficit of £723,000. There was a pensions adjustment of £970,000.
The performance report posted on the council's website, reveals a 12 per cent increase in admissions to sports facilities - 873,112 compared to 779,704 in 2017/18. The operating loss on these facilities is given as £2.393 million (£2.357 million).
The number of visits to the collection of town libraries - the six run by the Trust do not include those SBC libraries now combined with contact centres and still in council control - fell sharply from 310,516 in 2017/18 to 292,339 - a drop of 18,177. The operating loss for this section of the cultural service is recorded as £1.010 million (£992,000).
Live Borders' collection of a dozen museums scattered across the Borders region attracted 127,072 visitors in 2018/19, 9,057 fewer than the 2017/18 total of 136,129. But the operating loss of £847,203 was considerably lower than the previous year's sum of £970,948.
The number of admissions at libraries and museums in the Scottish Borders fell significantly in 2018/19, and the Trust responsible for cultural and leisure services faces a tough financial future as the local council is to cut its management fee by three percent over the coming two years.
An annual report from Live Borders, which runs an extensive portfolio of sports facilities, libraries and museums for Scottish Borders Council, warns of the continuing financial challenges facing the Trust's directors and 400 staff.
At the same time a performance report for the last financial year shows a healthy increase in attendances at sports facilities but a disappointing slump in the numbers turning up at Borders libraries and museums.
During 2018/19 Live Borders invested £11.257 million in delivering its leisure, recreation and cultural services which were transferred from the council in 2016.
But SBC's financial contribution to the Trust fell from £5.520 million in 2017/18 to £5.475 million last year. And local authority money will drop further, to £5.315 million this year, and to £5.189 million in 2020/2021.
The accounts point out that Live Borders will have to fund all budgetary pressures, adding: "Live Borders continues to discuss the potential impact of these pressures with Scottish Borders Council".
In a section of the report headed Risk Management, Live Borders state: "One of the biggest risks facing the Trust will be maintaining financial stability and service delivery in the context of managing a large property portfolio and ambitious income generation targets alongside reduced levels of local authority funding".
The portfolio includes 15 sports facilities including six swimming pools, two sports halls, an outdoor sports complex and bowls hall, three artificial pitches, two high school sports centres, six libraries, 12 museums, an outdoor visitor centre, 14 community halls, ten community centres, a multi-function cinema, theatre and office complex, and an archive hub.
In 2018/19 Live Borders reported a deficit of £723,000. There was a pensions adjustment of £970,000.
The performance report posted on the council's website, reveals a 12 per cent increase in admissions to sports facilities - 873,112 compared to 779,704 in 2017/18. The operating loss on these facilities is given as £2.393 million (£2.357 million).
The number of visits to the collection of town libraries - the six run by the Trust do not include those SBC libraries now combined with contact centres and still in council control - fell sharply from 310,516 in 2017/18 to 292,339 - a drop of 18,177. The operating loss for this section of the cultural service is recorded as £1.010 million (£992,000).
Live Borders' collection of a dozen museums scattered across the Borders region attracted 127,072 visitors in 2018/19, 9,057 fewer than the 2017/18 total of 136,129. But the operating loss of £847,203 was considerably lower than the previous year's sum of £970,948.
Thursday, 17 October 2019
Borders council slow to give 'power to the people'
EWAN LAMB concludes our series on Audit Scotland's investigation at Scottish Borders Council
The preparation and completion of locality plans for the Scottish Borders under the 2015 Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act are well behind schedule while asset transfers to local groups have also been slow to take off.
This sluggish implementation of community powers comes in for criticism in Audit Scotland's Best Value Assessment report - the first detailed look at Borders local government services since 2010.
The preparation and completion of locality plans for the Scottish Borders under the 2015 Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act are well behind schedule while asset transfers to local groups have also been slow to take off.
This sluggish implementation of community powers comes in for criticism in Audit Scotland's Best Value Assessment report - the first detailed look at Borders local government services since 2010.
According to the auditors: "The CPP (Community Planning Partnership) has been slow to
implement the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The Act aims to give
communities more influence over how their council and its partners plan and
provide services. It also establishes ways for residents to get more involved
in local decision-making and service provision.
"A council is required to work
with its community planning partners to engage with community bodies and improve
local outcomes. Joint efforts and resources should be targeted on areas of greatest
need to reduce inequalities."
In the Borders case the CPP’s local outcomes improvement plan was
produced late. The CPP’s locality plans are two years late and incomplete.
"The
CPP’s strategic board decided to commission a locality plan for each of all
five Borders localities simultaneously. It did not prioritise localities or
communities with the worst levels of deprivation or the poorest outcomes on
issues such as health and education. All five locality plans remained in draft
when they were considered by the CPP’s strategic board in June 2019.
"Although
they reflect the themes of the community plan, they will not be integrated with
the community plan until they are finalised. Ambitions in locality plans have
not been costed and are therefore not yet reflected in budgets of the council
or its CPP partners. The strategic board was not advised when the locality
plans would be finalised."
Meanwhile, Community Asset Transfers (CATs), participation requests and
participatory budgeting are all at an early stage.
Since January 2017 community
groups have had a right to ask relevant public authorities to transfer land or
buildings that they feel they could use more effectively. The council developed
its own guidance on CATs in 2011.
"Council officers and the council’s CPP
partners have worked with community groups over the past two years to build
capacity to encourage CATs", says the report. "The CPP has also funded a Men’s Shed Development
Officer to build capacity on this specific issue. Nonetheless, the scale of
CATs has been limited.
"There have been over 30 enquiries regarding CATs during
the past two years. Of these, three have progressed to the submission of a
formal application and one has been approved. The council recognises it is
responsible for ensuring that CATs are viable and sustainable. They recognise
that progressing CATs is at an early stage and will require further promotion
and support by the council and its CPP partners."
And the report continues: "The CPP has been slow to empower and engage communities.
It is difficult for the council and its partners to
determine progress because some indicators and measures in the community plan
are not measurable or lack short-term and medium-term targets.
"Progress
reporting includes little analysis of how activities drive performance or
deliver improvements for local people. There are no arrangements to track the
implementation of locality plans and these are not linked to either the CPP’s
community plan or the council’s plans. A comprehensive performance management
framework is needed."
Multiple issues beset Borders joint board
EWAN LAMB on Scottish Borders Council's partnership arrangements as seen by Audit Scotland
The Integrated Joint Board (IJB) set up by Scottish Borders Council and NHS Borders is grappling with a set of problems while a proposal to amalgamate public services under the control of a single authority has hit the buffers.
These are among the topics covered by Audit Scotland's Best Value assessment of SBC which Not Just Sheep & Rugby has been revealing over recent days.
A section of the report which looks at so-called partnership working says the council's work with the local health authority 'could be improved'.
The Integrated Joint Board (IJB) set up by Scottish Borders Council and NHS Borders is grappling with a set of problems while a proposal to amalgamate public services under the control of a single authority has hit the buffers.
These are among the topics covered by Audit Scotland's Best Value assessment of SBC which Not Just Sheep & Rugby has been revealing over recent days.
A section of the report which looks at so-called partnership working says the council's work with the local health authority 'could be improved'.
Audit Scotland comments: "A proposal for a single public authority was not progressed.
The council and NHS Borders serve the same geographical area and they have
worked well in partnership on a number of issues over time, such as their joint
appointment of the Director of Public Health, one of the first in Scotland.
"In
response to the Scottish Government’s national review of local governance in
2018/19, the council proposed the exploration of a single public authority for the
Scottish Borders area. It was described as a starting point for dialogue with
the Scottish Government and COSLA.
"However, whilst the proposal was reported to
full council in September 2018, it did not receive the full support of the
wider public sector community in Scottish Borders at that time and has not been
progressed."
Meanwhile the Scottish Borders Health and Social Care Integration Joint Board
recognises it has more to do and developed a detailed improvement plan, the report points out.
"The
Scottish Borders Health and Social Care Partnership Integration Joint Board
(IJB) assumed responsibility for the planning and commissioning of health and
social care services from April 2016. It includes adult social care, community
health services and those hospital services typically associated with the
emergency care pathway (also known as unscheduled care). It is jointly funded
by the council and NHS Borders, from which it also commissions services. The
IJB’s strategic plan for 2018–2021 was renewed in 2018/19.
"NHS Borders is at
level four out of five in the NHS performance scale(meaning ‘at significant
risk’). It received Scottish Government support of £10 million to help it break
even in 2018/19. A similar budget shortfall is anticipated in 2019/20. This has
serious implications for financial planning by the IJB, which has yet to set
its 2019/20 budget. It also has implications for the council, which is a
partner in the IJB and appoints members to its board.
"The IJB worked with the
council and NHS Borders to carry out self-evaluation and submitted a return to
the MSG (Ministerial Strategic Group) in May 2019. The self-evaluation was
carried out against proposals, with each proposal being assessed as either ‘not
yet established’, ‘partly established’, ‘established’ or ‘exemplary’. The IJB
evaluated itself as being not yet established in one area, partly established
in 15 areas, established in six areas and exemplary in none. The area assessed
as not yet established relates to agreeing budgets timeously. The IJB has
identified improvement actions it needs to take forward.
"The IJB’s governance arrangements would be strengthened by
regular attendance at board meetings
The IJB is governed by a board. Two meetings of the board,
at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019, were inquorate (not enough board members
attended) and important decisions were deferred to subsequent meetings.
Inconsistent attendance at board meetings may indicate a lack of commitment and
it risks undermining the board’s effectiveness.
"Challenges have also arisen
from the rapid turnover of senior IJB officers. There have been four chief
officers since the IJB was established in 2016, and no permanent chief
financial officer. The lack of continuous leadership has impaired the IJB’s
progress. However, there is now continuity in the position of chief officer and
a refreshed effort by the council, NHS Borders and IJB to address their shared
challenges cooperatively."
NEXT: THE COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
Wednesday, 16 October 2019
Is Scottish Borders Council using resources well?
EWAN LAMB looks at another chapter of the Audit Scotland Best Value report on SBC.
The outsourcing of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) at Scottish Borders Council following the award of a £92 million contract to CGI UK Ltd proved to be "a challenging journey", according to the Audit Scotland investigators.
The outsourcing of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) at Scottish Borders Council following the award of a £92 million contract to CGI UK Ltd proved to be "a challenging journey", according to the Audit Scotland investigators.
The contract was based on a contract previously negotiated
between the City of Edinburgh Council and CGI under Public Sector Partner
procurement guidelines.
Audit Scotland says in its Best Value Assessment report on SBC: "Through its contract with Scottish Borders Council, CGI is
responsible for implementing a range of major ICT changes including: •
replacing the council’s hardware systems • replacing its finance and human
resources systems with a new integrated system: Business World enterprise and
resource planning system (ERP) • providing enhanced cyber security arrangements
and new offsite back-up facilities• developing a digital customer access (DCA)
system to help the public access council services more easily, and at lower
cost to the council.
"The agreement with CGI has allowed the council to access
the technical expertise and support of a major international company, as well
as address risks with recruiting and retaining ICT staff in the area.
"The new
Business World ERP system was implemented from April 2017, cyber security
arrangements have been improved and replacement of the council’s hardware is
ongoing. The council has experienced problems with the full delivery of the
benefits expected from the CGI contract. The implementation of the DCA was
delayed and issues arose when the Business World ERP system was first
introduced.
"Problems with third party service providers led to their removal
and other contractors were required to rectify problems, although at no extra
cost to the council. Council staff told the audit team that the new computer
systems are often sluggish and that help desk support by CGI can be
unresponsive.
"Overall, the forecast benefits from the ICT contract have not
materialised as soon as the council expected. The council’s new ICT arrangements
should bring benefits in time. It expects that a CGI ICT service delivery
centre in the Borders will boost the local economy."
In a section dealing with so-called workforce planning, Audit Scotland reports: "Workforce management has developed gradually and workforce
planning remains challenging. The council should do more to understand and act
on the views of staff.
"The council recognises that workforce planning needs to
be developed further. The council faces a number of workforce challenges. For
example, the age profile of the council’s workforce has implications for its
evolving composition in future and the recruitment activity that will be needed
to replace retirees. It may be more difficult to attract and retain officers to
senior management roles than for a larger and more urban council. The council
also faces private sector competition for staff with transferable skills at
lower grades.
"The council should do more to understand the views of staff.
We reported in 2010 that employees were concerned about the extent and pace of
change. During this audit, staff told us that they saw limited engagement
between the CMT (Corporate Management Team) and the workforce and that the CMT lacks visibility.
"Wider
staff views are unclear because there has been no council-wide staff survey
since 2010. The council should be proactive in seeking the views of the whole
workforce more regularly and provide staff with feedback. This could be
challenging for staff groups with limited access to office technology.
"The CMT
is aware of the need to improve communication with staff and began a staff
engagement programme during this audit. An ongoing series of roadshows for
staff across the Scottish Borders is being used to explain the Fit for 2024
programme and to seek the views of staff. Some further information is now
available to staff online."
On a more positive note, the report says:"There is evidence that the council undertakes effective
options appraisals when tackling significant decisions. Options appraisals and
business cases for changes to services, such as the outsourcing of ICT, setting
up a trust for delivering cultural services and developing a long-term approach
to the school estate are presented to members for consideration.
"The Audit and
Scrutiny Committee, in respect of its scrutiny functions, examines key
decisions, including assessing whether projects have achieved their stated aims
and achieved predicted savings. For example, the council’s investment in
superfast broadband was assessed and reported on at the end of 2018 and the
outsourced ICT contract was scrutinised in April 2019.
ne and a council-wide staff survey is planned for late
2019."
NEXT: IS THE COUNCIL WORKING WELL WITH PARTNERS?
How well is the council performing?
EWAN LAMB with another instalment from Audit Scotland's best value 'probe' at Scottish Borders Council
The public's satisfaction levels with services provided by Scottish Borders Council generally declined between 2012 and 2018, according to Audit Scotland's detailed analysis of the local authority's functions while performance reporting comes in for criticism from the authors of the so-called Best Value assessment.
However, it is not all bad news.
The report states: "Education services continue to perform well overall. Outcomes for children are above the national average and improving. The council’s performance against the LGBF (Local Government Benchmark Framework) indicator for the proportion of pupils entering ‘positive destinations’ improved from an already-high level, from 94.4 per cent in 2013/14 to 95.8 per cent in 2016/17. Positive destinations include higher education, further education, training, voluntary work and employment."
The public's satisfaction levels with services provided by Scottish Borders Council generally declined between 2012 and 2018, according to Audit Scotland's detailed analysis of the local authority's functions while performance reporting comes in for criticism from the authors of the so-called Best Value assessment.
However, it is not all bad news.
The report states: "Education services continue to perform well overall. Outcomes for children are above the national average and improving. The council’s performance against the LGBF (Local Government Benchmark Framework) indicator for the proportion of pupils entering ‘positive destinations’ improved from an already-high level, from 94.4 per cent in 2013/14 to 95.8 per cent in 2016/17. Positive destinations include higher education, further education, training, voluntary work and employment."
Social work and social care services’ performance is described as "mixed
but improving".
"The Care Inspectorate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland
inspected health and social work services for older people, from October 2016
to February 2017.The delivery of key processes, strategic planning and plans to
improve services, leadership and direction were assessed as ‘weak’.
"The IJB
(Integrated Joint Board) has since developed an improvement plan to address the
inspection’s recommendations. A progress report in May 2018 showed some
improvement actions needed completion deadlines. A Progress review by
Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate is under way.
"In April 2019, the Care Inspectorate reported on a criminal
justice social work inspection, which focused on people subject to community
payback orders. The council was ‘good’ in terms of its impact on people who
have committed offences, and at assessing and responding to risk and need.
Operational managers supported staff well.
"Areas assessed as ‘weak’ areas were:
improving the life chances and outcomes for people subject to a community
payback order, and leadership of improvement and change. There was a lack of
governance and oversight from senior officers and elected members and no
performance management structure in place to drive service improvement."
From 2013/14 to 2017/18, the council’s performance declined
for 14 indicators and declined by a margin of ten per cent or over the
following four indicators: • quality ratings for children’s early years’
service providers – performance declined from 97.5 per cent of providers graded
good or better for all quality themes, to 87.5 per cent • the proportion of
invoices sampled that were paid within 30 days – performance declined from 90.2
per cent to 78.0 per cent • the proportion of procurement spent on local
small/medium enterprises – performance declined from 28.5 per cent to 23.1 per
cent • the proportion of internal floor area of operational buildings in
satisfactory condition – performance declined from 91.6 to 62.1 per cent.
In
2017/18, the council performed above the Scottish average by ten per cent or
more for eight indicators (18 per cent) but was over ten per cent below average
for 20 indicators (46 per cent), including: • the proportion of unemployed
people assisted into work by council-funded or operated employability
programmes – 4.2 per cent (Scotland average 14.4 per cent) • investment in
economic development and tourism per 1,000 population –£43,132 (Scotland
average £91,779).
According to Audit Scotland's findings: "Recent national data shows that satisfaction has declined
across Scotland for all council services and this is also the case in the
Scottish Borders . Satisfaction with the council’s services declined from
2012–2018 on eight of the nine indicators and declined for four services at a
faster rate than the national average. In 2018, the council was rated among the
eight weakest councils on five indicators, including four indicators for which
it was among the three weakest councils. This includes satisfaction with parks
and open spaces, leisure facilities, libraries and museums and galleries. The
council needs to better understand the reasons behind its relatively poor
performance.
"Benchmarking practice is inconsistent across the council The
Accounts Commission requires councils to report their performance using the
national LGBF data. Although the council does this, it is unclear how it
utilises the data to pursue service performance improvements systematically.
Benchmarking is applied in some service areas including education and
complaints handling, but the council should embed proactive, systematic use of
this approach to drive performance improvements across all services.
"There is
room to improve performance reporting. Officers submit quarterly performance
reports to the Executive Committee and an annual report in June each year.
Members’ scrutiny of the information reported to them is generally good. The
Executive Committee has no opposition members, but opposition members can
publicly scrutinise and challenge performance information in a meeting of all
members in full council meetings.. In addition, officers invite all members to
attend a private annual briefing on the council’s performance. However, in
January 2019, fewer than half of members (15 of 34) attended a briefing
arranged by officers and no meeting record was kept."
Performance reports to
the Executive Committee highlighted activities that affect performance in
each corporate theme. However, they lack a clear, succinct overview of the
council’s position and the number of indicators; and the amounts of performance
information provided vary significantly across the four corporate themes.
"There
is insufficient explanation of areas identified for improvement.The council’s graphical public performance reporting (PPR)
summary for 2018/19 makes it difficult for members and the public to gain a
clear overview of the council’s changing performance.
"It would be helpful to
distinguish actual performance on an indicator from the performance trend to
clarify, for example, situations where: • performance was at a very high level
and a small decrease is acceptable • performance was adequate, and remains
relatively unchanged over time • performance was poor and any deterioration is
not acceptable. There is scope for performance reporting to more clearly and
consistently include concise information on reasons for under-performance and
actions to address these, helping drive planned continuous improvement.
Although the council compares itself against its family groups for relevant
LGBF indicators, this material is not part of the PPR summary and is not
published on the council’s website in a timely way."
NEXT: IS THE COUNCIL USING ITS RESOURCES WELL?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)