DOUG COLLIE on the endless winning streak of a casino capitalist
Our headline could have been lifted and plagiarised from the late 1990s files of the Southern Reporter or the Border Telegraph when hundreds of skilled electronics workers from flourishing Exacta Circuits plants in Galashiels and Selkirk were cast onto the economic scrapheap by ruthless US executives who have featured in our columns before.
The Borders factories were part of the burgeoning, debt-ridden Viasystems Corporation, of St Louis, Missouri when they were asset stripped and closed by the mysterious American Mills Brothers and a suit by the name of David Sindelar, chief financial officer and later head honcho at the global circuit board makers. He was also a board member of Exacta at one time.
After the devastating wave of horrific news which threatened to paralyse the economy of the central Borders, many of the local Viasystems employees had to lower their sights and take jobs with much poorer financial rewards to ensure their families survived. And the chance for future generations of Borderers to follow in the footsteps of their well trained parents and find skilled jobs was dashed at a stroke by Sindelar and his colleagues who used the local dedicated workforce as pawns in their international roulette game.
So Not Just Sheep & Rugby was particularly interested in Mr Sindelar's fate and his future employment prospects after Viasystems Group Inc. was bought by a rival US electronics giant called TTM Technologies, of California. Would he remain an important part of the newly formed giant's hierarchy or might he be forced to stack supermarket shelves in downtown St Louis just to earn a crust?
The answer to both parts of the question is firmly in the negative. For we now know that Mr Sindelar has been "tapped" by the board of St Anthony's Medical Center in the city to become its chief executive from this Tuesday (September 1). The fact that he is chairman of the board at the 767-bed hospital, which has over 3,700 employees, may or may not have been connected to the "tapping" exercise.
He may have no professional experience or background in hospital management, but that has obviously not proved to be a stumbling block. The US press coverage of the appointment has not included details of Sindelar's new salary, but a previous CEO appears to have been paid $1.7 million in 2012/13. It seems he'll be taking home slightly more than the minimum wage.
Apparently he'll have his work cut out as St Anthony's has suffered four years of declining revenue which Sindelar attributes to falling reimbursement rates. Last year the hospital posted revenue of $417 million, a $26 million drop from 2013.
His exit package from Viasystems would have been more than generous while in 2014 he "earned " $3,630,404 in total including a $920,000 salary.
But this was the man who, after succeeding James Mills as CEO, presided over the bankruptcy of the original Viasystems business in 2002 with debts of more than $1 billion dollars. This despite the company shifting the majority of its production from Europe and America where employees earned $18 dollars an hour to China where the wage rate was $1.66 per hour.
Somehow the failed corporation managed to re-schedule its debt, and with Mr Sindelar still at the helm, continued in business as Viasystems Group. When the takeover by TTM was finalised in May 2015 the deal included a cash payment of $248.8 million and TTM also assumed responsibility for Viasystems' debts of $669 million. Does all of that add up to an efficiently run and financially successful business?
Commenting on Mr Sindelar's new found employment opportunity, a former employee at one of the Borders electronics plants told us: "I am struck by the fact that this hospital
appear to be putting a vampire in charge of a blood bank! I hope the patients at St Ants
fare better than we did. To use a medical analogy he
inherited a fit and healthy patient in the Borders factories and left us for
dead. Is it the Hippocratic or
Hypocritical oath he will have to take?"
Saturday, 29 August 2015
Wednesday, 26 August 2015
Services slashed but spend on consultants soars by 30%
EXCLUSIVE - by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD
A Scottish local authority which has recently axed garden waste collections, cut the school week, hived off home care services to a Trust, and warns it needs to find millions more in "efficiency" savings over the next five years, increased its spending on external consultants by a staggering 32 per cent in 2014/15.
And statistics released by Scottish Borders Council in response to a Freedom of Information request have revealed that the authority completed no fewer than 2,750 financial transactions with private firms, individual advisers and freelances over the last five years at a cost to the taxpayer of £6.821 million.
Between 2013/14 and 2014/15 the bill for these external "experts" soared from £1,163,000 to £1,539,252 (up 32.35%) at a time when SBC's revenue budget for core services was being rigorously scrutinised for spending cuts.
In a December 2013 press release the council told its 'customers': "Following the provisional confirmation of the council's allocation of resources for 2014/15 in the local government finance settlement, our future financial challenges over the next five years have been identified as a minimum of £24.5 million."
Councillors were also advised: "The public sector continues to face significant funding constraints as the Scottish Government continues to freeze council tax for a seventh year". Yet there seems to have been no instructions to officials to rein back on their spiralling outside consultancy budgets.
SBC introduced a four-and-a-half day school week in 2014 in another initiative aimed at saving cash. The report which recommended bringing in the so-called Asymmetric week claimed the Borders Education & Lifelong Learning service had been set an efficiency savings target of £10.99 million over a five year span from 2013/14.
In what appears to be an unbelievable reply to the FOI requester who asked for details of why each consultant was hired, the council claimed an exemption under legislation because "we do not hold the information". Does that mean the local authority is unaware of the reasons why individual payments of up to £378,000 were made from 2010/11 onward?
The response is accompanied by an 18-page file which lists all consultancy fees (there are 420 of them) of £1,000 or more during the last five financial years.
Research shows the beneficiaries include businesses specialising in activities ranging from financial management to 'change' management, stress management, construction and engineering, artists, choreographers, film makers, fish pass designers, restoration experts, environmental and countryside management, and problem solvers in human resources.
Halcrow, the infrastructure development consultants, who have been providing specialist services for the Borders Railway project, topped the payments league in each of the five years covered. They picked up £345,862, £232,692, £189,813, £378,389 and £334,541 which adds up to a grand total of £1,481,295.
A number of the country's largest consultancies appear regularly throughout the five years of statistics. The information excludes the substantial sums SBC has paid for advice from private law firms.
The rising trend in the use of the private sector is in direct conflict with the advice given to Scottish local authorities in 2013 by UNISON, the local government trade union.
Following a survey of all 32 councils UNISON concluded: "We are concerned that despite substantial cuts in public spending local authorities continue to spend money on expensive private consultants. Even before current budget cuts it was important not to waste money.
"Now that services and jobs are being cut it matters even more. This raises key questions as to why local authorities do not use their own staff to do the work or why advice and support is not sought from other authorities or via the Improvement Service to avoid these high costs.
"If the current round of redundancies and early departures has led to a skills shortage then this is a real concern for the future of local government".
Anyone who wants to read the full list of consultancy payments can find the statistics in the Freedom of Information archive on SBC's website. It is FOI number 7741 which should be entered into the search box.
A Scottish local authority which has recently axed garden waste collections, cut the school week, hived off home care services to a Trust, and warns it needs to find millions more in "efficiency" savings over the next five years, increased its spending on external consultants by a staggering 32 per cent in 2014/15.
And statistics released by Scottish Borders Council in response to a Freedom of Information request have revealed that the authority completed no fewer than 2,750 financial transactions with private firms, individual advisers and freelances over the last five years at a cost to the taxpayer of £6.821 million.
Between 2013/14 and 2014/15 the bill for these external "experts" soared from £1,163,000 to £1,539,252 (up 32.35%) at a time when SBC's revenue budget for core services was being rigorously scrutinised for spending cuts.
In a December 2013 press release the council told its 'customers': "Following the provisional confirmation of the council's allocation of resources for 2014/15 in the local government finance settlement, our future financial challenges over the next five years have been identified as a minimum of £24.5 million."
Councillors were also advised: "The public sector continues to face significant funding constraints as the Scottish Government continues to freeze council tax for a seventh year". Yet there seems to have been no instructions to officials to rein back on their spiralling outside consultancy budgets.
SBC introduced a four-and-a-half day school week in 2014 in another initiative aimed at saving cash. The report which recommended bringing in the so-called Asymmetric week claimed the Borders Education & Lifelong Learning service had been set an efficiency savings target of £10.99 million over a five year span from 2013/14.
In what appears to be an unbelievable reply to the FOI requester who asked for details of why each consultant was hired, the council claimed an exemption under legislation because "we do not hold the information". Does that mean the local authority is unaware of the reasons why individual payments of up to £378,000 were made from 2010/11 onward?
The response is accompanied by an 18-page file which lists all consultancy fees (there are 420 of them) of £1,000 or more during the last five financial years.
Research shows the beneficiaries include businesses specialising in activities ranging from financial management to 'change' management, stress management, construction and engineering, artists, choreographers, film makers, fish pass designers, restoration experts, environmental and countryside management, and problem solvers in human resources.
Halcrow, the infrastructure development consultants, who have been providing specialist services for the Borders Railway project, topped the payments league in each of the five years covered. They picked up £345,862, £232,692, £189,813, £378,389 and £334,541 which adds up to a grand total of £1,481,295.
A number of the country's largest consultancies appear regularly throughout the five years of statistics. The information excludes the substantial sums SBC has paid for advice from private law firms.
The rising trend in the use of the private sector is in direct conflict with the advice given to Scottish local authorities in 2013 by UNISON, the local government trade union.
Following a survey of all 32 councils UNISON concluded: "We are concerned that despite substantial cuts in public spending local authorities continue to spend money on expensive private consultants. Even before current budget cuts it was important not to waste money.
"Now that services and jobs are being cut it matters even more. This raises key questions as to why local authorities do not use their own staff to do the work or why advice and support is not sought from other authorities or via the Improvement Service to avoid these high costs.
"If the current round of redundancies and early departures has led to a skills shortage then this is a real concern for the future of local government".
Anyone who wants to read the full list of consultancy payments can find the statistics in the Freedom of Information archive on SBC's website. It is FOI number 7741 which should be entered into the search box.
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
Independent expert shreds latest Borders waste plan
EXCLUSIVE - by EWAN LAMB
The recommended way ahead for the delivery of Borders waste management services, due to be voted on at a council meeting this Thursday, will prove to be at least £7 million more expensive than developing a modern treatment facility at Galashiels, according to an industry expert contacted by Not Just Sheep & Rugby.
And a detailed assessment of a 31-page report prepared for members of Scottish Borders Council has also pointed up other potential flaws, omissions and anomalies in proposals with revenue implications of more than £60 million over the next 15 years.
Following the abandonment of the council's 24-year contract with New Earth Solutions, the company chosen from several bidders to deliver a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) centre at Easter Langlee, SBC is now planning to build an extensive (and apparently costly) waste transfer station on the undeveloped site. The station would receive 40,000 tonnes of black bin waste from across the Borders before the garbage is road hauled out of the region to be processed elsewhere.
We showed the report to an experienced waste management specialist with many years experience in the business of refuse disposal, and asked him to comment, particularly on the financial aspects of the so-called Option A which councillors are expected to approve at a full meeting of the local authority.
He told us: "To be frank I could pull this report apart, but I will concentrate on the financial impact. Option A is shown at a net present value of £60.6 million over 15 years. This compares with the cost of the planned treatment facility which would have been £77 million over 24 years. If you adjust the MBT to 15 years the like for like comparison is £53 million at net present value."
But he added that the treatment facility would still have paid back all capital expenditure, and the formula used to calculate project values suggested the original proposal for an MBT would have been some £26 million less than the option now being recommended.
The expert described the price tag for the proposed new waste transfer station - almost £5 million - as "extremely expensive". He added: "The council do not appear to have considered using the current transfer station infrastructure for delivery to the treatment facility. This would have reduced the carbon footprint, traffic around Easter Langlee, and the likely need for a new transfer station".
Option A would significantly increase the heavy goods vehicle movements around the Galashiels site. There could also be financial penalties associated with the increase in SBC's carbon footprint.
The report under consideration claims there is insufficient time to re-procure and construct a treatment facility to serve the Borders before 2021 when landfill bans are due to come into force.
But our assessor commented: "To make such a claim is crazy. A procurement exercise would take 12-18 months with construction taking a similar period. There's plenty of time to embark on this route".
He said the report attempted to compare the cost of a waste transfer station to that of the now abandoned waste treatment facility. But, he said, "The context in which this information is presented is completely disproportionate. The non-financial analysis includes the cost of waste treatment, and has very narrow parameters; for example no consideration appears to be given to additional vehicle movements".
And, according to the expert: "The sustainability report shows a positive outcome for employment. However I would challenge this. A transfer station already operates at Easter Langlee, therefore the relevant staff would continue to be employed, all others will be made redundant. This may have been factored into the business case and financial assessment."
At this stage SBC has not gone through a procurement exercise to dispose of their black bin refuse at a treatment facility outside the Borders.
Commenting on this, the independent assessor explained: "Now that they have announced their intention publicly, they may not be able to secure assumed gate fees (the charge levied on a given quantity of waste received at a processing facility).
"When SBC go to tender the nearest treatment facility will know what the gate fees are at other facilities in Scotland. Therefore they may increase gate fees with this in mind as they know it will cost SBC significantly more to transport waste to a facility further away".
The recommended way ahead for the delivery of Borders waste management services, due to be voted on at a council meeting this Thursday, will prove to be at least £7 million more expensive than developing a modern treatment facility at Galashiels, according to an industry expert contacted by Not Just Sheep & Rugby.
And a detailed assessment of a 31-page report prepared for members of Scottish Borders Council has also pointed up other potential flaws, omissions and anomalies in proposals with revenue implications of more than £60 million over the next 15 years.
Following the abandonment of the council's 24-year contract with New Earth Solutions, the company chosen from several bidders to deliver a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) centre at Easter Langlee, SBC is now planning to build an extensive (and apparently costly) waste transfer station on the undeveloped site. The station would receive 40,000 tonnes of black bin waste from across the Borders before the garbage is road hauled out of the region to be processed elsewhere.
We showed the report to an experienced waste management specialist with many years experience in the business of refuse disposal, and asked him to comment, particularly on the financial aspects of the so-called Option A which councillors are expected to approve at a full meeting of the local authority.
He told us: "To be frank I could pull this report apart, but I will concentrate on the financial impact. Option A is shown at a net present value of £60.6 million over 15 years. This compares with the cost of the planned treatment facility which would have been £77 million over 24 years. If you adjust the MBT to 15 years the like for like comparison is £53 million at net present value."
But he added that the treatment facility would still have paid back all capital expenditure, and the formula used to calculate project values suggested the original proposal for an MBT would have been some £26 million less than the option now being recommended.
The expert described the price tag for the proposed new waste transfer station - almost £5 million - as "extremely expensive". He added: "The council do not appear to have considered using the current transfer station infrastructure for delivery to the treatment facility. This would have reduced the carbon footprint, traffic around Easter Langlee, and the likely need for a new transfer station".
Option A would significantly increase the heavy goods vehicle movements around the Galashiels site. There could also be financial penalties associated with the increase in SBC's carbon footprint.
The report under consideration claims there is insufficient time to re-procure and construct a treatment facility to serve the Borders before 2021 when landfill bans are due to come into force.
But our assessor commented: "To make such a claim is crazy. A procurement exercise would take 12-18 months with construction taking a similar period. There's plenty of time to embark on this route".
He said the report attempted to compare the cost of a waste transfer station to that of the now abandoned waste treatment facility. But, he said, "The context in which this information is presented is completely disproportionate. The non-financial analysis includes the cost of waste treatment, and has very narrow parameters; for example no consideration appears to be given to additional vehicle movements".
And, according to the expert: "The sustainability report shows a positive outcome for employment. However I would challenge this. A transfer station already operates at Easter Langlee, therefore the relevant staff would continue to be employed, all others will be made redundant. This may have been factored into the business case and financial assessment."
At this stage SBC has not gone through a procurement exercise to dispose of their black bin refuse at a treatment facility outside the Borders.
Commenting on this, the independent assessor explained: "Now that they have announced their intention publicly, they may not be able to secure assumed gate fees (the charge levied on a given quantity of waste received at a processing facility).
"When SBC go to tender the nearest treatment facility will know what the gate fees are at other facilities in Scotland. Therefore they may increase gate fees with this in mind as they know it will cost SBC significantly more to transport waste to a facility further away".
Sunday, 23 August 2015
Waste management incompetence to cost millions more
DOUG COLLIE on plans to haul 40,000 tonnes of Borders garbage out of the region each year
Members of Scottish Borders Council, who have already cost taxpayers millions of pounds over their bungled handling of a 24-year waste management contract, are expected to rubber stamp plans for an extra £4.5 million of capital expenditure later this week in a bid to clear up their own ordure (rough translation - administrative mess).
The preferred solution will have revenue implications of £60.6 million over the next 15 years, and will require consent to borrow even more cash to cover the cost of a scramble to comply with Scottish Government and EU landfill regulations.
On top of the financial burden, the recommended option drawn up by council officials and the obligatory expensive consultants can hardly be described as environmentally friendly for it involves taking all of the 43,000 tonnes of rubbish currently being landfilled near Galashiels out of the region for processing from 2017. That will require hundreds if not thousands of lorry movements producing sizable additional carbon emissions.
Yet none of this would have been necessary if an original contract with waste management firm New Earth Solutions (NES) to build a conventional treatment plant at Easter Langlee had been left in place. The facility would have been up and running by 2013 at the latest.
Instead, presumably on the advice of senior officers, the members unanimously decided in 2012 to gamble with millions of pounds of council taxpayers' money by changing the contract to include an untried and untested form of incineration which has proved to be useless. As a result the council's entire waste strategy had to be abandoned when the contract was scrapped in February. As one observer told us: "They'd have been as well taking our money into Ladbroke's".
The original procurement from NES, signed in 2010, would have diverted 80% of the Borders' black bin waste from landfill at Easter Langlee where there are major issues with methane emissions.
But now landfilling will continue at its unacceptably high rate until 2017 while a so-called waste transfer station is developed on the unused NES site at an estimated cost of £5.5 million. When other costs are factored into the equation the new "solution" is £4.569 million dearer than the existing waste management budget.
The report for Thursday's council meeting declares: "The development of a waste treatment facility in the Borders is not a viable option at the current time and an interim solution is required. The development of a permanent facility will be considered and evaluated during the development of the new waste management plan". However, it was a viable option until SBC messed up big style.
"Given prior experience the time frame available for designing, procuring and constructing a waste treatment facility, to ensure compliance with the landfill bans in January 2021, is considered to be high risk (i.e. too short) compared to that of a waste transfer station", the report adds.
So how much has been achieved and how much money has been poured down the drain during the last thirteen years since the need for a Borders plant was first recognised in 2002? The answers to those questions would appear to be nothing, and countless millions of pounds respectively.
The latest set of proposals - the umpteenth over the last thirteen years - are certainly given a positive gloss and spin despite the previous record of incompetence and inaction.
The report explains: "The closure and subsequent restoration of Easter Langlee landfill site will significantly reduce the volume of methane gas emitted from the landfill site. This will reduce the council's carbon emissions and will maximise the generation of green electricity from the landfill site.
"There will be carbon emissions from the alternative treatment technologies used to manage the council's waste. However these are likely to be significantly less than those associated with disposal of landfill as is currently the case."
But the document does concede the haulage of waste to facilities outwith the Borders will increase SBC's carbon footprint associated with vehicle movements. However the majority of the waste will be bulk hauled which will ensure vehicle movements will be kept to a minimum.
What are the chances of this cunning plan succeeding when all of its predecessors have failed? And will the Green lobby welcome the prospect of fleets of lorries uplifting waste from across the 1800 square miles of Borders territory, taking it to a central dump before another fleet of road vehicles haul it off to Dunbar or Edinburgh?
Watch this space.
Members of Scottish Borders Council, who have already cost taxpayers millions of pounds over their bungled handling of a 24-year waste management contract, are expected to rubber stamp plans for an extra £4.5 million of capital expenditure later this week in a bid to clear up their own ordure (rough translation - administrative mess).
The preferred solution will have revenue implications of £60.6 million over the next 15 years, and will require consent to borrow even more cash to cover the cost of a scramble to comply with Scottish Government and EU landfill regulations.
On top of the financial burden, the recommended option drawn up by council officials and the obligatory expensive consultants can hardly be described as environmentally friendly for it involves taking all of the 43,000 tonnes of rubbish currently being landfilled near Galashiels out of the region for processing from 2017. That will require hundreds if not thousands of lorry movements producing sizable additional carbon emissions.
Yet none of this would have been necessary if an original contract with waste management firm New Earth Solutions (NES) to build a conventional treatment plant at Easter Langlee had been left in place. The facility would have been up and running by 2013 at the latest.
Instead, presumably on the advice of senior officers, the members unanimously decided in 2012 to gamble with millions of pounds of council taxpayers' money by changing the contract to include an untried and untested form of incineration which has proved to be useless. As a result the council's entire waste strategy had to be abandoned when the contract was scrapped in February. As one observer told us: "They'd have been as well taking our money into Ladbroke's".
The original procurement from NES, signed in 2010, would have diverted 80% of the Borders' black bin waste from landfill at Easter Langlee where there are major issues with methane emissions.
But now landfilling will continue at its unacceptably high rate until 2017 while a so-called waste transfer station is developed on the unused NES site at an estimated cost of £5.5 million. When other costs are factored into the equation the new "solution" is £4.569 million dearer than the existing waste management budget.
The report for Thursday's council meeting declares: "The development of a waste treatment facility in the Borders is not a viable option at the current time and an interim solution is required. The development of a permanent facility will be considered and evaluated during the development of the new waste management plan". However, it was a viable option until SBC messed up big style.
"Given prior experience the time frame available for designing, procuring and constructing a waste treatment facility, to ensure compliance with the landfill bans in January 2021, is considered to be high risk (i.e. too short) compared to that of a waste transfer station", the report adds.
So how much has been achieved and how much money has been poured down the drain during the last thirteen years since the need for a Borders plant was first recognised in 2002? The answers to those questions would appear to be nothing, and countless millions of pounds respectively.
The latest set of proposals - the umpteenth over the last thirteen years - are certainly given a positive gloss and spin despite the previous record of incompetence and inaction.
The report explains: "The closure and subsequent restoration of Easter Langlee landfill site will significantly reduce the volume of methane gas emitted from the landfill site. This will reduce the council's carbon emissions and will maximise the generation of green electricity from the landfill site.
"There will be carbon emissions from the alternative treatment technologies used to manage the council's waste. However these are likely to be significantly less than those associated with disposal of landfill as is currently the case."
But the document does concede the haulage of waste to facilities outwith the Borders will increase SBC's carbon footprint associated with vehicle movements. However the majority of the waste will be bulk hauled which will ensure vehicle movements will be kept to a minimum.
What are the chances of this cunning plan succeeding when all of its predecessors have failed? And will the Green lobby welcome the prospect of fleets of lorries uplifting waste from across the 1800 square miles of Borders territory, taking it to a central dump before another fleet of road vehicles haul it off to Dunbar or Edinburgh?
Watch this space.
Thursday, 20 August 2015
Sheep country will lose £65 million if Tories exit EU
by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD and our Investigations Unit
Common Agricultural Policy subsidies for farmers and rural businesses in the Scottish Borders and North Northumberland were worth a colossal £65,810,370 in 2014, according to figures compiled by Not Just Sheep & Rugby in the course of detailed investigations into EU payments.
The statistics are a stark reminder of the potentially devastating financial impact on Borders agriculture and development in the countryside should Britain leave the European Union in the wake of the Tory Government's "In-Out" referendum. Many of the subsidised businesses would struggle to survive without the financial support available via the CAP system.
Ironically, many of those who benefit from these Brussels funds are certain to be Conservative voters. So it will be interesting to see whether many or any of them campaign for a No vote whenever the referendum takes place. Could there be temporary defections within the farming community to the SNP or one of the other political parties in favour of hanging on to our membership of the European club?
According to tens of thousands of subsidies listed on a UK Government website a substantial number of the payments to British farmers run into six figures. That is certainly the case in areas with TD and EH45 postcodes which cover the Borders and Berwick-on-Tweed areas.
The details included on the DEFRA website relate to all CAP subsidy payments made to beneficiaries during the EU financial year 16 October 2013 to 15 October 2014. We are told: "The UK Government remains committed to full transparency in the use of public funds, including the publication of details about all payments made under the CAP."
So Not Just Sheep & Rugby thought it would be in the public interest to assemble figures for each of the Borders postcode sectors, including details of some of the larger payments, although the list is by no means comprehensive. It does give an idea of the contribution CAP payments are making to the regional economy. The figures are in £ sterling and are not necessarily listed in order of value.
GALASHIELS (TD1) - total payments - £3,517,922; including L G Litchfield (Bowland) 378,366; T & J Elliot 162,049; T Elliot (Bedshiel) 127,391; J G Runciman 100,102; J Runciman & Sons 108,030; J Runciman (Lugate) 109,156; A & E Brown 141,423; Southern Upland Partnership 168,000; William Montgomery 195,477.
LAUDER (TD2) - total payments £2,261,345; including Firm of Sutherland 183,517; Huntington Partnership 132,027; W H Sharp & Son 160,093; W Runciman 105,943; William Barr & Company 190,388.
GORDON (TD3) - total payments £2,141,564; including G McDougal (Bassendean) 338,385; Haddington Farms 164,271; J & T MacFarlane 736,918; R W Morris & Company 170,374.
EARLSTON (TD4) - total payments £1,288,565; including Fans Farming 235,614; J W Fullerton & Sons 225,597; Hamish Morison Farming 145,534; R & J Scott Aiton 165,757.
KELSO (TD5) - total payments £10,305,529; including C M Goodson 157,622; Balgonie Estates 233,023; Floors Farming 329,949; H H Robson & Co 111,794; J S Baird & Son 115,096; Kames Partnership 123,488; Lochtower Ltd 146,654; D & DWD Thomson 191,053; J Jeffrey 218,477; J Neil & Son 162,450; TDC Thomson 159,768; T H Brewis 139,593; Ninewells Farms 145,714; Oxnam Estates 136,150; Playfair Farms 182,352; R H Bell 118,194; T W & T B Edgar 328,470; The Oliver Family LLP 206,791.
MELROSE/ST BOSWELLS (TD6) - total payments £2,608,321; including George Marshall 109,928; F & C M Forster 105,669; Mertoun Estates 201,924; Malcolm Stewart 124,403; Maxwell (Faughhill) 162,145; Riddell Farms 124,849; T D Wight 106,100.
SELKIRK (TD7) - total payments £4,661,694; including BQ Farming Partnerships 281,171; Eckford Farming Ltd 192,022; Langholm Farms Ltd 277,468; John White & Sons 103,123; MacDonald Partners 129,942; Matinley Farms 119,943; W J Coltherd 111,720; Sir F M Strang Steel 152,304; Swinside Farming 129,573; T REnwick & Sons 142,812; W N Douglas 220,405.
JEDBURGH (TD8) - total payments £4,618,173; including Borders Forest Trust 194,864; Fenwick Jackson 126,181; Nisbet Mill Farm 218,381; A & A Scott 170,677; R G Barbour & Sons 252,013; R Tile 121,719; Robert Neill & Partners 191,158; Scottish Borders Brewery 154,032; The Firm of Samieston 100,118.
HAWICK (TD9) - total payments £7,937,831; including A R Bell & Son 132,956; H & C J Usher 110,347; H & M Farms 250,219; Hallrule Farms 107,509; W W Dunlop & Son 129,688; Mrs L Townsend 155,737; R J Feakins 204,864; T W Tennant 153,228; W R Girvan (Berryfell) 180,449; W S Davies & Son 149,443.
DUNS (TD10) - total payments £1,887,061; including J C and K C Constable 195,643; John Cavers & Son 111,094; John Mitchell & Co 166,192.
DUNS (TD11) - total payments £8,290,984; including A & G Rodger 152,692; A M & A Calder 207,936; Charterhall Farms 132,162; Duncan Shell 206,054; Ellemford Farms 160,890; G W B Fullerton & Son 167,305; Harehead Farms 222,581; J J & H D J Dobie 144,125; L L MacVie & Co 111,392; MacFarlane Farms 413,594; A & J Hodge 139,525; R P Cowe 176,344; R & J McDonald 321,420; Robert Forrest Ltd 140,427; S White & Co 139,087; W B Prentice 116,613; West Weetwood Farming Partnership 129,487.
COLDSTREAM/CORNHILL (TD12) - total payments £1,250,377; including C A Ramsay 122,869; S & D Blaylock 134,141.
COCKBURNSPATH (TD13) - total payments £593,476; including J P H Wight 161,767.
EYEMOUTH (TD14) - total payments £1,819,099; including P T Edmonson 106,206; R H Allan 103,415; J Fullarton & Son 134,317.
BERWICK-ON-TWEED (TD15) - £8,361,954 paid to 193 beneficiaries.
PEEBLES (EH45) - total payments £2,338,979; including Haystoun 124,706; Glenrath Farms 130,134; J B Currie 124,248; J P Campbell & Sons 352,656.
*Footnote - Even Carola Godman Irvine, of Great Ote Hall, Sussex, who annoys a large proportion of the readership of the Southern Reporter each week with her extreme views on a host of issues including the current migrant crisis, is subsidised by European taxpayers. The payments register shows she received £38,936.15 from CAP sources in 2014 made up of £1,966 for "rural development" and £36,970 in direct aid.
This week the outspoken columnist - her links to the Southern's circulation area appear to be non-existent - is complaining because her cereal yields are so good there will be a glut of grain resulting in depressed prices. You win some you lose some Carola!
Common Agricultural Policy subsidies for farmers and rural businesses in the Scottish Borders and North Northumberland were worth a colossal £65,810,370 in 2014, according to figures compiled by Not Just Sheep & Rugby in the course of detailed investigations into EU payments.
The statistics are a stark reminder of the potentially devastating financial impact on Borders agriculture and development in the countryside should Britain leave the European Union in the wake of the Tory Government's "In-Out" referendum. Many of the subsidised businesses would struggle to survive without the financial support available via the CAP system.
Ironically, many of those who benefit from these Brussels funds are certain to be Conservative voters. So it will be interesting to see whether many or any of them campaign for a No vote whenever the referendum takes place. Could there be temporary defections within the farming community to the SNP or one of the other political parties in favour of hanging on to our membership of the European club?
According to tens of thousands of subsidies listed on a UK Government website a substantial number of the payments to British farmers run into six figures. That is certainly the case in areas with TD and EH45 postcodes which cover the Borders and Berwick-on-Tweed areas.
The details included on the DEFRA website relate to all CAP subsidy payments made to beneficiaries during the EU financial year 16 October 2013 to 15 October 2014. We are told: "The UK Government remains committed to full transparency in the use of public funds, including the publication of details about all payments made under the CAP."
So Not Just Sheep & Rugby thought it would be in the public interest to assemble figures for each of the Borders postcode sectors, including details of some of the larger payments, although the list is by no means comprehensive. It does give an idea of the contribution CAP payments are making to the regional economy. The figures are in £ sterling and are not necessarily listed in order of value.
GALASHIELS (TD1) - total payments - £3,517,922; including L G Litchfield (Bowland) 378,366; T & J Elliot 162,049; T Elliot (Bedshiel) 127,391; J G Runciman 100,102; J Runciman & Sons 108,030; J Runciman (Lugate) 109,156; A & E Brown 141,423; Southern Upland Partnership 168,000; William Montgomery 195,477.
LAUDER (TD2) - total payments £2,261,345; including Firm of Sutherland 183,517; Huntington Partnership 132,027; W H Sharp & Son 160,093; W Runciman 105,943; William Barr & Company 190,388.
GORDON (TD3) - total payments £2,141,564; including G McDougal (Bassendean) 338,385; Haddington Farms 164,271; J & T MacFarlane 736,918; R W Morris & Company 170,374.
EARLSTON (TD4) - total payments £1,288,565; including Fans Farming 235,614; J W Fullerton & Sons 225,597; Hamish Morison Farming 145,534; R & J Scott Aiton 165,757.
KELSO (TD5) - total payments £10,305,529; including C M Goodson 157,622; Balgonie Estates 233,023; Floors Farming 329,949; H H Robson & Co 111,794; J S Baird & Son 115,096; Kames Partnership 123,488; Lochtower Ltd 146,654; D & DWD Thomson 191,053; J Jeffrey 218,477; J Neil & Son 162,450; TDC Thomson 159,768; T H Brewis 139,593; Ninewells Farms 145,714; Oxnam Estates 136,150; Playfair Farms 182,352; R H Bell 118,194; T W & T B Edgar 328,470; The Oliver Family LLP 206,791.
MELROSE/ST BOSWELLS (TD6) - total payments £2,608,321; including George Marshall 109,928; F & C M Forster 105,669; Mertoun Estates 201,924; Malcolm Stewart 124,403; Maxwell (Faughhill) 162,145; Riddell Farms 124,849; T D Wight 106,100.
SELKIRK (TD7) - total payments £4,661,694; including BQ Farming Partnerships 281,171; Eckford Farming Ltd 192,022; Langholm Farms Ltd 277,468; John White & Sons 103,123; MacDonald Partners 129,942; Matinley Farms 119,943; W J Coltherd 111,720; Sir F M Strang Steel 152,304; Swinside Farming 129,573; T REnwick & Sons 142,812; W N Douglas 220,405.
JEDBURGH (TD8) - total payments £4,618,173; including Borders Forest Trust 194,864; Fenwick Jackson 126,181; Nisbet Mill Farm 218,381; A & A Scott 170,677; R G Barbour & Sons 252,013; R Tile 121,719; Robert Neill & Partners 191,158; Scottish Borders Brewery 154,032; The Firm of Samieston 100,118.
HAWICK (TD9) - total payments £7,937,831; including A R Bell & Son 132,956; H & C J Usher 110,347; H & M Farms 250,219; Hallrule Farms 107,509; W W Dunlop & Son 129,688; Mrs L Townsend 155,737; R J Feakins 204,864; T W Tennant 153,228; W R Girvan (Berryfell) 180,449; W S Davies & Son 149,443.
DUNS (TD10) - total payments £1,887,061; including J C and K C Constable 195,643; John Cavers & Son 111,094; John Mitchell & Co 166,192.
DUNS (TD11) - total payments £8,290,984; including A & G Rodger 152,692; A M & A Calder 207,936; Charterhall Farms 132,162; Duncan Shell 206,054; Ellemford Farms 160,890; G W B Fullerton & Son 167,305; Harehead Farms 222,581; J J & H D J Dobie 144,125; L L MacVie & Co 111,392; MacFarlane Farms 413,594; A & J Hodge 139,525; R P Cowe 176,344; R & J McDonald 321,420; Robert Forrest Ltd 140,427; S White & Co 139,087; W B Prentice 116,613; West Weetwood Farming Partnership 129,487.
COLDSTREAM/CORNHILL (TD12) - total payments £1,250,377; including C A Ramsay 122,869; S & D Blaylock 134,141.
COCKBURNSPATH (TD13) - total payments £593,476; including J P H Wight 161,767.
EYEMOUTH (TD14) - total payments £1,819,099; including P T Edmonson 106,206; R H Allan 103,415; J Fullarton & Son 134,317.
BERWICK-ON-TWEED (TD15) - £8,361,954 paid to 193 beneficiaries.
PEEBLES (EH45) - total payments £2,338,979; including Haystoun 124,706; Glenrath Farms 130,134; J B Currie 124,248; J P Campbell & Sons 352,656.
*Footnote - Even Carola Godman Irvine, of Great Ote Hall, Sussex, who annoys a large proportion of the readership of the Southern Reporter each week with her extreme views on a host of issues including the current migrant crisis, is subsidised by European taxpayers. The payments register shows she received £38,936.15 from CAP sources in 2014 made up of £1,966 for "rural development" and £36,970 in direct aid.
This week the outspoken columnist - her links to the Southern's circulation area appear to be non-existent - is complaining because her cereal yields are so good there will be a glut of grain resulting in depressed prices. You win some you lose some Carola!
Monday, 17 August 2015
Recycling? Back pedalling more like!
by EWAN LAMB
Scottish Borders Council's recent pathetic performance on rubbish recycling plumbed new depths in the first quarter of 2015 with only 36.27 per cent of household waste not going to landfill. At the same time more than 63 per cent of Borders garbage was buried in the ground, attracting landfill tax of £80 per tonne.
But in publishing statistics which show recycling down by a full five per cent compared to the 41% which was being achieved 12 months ago the council claims to have saved £450,000 per annum by the controversial removal of garden waste collections.
At the same time the withdrawal of the green bins is said to be entirely to blame for the Borders recycling performance heading off in the wrong direction when set aside the achievements of most of the rest of Scotland where a number of innovative local authorities have managed to combine garden and food waste collections.
SBC is introducing the food waste caddies in a number of towns during 2015 after receiving a six-figure sum from Scottish Government sources to launch the new weekly service. But it does not appear that any other council in Scotland felt it necessary to deny taxpayers their valued garden waste kerbside collections to make way for food scraps uplifts.
One thing is certain. The council is paying much more landfill tax than necessary thanks to the bungled attempts over the last thirteen years to provide the region with a modern waste treatment facility. Had a Mechanical Biological Treatment plant been delivered at Easter Langlee then the revenue savings would undoubtedly have run into many millions of pounds by now. And still the wait for a waste treatment solution goes on.
If a "do nothing" scenario was unacceptable in 2009 when SBC set off on yet another fruitless journey, this time in pursuit of a disastrous contract with New Earth Solutions, how much less acceptable is the same scenario in 2015?
Yet another group of talking heads has been established at Newtown St Boswells to work on yet another integrated waste treatment plan. So will they opt for a new plant or could we end up with a situation whereby Borders waste is taken 50 miles by road (or perhaps rail) to Edinburgh or Dunbar for processing?
Another consideration is the prospect of landfill allowance scheme fines which still hang over all local authorities.
SBC is believed to have had a landfill allowance of 17,654 tonnes for 2013/14. But an annual household waste total of around 50,000 tonnes coupled with a landfill figure of 63.46% potentially exposes the Borders to EU fine of £2.23m (32,518 - 17,654 x £150).
Although the fines are currently suspended by the Scottish Government they can apply them if they wish. Ministers have previously indicated this may happen if councils do not take measures to treat waste and divert from landfill.
This is believed to have been the main driver - along with landfill tax - for procuring a treatment facility. So maybe the newly constituted waste management "committee" will get their skates on before those punitive financial penalties are introduced.
Scottish Borders Council's recent pathetic performance on rubbish recycling plumbed new depths in the first quarter of 2015 with only 36.27 per cent of household waste not going to landfill. At the same time more than 63 per cent of Borders garbage was buried in the ground, attracting landfill tax of £80 per tonne.
But in publishing statistics which show recycling down by a full five per cent compared to the 41% which was being achieved 12 months ago the council claims to have saved £450,000 per annum by the controversial removal of garden waste collections.
At the same time the withdrawal of the green bins is said to be entirely to blame for the Borders recycling performance heading off in the wrong direction when set aside the achievements of most of the rest of Scotland where a number of innovative local authorities have managed to combine garden and food waste collections.
SBC is introducing the food waste caddies in a number of towns during 2015 after receiving a six-figure sum from Scottish Government sources to launch the new weekly service. But it does not appear that any other council in Scotland felt it necessary to deny taxpayers their valued garden waste kerbside collections to make way for food scraps uplifts.
One thing is certain. The council is paying much more landfill tax than necessary thanks to the bungled attempts over the last thirteen years to provide the region with a modern waste treatment facility. Had a Mechanical Biological Treatment plant been delivered at Easter Langlee then the revenue savings would undoubtedly have run into many millions of pounds by now. And still the wait for a waste treatment solution goes on.
If a "do nothing" scenario was unacceptable in 2009 when SBC set off on yet another fruitless journey, this time in pursuit of a disastrous contract with New Earth Solutions, how much less acceptable is the same scenario in 2015?
Yet another group of talking heads has been established at Newtown St Boswells to work on yet another integrated waste treatment plan. So will they opt for a new plant or could we end up with a situation whereby Borders waste is taken 50 miles by road (or perhaps rail) to Edinburgh or Dunbar for processing?
Another consideration is the prospect of landfill allowance scheme fines which still hang over all local authorities.
SBC is believed to have had a landfill allowance of 17,654 tonnes for 2013/14. But an annual household waste total of around 50,000 tonnes coupled with a landfill figure of 63.46% potentially exposes the Borders to EU fine of £2.23m (32,518 - 17,654 x £150).
Although the fines are currently suspended by the Scottish Government they can apply them if they wish. Ministers have previously indicated this may happen if councils do not take measures to treat waste and divert from landfill.
This is believed to have been the main driver - along with landfill tax - for procuring a treatment facility. So maybe the newly constituted waste management "committee" will get their skates on before those punitive financial penalties are introduced.
Saturday, 15 August 2015
Easter Langlee revelations as losses continue to grow
by DOUG COLLIE
The "pioneering" technology company which was supposed to provide the Scottish Borders with a state-of-the-art waste treatment plant at Easter Langlee believed a string of planned incinerators in the UK would generate in excess of £900 million of revenue in five years following a £150 million capital expenditure programme.
But while NEAT Technology Group was outlining these highly ambitious and undeliverable claims, the company was, at the same time, failing to convince Scotland's environmental watchdog that its 'revolutionary' pyrolisis and gasification processes were fit for purpose.
It has now been revealed that NEAT Technology - the business has since changed its name to Syngas Products Group Ltd - spent £20,300 in an unsuccessful bid to persuade the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to vary an operating certificate for the Galashiels plant to allow the controversial energy recovery facility to be developed.
The application to SEPA was lodged in May 2013 by New Earth Solutions (Scottish Borders) Ltd, a £1 company set up by Scottish Borders Council's contractors to build the multi-million pound plant. But SEPA remained unconvinced the "cutting edge"technology was safe and suitable. The certificate had still not been issued when the application was withdrawn in February 2015 and SBC abandoned the deal having spent millions of pounds of public money on the failed venture.
During the 21 months of negotiations SEPA served three separate further information notices on the company and remained dissatisfied by limited emission data while also expressing concern over the potential noise impact of the whole Easter Langlee installation given its close proximity to housing.
Last month it was revealed the prototype plant at Avonmouth, near Bristol was performing so poorly that New Earth is in talks to sell it off to an Australian bank and an unnamed institution. The Group's controllers warned: "Given the continuing poor performance of Avonmouth ERF and the need for further significant capital expenditure, which still carries significant risk as to its ultimate success, the terms of any sale are unfortunately likely to be unfavourable for shareholders."
Further research by Not Just Sheep & Rugby shows that while the Galashiels project was still 'live' and after a delegation of Borders councillors and senior offices toured the Avonmouth plant in October 2014, NEAT Technology produced a glowing account of the future potential of their unproven energy recovery techniques.
The directors' report for the period June 2013 to June 2014 (lodged at Companies House in December 2014) proudly declared "[The company] is at the forefront of advanced thermal waste-to-energy technology delivering advanced thermal treatment of residual household and commercial waste. NEAT uses proven and patent protected technology developed for the recovery of renewable energy from waste."
Yet only two months after that report was written the Borders project was dead in the water. It again poses questions over the standard of the 'due diligence' carried out by SBC before, during and after the Avonmouth trip at taxpayers' expense.
But NEAT's claims did not stop there. The report explained the Avonmouth plant would yield significant cost reductions in 2014/15 and in future years, and provide NEAT with a strong royalty income stream.
Following Avonmouth's completion NES was planning to roll out renewable energy recovery to all of its existing and proposed waste treatment sites using NEAT technology. A second incinerator would be built at Avonmouth together with similar facilities at Canford (Dorset) and at Galashiels.
According to the extremely upbeat report: "In total, NES Group's current waste treatment facilities have the potential to supply 40 megawatts of renewable energy. This will require substantial capital expenditure of £150 million with the potential to generate a renewable energy business with revenues in excess of £900 million over the next five years."
It seems those involved in the Borders waste treatment project, including "experts" who cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds in consultancy fees were firmly convinced by NEAT's own publicity. Perhaps SBC should try to recover the taxpayers' money squandered on engaging so-called environmental, technical and legal wizards to serve on their project team.
It is unclear whether SBC bothered to read NEAT Technology's 2013/14 accounts which accompanied the predictions of such a rosy future. If they had taken the trouble to scrutinise the books they might have noticed that the company had recorded a whopping £7.986 million loss on the year.
But that did not prevent NEAT from shelling out "directors' emoluments" of £1.354 million to the five members of the board. The highest paid director received £231,000 but the Group loss after tax stood at £13.907 million with a shareholders' deficit of £13.897 million recorded.
Syngas Products does not appear to have modified its claims for the incineration methods that have resulted in huge problems for NES at Avonmouth. Today the "new" company's website tells potential customers and investors: "Syngas Products (formerly NEAT Technology) is at the forefront of advanced thermal waste-to-energy technology delivery".
Now where have we heard that before? It's to be hoped potential buyers of the risky technology are less gullible than SBC.
The "pioneering" technology company which was supposed to provide the Scottish Borders with a state-of-the-art waste treatment plant at Easter Langlee believed a string of planned incinerators in the UK would generate in excess of £900 million of revenue in five years following a £150 million capital expenditure programme.
But while NEAT Technology Group was outlining these highly ambitious and undeliverable claims, the company was, at the same time, failing to convince Scotland's environmental watchdog that its 'revolutionary' pyrolisis and gasification processes were fit for purpose.
It has now been revealed that NEAT Technology - the business has since changed its name to Syngas Products Group Ltd - spent £20,300 in an unsuccessful bid to persuade the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to vary an operating certificate for the Galashiels plant to allow the controversial energy recovery facility to be developed.
The application to SEPA was lodged in May 2013 by New Earth Solutions (Scottish Borders) Ltd, a £1 company set up by Scottish Borders Council's contractors to build the multi-million pound plant. But SEPA remained unconvinced the "cutting edge"technology was safe and suitable. The certificate had still not been issued when the application was withdrawn in February 2015 and SBC abandoned the deal having spent millions of pounds of public money on the failed venture.
During the 21 months of negotiations SEPA served three separate further information notices on the company and remained dissatisfied by limited emission data while also expressing concern over the potential noise impact of the whole Easter Langlee installation given its close proximity to housing.
Last month it was revealed the prototype plant at Avonmouth, near Bristol was performing so poorly that New Earth is in talks to sell it off to an Australian bank and an unnamed institution. The Group's controllers warned: "Given the continuing poor performance of Avonmouth ERF and the need for further significant capital expenditure, which still carries significant risk as to its ultimate success, the terms of any sale are unfortunately likely to be unfavourable for shareholders."
Further research by Not Just Sheep & Rugby shows that while the Galashiels project was still 'live' and after a delegation of Borders councillors and senior offices toured the Avonmouth plant in October 2014, NEAT Technology produced a glowing account of the future potential of their unproven energy recovery techniques.
The directors' report for the period June 2013 to June 2014 (lodged at Companies House in December 2014) proudly declared "[The company] is at the forefront of advanced thermal waste-to-energy technology delivering advanced thermal treatment of residual household and commercial waste. NEAT uses proven and patent protected technology developed for the recovery of renewable energy from waste."
Yet only two months after that report was written the Borders project was dead in the water. It again poses questions over the standard of the 'due diligence' carried out by SBC before, during and after the Avonmouth trip at taxpayers' expense.
But NEAT's claims did not stop there. The report explained the Avonmouth plant would yield significant cost reductions in 2014/15 and in future years, and provide NEAT with a strong royalty income stream.
Following Avonmouth's completion NES was planning to roll out renewable energy recovery to all of its existing and proposed waste treatment sites using NEAT technology. A second incinerator would be built at Avonmouth together with similar facilities at Canford (Dorset) and at Galashiels.
According to the extremely upbeat report: "In total, NES Group's current waste treatment facilities have the potential to supply 40 megawatts of renewable energy. This will require substantial capital expenditure of £150 million with the potential to generate a renewable energy business with revenues in excess of £900 million over the next five years."
It seems those involved in the Borders waste treatment project, including "experts" who cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds in consultancy fees were firmly convinced by NEAT's own publicity. Perhaps SBC should try to recover the taxpayers' money squandered on engaging so-called environmental, technical and legal wizards to serve on their project team.
It is unclear whether SBC bothered to read NEAT Technology's 2013/14 accounts which accompanied the predictions of such a rosy future. If they had taken the trouble to scrutinise the books they might have noticed that the company had recorded a whopping £7.986 million loss on the year.
But that did not prevent NEAT from shelling out "directors' emoluments" of £1.354 million to the five members of the board. The highest paid director received £231,000 but the Group loss after tax stood at £13.907 million with a shareholders' deficit of £13.897 million recorded.
Syngas Products does not appear to have modified its claims for the incineration methods that have resulted in huge problems for NES at Avonmouth. Today the "new" company's website tells potential customers and investors: "Syngas Products (formerly NEAT Technology) is at the forefront of advanced thermal waste-to-energy technology delivery".
Now where have we heard that before? It's to be hoped potential buyers of the risky technology are less gullible than SBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)