Salmond’s SNP is now ‘Secrets’ National Party as Scottish Government bow to vested interests over widening of Freedom of Information laws

In what may come as little of a surprise to anyone, the current SNP minority Scottish Government have stalled on expanding the reach of Freedom of Information legislation, apparently after business interests lobbied to prevent any further reforms to FOI in Scotland.

The Sunday Herald reports :

SNP U-turn protects big business from scrutiny

EXCLUSIVE: Rob Edwards
30 Jan 2011

The Scottish Government has been slapped down by the Information Commissioner for bowing to pressure from big business and abandoning plans to end the secrecy enjoyed by private contractors working for the state.

Ministers have shelved proposals to extend freedom of information legislation to cover the companies that build and run schools, hospitals, prisons and roads. The move was fiercely opposed by the firms.

Other bodies which will also now escape designation under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act are trusts set up by local authorities to run leisure and cultural activities, Glasgow Housing Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

The U-turn has earned a strong rebuke from the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

He said: “I have consistently warned the government that freedom of information rights are under threat given the number of local authority trusts and private contractors used to deliver public services … I am disappointed that successive Scottish administrations have failed to use their powers to protect and extend the public’s right to know.”

Campaigners accused ministers of caving in to vested interests.

Carole Ewart from the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland said: “We are deeply disappointed that the government has reversed its position on extending the Act because of opposition from the private sector bodies themselves.

“It would have been obvious to ministers before making these proposals that the contractors did not want to be covered, and we are amazed that merely because they have said they don’t like the idea the government has shelved it.”

Ewart warned that Scotland was now losing its lead over England on freedom of information. South of the Border, the law is being extended to cover police chiefs, the Local Government Association, the Law Society and other bodies that are not going to be covered in Scotland.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in Scotland lobbied strongly against the extension of freedom of information rights. It has warmly welcomed the government’s change of heart.

CBI Scotland’s assistant director, David Lonsdale, said: “Extending freedom of information obligations to private sector suppliers of public services would have been unnecessary, costly, and at odds with promises to simplify regulation and public procurement, so we are pleased that ministers have listened.”

The Scottish Government accepted that there was “broad support” for increased openness and transparency.

But it said: “Any extension of legislation is not favoured by the majority of those bodies proposed for coverage at the present time.”

The Scottish Government’s rather long winded statement saying FOI would not be expanded to private contractors working for the state, issued earlier in the week, follows :

Freedom of Information (FoI)

Freedom of Information (FoI)

26/01/2011

Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford today announced the Scottish Government is committed to bringing forward a Bill clarifying and strengthening the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act.

After six years of the existing legislation, some necessary improvements have been identified, meaning the time now seems right to review the legislation as a whole.

Mr Crawford said that the Scottish Government intends to bring forward measures to strengthen and improve the Act through a Freedom of Information (Scotland) Amendment Bill in the next Parliamentary session.

The Government also considers that it would be premature to extend the legislation to cover a greater range of bodies delivering public services during this Parliamentary session.

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 encourages the development of a more open culture across the public sector by providing a statutory right of access to information held by some 10,000 Scottish public authorities.

The proposed legislation in the next Parliamentary session will put right two deficiencies in the current FOI laws that have been identified relating to Part 5 (Historical Records) and Section 65 (Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure).

The Scottish Government also intends to review and consult on how best the Act can be improved and strengthened as part of bringing forward this primary legislation.

Ministers consulted last year on whether existing FOI legislation should be widened to cover a greater range of bodies who deliver public services in Scotland. As was made clear at that time, the consultation was necessary as the Scottish Government had not reached firm conclusions on which bodies it might be appropriate to extend coverage to.

As a result of this consultation, Ministers believe it would be premature to extend coverage before the deficiencies in the Act can be put right and the opportunity is taken to strengthen and update the current legislation.

Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford said:

"Freedom of Information has brought a welcome culture of openness and transparency to the work of Government and other public bodies since its introduction in Scotland, and we can be proud of the fact that we have set an example for other countries in this respect. However, the existing legislation can be improved, and that is why we intend to bring forward legislation in the next Parliamentary session to improve and strengthen the existing Act.

"At the same time, Scottish Ministers have carefully considered responses to our consultation on the possible extension of FOI, and it is clear that, while there is broad support for the principles of openness and transparency, any extension of legislation is not favoured by the majority of those bodies proposed for coverage at the present time.

"It was also apparent from the replies to the consultation that many of these organisations are already acting within the spirit of the act by making relevant information available, through both voluntary and statutory means. Ministers believe it would be premature to extend coverage before the deficiencies in the Act can be put right and the opportunity is taken to strengthen and update the current legislation.

"In the meantime, alternative methods with the same aim, including revision to the FOISA Code of Practice, assessment of the impact of the proposed Scottish Housing Charter and the further development of the transparency agenda, will continue to be explored.

"The Scottish Government will always encourage all organisations in Scotland to operate with the same principles of openness and transparency as ourselves, as they are fundamental elements of open democratic government and responsive public services."

Part 5 (Historical Records) relates to the 30 year lifespan of a 'historical record'; sets out the exemptions which are subject to this category and identifies the lifespan of certain other exemptions; and gives Scottish Ministers order making powers to amend these timescales.

By Order under Section 59 Scottish Ministers can change the 30 year lifespan to 15 years (or, whichever lifespan they so choose to define). This amendment however, would change all exemptions in Section 58(1). In order to be able to move these timescales independently, primary legislation will be required.

Section 65 (Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure). The destruction of information after it has been requested is a criminal offence. The standard timescale for commencing proceedings of a summary conviction is 6 months as set in section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

Due to the process that FOISA follows, it is potentially 10 months from commission before any offence could be discovered by the Commissioner at appeal stage. Subsection (2) of section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 allows Acts, such as FOISA, to fix their own time limit.

'Justice for Megrahi' Petition calling for an independent inquiry into Lockerbie Bomber’s conviction has second hearing at Scottish Parliament

PETITION PE1370 by the Justice for Megrahi group, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, has had its second hearing at the Petitions Committee today.

After a discussion on the petition, the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service seeking a response to specific points.

Written submissions on Petition PE1370 can be found HERE and our earlier coverage of the Petition can be found HERE

Justice for Megrahi Petition PE1370 Scottish Parliament 25 January 2011 (Click image below to view video)

The minutes of the Petitions Committee’s deliberations during its 25 January 2011 meeting follow :

Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee consideration of Petition PE1370 25 January 2011

Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)

The Convener: The next petition is by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie, on behalf of Justice for Megrahi. Christine Grahame is here. Christine, would you like to address the committee and then we can go to questions?

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): Thank you, convener. I commend the members of the committee for their stamina in these late sittings. I do not know if I have it.

I refer to point 2 of the Scottish Government's letter of 7 January, which states:

"A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors."

The letter goes on to say that the petitioners invite the Government to do something that falls properly within the criminal justice system and that there are routes available within that system, so that should be an end of the matter.

If I may say so—and I am quite ready to challenge my own Government—those are not the facts. First, we know why Mr Megrahi abandoned his appeal, because Maggie Scott QC told the court why he did so. I will paraphrase, but she said words to the effect that her client, Mr Megrahi, believed that doing so would assist with his applications—plural—meaning his applications for prisoner transfer and for compassionate release. Prisoner transfer, of course, required abandonment of appeal and compassionate release did not. We can struggle over why he abandoned it and who said what to whom, but that is a fact and what he believed, so these are extraordinary circumstances.

We must then challenge whether there is a route open to Mr Megrahi within the criminal justice system other than a public inquiry. If members will bear with me, I will refer, I hope in a rather lawyerly way, to the legislation that was brought in recently to deal with people who were not being represented when they were charged. I will get the name of it in a moment—bear with me. I will just make my submission, then I will tell you the name of the act. Here we are. It is the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. If members recall, we dealt with the legislation all in one day, from stage 1 through to stage 3. There is a section in it that I tried to have deleted because it did something radical to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which you will know is an independent body that was set up in 1999 to deal with miscarriages of justice independently of the courts and independently of us, thankfully. Section 7(3)(2) of the act does something strange in relation to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. It states:

"In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made, the Commission must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings."

For the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is an independent body, to say that there might have been a miscarriage of justice is no longer good enough. It has to say, "We think there might have been a miscarriage of justice, but nevertheless, because of the need for finality and certainty, we are not going to refer it to the High Court."

However, say a case did pass the test and the commission referred it to the High Court. Previously, the High Court had to accept a referral with no ifs and no buts, but that also changed under the emergency legislation. The act states:

"In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed, the High Court must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings."

So we have the first hurdle, and if the SCCRC says that the case passes the test of finality and certainty and passes it to the High Court, it sets the test again—the very High Court that heard the case in the first place. To me, that is not a just system.

Going to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is no shoe-in. Many people apply but few get to the stage of a referral. However, referrals can be very successful. If we look at the commission's success rate, we see that it made four referrals on sentencing in 2010, two of which were successful and two of which are still being determined. For sentencing alone—obviously, if someone's conviction has gone, they have no sentence—there were four referrals, two of which were successful, one of which failed and one of which is still being determined. The commission does not make referrals willy-nilly, and they are quite successful.

My concern is that that route will no longer be open, not just to Megrahi but to others. My understanding is that, in certain circumstances, the SCCRC can make a referral even though an appeal has been abandoned.

The circumstances of the case are very strange and there are so many unanswered questions, whether for people who believe he is guilty, people who believe he is innocent or the victims' families. No line has been drawn in the sand on the matter.

The route that I mentioned has now been blocked. To give the cabinet secretary his due, he said when I raised the matter that he would review it. A panel of judges is reviewing the legislation and he will review how it operates.

I have taken the time to say that because, first of all, the Government is saying that Megrahi closed the appeal himself—well, we know why.

Secondly, the Government is saying that the criminal justice system has a route, but I think that the SCCRC has been neutered in many respects.

I wish the committee to continue to pursue the inquiry route, and not to close the petition. Convener, I suggest that you confirm with the SCCRC whether it can re-open an abandoned appeal on its own and I would also like to know the SCCRC's views on that limiting of its powers—if any—and when the review panel will report on the functioning of the legislation.

The committee may feel that that is not pertinent to the petition, but I feel that it really is. If members do not know about that bit, they do not know why people are pressing so hard for a public inquiry; it is because they have concerns that everything else is being shut down.

The statement of reasons has not been published, because the subordinate legislation says that if any third party has given evidence—even indirectly—and they do not want it published, it will not be published, so we will pretty well not get anything. This is the final court.

On the mace, it says that we will have justice, integrity and compassion. No wonder the petitioners call themselves Justice for Megrahi—frankly, at the moment, there has not been justice for anybody in this particular case.

The Convener: Okay, thank you.

Bill Butler: I suggest to colleagues that we continue, and I will delimit the way in which we do so. I was going to say that this committee had no further locus, because we have been told that the Scottish Government has again stated that it has no plans to initiate an inquiry on the issue and has clarified why it does not consider an inquiry to be necessary. Christine Grahame referred to that statement in the letter from the Scottish Government that we received.

We have to realise that this is simply a public petitions committee, and we certainly cannot make a judgment in a formal way. However, it would be at least worth while—I am not sure how colleagues feel about this—if we did two things.

First, we could, as Christine Grahame suggests, write to the cabinet secretary to ask whether he will review the application of the emergency legislation as he has promised. If that is his intention—which I do not doubt, because he told Christine Grahame, a member of the Parliament, that that was his intention—when will his review take place, and when and how will his decision in that respect be made known? Secondly, on another point that Christine Grahame raised, can the SCCRC open an abandoned appeal?

Those are the two questions. On the first, we hope that we know the answer, or part of it. On the second, we really do not. We can continue on those two specific points.

I must say this, however. Once we ask those questions, unless someone is ingenious enough to come up with other ways in which we could legitimately continue the matter as a public petitions committee—because the arguments and the controversy will continue—we will have to close the petition. However, I suggest to colleagues that it is worth while for us to continue by asking the fairly narrow questions that Christine Grahame has suggested we ask.

17:30

Cathie Craigie: I support what Bill Butler has said, particularly in his final summary. We must go back and ask for a further couple of points to be clarified. If we do not get anywhere, it is difficult to see where the committee can go.

Point 3 of the Government's letter refers to the Inquiries Act 2005. The Government's reason for saying that it cannot conduct a public inquiry is weak—I will not use the same words as the petitioners used in their submission. The Government is hiding behind an excuse. Every time the Government touches the Megrahi case, it seems to do something wrong and to move the goalposts.

I support my colleague Bill Butler's suggestions. We should see whether we can get responses before the next session.

I note the length of time that the Government took to respond to our previous letter on a Megrahi inquiry. I know that the convener has written to the First Minister about that. I am sure that a whole load of civil servants are familiar with every detail of the Megrahi case and could put their hands quickly to writing the response that we will request.

I do not know whether the clerk or the convener will write the further letter to the Government, but I suggest that we ask for a quick response, because we want to deal with the petition in this session.

Nigel Don: Once we have a response from the Government, there is little prospect that another response will be different, but banging on the door will do no harm. It occurs to me that—as far as I can recall—we have not yet written to the Lord Advocate. As the senior independent law officer, does she have from somewhere in the mists of time residual powers to investigate this, that and the other? That might be clutching at straws, but it is one sack of straws that we need to consider. Do the law officers have a residual power to investigate or reconsider a case in such circumstances? I would not even define the circumstances; we should just ask the Lord Advocate to think about what she might be able to do.

Robin Harper: Considering that the petition is extremely limited—it asks us

"to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry"—

and that we have been told at least twice that the Government has no intention of so doing, we have every right to close the petition. However, I have listened to Christine Grahame's arguments and I feel that, for the petitioners' sake, it is worth writing to ask the SCCRC for its opinion, which can be forwarded to the Government for a response. As it is seven weeks to dissolution, that process is extremely unlikely to be completed before dissolution, so we must think of the matter as part of our legacy to the next session's Public Petitions Committee.

The Convener: Do we agree to continue the petition in those terms?

Members indicated agreement.

'ConDem cover-up' : No inquiry for now into Scottish Borders Council's £10 million dodgy Icelandic investments backed by Tory linked Treasury company

Inept councillors from Scottish Borders Council who stashed a massive £10 million pounds of taxpayers money into Icelandic Banks which were already showing signs of going under when the Council transferred the funds, can, for the moment, breathe a sigh of relief that no immediate scrutiny of their calamitous investment decisions will take place, after it was revealed Audit Scotland have whimpered out of of any further investigation into the local authority's substantial Icelandic Banking losses.

Scottish Borders Council are known for having a less than dependable record of maintaining its books, notably on one occasion where some £4 million pounds disappeared from the council’s Education budget, forcing huge cuts on Borders public services several years ago.

Retired Scotsman reporter William Chisholm who has been investigating SBC's dodgy finance deals in the Icelandic Banks, spoke to Scottish Law Reporter earlier this week, revealing the Audit Scotland cop-out.

Mr Chisholm also commented on lack of accountability at the hapless Borders local authority, and noted the Council had refused to hand over copies of particular documents in response to his Freedom of Information request, documents which contained the actual financial advice which Butlers Treasury Advisers, (the Treasury Advisers used by Scottish Borders Council), had given to the local Council, advice which was then used as justification for the ill fated, reckless investments.

Mr Chisholm said : “I said right from the outset that I did not expect the Audit Commission to investigate the loss of over £2 million resulting from Scottish Borders Council’s reckless investment in two Iceland banks. But as a council taxpayer I felt I had every right to challenge and question the negligent actions of my local authority which have cost the Borders dearly. My aim was to have those responsible for the folly to be identified then held to account.

“However, in response to my Freedom of Information request the council declined to name the “treasury officials” who transferred £10 million of public money into the Icelandic banks in the summer of 2008 when virtually every other investor in that country was pulling their cash out before it was too late.”

“SBC also refused to give me a copy of the advice they received from their external treasury advisers before the catastrophic investments were made. The council provided me with a link to a website said to contain minutes of a relevant executive meeting in 2008. Unfortunately the link was non-existent, and when I pointed this out to them on 12 October 2010 I received an emailed apology with a promise to supply the correct link. I am still waiting.”

“After a great deal of detailed research I passed my findings to politicians of every political persuasion with a request that they either institute an inquiry or at the very least support my call for an investigation. Sadly not a single MSP or MP agreed to back that request, and in the case of John Swinney, the Scottish Government Finance Minister, he has not even acknowledged receipt of my report even though I have submitted it to him twice since 27 October 2010. I remain convinced an inquiry by the Scottish Parliament into the multi-million pound losses by Scottish local authorities in Icelandic banks should be held.”

Mr Chisholm ended by saying : “I must thank my own constituency MSP John Lamont who raised the issue with Mr John Baillie, the chairman of the Accounts Commission. He (Mr Baillie) has told Mr Lamont: “The Council (SBC) is best placed to provide any further information to Mr Chisholm to give a full picture of the actions they have taken on the Investments.”

“If only that were true. At least the subject has received a good airing; sadly I notice from the council’s audited accounts for 2009/10 that the Icelandic impairment has now increased to £3.088 million.”

Scottish Law Reporter reported on the calls for a full investigation of Scottish Borders Council during November 2010 where it was revealed by retired Scotsman journalist William Chisholm who carried out his own investigation of SBC’s Icelandic finance deals, that Audit Scotland had been asked to investigate claims Scottish Borders Council acted negligently & recklessly in investing a staggering £10 million pounds of taxpayers money in the now collapsed Icelandic banks. The Council, which is now cutting posts & public services across the Borders is expected to lose more than £3 million pounds on its investment and that the final payment (if indeed any payments are made) of its expected return is not due until October, 2018.

It also transpired that during Mr Chisholm’s investigation of how Scottish Borders Council invested in the Icelandic Banks, SBC’s Treasury Advisers, Butlers, had been involved in similar losses to local authorities all across the UK, totalling hundreds of millions of pounds.

Further enquiries revealed Butlers Treasury advisers were linked to the Conservative Party’s Treasurer, Michael Spencer, who was the subject of a report in the Independent newspaper, where, following a two month investigation, journalist Martin Hickman alleged that "councils who paid [a firm run by Mr Spencer] for strategic advice were almost twice as likely to have lost money in the three main Icelandic banks as those advised by other companies. The Conservative Party’s own website continues to list Mr Spencer as its current Treasurer.

The Independent’s investigation of Butlers and its connections to local authorities in the UK, continued : "Of the 116 local authorities who lost money, 51 received advice from Butlers. Their losses totalled £470m, more than half the total amount of council funds frozen in the banks."

An insider, speaking to Scottish Law Reporter earlier this week alleged the failure of Audit Scotland & MSPs to look into the dodgy investment policy of Scottish Borders Council may be down to “a political cover up” as Scottish Borders Council is run by the same coalition of Conservative & LibDems which currently run the UK Government.

The insider said : “In the circumstances of Scottish Borders Council being run by a coalition of Conservative and Lib Dem councillors, and with the Borders being represented in both Parliaments by either Conservatives or Liberal Democrats how can the public ever hope to get an investigation into complaints against the council ?”

It was also pointed out that the Treasury Advisory firm used by Scottish Borders Council is also linked to the Conservative party, and that questions needed to be asked over how the company was appointed and whether any political bias played a part in its placement as the Council’s Treasury advisers.

A local Borders openness campaigner speaking on the matter yesterday said : “Having looked into the matter, I feel there is a mist descending on the Icelandic investment matter to protect Conservatives & LibDem Scottish Borders Councillors from any potentially damaging investigations into their conduct, particularly with an upcoming Scottish Parliament election later this year in May 2011.”

He continued : “There must be an investigation as to how the Council arrived at decisions to invest millions of pounds in banks which were already widely regarded as risky at the time. If the money is lost, Councillors should be personally surcharged to recover the funds to taxpayers.”

No one from Audit Scotland or Scottish Borders Council could be reached for comment at time of publication.

An additional scandal has since hit Scottish Borders Council after it was revealed its Golden handshake policy is one of the most generous in the land, ranking even greater than big city councils such as Glasgow & Manchester, after figures revealed on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism website showed that, in the three years from April 2007 to April 2010, the council paid out £1.245million in contract termination payments to 47 staff.

The total amount disbursed to departing employees placed SBC seventh in the top 10 of 433 councils in Scotland, England and Wales. The highest spender was Manchester City Council which paid out more than £4.6million to 416 staff members: an average payment of £11,200. Glasgow City Council, which shelled out £1.721million to 611 staff (an average of just £2,815) came fifth in the league table.

Scottish Borders Council’s payments worked out at a whopping £26,492. Over the same period, the council made 37 redundancy payments totalling £349,000 and paid out 92 other end of contract lump sums totalling £702,370.

Advocate Maurice O'Carroll appointed to Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to fill lawyer-only board member position

Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has announced today the Scottish Government’s own Junior Council, Maurice O’Carroll has been appointed to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to fill a newly created lawyer-only board position on the accident prone law complaints quango (sounds a bit odd, were they short of takers for the job ? – Ed)

The announcement from the Scottish Government :

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : Appointment of Maurice O'Carroll QC

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

20/01/2011

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill today announced the appointment of a new member to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

The new member is Maurice O'Carroll, Advocate.

Mr O'Carroll is a graduate of the University of Edinburgh who was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1995. Prior to being called to the Bar Mr O'Carroll worked in Brussels for three years, initially with the European Commission and then with a commercial law firm specialising in international trade. Since 2002 he has been ad hoc Advocate Depute for the Crown Office and Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Government since 2003. He has a range of experience which includes planning inquiry work, public and administrative law, conducting employment tribunals and employment appeals tribunals, Inner House experience and providing opinions in relation to each of these areas.

Mr O'Carroll has extensive and varied advocacy experience. His breadth of experience and professional standing will complement and strengthen the current Board.

This appointment will run for five years from a date which has still to be confirmed but likely to be sometime around March.

This post is part-time and attracts a remuneration of £212 per day for a time commitment of up to six days per month.

Mr O'Carroll does not hold any other public appointment.

The SLCC was established by virtue of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Its main functions are to resolve complaints alleging inadequate professional service or negligence by legal practitioners, to refer complaints which allege professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct to the relevant professional body and to promote good practice in complaints handling.

This Ministerial public appointment was made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland's Code of Practice.

All appointments are made on merit and political activity plays no part in the selection process. However in accordance with the original Nolan recommendations, there is a requirement for appointees' political activity within the last five years (if there is one to be declared) to be made public. Mr O'Carroll has no political activity to be declared.

Scottish Government ‘slam door’ on 'crooked security firms' in social housing construction contracts, 'crooked others' still welcome

‘Crooked’ security firms will be banned from any contracts in social housing construction across Scotland, claim the Scottish Government in the form of a salvo of quotes from the Justice Secretary, Housing Minister & SCDEA Chief.

The success of the Scottish Government’s ban will doubtless depend on a flawless implementation of the new rules where contracts to guard building sites will only be awarded to firms which are members of the UK Security Industry Authority approved contractors' scheme.

However, other sorts of crooked professionals getting involved in the social housing sector .. that’s a whole different matter … (Crooked lawyers good to go again ? Even I know one who deals with a Housing Association ! – Ed)

Door slammed on crooked security firms

20/01/2011

Cowboy security firms will be banned from any contracts in social housing construction across Scotland, Housing and Communities Minister Alex Neil revealed today.

Contracts to guard building sites will only be awarded to firms which are members of the UK Security Industry Authority approved contractors' scheme.

Police forces and law enforcement agencies across Scotland have teamed up to target unscrupulous security firms involved in the construction sector.

The new rules extend to housing associations and other affordable housing grant recipients the same checks that already apply to Scottish Government departments.

This year, the social housing construction sector is backed by £502 million from the Scottish Government.

Alex Neil said: "We are slamming the door on rogue security firms. We want them off our building sites and off our streets.

"Police tell us that some firms providing 'security' are no more than fronts for organised crime. They use cash from these contracts to bankroll their trails of misery of drug dealing and violence.

"They should have no hiding place in Scotland - least of all siphoning from budgets which help the most vulnerable people who need social housing. More often than not, they are the main victims of these criminals."

Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill said: "Each and every one of us can play a part in the fight against series and organised crime. For those of us in Government, that means ensuring that the contracts we award go only to bone fide companies.

"These positive measures will ensure that taxpayers' cash does not end up in the grubby paws of crooks. Working in partnership with the SIA is part of a wider drive by police forces in Scotland to target organised criminals wherever they operate."

Gordon Meldrum, Director General of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency said: "Serious organised criminals are opportunists who care only about profit and power. We know that they will look to infiltrate every area of our society to further those aims and they don't care about the trail of broken lives and communities they leave in their wake.

"But we are alive to what they are up to and working together we are getting better at closing down opportunities. This new initiative will help make the social housing sector a tougher nut to crack, and that will disrupt their plans. Good news for tenants and social landlords, and good news for Scotland."

Security Industry Authority Chief Executive Bill Butler said: "The SIA welcomes the Minister's announcement and the recognition of the value the Approved Contractor Scheme brings.

"Joint working initiatives with government, the police and other Scottish stakeholders have provided us with opportunities to help to pursue and disrupt the small pockets of criminals who seek to exploit their position and give the security industry a bad name."

Store owner with 10 penalty points on license escapes driving ban after Perth Court fines him £300 over 90mph incident

The owner of a Perthshire store who already had 10 penalty points on his driving license escaped a driving ban at Perth Justice of the Peace Court after JP Mrs Eve Forrest fined Mark Birbeck (62) £300 and waived the ban, in connection with an incident in which Police detected Mr Birbeck travelling at 90mph on the M90 between Inverkeithing and Perth on October 6 last year, reports the Daily Record newspaper.

I will sack my staff if you ban me from the road

Jan 19 2011 Gordon Currie

THE multi-millionaire owner of the "Harrods of the north" escaped a driving ban yesterday after threatening to sack staff if he was put off the roads.

Retail tycoon Mark Birkbeck, 62, persuaded a court that a ban would cause him "exceptional hardship" and claimed he was not in a position to hire a chauffeur.

Birkbeck, who employs 240 people at House of Bruar in Perthshire, was allowed to stay on the roads despite now having 14 points on his licence after being caught speeding.

He was already on 10 points when he appeared yesterday at Perth's Justice of the Peace Court. Getting 12 points would usually have resulted in a lengthy ban.

But his lawyer David McKie told the court: "If he is disqualified for six months there will be a large number of redundancies."

Jp Eve Forrest took on board the claimed consequences facing House of Bruar staff, saying: "There are signs of reflected hardship to employees of the business. I will apply four points but will not disqualify you."

But Margaret Dekker, of Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Driving, said: "This is outrageous - this decision by this justice of the peace, and her position generally, needs to be looked at.

"What steps, if any, have the court taken to verify the claims over potential job losses?"

Birkbeck, of Backharn, Grantown-on-Spey, Moray, admitted doing 90mph on the M90 between Inverkeithing and Perth on October 6 last year.

He was driving a £70,000, 3.6-litre Range Rover Vogue at 11.30am when he was detected by police.

Birkbeck claimed no one else in his firm was capable of buying the goods for his upmarket shop on the A9. Mrs Forrest was told Birkbeck lived in a remote house.

Solicitor McKie added: "He does not think he deserves to retain his driving licence."

But despite being told Birkbeck expected a ban, Mrs Forrest fined him £300 and waived a ban.