Glasgow Labour think scrutiny is a waste of time

Yesterday's Full Council meeting was always going to be a tetchy affair - since their new leader was elected, Labour have been foutering about with spokespeople, committee places, chairs, and places on arms length organisations. It's all internal stuff, but it has an impact on how the Council operates, and how the administration is held to account.

As the main opposition party on the Council, we were unconvinced by some of the plans - and in particular the decision by the Labour administration to nominate two Lib Dems and one independent to chair the Scrutiny committees. Labour nominations are in practice unchallengeable given the mathematics of the Council.

The principle of freezing out the main opposition (we have 19 Councillors to the Lib Dems 6) is a bit iffy; to add insult to injury, Committee chairmanship comes with extra money. Labour also decided to reduce the size of the Executive Committee, reducing the SNP places to four, while the Lib Dems have two and the Greens (with 5 Councillors) only one.

The SNP group had also been disappointed to learn via the Sunday papers that Glasgow's Lord Provost appeared to have been using Council cars inappropriately.

Our response to these issues was a sensible one - to ask as many difficult questions of the Labour administration as we could. Among these, we asked about the appointees to Committees, we asked why two more Labour Councillors were being given paid positions on the board of Cordia, we asked about contradictions in Council policies (such as the Air Route Development Fund and the Carbon Reduction commitment).

All of this clearly rattled a few cages amongst the administration - and at one point the Lord Provost accused the SNP of wasting everyone's time. Scrutiny is never a waste of time. The point of the exercise is that we don't get answers when we ask them politely elsewhere. I personally feel as though I've been fobbed off in the past on several occasions - more on that in another post.

The issue of the Lord Provost's car bills is not a matter we can easily raise anywhere else - yet Labour took the very questioning of this as an attack on the office of the Lord Provost. They seem to genuinely believe that the Lord Provost's expenses should not be subject to scrutiny. One Labour Councillor was even heard to call us "sewer rats" for asking whether public money had been used appropriately. We seek higher standards - to pull Glasgow out of the gutter. It's disappointing to see that those with the most to lose don't agree.

Glasgow's Health

At today's Executive Committee we discussed (among other items) the Director of Public Health's report An Unequal Struggle for Health. There are a number of important observations and recommendations in the report for the health of our city. One of the most challenging is, of course, our relationship with alcohol.

For Labour, that relationship is even more uncomfortable. Back in December, at the last full meeting of Council of the year, Labour, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to reject the sensible, non partisan motion submitted by the SNP group:

"Council notes with concern the high and disproportionate impact the misuse of alcohol has on Glasgow's citizens and welcomes the commitment of national and local Governments to tackle this.

Whilst Council notes there is no one answer to tackle this problem it welcomes the principle of minimum pricing which has an important role to play in tackling the misuse of alcohol in Glasgow."

They decided to replace our motion with their own version:

“Council is concerned at the problems faced by many in this city as a result of alcohol misuse, recognises that there is no single solution to this problem and welcomes the commitment of local and national governments to tackle this issue.

Council is aware of the Scottish Government’s preferred option of minimum pricing but is concerned that these proposals are flawed and untested.”

Interestingly, the Director of Public Health's report states quite clearly and unequivocally:

"NHSGGC and its partners must support the government proposals on taking action to restrict promotions of alcohol beverages and introducing a minimum retail price for a UK unit of alcohol"

Whoops! Labour looked distinctly uncomfortable when we challenged them on this today, asking them to retract their previous position - a position most likely forced on them by Iain Gray. They would have known in December that this report was imminent, and that the views of health professionals supported the policy. It just goes to show how petty Labour are - they won't support a policy just because the SNP proposed it. Contrast this with the mature, cross-party support for the banning of smoking in indoor public places.

Sadly for Labour, and tragically for the cause of public health in our city, Council standing orders dictate that decisions taken by the Council can't be overturned for a period of six months, so Labour really have painted themselves into a corner on this one. I'm not certain that it's logical for Labour to back a report contrary to Council policy, but there's really not much else they could do!

The report was accepted unanimously by the Committee, and the work of the Director, Dr Linda De Caestecker, and her team roundly welcomed. I would encourage folk to have a peek at the report - it really is well-written and interesting.

Labour have nothing to say on organised crime

Press release following today's special meeting of Full Council:

Commenting on the decision by Glasgow City Council's Labour Group to boycott today's Special Council meeting on the issue of Serious and Organised Crime, James Dornan, SNP Leader of the Opposition said:

"Labour's contempt for Glasgow City Council and more importantly the residents of the city knows no bounds.


"Whilst we attempted to debate the important issues of serious crime and also standing united against racism and intolerance Councillor Purcell and his timid band of followers decided to boycott the meeting and have lunch instead.

"This is the third time my colleague Councillor McAllister has tried to raise the issue of serious and organised crime in the council chamber and the third time that Labour have refused to debate it. What exactly are they scared of?"

Councillor Billy McAllister, who tabled a motion on serious crime for the third time today, said:

"The people of Glasgow know that serious crime is a major issue in their city; the fact that Labour don't want to discuss it speaks volumes for their attitude towards the people of Glasgow.

"We have debated many major issues facing our city in the chamber, however the one issue which appears to be out of reach in open debate is the question of serious criminality. This is a bad day for democracy in Glasgow."

Councillor Dornan concluded:

"Labour's childish attempt to derail this important debate once again does nothing to raise people's opinion of politics. Arrogant behaviour such as this suggests that Labour think they can continue to take the people of Glasgow for granted. Glasgow deserves better.

"It's time that Labour realised that trampling on the democratic process hurts everyone - voters, victims of crime and eventually even politicians."

Notes:

1. The special council meeting has been called by 20 councillors.

2. No Labour members attended today's meeting. The Lord Provost was in attendance to chair proceedings.

3. The special meeting was called after the Lord Provost ruled a motion on serious crime as "not relevant or competent". An earlier motion, in February 2009, fell after Labour Leader Councillor Purcell used standing orders to end the meeting of Full Council early.

4. A copy of today's agenda can be found here.

Meetings and events

Today's going to be hectic - and very conversation-heavy. It sounds odd to my other half, who speaks mostly to computers, but a significant part of my job is listening to people. Speaking too obviously, but the listening's the really important part. Remembering what was said by whom and when, and what action I've to take when I get back to the office is a bit more challenging, especially when all the meetings are back to back.

This morning, I've got a meeting with parents from St James' and Queen Mary Street at 9.15, and a Royal visit to the opening of the Community Fire House at Calton Fire Station at 10.15. This afternoon, I've got the pantomime of Full Council at 1.30 and then casework to catch up on with several constituents to call back. I'm also still trying to get hold of some facts'n'figures for the school closure meetings next week.

If I get all my work done, I hope to go and see Motherwell play St Mirren tonight in the cup. Events have kept me away from the football for weeks, so it'd be great to make it along. It has the advantage of being able to switch the conversational part of my brain off for a wee while!

Full Council

I ended up keeping a fairly low profile at Council, asking a question regarding provision of crossing patrollers and giving my support to a motion on heart screening for amateur athletes. The mosquito device motion unfortunately fell off the end of the agenda, along with other SNP motions on Steven Purcell's support for the independence question being asked and the 10p tax rate. I was disappointed not to have been able to raise the issue, but I will bring it back if I can.

On crossing patrollers, I was asking whether the Executive Member for Land and Environment, Ruth Simpson (my Labour ward colleague) thought that there should be crossing patrollers on busy city roads. I knew already that the Council policy at present is against having crossing patrollers where there is also a pedestrian controlled crossing in place, except in exceptional circumstances. I know that the Council has had problems in recruiting and retaining crossing patrol staff, but I also feel strongly that where there is a primary school next to a main road like the Gallowgate, there should be a crossing patrol also in place. The answer I got didn't suggest that there would be any change, but I intend to keep looking into the issue and will blog more on it also.

The rest of the Council meeting seemed to be taken over by football (Tommy Burns, Rangers and Phil O'Donnell), but there was some good debate on the natural disasters in Burma and China, nursery education (which I personally didn't go through as a child, so always find slightly intriguing) and a principled debate about victims of miscarriages of justice. I have a sneaking suspicion of some filibustering going on, and there was certainly no acceptance from Labour of Cllr Mackay's suggestion for a suspension of standing orders so we could complete the agenda.

It seems sometimes that there's not enough public debate; we only have full Council (the plenary session of the Council) every six weeks, and Labour still said several times today that the things other parties had raised were not appropriate for full Council. A lot of what we do in the Council is not visible or easily accessible to the public, but it affects everyone in this city. I don't know what the solution is, and perhaps it's also about apathy and getting decent standards of coverage for all levels of politics in the media. Suggestions on a postcard please...

Finding my voice

Tomorrow is full Council, and I'm starting to worry - not because the Chamber is any more daunting than usual, but because the cold which started in my throat on Sunday morning is still with me. I'm hoarse, squeeky and keep having coughing fits. I'm also down to my last sachet of Max Strength Lemsip. The motion I'm moving on Mosquito devices is last on the agenda, so I hope I can last 'til the end of the afternoon. I'll let you know how I get on!

L'esprit de l'escalier

Having a bit of the old esprit de l'escalier since yesterday's Full Council meeting - so many things that I wish that I'd put in my speech. It took this morning's Executive Committee to start getting it out of my system. I'm getting a bit more used to standing up and putting points forward, but it's still difficult to fit everything in to the five minutes we're allocated to move a motion. It's very different from my experience at SNP conference, because I know that there you'll at least get a fair hearing; in the cut and thrust of Glasgow City Council, there's at least forty seasoned Labour Councillors baying for your blood the whole time you're speaking!

David McDonald made his maiden speech in his usual unflappable style, and was able to wind up the Labour Councillors without fear of heckling as custom generally holds them back. Jennifer Dunn also made her maiden speech on lottery funding and the Commonwealth Games, and also did really well.

A good number of our group have now made their first speeches in the Council, and I'm sure we'll get them all through soon. The other parties have given most, if not all, of their members a chance, but Labour (even as the largest group) usually have the same people speaking all the time. It would be interesting to see what some of their members have to say on the issues of the day.