Council secrecy over Christmas events casts a shadow - Iain Whyte

At last month’s full council my Conservative colleague Phil Doggart asked the council leader a simple question. He prefaced it by indicating he had been asking officers similar questions for six weeks without an answer.

Phil said: “Can the council leader confirm that Unique Assembly has complied with all the terms of the winter festivals contract and is not in breach of any terms of the contract, and the council has received all monies due to it.”

The council leader read a prepared statement that didn’t answer the question, deflected onto the cancellation of events because of weather and puffed up the benefit of the winter and summer festivals.

What she did say was that work was ongoing and reporting would go to two council committees. She then used the pretext of allowing local companies who are suppliers to the contractor to be reimbursed first.

The second committee met yesterday with the only reporting being a short cryptic reference to the committee having “received correspondence” and that a legal review of issues raised was under way.

Equally cryptic was the noting of the response to two Freedom of Information requests which seem to admit the funds due have not been paid.

Councillors clearly aren’t happy with the secrecy as another political party added to the tension by lodging an amendment calling for a lot more information to be released to councillors, even if this must happen in private.

Loved by many and loathed by others, the market’s use of public space by private operators for profit causes a public debate. Reinstatement of public areas causes annoyance. Seeming flouting of planning rules has, in the past, led to allegations of preferential treatment.

There is then the issue of whether this helps all year-round local businesses who pay rates and property costs by bringing footfall. Or whether it draws business away to short term market operators imported from elsewhere.

Given this, you would think the council would be making sure that the procurement of these events was squeaky clean. Yet the correspondence seems to be linked to other potential operators who failed to get the contract.

If the council wants the controversy to go away it will have to openly show it is acting in the best interests of the taxpayer and local businesses and has complied with all the legal rules.

The disinfectant of sunlight is required here but watch this space as it may take some time.