Susan Aitken published a very interesting article in the evening Times. For the first time she acknowledged A4ES, which is an improvement and she called WPBR “not fit for purposes”, the exact description Mark Irvine has used ever since the second Court of Session decision, only 10 months ago. She has also recommitted the council to the settlement timetable. Those are the good points.

However, some half truths and falsehoods. The timetable has NOT been agreed. Indeed the proposal sent to us is not acceptable. This is to be discussed next Tuesday and needs to be much more precise and demanding. So not quite true.

She also says that they took the decision to “abandon litigation “. That is a lie. They agreed to abandon their appeal, but the litigation is alive and kicking. Indeed the council is due to send us their defence of NSWP to us next week. As NSWP is the core of WPBR, which they now accept is “not fit for purpose”, it’s a very odd situation. We will also be discussing this next week.

Not only has litigation not been abandoned but both sides have agreed that if settlement proves not to be possible then we have to go back to tribunal and that process needs to begin now because the tribunals are suffering massive delays.

So these are good promises but the council now needs to deliver. That means them devoting more time and resources, and more importantly actually addressing the issues, not just processes.

Now that the holidays are approaching there will be a lull, but August and September are going to be crucial months


Post Comment