Perth and Kinross Council's SNP administration accused of "cutting short democracy"
Members of the public and several councillors are frustrated after Perth and Kinross councillors were asked to vote on the future of Perth and Kinross leisure facilities without debate.
On Wednesday, June 18 councillors approved a £74 million proposal for Perth's new leisure centre PH20 to be built on Thimblerow car park as part of a £97m investment on leisure facilities across Perth and Kinross .
But the crucial decision was pushed through at a meeting of Perth and Kinross Council on Wednesday, June 18 without open discussion.
Around four and a half hours after the meeting started - and several lengthy recesses - council leader Grant Laing tabled a motion to "move straight to the vote with no further debate". He cited the council's standing order 17.1, a procedural motion which - amongst other things - can be used to propose "no further discussion or questioning take place".
His motion was seconded by deputy leader Eric Drysdale and supported by the majority of councillors who voted by 23 votes to 15 to move straight to the vote on leisure facilities.
Councillors had already had the chance to question several protestors - who made passionate deputations against the Thimblerow proposal and for Bell's Sports Centre to be reinstated as a heated multi-use sports venue - and council officers. But councillors had not yet had the chance to share their own views and/or comment on what they had heard.
The Conservatives tabled an amendment, against the SNP leadership's motion, for there to be a debate - as is standard procedure. Labour councillor Alasdair Bailey, Liberal Democrat councillor Peter Barrett and Independent councillor Colin Stewart supported the Conservative group's amendment. Provost Xander McDade abstained.
Following the meeting, Conservative councillor Chris Ahern accused the SNP of "cutting short democracy".
The Perth City Centre councillor said: "I am extremely unhappy with the decision made today by the leader of the council and the administration in cutting short democracy and preventing debate. I can only assume they were scared to hear the truth and didn't want their excuses to be published for the public to see them for what they are."
Blairgowrie and Glens Conservative councillor Caroline Shiers was "extremely disappointed" and added: "I don't recall many occasions when that standing order has been used before except when debates have been going on for some time and councillors are repeating the same arguments - not to stop all contributions before they even started."
A PKC spokesperson said: "On the procedural point, Cllr Laing moved a motion under section 17 of standing orders, where under 17.1 it says that a procedural motion can be to propose that no further discussion or questioning takes place. 17.2 and 17.3 of standing orders sets out what happens when a procedural motion is made."
Liberal Democrat councillor Peter Barrett took part in proceedings remotely. He supported the decision but described the way the meeting was conducted as a "shambles" and "an unedifying spectacle".
Speaking immediately afterwards, the Perth City Centre councillor said: "The only good thing you can say about today's proceedings was that the right decision was made. The rest was a shambles. Anyone watching today's events of the PH2O and Bell's proposals in the council chamber unfold must have been left confused, disappointed and angry.
"What an unedifying spectacle which dragged on for hours. Ages spent offline with the meeting in apparent suspension, the Provost announcing 'two minute recesses' which went on for more than 20, not a single word of debate exchanged, more points of order than a hedgehog has spines and almost as many totally opaque 'points of clarification'.
"Chairing of the meeting is meant to facilitate the swift and efficient conduct of business, the standing orders of the council are meant to support that objective, you'd never in a million years guess either from the live-cast of today's council proceedings. Something has to change and change urgently."
Gareth Thomas watched the entire day's proceedings from the public gallery and was "stunned" by what he felt was a lack of democracy.
He said: "It's amazing to see democracy not at work. No data or evidence. I'm stunned."
Ahead of the meeting, Perth and Kinross Community Sports Network drew up a business plan for how to run Bell's Sports Centre as a heated venue, with plans and revenue cost proposals.
On Wednesday, councillors voted through a proposal for Bell's Sports Centre to be used as "an unheated, covered sports pitch/events space".
Dr Thomas said: "I struggled to find any data for the proposed unheated G3 use for Bell's.
"I fail to see how it can be sensible to commit to a multi-million pound integrated investment on what appear to be back of the envelope (mis)calculations about Bell's."
Perth and Kinross Community Sports Network (PKCSN) chairman David Munro prepared a presentation, which he was unable to display during the meeting due to it being against council policy.
The council protocol for deputations states: "Deputations are verbal only and any visual or written information should be circulated to members of the committee by obtaining their email address from the council website. It is not permissible for members of the public to display visual information on the day of the committee."
His slides - which he later shared with the Local Democracy Reporting Service - compared the Bell's Sports Centre footprint with the Thimblerow site. It showed the six badminton courts - proposed for PH20 - dwarfed by the Bell's dome space in the main arena, which had 17 badminton courts.
The PKCSN chair said they feel like the protests and deputations were "a worthless exercise" and the council's current system "lacks credibility and accountability".
On Thursday, Cllr Laing said: "The provision under standing orders to move straight to a vote is rarely used, and indeed on the past two occasions I can recall them being used I voted against it because I felt there was still useful discussion to be had on those occasions.
"However, yesterday's council meeting had already included several hours where elected members had been able to listen to information and ask questions of both deputees and officers to allow everyone in the chamber to form a decision on how they wanted to vote. It was clear to me from the framing of the questions that everyone in the room had already made up their minds and further discussion would only have taken up more time rather than usefully informing the final decision.
"The people of Perth and Kinross have already waited long enough for a decision to be made. I stand by asking to move straight to that decision, and I am pleased that we can now get on with the job of developing the future of sport and leisure facilities in Perth and Kinross."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
43 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
More than 300 MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Yes campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation has taken another step in the parliamentary process. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading. Kim Leadbeater has been the MP behind the assisted dying bill (Jonathan Brady/PA) This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny. Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a poll (James Manning/PA) Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Campaigners in Parliament Square, central London, ahead of the vote (PA) The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote. The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
Leader Live
43 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
A majority of MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation took another step in the parliamentary process. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading. This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny. Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them. Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote. The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
Leader Live
44 minutes ago
- Leader Live
MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues
Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully.' Asked what might have happened if assisted dying was an option, Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?'' Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' Glasgow North East MP Maureen Burke said her brother David was aged 52 when he went to hospital with what he later learned was advanced pancreatic cancer. The Labour MP said David suffered in 'silent pain' with ever stronger painkillers before his death, and added: 'One of the last times when he still was able to speak, he called out to me from his bed and told me if there was a pill that he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take that.' The Bill would apply in England and Wales, not in Scotland where members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) are considering separate legislation, but Ms Burke said she spoke to 'ask colleagues to make sure that others don't go through' what her brother faced. If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.
