A COUNCIL has been accused of putting Orange parades before potholes — by using the roads budget to help pay for a controversial march.
Falkirk Council came under fire last month after agreeing to give the Loyal Orange Institution of Scotland £1,145 towards a planned walk through the town on Saturday, June 25. One of the largest events of its kind in Scotland, hundreds are expected to take part and thousands more are set to line the route.
When the funding was announced it was understood that it would come from the local Community Grant Fund, despite rules against making awards to groups with a religious or political message.
Opposition SNP councillors attempted to block the grant on the grounds of the impact it would have on the fund, which has been reduced from £110,000 to £94,000, and a previous decision to “subsidise” the event by allowing a moratorium on the £725 in fees for the necessary temporary traffic regulation orders.
The move, led by councillor David Alexander, also stated that the funding “doesn’t meet local criteria”.
However, this was defeated by the administration.
Yesterday, the story took another turn when it emerged that the cash will be taken from the budget for roads instead.
In a letter to Alexander, the council’s chief executive Mary Pitcaithly said: “My understanding is that the funding will not be found from the Community Grant Scheme but, rather, as part of the roads budget within Development Services as it is directed towards ensuring the safety of road users and the broader community.”
The issue was raised at a meeting of the executive committee yesterday, when council leader Craig Martin is said to have told members this had been “mentioned” during the previous session when the grant was agreed.
However, this mention is not included in official minutes of the meeting and has never been laid out by Martin or the council in public statements on the matter.
The issue emerged on the eve of today’s crucial vote of no confidence in Martin, who is accused by the SNP group of dodging responsibility on the Orange Order funding as well as a shelved HQ plan that has cost the taxpayer an estimated £560,000 – and could cost another half-a-million pounds to cancel.
Alexander told The National his attempt to prevent the grant should have been ruled incompetent if there was no intention to use the Community Grant Fund and said the issue was an example of a lack of transparency in the organisation.
Accusing the administration of attempting to avoid a potential challenge on the move, he said: “Public opinion is quite clear – it is a nonsense decision. There are issues of maladministration. Most people would be horrified by some of the things that happen up here. I would urge people to come to a council meeting.”
Yesterday, Martin did not respond to calls for comment.
However, the local authority said: “The decision has not been changed and the funding will come from a roads budget. While the original report did not state explicitly where funding was coming from, it was always the intention to use this budget and no other. Neither officers or individual members can alter decisions taken by the council’s executive.”
On today’s vote, Alexander said: “The purpose is to try and force change in the short term. In the long term, we hope the people of Falkirk will bring about the changes necessary when they go to the polls next year.”
He continued: “We have got a budget of £330 million, we have got £34m in reserves. Important decisions have to be taken between now and next May, and we are looking to get the highest standard possible within the administration.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here