Agenda Document Pack - Council - 19/12/2024
North Lanarkshire Council · 19 December 2024
Back to Council — 19 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
10 December 2024 Members of the Council Chief Executive’s Office Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal & Democratic) Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell ML1 1AB www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk Notice is given that a Meeting of the Council is to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, ML1 1AB on Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 16:00 PM which you are requested to attend. The agenda of business is attached. Des Murray Chief Executive Members : Clerk Name: Mark Hamill Clerk Telephone: 07811294702 Clerk Email: hamillm@northlan.gov.uk D Ashraf, A Ballinger, C Barclay, B Baudo, A Beveridge, M Boyd, H Brannan-McVey, G Brennan, B Burgess, A Bustard, J Cairns, A Campbell, T Carragher, C Costello, M Coyle, S Coyle, D Crichton, G Currie, P Di Mascio, K Docherty, K Duffy, A Duffy-Lawson, H Dunbar, T Fisher, F Fotheringham, W Goldie, H Gray, K Harmon, M Hughes, J Hume, L Jarvie, D Johnston, T Johnston, J Jones, P Kelly, J Keltie, A Khan, K Larson, J Leckie, G Lennon, J Logue, H Loughran, F MacGregor, A Masterton, M McBride, B McCluskey, A McCrory, B McCulloch, M McCulloch, P McDade, F McKay, R McKendrick, J McLaren, C McManus, M McPake, J McPhilemy, A McVey, L Mitchell, L Nolan, P Patton, C Quigley, J Reddin, L Roarty, D Robb, G Robinson, N Shevlin, W Shields, A Smith, A Stubbs, L Stubbs, R Sullivan, A Thomas, J Toner, S Watson, C Williams, N Wilson, G Woods. Page 1 of 134
Page 2
Page 2 of 134
Page 3
Agenda 1 Declarations of Interest In Terms of the Ethical Standards In Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 2 Review of Standing Orders Submit report by the Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) seeking approval of amendments to the Standing Orders for Meetings as set out in Appendix 1 to the report. 7 - 14 3 Minutes of Meetings of Committees, Sub-Committees and Panels - Cycle 4 Submit volume of minutes of meetings of committees, sub- committees and panels for cycle 4 for approval in terms of standing order number 21 (copy to follow) 4 Membership of Committees, Sub-Committees, Panels, Working Group and Outside Bodies Submit proposed amendments to Membership of Committees, Sub-Committees, Panels, Working Groups and Outside Bodies (copy to follow) 5 Membership of Outside Bodies Submit report by the Depute Chief Executive seeking approval of the continued operational membership of a number of external organisations. 15 - 26 6 Standards Commission Proceedings - Councillor David Crichton Submit report by the Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) advising of the outcome of proceedings before the Standards Commission for Scotland in relation to a complaint that Councillor Crichton had been guilty of breaching the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and the sanction imposed. 27 - 56 7 Housing Revenue Account – 2025/26 Revenue Estimates Submit report by the Chief Officer (Finance) presenting information that will enable the Council to set its Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget and rent levels for 2025/2026 57 - 68 8 Electronic Voting for Council and Committee Meetings Submit report by the Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) seeking approval to award the contract for a Mobile Hybrid Webcasting and Electronic Voting System to Public I, subject to successful testing of the system. 69 - 76 Page 3 of 134
Page 4
9 Amendments to the Procedure for Considering Petitions Submit report by the Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) seeking approval of amendments to the procedure for considering petitions received by the Council. 77 - 90 10 Active & Creative Communities Review – Updated Position Submit report by the Chief Officer (Operations) setting out proposals following the outcome of the review of Active and Creative Communities. 91 - 112 11 Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places Submit report by the Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) advising of the outcome of the consultation of the statutory review of the polling districts and polling places in North Lanarkshire. 113 - 134 NOTICE OF MOTIONS 12 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Sullivan and Councillor Fotheringham “Council notes that the UK Government budget on 30 October made no provision for the removal of the ‘Two Child’ benefit cap. Council understands this policy has resulted in approximately 4,560 families in North Lanarkshire not receiving a child element in respect of benefits controlled by the UK Department of Work and Pensions, for at least one child. Council believes that this policy inherently penalises some of the most disadvantaged families in our communities. Council instructs the Leader of the Council and the Convenor of the Wellbeing and Tackling Poverty Committee to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions today to request the immediate reversal of this policy. Council agrees the response should be emailed to all elected members upon receipt and thereafter be included in a report to the first available meeting of the Wellbeing and Tackling Poverty Committee” Page 4 of 134
Page 5
13 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor D Johnston and Councillor Robinson “Council notes the decision taken by the UK Labour Government in its budget of 30 October 2024, to increase Employer National Insurance contributions (ENICs) to 15% and reduce earning thresholds from £9,100 to £5,000 annually. Council understands: • this decision will cost North Lanarkshire Council in the region of £11m and is likely to have a significant negative impact on organisations providing commissioned services, including Early Years facilities, GP surgeries, pharmacies, care homes, hospices, and third sector organisations – bodies who deliver essential education, health and social care services to vulnerable people across North Lanarkshire. • the combined cost of the rise in ENICs to Scottish public sector organisations, and organisations in the commercial and third sectors providing commissioned services, is estimated to be £750 million. Council agrees: • recent media reports of an extra £300 million being made available by the UK Government to the Scottish Government, if correct, are insufficient to address the additional costs of higher ENICs as described above and calls on the UK Government to fully fund this increase. • it is unacceptable that the Scottish Government will not be notified of the final position until the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring statement, some three months after it has set its budget. Council instructs the Leader of the Council and Convener of Finance and Resources writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to request that the increase in ENICs is fully funded for Scottish public sector organisations and organisations in the commercial and third sectors providing commissioned services, and that this should include full funding for North Lanarkshire Council. The aforementioned letter should request an urgent response, given that the Scottish Government and North Lanarkshire Council will be setting budgets imminently” Page 5 of 134
Page 6
QUESTIONS 14 Questions Received in Terms of Standing Order 51 - None Received Page 6 of 134
Page 7
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref Date 19/12/24 Review of Standing Orders From Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) E-mail hamillm@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07811 294702 1. Background 1.1 The Council last reviewed Standing Orders on 13 August 2020 to facilitate remote meetings. 1.2 It should be noted that since 13 August 2020 the Standing Orders have been updated to reflect decisions taken by Council 2. Report 2.1 The proposed changes to Standing Orders are attached in appendix 1 to the report. Executive Summary The purpose of the report is to seek approval for amendments to the Standing Orders for Meetings. Members will recall that on 3 October 2024 the Council agreed that a review of standing orders be undertaken, and a report be submitted to Council on 19 December 2024 for consideration. Recommendations It is recommended that the revisions to Standing Orders, attached in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority All priorities Ambition statement All ambition statements Programme of Work All Programmes of Work Item 2 Page 7 of 134
Page 8
3. Measures of success 3.1 The decision-making process of the Council operates in an efficient and streamlined manner. 4. Supporting documentation Summary of proposed revisions to Standing Orders attached in appendix 1 to the report Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) Page 8 of 134
Page 9
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 9 of 134
Page 10
Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☒ Page 10 of 134
Page 11
APPENDIX 1 Council Meeting Thursday, 19 December 2024 Proposed Changes The introduction to the Standing Orders will have the undernoted statement added:- Reference to the Chief Executive and Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) should be taken in conjunction with the Scheme of Delegation to Officers Note: Questions submitted at meetings to which officers committed to responding to outwith the meeting – sits outside of the standing orders – a process will be put in place to submit a log of all questions submitted during the cycle together with the response to the Council meeting. Standing Order Number Changes 3 Special Meetings – clarify that a wet signature is required 4 Planning Committee to be held in hybrid form 5 Motion to continue a Council meeting after 8pm – clarify that it requires a majority of members 5 Bullet point 2 – Change to Read • Any report or motion then remaining on the agenda will be considered by the meeting in order. On each remaining item, a motion and amendment may be moved and seconded with the right of the mover and seconder of the motion or amendment to speak but without further discussion (provided that the Chair may rule that discussion is necessary for the proper consideration of the item and authorise such discussion). Items not moved and seconded will fall from the agenda. 14 Change to read The decision of the Chair on all matters within their responsibility shall be final, and shall not be open to question or discussion. When the Chair rises to speak, the Member, if any, who is addressing the meeting shall cease to speak. The Chair shall be entitled to adjourn the meeting for a period of no more than 30 minutes. 24 Add the undernoted sentence In an instance whereby a motion has been determined competent after the list of competent motions has been published. The deadline for submission of amendments shall be 3 working days. 33 Change to read Page 11 of 134
Page 12
A Member who has taken part in a vote or who has moved a motion or amendment but failed to find a seconder may, if he or she so requests, have their dissent to the relevant decision recorded in the minutes. A Member who has not taken part in a vote on the matter under discussion, or who has not moved a motion or amendment shall not be entitled to have their dissent from the decision recorded in the minutes. 39 Change to read Remove the last sentence after comma. Add “Where an electronic voting system is not available for those attending the meeting remotely the vote will be taken by use of an electronic voting system for those members attending in person, and for those attending remotely the vote will be taken by calling the roll.” 50 Change to read In the event of any Member, at any Council meeting, disregarding the authority of the Chair or being guilty of obstructive or offensive conduct, a motion may be moved and seconded to suspend such a Member for the remainder of the meeting. The motion shall be put to the meeting without discussion and, if supported by a majority of the Members participating and voting, the motion shall be declared carried. Should the motion be carried, the Member concerned shall thereupon retire from the meeting and will not be permitted to participate. The Council Officer shall act on any instructions he or she may receive from the Chair in pursuance of such a decision. Application of Standing Orders to Committees 61 Special Meetings – clarify that a wet signature is required 12 (d) (a) Update grammar 64 (A) Substitute Members Change first paragraph to read Where a Member who has been appointed to a Committee, Joint Consultative Committee for Local Government Employees, Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff or a Member/Officer Working Group is unable to attend a meeting of that body, it shall be permitted to appoint a substitute Member to attend in their place. The use of substitute Members shall be limited to use only by Political Groups who shall be further limited to three per Political Group per meeting. The Council decision on 21 December 2023 whereby named substitutes have been removed and each political group can appoint 3 substitutes per meeting with the exception of the Audit and Scrutiny Panel and the Licensing Board will remain in place. Protocol for Hybrid and Remote Council and Committee Meetings 9 First Paragraph Change to If it is the intention of a member to move an Amendment to a report, they should inform the Committee Clerk in advance and send to them a copy of the Amendment, no later than 24 hours before the meeting regardless of whether they will be attending the meeting via remote access or will be physically present. 11 Voting Process Change to All votes will be completed by use of an electronic voting system Page 12 of 134
Page 13
Where an electronic voting system is not available for those attending the meeting remotely the vote will be taken by use of an electronic voting system for those members attending in person, and for those attending remotely the vote will be taken by calling the roll. Page 13 of 134
Page 14
Page 14 of 134
Page 15
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref AM Date 19/12/24 Membership of Outside Bodies From Andrew McPherson, Depute Chief Executive E-mail mcphersona@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07939 280467 Executive Summary Following a report to Council on 21 December 2023, covering Membership of Committees, Sub-Committees, Panels, Working Group and Outside Bodies, there was a decision taken for Council to remove its membership from 17 external agencies. Following a request from services to reinstate membership of APSE to full Council on 4 October, there was agreement to postpone any decision until the next Council meeting with a request that a report setting out the advantages/disadvantages and financial implications of leaving the outsides bodies be submitted for consideration. This report provides the detail requested and recommendations on the operational membership of each organisation. Recommendations That Committee agrees to continue operational membership of: 1. Clyde and Loch Lomond Local District Joint Committee 2. Environmental Protection Scotland 3. Ethnic Minorities Law Centre 4. Glasgow Airport Consultative Group 5. Industrial Communities Alliance 6. North Lanarkshire Outdoor Access Forum 7. North Lanarkshire Area Support Team The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority All priorities Ambition statement All ambition statements Programme of Work Statutory / corporate / service requirement Item 5 Page 15 of 134
Page 16
1. Background 1.1 Following a report to Council on 21 December 2023 covering Membership of Committees, Sub-Committees, Panels, Working Group and Outside Bodies, there was a decision taken for Council to remove its membership from 17 external agencies. 1.2 Following this decision, several services across the Council expressed concern as to the operational impact on leaving APSE. Following consideration of a report relevant to this at Council on 4 October, it was agreed that a further report be submitted to Council on 19 December outlining the advantages/ disadvantages in leaving the organisations and the financial impact. 1.3 This report provides details of the information requested; however, it should be noted that this is from an operational impact only. As withdrawal of membership was agreed by members on 21 December 2023, it has been assumed that there is no change in this position regarding the appointment of elected members to the external agencies. Any recommendation to continue membership will be for operational reasons only and will not require the appointment of any elected member. 2. Report 2.1 Appendix 1 to this report provides a list of those agencies where membership was removed following the Council decision in December 2023 and provides the list of operational advantages/ disadvantages in leaving the agency together with the financial cost. 2.2 From this information, it is proposed that the Council continues its operational membership of the following agencies: • Clyde and Loch Lomond Local District Joint Committee • Environmental Protection Scotland • Ethnic Minorities Law Centre • Glasgow Airport Consultative Group • Industrial Communities Alliance • North Lanarkshire Outdoor Access Forum • North Lanarkshire Area Support Team 2.3 The total cost to services in maintaining these memberships amounts to £15,661 and this cost is covered within existing service budgets. 2.4 In addition to those organisations where continued membership is supported, it is also proposed that the following memberships are removed so there is no operational involvement: • Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority • Lanarkshire Business Gateway Steering Board • National Association of Councillors • North Lanarkshire Municipal Bank • Nuclear Free Local Authorities • Road Safety West of Scotland Page 16 of 134
Page 17
• Scottish Councils Committee on Radioactive Substances • West of Scotland European Forum • Woodland Trust Scotland 2.5 A number of those organisations listed above are already dissolved and the overall annual saving associated with removal will amount to £4,786. The value of £42,896 associated with membership of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Authority is not included as this organisation is in the process of being wound down. 2.6 Renewed membership of APSE is currently postponed until such times as an ongoing potential liability issue affecting all members is resolved. Once this matter has concluded then a further report to Committee will be provided recommending whether the Council renews its operational membership. 3. Measures of success 3.1 Continuing operational membership of the agencies highlighted within paragraph 2.2 above will allow areas of improvement and efficiency to be identified across a wide variety of Council services. 4. Supporting documentation 4.1 Appendix 1 Operational Advantages and Disadvantages of Membership of Outside Agencies and Financial Implications. Andrew McPherson Depute Chief Executive Page 17 of 134
Page 18
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Continuation of those memberships identified will incur a relatively modest cost and will be covered within existing financial budgets. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Page 18 of 134
Page 19
Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 19 of 134
Page 20
Operational Advantages and Disadvantages of Membership of Outside Agencies and Financial Implications Appendix 1 Name of Agency Advantages of Membership Disadvantages of Membership Annual Cost Recommendation (Retain membership / remove membership) Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) Networking community supporting local authorities to improve frontline service delivery. • Engagement in benchmarking across the public sector; • Access to training programmes and seminars across a diverse range of service areas; • Sharing of information and best practice across the 300 local authority members; and • Access to regulatory advisory groups covering a diverse range of front-line service areas. • Scottish Government Consultations and have given evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government, Housing & Planning Committee on local government workforce issues most recently. • UK West Minster groups including the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Parks Action Group (PAG) and provide the Secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for School Food. Annual cost – although access to important information like benchmarking and access to training materials/courses and the opportunities presented by networking across sectors means the Council benefits from cost avoidance in other areas. £17,430 Postpone decision on membership until outcome of potential liability issue. Page 20 of 134
Page 21
Clyde and Loch Lomond Local District Joint Committee One of Scotland’s 14 Local Plan Districts for flood risk management. • The Council has a statutory obligation under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 (FRM Act), to collaborate with adjoining authorities within the same catchment area (Local Plan District) and contribute to the publication of statutory Local Flood Risk Management Plans (LFRMPs). The Clyde and Loch Lomond Local Plan District is North Lanarkshire’s local district, and the Joint Committee plays a key role in discharging statutory responsibilities. • Membership allows for the agreement, approval and publication of statutory Section 37 interim reports and Section 38 final reports by the lead authority (Glasgow City Council) with North Lanarkshire Council input. • Joint Committee meetings include presentations and discussion to inform of latest policy and practice. • Any potential issues or recommendations that need to be raised with Scottish Government have more weight if brought by the Joint Committee rather than the Council alone. • Notice has been served to cease membership at the earliest opportunity being the end of the current cycle in 2028 – this could easily be rescinded. N/a Retain membership Page 21 of 134
Page 22
Environmental Protection Scotland Organisation promoting and supporting work towards sustainable development in Scotland. • This Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO) aims to bring together individuals and organisations across the public, private and voluntary sectors to discuss and promote ideas, knowledge and solutions to achieve our common goal of a cleaner, quieter, healthier and sustainable Scotland. EPS is active and influential in the fields of air quality, land quality and noise, and has historically provided expert led training events and workshops with CPD recognition which helps environmental practitioners to learn and share best practice. We don’t know if future training will be available (see 2nd bullet point in next column). • Annual cost, albeit not significant • EPS is currently working with a research consultant to review the strategic vision of the organisation with a view to how it should be structured and move forward, given the withdrawal of funding from the SG. As things currently stand, all the groups are suspended until a new structure is in place. The Terms of Reference etc. are all being reviewed as part of this process. £700 Retain membership - On assumption that organisation is continued in the absence of SG funding. Ethnic Minorities Law Centre Supports efforts to promote inclusivity and protect the rights of ethnic minority and disadvantaged groups in relation to access to justice. Provides essential legal and family support to our Black and Ethnic Minority (BAME) residents and communities who find it difficult to access legal and associated family support elsewhere due language barriers and other challenges. This is in the context of a circa 80% increase in the number of residents within North Lanarkshire who are from a BAME background as confirmed in the 2022 census data. The Council has also made a very public commitment to supporting BAME communities through its recently published “Our Lives” research which is focused on the needs of our BAME communities and was led by a member officer working group. Given we have supported this organisation for many years, withdrawal of membership may also require the completion of a full EQIA assessment. • Annual cost, although this is in the form of a community grant. • Justification that the spend is focused on a minority group. £9,798 Retain membership Page 22 of 134
Page 23
Glasgow Airport Consultative Group Group invite views of bodies within the airport flight path on matters relating to the operations and future developments of Glasgow Airport Ability for North Lanarkshire’s voice to be heard on matters that may affect the area. None identified. N/a Retain membership Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority Comprised of eight local authorities in Clyde Valley area to work on strategic development planning matters. This organisation is now being wound down and current meetings are only about financial matters relating to the winding up. The Strategic Planning function, including development of Regional Spatial Plan is now incorporated Glasgow City Region, and will support delivery of statutory strategic planning functions and delivery of Regional Economic Strategy priorities. A Regional Spatial Planning Sub- committee has been established and elected member representation has been agreed. £42,896 Remove membership Page 23 of 134
Page 24
Industrial Communities Alliance Provides collective voice to call for funding and policy initiatives to promote economic development and regeneration of industrial areas. The Industrial Communities Alliance campaigns on issues around economic development and regeneration facing industrial areas and regions across the UK. The ICA provides regular policy and research reports which provide the council with a comprehensive overview of key economic development, funding and regeneration topics, challenges and opportunities. The ICA responds to consultations, and lobbies national government and devolved administrations on behalf of its members on key issues, policies and their impact on industrial areas. This includes areas such: • The impact of the Budget • The impact of Spending Reviews • Funding for local and regional development and the need for the provision of longer-term funding. This includes key funds such as the Levelling Up Fund, UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Towns Fund, Investment Zones and Freeports • Apprenticeships • Welfare to Work • Industrial Strategy • The Steel Industry • The Coalfields • And other relevant topic areas Due to the location of some meetings across the UK, it is not always possible to attend all the meetings. £5,163 Retain membership Page 24 of 134
Page 25
Lanarkshire Business Gateway Steering Board Previous joint group with South Lanarkshire Council to support the management of the Business Gateway contract servicing both areas. No longer meets – not required as service now delivered ‘in house’. n/a Remove membership National Association of Councillors Promotes the interests of elected members across the UK and provides training and education for elected members Potential for training and education for elected members, although the uptake of NLC members is unclear. None identified. £1,694 Remove membership North Lanarkshire Outdoor Access Forum Supports the Council’s responsibilities under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Assists with engagement e.g. hard to reach, disadvantaged, communities, etc, especially with regards to improving and managing public access in North Lanarkshire. The Forum is an official consultee. None identified. n/a Retain membership North Lanarkshire Area Support Team Supports the administration of the Children’s Panel including Elected Member oversight of new panel members Ensures effective governance around the Children’s Panel in conjunction with learning and development co- ordinators, panel practice advisors and panel representatives. Ensures Elected Members are involved in the selection of new panel members and investigate matters arising from complaints against panel members. None identified n/a Retain membership North Lanarkshire Municipal Bank Previously a savings bank operating across North Lanarkshire. Decision to cease operation of North Lanarkshire Municipal Bank. Company was dissolved on 1 August 2023. n/a n/a Remove membership Page 25 of 134
Page 26
Nuclear Free Local Authorities Promotes the development of policies that understanding the impact of nuclear energy on local communities Ensures the voice of local government is heard where nuclear policy has an impact on local communities. Doubts over the effectiveness of the group when there’s already a forum such as Cosla to discuss matters such as these in Scotland £3,074 Remove membership Road Safety West of Scotland Provides guidance on the identification and assessment road safety hazards Member / officer forum is no longer active and last convened pre-covid. n/a Remove membership Scottish Councils Committee on Radioactive Substances Aims to give factual advice to councils on radiation and radioactive waste matters None identified None identified n/a Remove membership West of Scotland European Forum Develop positive links between communities and the institutions of the EU. This group no longer meets and has been dissolved N/A N/A Remove membership Woodland Trust Scotland Manage around 60 woods in Scotland, including with North Lanarkshire. Aim to halt the loss of native woods and trees and restore existing woodland None identified None identified N/A Remove membership Page 26 of 134
Page 27
North Lanarkshire Council Report Does this report require to be approved? ☐ Yes ☒ No Ref Date 09/12/2024 From A Aitken, Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) E-mail aitkena@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07939 280102 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to advise of the outcome of proceedings before the Standards Commission for Scotland in relation to a complaint that Councillor Crichton had been guilty of breaching the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. Recommendations It is recommended that Council considers the written Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission for Scotland following the Hearing held in Airdrie on 23 October 2024, and note the sanction imposed. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority All priorities Ambition statement All ambition statements Programme of Work All Programmes of Work 1. Background 1.1 Following a complaint made by the Council’s Chief Executive to the Ethical Standards Commissioner in respect of the conduct of Councillor David Crichton, a report was submitted by the Commissioner to the Standards Commission. Following consideration of that report, the Commission decided to convene a Hearing before a Panel to consider the matter. 1.2 The Panel noted that the complaint concerned the conduct of Councillor Crichton in publishing a Facebook post on 22 September 2023 about the Council’s decision to review facilities. Councillor Crichton had stated in that post that the “review was initiated by the Chief Executive of North Lanarkshire Council, Mr Des Murray” and the Council Leader, and that “the timing and process” also appeared unusual given upcoming elections. He also stated that he hoped that the “real purpose” of the review was “not to portray a greater crisis in an effort to gain votes for both the Labour and Conservative Groups”. Council Standards Commission Proceedings – Councillor David Crichton Item 6 Page 27 of 134
Page 28
1.3 The Panel found that Councillor Crichton had published the post despite being aware that the decision to undertake the review had been made by elected members at the Council meeting on 23 February 2023. The Chief Executive had not, therefore, been responsible for initiating the review and, instead, was simply responsible for implementing the decision to undertake one. 1.4 The Panel noted that the post had been prepared in advance by Councillor Crichton’s political group and that he had also added further wording to it. As such, it was evident that the post had not been drafted in haste, without considering the wording and its likely inference. The Panel was satisfied that the mention of the Chief Executive in the post was deliberate and was intended to link him to the review in order to publicly criticise his alleged conduct. By doing so, Councillor Crichton had effectively accused the Chief Executive both of going beyond his remit and of not being politically neutral. As council officers are obliged to remain politically neutral, the Panel was of the view that such public questioning of the Chief Executive’s impartiality, and therefore his integrity, could have had a significant, detrimental impact on his reputation as an individual. Given the Chief Executive’s position as its senior officer, it could have also been damaging to the reputation of the Council itself. The Panel considered that the deliberate inclusion of the Chief Executive in the criticism of the review decision was wholly unfair and inappropriate and would have been distressing for the Chief Executive. It noted that the post had been removed after five days, albeit only after the Council’s Monitoring Officer had raised concerns about it with Councillor Crichton. 1.5 The Panel found, therefore, that Councillor Crichton’s conduct amounted, on the face of it, to a breach of: • paragraph 3.1 of the Code (which requires councillors to treat others with courtesy and respect); and • paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 (which require councillors to refrain from criticising the conduct of individual officers in public and to work with them in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect). 1.6 Having found that Councillor Crichton had breached these paragraphs of the Code, the Panel then proceeded to consider his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel noted that this right is not absolute and that restrictions can be imposed for a number of reasons, including to protect the rights and reputations of others, to maintain the mutual bond of trust and confidence between councillors and officers and to protect officers from offensive attacks that could potentially undermine the public’s confidence in the Council. 1.7 The Panel concluded that Councillor Crichton’s accusation was entirely gratuitous, egregious and offensive. It was satisfied that a restriction on his right to freedom of expression was relevant, sufficient and proportionate to protect the reputation and rights of the Chief Executive, and to prevent public confidence in local government and the Council from being undermined. 1.8 In determining the sanction to be imposed, the Panel noted that the requirement for councillors to behave with courtesy and respect towards council officers and to refrain from criticising them in public are key requirements of the Code. This is because they protect the mutual bond of trust and confidence between councillors and officers, which allows local government to function effectively. 1.9 The Panel was concerned that Councillor Crichton had not shown any insight into the potential impact of the post, particularly on the Chief Executive, and noted that he had not proffered any apology. Page 28 of 134
Page 29
2. Report 2.1 A Hearing was held on 23 October 2024 by the Standards Commission for Scotland in relation to a complaint against Councillor Crichton. The Ethical Standards Commissioner had investigated the complaint and concluded that Councillor Crichton had contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct. However, it was the Commissioners position that a restriction on Councillor Crichton’s right to freedom of expression in terms of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights could not be justified. The Hearing decided that Councillor Crichton had contravened the Code and that a restriction on his freedom of expression was justified. 2.2 The decision of the Commission Panel was that the appropriate sanction, in the circumstances was to suspend fully Councillor Crichton for a period of one month, with effect from 4 November 2024, in terms of section 19(1)(c) of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. The findings of the Commission contained in the Decision of the Hearing Panel are set out in Appendix 1. The Commission’s Suspension Guidance is annexed as Appendix 2. 2.3 Section 18 of the Act requires that the Standards Commission, following a hearing, must provide a copy of its findings to the Council and that the Council must consider those findings within three months of receiving them, or within such longer period as the Commission may specify. Further, the duty imposed on the Council to consider the findings is to be discharged only by the Council itself and not by a Committee, Sub- Committee or officer. This report and the attached decision from the Standards Commission are submitted to the Council in accordance with the requirements of that Act. 3. Measures of success 3.1 All Elected Members were provided with information and advice from the Monitoring Officer as part of the new Members' Induction Programme 2022 on their obligations and duties to adhere to the Councillors' Code of Conduct. Adhering to the advice and information provided and, where any lack of clarity exists, seeking further advice from the Monitoring Officer, would mitigate against any actions required to be taken by the Standards Commission for Scotland due to a breach, or perceived breach, of the Code of Conduct. 4. Supporting documentation Appendix 1 - Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission for Scotland held on 23 October 2024. Appendix 2 – Standards Commission for Scotland Suspension Guidance Archie Aitken Monitoring Officer & Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) Page 29 of 134
Page 30
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 30 of 134
Page 31
Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 31 of 134
Page 32
Appendix 1 COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 1 of 21 Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission for Scotland following the Hearing held at the Sir John Wilson Town Hall, Airdrie, on Wednesday 23 October 2024. Panel Members: Ms Suzanne Vestri, Chair of the Hearing Panel Dr Lezley Stewart Ms Ashleigh Dunn The Hearing arose in respect of a Report referred by Mr Ian Bruce, the Ethical Standards Commissioner (the ESC), further to complaint reference LA/NL/3979, concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (the Code) by Councillor David Crichton (the Respondent). REFERRAL Following an investigation into a complaint received on 6 October 2023 about the conduct of the Respondent, the ESC referred a report to the Standards Commission on 30 July 2024, in accordance with the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (the 2000 Act). The ESC advised that he had considered whether the Respondent had failed to comply with the Code, and, in particular, whether he had contravened paragraphs 3.1, 3.8, 3.10 and 25 of Annex A of the Code, which were as follows: EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING Joint Statement of Facts The Panel noted that a joint statement of facts had been agreed between the ESC and the Respondent. This recorded that it was not in dispute that: • The Respondent was first elected on 5 May 2022 and signed a declaration of acceptance of office the following day, undertaking to meet the requirements of the Code. • On 22 September 2023, the Respondent published to his Facebook account the post that is the subject of the complaint. • The Respondent acknowledged he was acting in his capacity as a councillor when making the post. • The Council’s Monitoring Officer sent the Respondent an email about the post on 27 September 2023. The Respondent removed the post following receipt of the email and after taking legal advice. Introductory Remarks by the ESC The ESC advised that the Respondent had been elected as a councillor on 5 May 2022 and signed a declaration of office, confirming he would comply with the Code, the following day. The Respondent joined the Respect and Courtesy 3.1: I will treat everyone with courtesy and respect. This includes in person, in writing, at meetings, when I am online and when I am using social media. 3.8: I will not undermine any individual employee or group of employees, or raise concerns about their performance, conduct or capability in public. 3.10: I will follow the Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees at Annex A and note that a breach of the Protocol will be considered a breach of this Code. I will also comply with any internal protocol the Council has on councillor / employee relations. Annex A: Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees Public comment 25. Councillors should not raise any adverse matters relating to the performance, conduct or capability of employees in public. Employees must ensure they treat councillors with similar respect and courtesy. Page 32 of 134
Page 33
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 2 of 21 Progressive Change North Lanarkshire (PCNL) Group in May 2023, having previously been a member of the Scottish National Party. The ESC explained that the Respondent’s Facebook post of 22 September 2023 concerned potential cuts to North Lanarkshire Council’s services. In it, the Respondent referred to a paper that listed the facilities that could be affected. The ESC advised that the Complainer, the Council’s Chief Executive, considered the post contained serious and factually incorrect allegations against him. The Complainer considered these allegations had been made deliberately, with the intention of misrepresenting the correct position for political purposes. The ESC advised that the Respondent published the post on a Facebook account entitled ‘David Crichton Councillor Ward 17 Motherwell West’. The ESC noted that the Respondent accepted he had published the post in his capacity as a councillor. As such, there was no dispute that the Code applied to his conduct. Witness Evidence on behalf of the Respondent The Respondent confirmed that there was no dispute that he had published the post, as alleged and outlined in the ESC’s report. The Respondent led evidence from Councillors Gerry Brennan and Greg Lennon. Councillor Gerry Brennan: Councillor Brennan advised that the Facebook post had not been drafted by the Respondent and, instead, the majority of its contents had been constructed by the PCNL Group for use by its members as they saw fit. Councillor Brennan noted that it appeared the Respondent had personalised the post by adding some additional content at the beginning and end. Councillor Brennan explained that the purpose of the post had been to highlight the potential closure of the facilities and to give the perspective of the PCNL Group in respect of what was a highly contentious political matter and issue of great public interest. Councillor Brennan advised he considered it was clear, from the mention of other political groups in the post, that it was directed at them and intended as political comment or narrative, rather than as criticism of the Complainer. Councillor Brennan advised that, at a special meeting of the Council, on 23 February 2023, the Council Leader stated that the Administration would protect staff jobs and would not close any culture or leisure facilities. The Leader nevertheless proceeded to state that, in light of financial challenges, he was instructing the Complainer to conduct a full review of all facilities, which would then be considered by a council committee. Councillor Brennan stated that he considered the content of the post to be accurate. This was because even though the Leader had stated no facilities would be closed, officers had recommended, as a result of the review, that some should be shut. Councillor Brennan contended the democratic decision to enact the review had then been overturned, outwith the committee structure, for political purposes. Councillor Brennan confirmed that he had attended the Council meeting on 23 February 2023 when the Complainer was instructed to undertake the review. Councillor Brennan further confirmed it was normal practice for the Leader of the Council or a convener of one of its committees to give instructions to the Chief Executive in such a manner. Councillor Brennan advised that he did not consider the post contained any inaccuracies as it only mentioned the Complainer as “instigating the review as instructed”. In response to cross-examination by the ESC, Councillor Brennan confirmed that the post was intended to be critical of other political groups. Councillor Brennan noted that only one reference had been made to the Complainer, in respect of the instruction given to him by the Leader. When asked why the post had not simply referred to the Leader, or Administration, as being those who made the decision to initiate the review, Councillor Brennan advised it had “just so happened” that the Complainer had been mentioned. When asked why the Complainer had not only been mentioned, but referred to by name explicitly, Councillor Brennan Page 33 of 134
Page 34
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 3 of 21 stated it was because, as the Council’s most senior officer, the Complainer had a public profile and was well- known. Councillor Greg Lennon: Councillor Lennon also advised that the post had been authored by the PCNL Group. Councillor Lennon confirmed that he had also published the majority of the contents of the Respondent’s post, albeit he had altered a few of the descriptive words it contained. Councillor Lennon stated that the purpose of the post was to highlight the risk of the facilities being closed (which was a matter that was the subject of a great deal of public interest). Councillor Lennon explained that the post was also intended to highlight that the scope of the review had changed, given the Council Leader had stated, at the Council meeting on 23 February 2023, that no facilities would be affected. Councillor Lennon advised he did not consider the post contained any content that linked the Complainer to any political decision. Councillor Lennon noted all other party groups were mentioned in the post and, as such, contended it was evident its content was intended as political critique. Councillor Lennon confirmed that the Complainer had been instructed to undertake the review and advised, therefore, that he did not consider the post contained any inaccurate information. In response to cross-examination, Councillor Lennon explained that the Complainer had only been named in the post because he had been instructed to carry out the review. When it was put to him that the post did not say ‘instructed’ and, instead, stated the Complainer had “initiated” the review, Councillor Lennon contended that was “just semantics”, as the words were essentially interchangeable and had the same meaning. Submissions made by the ESC The ESC advised that the Council’s Revenue Budget for the years 2023/2024 to 2025/2026, and the setting of council tax for 2023/2024, were considered at a special meeting of the Council on 23 February 2023. The ESC noted it was evident, from the minutes of the meeting, that the Council faced funding gaps both for the current and future years unless action was taken. The ESC explained that a webcast of the meeting recorded that the Council Leader stated, during the discussions on the matters, that the Administration would protect staff jobs and would not close any culture or leisure facilities. The Leader nevertheless stated that “in light of the financial challenges ahead, the Chief Executive will be instructed to arrange for a full detailed review of all facilities for consideration by a future Policy and Strategy Committee”. The ESC advised that the Respondent explained to his office, during the investigation, that he considered the working relationship between councillors from the PCNL Group and council officers had “significantly deteriorated” after councillors from his group had been the only ones to raise questions, at a council meeting on 17 August 2023, about the award of a council contract. The ESC explained, by way of background, that the results of the review the Complainer had been instructed to conduct at the meeting on 23 February 2023 were shared with councillors at a Financial Planning Advisory Group meeting on 29 August 2023. The ESC advised that the Leader (from the Labour minority Administration) was subsequently critical of the SNP Government in a press article of 13 September 2023, and was quoted as saying cuts it had “inflicted” were resulting in the closure of facilities or cuts to the services councils could provide. The ESC noted that the initial outcome of the review was published on the Council’s website on 19 September 2023. Although the article that appeared on the website made it clear that no final decisions would be made until the Council’s Policy and Strategy Committee had considered the results of the review, the accompanying narrative made it clear that the closure or re-purposing of facilities was recommended. The ESC advised the review was considered by the Council’s Policy and Strategy Committee on 28 September 2023, when it was decided that some of the recommendations would be enacted. Page 34 of 134
Page 35
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 4 of 21 The ESC advised that, in his Facebook post of 22 September 2023, the Respondent referred to the proposed cuts to services and to previous comments he had made about the Leader on the matter. The Respondent provided a link to the report, which had been published on 19 September 2023, and noted that it contained a list of potentially affected sites. The Respondent proceeded to state: “This review was initiated by the Chief Executive of NLC, Mr Des Murray and [the Council leader] and has the support of the Conservative Group. The timing and process for this review may also appear unusual, especially given the upcoming By Election and General Election. I would sincerely hope that part of the review’s real purpose is not to portray a greater crisis in an effort to gain support for both the Labour and Conservative Groups. Time will tell us… With the SNP Group having already withdrawn themselves from preliminary discussions on these potential cuts, I worry about the representation NOT being made by that group at this time.” The Respondent proceeded to explain, in the post, that the Leader had announced in the press, on 3 October 2023, that the leisure facilities would not be closed, as previously proposed. In response to a question from the Panel about why he had considered these paragraphs separately in his report, the ESC accepted that it was possible any members of the public viewing the post would instead read and consider it as a whole. The ESC advised that the Complainer considered the statement that he (along with the Leader) had “initiated” the review to be factually inaccurate, as his only involvement had been to carry out the instructions given to him by councillors at the Council meeting on 23 February 2023. The Complainer considered the statement implied he had a hand in the decision to undertake the review and, as a consequence, had failed to maintain political neutrality. The Complainer further contended that he considered the statement to be an intentional misrepresentation by the Respondent for his own political purposes. The ESC explained that the Respondent’s position was that the post was critical of his political opponents, in respect of a matter of considerable interest to his constituents and, as such, did not constitute a personal attack on the Complainer. The ESC advised he considered the statement in the post to the effect that the review had been initiated by the Complainer and the Leader was “not necessarily objectively disrespectful or discourteous”. The ESC explained this was because the post did not contain any personal comments about the Complainer, beyond linking him to the initiation of the review of the facilities that he had been directed to arrange. The ESC noted the Respondent believed the post to be “factually correct” as while he accepted the Leader instructed the Complainer, as the Council’s Chief Executive, to instigate the review, the Complainer was ultimately responsible for overseeing and actioning decisions. The ESC argued that “it is also the case that the term initiate can be interpreted both as causing something to begin”, and “as beginning something, which the Complainer was clearly instructed to do”. The ESC noted the Respondent’s position was that his concerns about the timing of the review related solely to the Council Leader’s political party. The ESC advised, nevertheless, that he did not consider this was “necessarily clear”. The ESC noted that the Complainer, in his role as the Council’s most senior officer, had a widely understood obligation to maintain political neutrality. The ESC contended, therefore, that any suggestion that the Complainer was not politically neutral, in terms of influencing a vote, or that he had timed or conducted the review in a dishonest way, or with the intention of gaining votes for specific political groups, must be considered disrespectful. The ESC advised that he considered the Respondent’s statement could be interpreted as accusing the Complainer, implicitly, of not conducting his duties in a transparent or honest manner, or otherwise of acting in a manner intended to conceal a political motivation. As such, the ESC advised that, regardless of the Respondent’s intention, he considered his conduct amounted, on the face of it, to a breach of paragraph 3.1 of the Code. Page 35 of 134
Page 36
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 5 of 21 The ESC noted that the post was published on an open Facebook account (being a public forum), which was widely accessible to members of the public. The ESC accepted the Respondent’s account had very few followers and noted it did not appear the post had been viewed widely. The ESC stated, nonetheless, that it was evident the post had been in the public domain for a period of time and could be shared readily. The ESC advised, therefore, that he had concluded the Respondent had also, on the face of it, breached paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 of the Code, which concern the relationship between elected members and council officers and require councillors to refrain from undermining any individual officer and from raising concerns about their performance, conduct or capability in public. The Panel asked whether, regardless of any different definitions of the word ‘initiate’, the ESC accepted that an ordinary reading and reasonable interpretation of the post was that the Complainer was involved in the decision to undertake the review (rather than that he had merely begun the review as instructed by the Leader and other councillors), given: • the Respondent had not made any distinction between the Complainer and the Leader, when mentioning them in tandem, and when stating they had initiated the review; • the Respondent had referred, in the same sentence, to the Complainer and Leader as having the support of the Conservative Group; and • it was evident neither the Leader nor Conservative Group would be involved in undertaking the review. In response, the ESC advised that while he considered that the statement was open to more than one interpretation, he had concluded it was inaccurate, as it was “more likely” to be understood as meaning the Complainer was involved in the decision to undertake the review. The Panel asked the ESC why he did not consider the statement in the post about the Complainer initiating the review to be a personal comment, given the Complainer was specifically named and given the ESC’s further conclusion that the post was critical of his conduct. The ESC advised this was because he did not consider it was clear the criticisms in the post, about the timing and process of the review, concerned the Complainer. The ESC reiterated, nevertheless, that he was of the view that the inference in the post that the Complainer had a role in instigating the review and, as such, had failed to maintain political neutrality, was disrespectful. When asked by the Panel whether he considered the Respondent’s comments in the post amounted to a direct attack on the Complainer, the ESC indicated he was of two minds as to whether, on one hand, the intention was to undermine the Complainer or, on the other hand, whether it was meant to be directed only at the Respondent’s political opponents and to be critical of them. The ESC advised that, having concluded the Respondent had, on the face of it, breached the Code’s provisions, he had proceeded to consider the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and, in particular, whether a restriction on this right could be justified to protect the rights and reputations of others and to ensure the effective operation of the Council. The ESC noted that the Respondent’s post concerned the potential closure or re-purposing of council facilities and advised it had been published in the context of a strongly contested upcoming by-election in a nearby area. As such, he had concluded the Respondent was commenting on an issue of significant public interest and would attract enhanced protection in respect of his Article 10 rights. The ESC noted that for a restriction on an individual’s Article 10 rights to be considered necessary, there have to be relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference. Any restriction must also be proportionate. Page 36 of 134
Page 37
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 6 of 21 The ESC noted that in the case of Heesom1, the Court found that while civil servants are open to criticism, including public criticism; they are involved in assisting with and implementing policies, not (like politicians) making them. The Court noted that “As well as in their own private interests in terms of honour, dignity and reputation […], it is in the public interest that they are not subject to unwarranted comments that disenable them from performing their public duties and undermine public confidence in the administration. Therefore, in the public interest, it is a legitimate aim of the State to protect public servants from unwarranted comments that have, or may have, that adverse effect on good administration”. The Court stated, nevertheless, that acceptable limits of criticism are wider for non-elected public servants acting in an official capacity than for private individuals, as a result of their being in public service. The limits were not, however, as wide as they were for elected politicians. The ESC acknowledged that the Respondent’s post had the potential to undermine the Complainer and adversely affect his reputation, even though it related to a matter of significant public interest. The ESC noted that the Court in the case of Busuioc2 had found that there were limits to the right to freedom of expression where an individual's reputation was at stake. In that case, the Court found that the applicant had a duty to act in good faith and to verify any information about another individual before publishing it. The ESC also drew the Panel’s attention to the case of Lombardo3, which concerned the conduct of three councillors who had been openly critical of the local Council’s Administration over an alleged failure to consult on a road project and to consider public opinion on the matter. The ESC noted in that case the Court found that any distinction between statements of fact and value judgements was of less significance than in a case where the impugned statement is made in the course of a lively political debate at local level, where elected officials should enjoy a wide freedom to criticise the actions of a local authority, even where the statements made may lack a clear basis in fact. The Court noted that the fear of sanction may have a “chilling effect” on the exercise of freedom of expression. The ESC advised that the Respondent attributed the complaint to a breakdown in relations between the PCNL Group and council officers. The ESC advised that he did not intend to comment on that matter, as the purpose of the Hearing was to consider the Respondent’s conduct in respect of the post rather than his relationship with officers. The ESC advised he did not consider a restriction of the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression to be necessary “relative to the scale of the conduct”. The ESC advised this was because he considered it to be “less bad or shocking than in cases [as outlined in his report] where the Standards Commission has found a restriction to be justified”, and not gratuitous. In explaining why he was of the view the conduct was not gratuitous or particularly bad or shocking, the ESC argued that the statement that the Complainer had “initiated” the review was “capable of more than one interpretation”, in that the word could be used both to describe making something begin and to begin a task. The ESC stated that he did not consider the Respondent’s remark that he “would sincerely hope that part of the review’s real purpose is not to portray a greater crisis in an effort to gain votes for both the Labour and Conservative Groups” constituted an accusation, “although one may be construed as implicit within it”. The ESC contended, in any event, that the target of this comment appeared to be the Respondent’s political opponents, not the Complainer. The ESC acknowledged that no public figure, such as a council Chief Executive, would wish to have their integrity called into question, but argued the post did not contain any overtly personal comments about the Complainer. The ESC noted, in any event, that the Respondent was commenting on a matter of significant 1 Heesom v Public Service Ombudsman for Wales (2014) EWHC 1504 (Admin) 2 Busuioc v Moldova no. 61513/00, 21 December 2004 3 Lombardo v Malta (2009) 48 EHRR 23 Page 37 of 134
Page 38
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 7 of 21 local interest at a time when intense campaigning for a by-election in a neighbouring council was underway. The ESC further noted the review recommended that some facilities be closed or re-purposed. The ESC highlighted that these recommendations were made by council officers and the Complainer would have overall responsibility for them in his capacity as the most senior Council officer. The ESC advised, in that context and in the circumstances of the case, his view was the Respondent’s position was defensible and that a restriction on his enhanced right to freedom of expression under Article 10 could not be justified. In response to questions from the Panel, the ESC advised that he accepted a council Chief Executive would be responsible for implementing decisions made by councillors even if the Chief Executive disagreed with, or did not like, the decision in question. The ESC was asked whether he had considered the Respondent had deliberately intended to be misleading by stating that the Complainer had “initiated” the review, when: • he had only been instructed to undertake it; • the Respondent had stated that his Group’s relationship with officers had broken down at the time it was published; and • it was accepted the post had been drafted by the Group. In response, the ESC advised that he did not think so, albeit he could understand why the Complainer had reached that conclusion. The ESC accepted that a comment did not need to be personally offensive to amount to a personal attack or be found to be disrespectful or discourteous. When asked whether he considered the Respondent’s statement that “the review was initiated by the Chief executive of NLC, Mr Des Murray and [name of Council Leader]” implied that the Complainer and the Leader were colluding or conspiring in respect of the decision to undertake the review, the ESC accepted that it could be interpreted in such a way. In response to a question from the Panel about what possible reason there could be for the mention of the Complainer (as a neutral council officer) in respect of the decision to undertake the review (if the post was only intended to be only political comment and an attack on the Respondent’s political opponents), the ESC accepted the post could have been worded more clearly. The ESC argued, however, that it was likely the post would have been worded differently if the Respondent’s intention had been to use the post to attack the Complainer overtly. The Panel asked whether the ESC considered the Respondent’s allegations (about the timing and purpose of the review being used to gain votes for two other named parties), immediately following his statement that the Complainer had, along with the Leader, initiated the review, amounted to an implicit accusation that the Complainer had failed to maintain political neutrality. In response, the ESC advised he did not necessarily consider this to be the case and reiterated that he considered the content of the post to be “open to more than one interpretation”. The ESC accepted that calling a council officer’s political neutrality into question also inherently called into question their integrity and, therefore, would be a serious accusation. The ESC advised however, that he did not consider there was any such overt accusation in the post, albeit he accepted the content could be interpreted as making such a suggestion. The ESC accepted that the Respondent could have posted criticisms of the decision to undertake the review, the recommendations within it, and how it was being used by his political opponents, without making any mention of the Complainer. The Panel asked whether he considered, given this and his conclusion that the post could be taken to infer the Complainer had failed to remain politically neutral, the reference to the Complainer (and, in particular, the decision to specifically identify him by name as well as his job title) could Page 38 of 134
Page 39
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 8 of 21 be considered gratuitous. The ESC advised he did not consider that to be the case as he was of the view that the other “factual” elements of the post were accurate. The Panel noted that the ESC had stated in his report that he did not consider the Respondent’s conduct to be sufficiently serious as to amount to bullying, “even on a borderline basis”. The ESC was asked whether he still considered that to be the case, given: • the Complainer was named in the post; • the post was planned in advance and published in conjunction with the Respondent’s political group as part of a concerted action; and • the post was published on a public forum where (unlike other councillors) the Complainer had no right of reply. The ESC advised that, in objectively assessing the Respondent’s conduct, he had considered the following factors: • that the Respondent immediately removed the post on receipt of the email from the Monitoring Officer dated 27 September 2023; • there was no evidence of further posts by the Respondent about the Complainer on the Respondent’s Facebook account; and • while it was possible for a one-off incident to be classified as bullying and / or harassment, he did not consider that the Respondent’s conduct was sufficiently serious that it could reasonably be classified as such. In response to a question from the Panel, the ESC accepted, in terms of whether any restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression could be made, factors that were relevant to the context of this case could include that: • any inference the Complainer had been involved in the decision to undertake the review was deliberate given it was accepted the Respondent’s group had drafted the majority of the post (in the context of an admitted breakdown in its relationship with council officers) and given the Respondent had edited its contents before publishing. • The comments in the post were not made spontaneously or in response to something the Complainer had asserted (in other words, the Complainer had not opened himself up to criticism). • The comments were made on social media (being a public setting) and in circumstances where the Complainer had no means or right of reply. • The Complainer remained in his role meaning that the requirement to maintain public confidence in the Council, and effective working relationships between its elected members and officers, remained of relevance. The ESC advised, nevertheless, that he still considered it was reasonable to view the post as being intended as an attack on the Respondent’s political opponents, not the Complainer. As such, he remained of the view that a restriction on the Respondent’s enhanced right to freedom of expression could not be justified. Submissions made by the Respondent The Respondent advised that he considered the complaint to be an unwarranted attack on his character and that the matter could have been resolved at a local level without a complaint being made to the ESC. The Respondent stated that he considered the post had been subject to a “selective interpretation” and that the whole complaint process had caused him unnecessary personal stress and made him question his role as a councillor. The Respondent indicated that he understood and respected that council officers, particularly those at a senior level, have a difficult and important role. The Respondent advised that while he sometimes disagreed with officers, he was never disrespectful towards them. In support of this contention, the Respondent drew the Panel’s attention to various emails he had exchanged with officers, which were polite and friendly in Page 39 of 134
Page 40
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 9 of 21 tone. The Respondent advised that he genuinely respected the Complainer and all other officers at the Council. The Respondent advised that he endorsed fully the ESC’s conclusions and arguments in respect of the allegation that he had bullied the Complainer and in relation to the application of Article 10 (albeit he did not accept, in any way, the conclusion that he had, on the face of it, breached the Code). The Respondent further indicated that he accepted adherence to the Code was essential in terms of public perception and to maintain the public’s confidence in the role of a councillor and the Council itself. The Respondent advised, therefore, that he would never contravene the Code deliberately and was confident he had not done so in this case. The Respondent argued that interpreting the provisions in the Code necessarily involved a subjective assessment and noted he was only person who could know what his motivation in publishing the post had been. The Respondent argued the phrases used in the post were nuanced and open to different interpretations and suggested, in order to decide whether there had been a breach of the Code, the Panel should consider the submissions outlined below. The Respondent refuted any interpretation that suggested the content of the post linked the Complainer directly to any political commentary and confirmed that had never been his intention. The Respondent contended that it was obvious the intended targets of the criticism in his post were the other political groups in the Council. The Respondent argued that, as all the other groups had been mentioned in the post, any interpretation that he was accusing the Complainer of failing to maintain political neutrality would therefore have to be understood as linking the Complainer to each and every one of the other groups. The Respondent contended that the post did not contain any gratuitous comments, personal criticism of the Complainer or any content that called into question his integrity or conduct. The Respondent noted that there was no evidence of any criticism of the Council itself or of its officers. The Respondent argued that there was also no evidence that his post had any impact on council business or on its reputation. The Respondent advised that the webcast of the Council meeting on 23 February 2023 demonstrated clearly the accuracy of his post in that it was evident, from this, that the Leader gave the Complainer an instruction to initiate the review, in accordance with normal practice. The Respondent agreed with the ESC that the word ‘initiate’ could be interpreted in different ways and argued, therefore, that it should be considered in the context of the whole post. The Respondent advised that the context of the post was that its contents were clearly political in nature and concerned a matter of great public interest and concern. The Respondent noted that he had referred, at the start of the post, to his previous comments on the review of the Council’s facilities and the impact of any proposed cuts. While he had mentioned the review may have been used to gain votes for the Labour and Conservative Groups, he had also criticised the SNP Group. The Respondent contended this demonstrated that the post had a clear political basis and could not be taken as questioning the conduct of the Complainer to any extent. The Respondent advised, in any event, that it was apparent the post had no impact on the reputation of either the Complainer or the Council. The Respondent confirmed that he had very few followers on Facebook and noted there was no evidence his post had been shared. The Respondent advised that, having spoken to a solicitor, he had removed the post immediately following receipt of the email from the Council’s Monitoring Officer raising concerns about its content. The Respondent advised that no mention was made of the Complainer in any press articles on the review that appeared after the post was published. The Respondent explained that he considered there was clear evidence that the Administration had reversed its position some two days before a neighbouring council by-election, for political advantage, and it was Page 40 of 134
Page 41
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 10 of 21 obvious, when the post was read as a whole, that he had been seeking merely to draw attention to, and critique, its actions and motivations as opposed to the conduct of the Complainer. The Respondent advised that the majority of the post’s content had been drafted by his political group, in his absence, and that he had simply added some paragraphs to the beginning and end before publishing. The Respondent accepted, nevertheless, that this did not absolve him of responsibility for its content. While the Respondent acknowledged the Complainer had felt moved to make the complaint, he reiterated he had not intended to criticise his conduct. The Respondent urged the Panel to consider the whole content of the post and the context in which it was made. In response to questions from the Panel, the Respondent confirmed that he accepted that a council Chief Executive would be responsible for implementing decisions made by the Administration, even if councillors from other parties disagreed with, or did not like, the decision in question. The Respondent further confirmed that, in this case, the decision to undertake the review was made by councillors and that the Complainer was given a direct instruction to implement this decision. The Panel asked the Respondent if he thought that when considered objectively most, if not all, individuals viewing his post would reasonably understand, from its content, that the decision to undertake the review was made by the Complainer in tandem with the Council Leader, with support from the Conservative Group and, therefore, it was misleading. The Respondent confirmed he did not consider that to be the case as he did not consider there was anything in the post that suggested the Complainer was responsible for the decision or had taken part in the decision-making process. When asked by the Panel about why the Complainer had been named in the post if, as alleged, it was intended purely as political comment and as a critique of opposing political groups, the Respondent confirmed that he had not been present when it was drafted. The Respondent advised the draft had been made available to all members of the PCNL Group and that, after copying and pasting it into the post, he had simply added some comments at the beginning and end. The Respondent confirmed that he had not thought about the Code when reviewing and publishing the post as he did not consider the contents could ever be considered a breach of any of its provisions. The Respondent acknowledged, nevertheless, that he had used the first person in the post and, as such, it would be perceived as having been written by him personally. In response to a question about whether it could be inferred that the intention was to tie the Complainer to the decision to undertake the review, given the breakdown in the relationship between them, the Respondent advised that, from his perspective, the relationship was fine and noted that he was still in contact with council officers on a daily basis. The Respondent advised that it was only because of the PCNL Group, having raised concerns about the award of a contract, that the Complainer had imposed a decision under which the Group was only allowed to approach one specific officer. The Respondent advised that he accepted that council officers are obliged to serve the whole council and must remain politically neutral. The Respondent acknowledged, therefore, that any suggestion the Complainer, as Chief Executive, had failed to maintain political neutrality would be very serious. The Respondent nevertheless disputed there was anything in his post that implied this had been the case. The Panel noted that there was a clear distinction between, on the one hand, making a decision and, on the other hand, acting under an instruction to implement the decision. Given no distinction had been made in the post, between: • who made the decision and who was responsible for its implementation; and • the role of the Complainer and Leader (who had both been described as initiating it), the Panel asked whether it would be reasonable for anyone reading the content to understand, as the Respondent contended, that the Complainer had only been instructed to carry out the review. Page 41 of 134
Page 42
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 11 of 21 The Panel further asked whether it would be reasonable for anyone reading the post to have understood the paragraphs that followed, which: • referred repeatedly to “this review”; and • inferred strongly the decision to undertake it at that time had been planned in an effort to gain votes for the Labour and Conservative Groups at two (then) forthcoming elections, to be criticism aimed, at least in part, at the Complainer. The Respondent advised, in response, he did consider this to be a reasonable interpretation. The Respondent stated that he did not consider the post gave any impression that the Complainer was somehow in ‘cahoots’ with the Leader, the Administration and / or Conservative Group. When asked whether he had considered how the content of the post could or would be perceived, the Respondent advised he had viewed it as being informative and that he considered it was evident he was trying to be critical of his political opponents’ actions and decisions. The Respondent reiterated that he had not drafted the part of the post that was the subject of the complaint, although he took responsibility for it as he had used the first person and published it on a Facebook account in his name. In response to a question, the Respondent accepted the Complainer had no public right of reply to the post, albeit he questioned the Complainer’s motivation in making the complaint to the ESC (as opposed to attempting to resolve the matter informally). The Respondent further accepted that while the post may not have been shared, anyone could have taken a screenshot and that this meant it was not possible to permanently delete its content. When asked about why the Complainer was identified in the post by name, as well by his title, the Respondent indicated there had been no particular reason for this. The Respondent pointed out that, as the Council’s Chief Executive, the Complainer engaged with the media and, as such, had a public profile and was well- known. The Respondent accepted that he could have criticised the decision to undertake the review, the review itself and his political opponents without mentioning or naming the Complainer. The Respondent reiterated, however, that he did not consider the post was critical of the Complainer and did not consider it could be perceived reasonably as such. DECISION The Hearing Panel considered the submissions made both in writing and orally at the Hearing. It concluded that: • The Councillors’ Code of Conduct applied to the Respondent, Councillor Crichton. • The Respondent had breached paragraphs 3.1, 3.8 and 3.10 of the Code. Reasons for Decision 1. The Panel noted the Respondent had published the post on a Facebook account named ‘David Crichton Councillor Ward 17 Motherwell West’ and that its content related to potential cuts to council services following a review. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the Respondent could objectively be considered to be acting as a councillor at the time of the events in question and the Code therefore applied to his conduct. 2. In reaching its decision as to whether there had been a breach of the Code, the Panel took the following three-stage approach, as outlined in the Standards Commission’s Advice Note on the Application of Article 10 of the ECHR: Page 42 of 134
Page 43
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 12 of 21 • Firstly, it would consider whether the facts found led it to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Code. • Secondly, if so, it would then consider whether such a finding in itself was, on the face of it, a breach of the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10. • Thirdly, if so, the Panel would proceed to consider whether the restriction involved by the finding was justified by Article 10(2), which allows restrictions that are necessary in a democratic society (and in this case, in particular, to protect the rights and reputation of others). Stage 1: Whether the Respondent’s conduct amounted, on the face of it, to a breach of the Code 3. The Panel found, and noted it was not in dispute, that the Respondent stated in the post that the “review was initiated by the Chief Executive of North Lanarkshire Council, Mr Des Murray and [the Council Leader]”, and that “the timing and process” also appeared unusual, given an upcoming by-election and General Election. The Respondent further stated that he hoped that the “real purpose” of the review was “not to portray a greater crisis in an effort to gain votes for both the Labour and Conservative Groups”. 4. The Panel noted that the Respondent’s position was that the post was accurate, in that the Council Leader had instructed the Complainer to instigate a review of council facilities. The Panel further noted that the Respondent’s position was that any criticisms regarding the timing and process for the review were aimed at rival political groups, rather than the Complainer, as Chief Executive (or any other council officer), and that this was evident from his reference, in the post, to his earlier social media comments. 5. The Panel noted that council Chief Executives are responsible for the efficient and effective operation of the local authority and for implementing council decisions. The Panel noted it was not in dispute that the decision to undertake the review was made by elected members at a Council meeting of 23 February 2023. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the review had not been initiated by the Complainer. 6. The Panel did not accept that the post either stated, or could reasonably be construed as conveying, that the Complainer had been directed to initiate the review as instructed. This was because while it was stated that the Complainer had initiated the review, no mention or reference was made to any instruction given to him to do so. Instead, reference was made, in the same part of the sentence, to the Council Leader and, later in the same sentence, to the decision to initiate the review as having the support of the Conservative Group. 7. The Panel noted that although the Leader was involved in the decision to carry out the review and that this decision had been supported by the Conservative Group, it was evident that neither would have been involved in its implementation. The Panel considered it was clear, therefore, that even if it was accepted, as suggested by the ESC, the term ‘initiate’ could be understood to mean to begin the work on the review, such an interpretation was not reasonable in the context of how the word had been used in this case. This was because it was apparent that no attempt had been made to separate out or distinguish, on the one hand, the role of the Leader in making the decision and providing the instruction (with the support of the Conservative Group) and, on the other hand, the Complainer, as Chief Executive, in ensuring it was actioned. The Panel agreed there would be no reason whatsoever to name the Complainer first (as the Respondent had done), if the intention had been to relate only that the decision to carry out the review had been made by the Leader or the Administration, with the agreement of the Conservative Group, and that the Complainer had been instructed to implement this. 8. The Panel did not agree that the test for whether a comment could amount to a breach of the Code should necessarily entail considering all possible interpretations of a word (especially when not considered in the full context in which it had been used). Instead, the full context should be taken into account, so that a view on the ordinary meaning, and the likely understanding from the point of view of those reading or hearing it in the particular circumstances in which it was made, could be reached. The Panel was further Page 43 of 134
Page 44
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 13 of 21 of the view that the full context in which a comment was made should be considered when determining the likely motivation or intent of the individual making the comment. 9. The Panel was of the view that when considered objectively most, if not all, individuals reading the Respondent’s post would conclude reasonably that it was stating clearly, or attempting to convey, that the Complainer had made the decision to initiate the review in tandem with the Council Leader. 10. The Panel further disagreed with the ESC that it was only ‘possible’ that any members of the public viewing the post would read and consider the comments in the post as a whole. On the contrary, the Panel considered it was improbable anyone reading the post would separate out the statement that it had been initiated by the Complainer and Council Leader, with the support of the Conservative Group, from the criticism of the purpose and timing of the review that immediately followed. This was regardless of whether they also understood it to be critical of other parties and political in nature. 11. The Panel noted that the Respondent contended he was only inferring, in the post, that the timing and purpose of the review was deliberate and intended to gain votes for Labour and Conservative parties in two upcoming elections. The Panel noted, however, that this suggestion followed on immediately from the statement that the Complainer had initiated the review. The Panel considered the reference to “this review”, in that context, tied the accusation clearly to the preceding statement. In the circumstances, the Panel considered it was likely the majority of individuals viewing the post would conclude reasonably that the Respondent was implying those he had named as initiating and supporting the review (which included the Complainer) had done so deliberately to help the two other political parties in forthcoming elections. 12. The Panel accepted that, as a politician, the Respondent was entitled (and, indeed, likely would have been expected) to criticise both the decision by fellow councillors to undertake a review he opposed and the timing of it, and to speculate on how it might be used by his political opponents. The Panel considered, however, that he could have done so easily and effectively, without making any mention of the Complainer. The Panel noted that the post had been prepared in advance by the Respondent’s political group. As such, it was evident that the post had not been drafted in haste, without any consideration having been given to the wording and its likely inference. 13. The Panel disagreed with the ESC that the deterioration in the relationship was irrelevant to the question of whether the Code had been breached. This was because, as noted above, the Panel considered it provided context in terms of the Respondent’s potential motivation. 14. The Panel noted the Respondent’s position was that his post was directed at his political opponents and intended as political comment or narrative, rather than as any criticism whatsoever of the Complainer. The Panel noted, however, that the Respondent had been present at the Council meeting on 23 February 2023 and that he accepted the decision to conclude the review had been made by elected members; not the Complainer. The Panel noted the Respondent opposed the recommendations made in the review. While the Panel noted the Respondent disputed that his relationship with the Complainer had broken down in the month before the post was published, it noted evidence to the contrary had been led, in that the Respondent had advised the ESC’s Investigating Officer that his group’s working relationship with council officers had “deteriorated significantly” after its members had questioned, during the previous month, the award of a contract. The Panel was satisfied it was apparent, therefore, that even if there were no personal difficulties between the Respondent and Complainer, there were problems in the relationship between the Respondent’s political group and council officers at the time the post was published. 15. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel was satisfied, in light of: • the deterioration in the relationship between the Respondent’s group and council officers (of which the Complainer was the most senior); Page 44 of 134
Page 45
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 14 of 21 • the fact that the drafting of the parts of the post in question had been undertaken by the Respondent’s group, rather than by any individual in haste; • the Respondent’s admission that he had the opportunity to edit the post before publishing it (and indeed had done so); • the decision to list the Complainer first and to identify him by name as well as title, despite the Respondent’s knowledge that the decision to undertake the review had been made by councillors; and • the failure to separate out the Complainer’s role in the matter from that of the Leader, that the mention of the Complainer in the post was deliberate and intended to link him both to the political decision to undertake the review and the timing of it, in order to criticise, publicly, his alleged conduct. 16. The Panel considered that, in stating that the Complainer had initiated the review and, by inferring he had done so for political purposes, the Respondent effectively accused him of going beyond his remit and of failing to maintain political neutrality. As council officers are obliged to remain politically neutral, the Panel was of the view that such public questioning of the Complainer’s impartiality and therefore his integrity, could have been highly damaging to his reputation as an individual. Given the Complainer’s position as its senior officer, the Panel agreed it could have also been damaging to the reputation of the Council itself. 17. The Panel noted the Respondent was also critical, in the post, of the SNP Group’s alleged decision to withdraw from preliminary discussions about potential cuts. The Panel noted the Respondent’s argument that this meant any suggestion he was accusing the Complainer of failing to maintain political neutrality would have to be understood as linking him to all of the other political groups. The Panel did not accept this contention, however, as it was evident from the context in which it was made (being a comment on whether it would now make any representations), that the criticism of the SNP Group concerned its decision to withdraw from the discussions only, rather than any involvement it had in respect of the decision to undertake the review or its timing. 18. The Panel concluded, therefore, that in tying the Complainer to his criticisms and in implying he had not been politically neutral, the Respondent had, on the face of it, contravened: • paragraph 3.1 of the Code (which requires councillors to treat others with courtesy and respect); and • paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 (which require councillors to refrain from undermining or criticising the conduct of individual officers in public and to work with them in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect). 19. The Panel noted that bullying is inappropriate and unwelcome behaviour which is offensive and intimidating, and which makes an individual feel undermined, humiliated or insulted. The Panel further noted that bullying usually arises as a result of an individual misusing their power and, while it tends to be a pattern of behaviour or course of conduct, it can also be a one-off incident. 20. In this case, the Panel noted that: • the post had been drafted by the Respondent’s political group acting collectively, rather than by the Respondent alone; • it had found that the Respondent published the post deliberately, despite knowing it contained incorrect information and despite it giving the impression that the Complainer had failed to maintain political neutrality (being a serious allegation); and • the Respondent named the Complainer and published the post in a public forum despite knowing the Complainer would have no right of reply. 21. The Panel nevertheless acknowledged that the Complainer was an experienced public servant and the Council’s most senior officer, while the Respondent was a relatively new councillor representing a smaller Page 45 of 134
Page 46
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 15 of 21 and relatively newly-formed political group. As such, it was arguable the inherent position of power enjoyed by councillors over officers was less evident and of less significance in this case. The Panel further noted that the Respondent removed the post after five days (albeit only after the Council’s Monitoring Officer raised concerns about it and the Respondent had received legal advice). 22. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that while it had been serious, inappropriate and deliberate, the Respondent’s conduct in the circumstances fell short of the threshold required for it to amount to bullying in terms of the Code. The Panel concluded, therefore, that the Respondent had not breached paragraph 3.3. Stage 2: Whether a finding of a contravention of the Code would be a breach of the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR 23. The Panel noted that enhanced protection of freedom of expression under Article 10 applies to all levels of politics, including local politics. The Panel further noted that the Courts have held that political expression is a broad concept and that there is little distinction between political discussion and discussion of matters of public concern4. In this case, the Panel noted the Respondent’s post concerned a review of council services and the political impact of this, both of which were matters of considerable public interest and concern. In the circumstances the Panel agreed with the ESC that the Respondent would attract the enhanced protection of freedom of expression afforded to politicians, including local politicians, under Article 10. Stage 3: Whether any restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression involved by a finding of a contravention of the Code would be justified by Article 10(2) of the ECHR 24. The Panel nevertheless noted that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. Article 10(2) states that restrictions can be imposed, provided they are necessary in order to achieve a legitimate aim. The Panel noted that legitimate aims can include: • protecting the mutual bond of trust and confidence between councillors and officers that enables local government to function effectively; • ensuring council officers enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue perturbation to allow them to be successful in performing their tasks; • ensuring public confidence in local government is not undermined and that a council is not brought into disrepute; • acting as a deterrent against future adverse behaviour; and • protecting the rights and reputations of others. 25. The Panel accepted, however, the Courts have found that any restriction on freedom of expression must also be proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. As such, the Panel was required to undertake a balancing exercise, weighing the enhanced protection to freedom of expression enjoyed by the Respondent against any restriction the application of the Code and the imposition of any sanction entailed. In doing so, the Panel had regard to the following findings that have been made by the Courts: • The necessity of any restriction on the exercise of freedom of expression must be established convincingly and be in response to a pressing social need. • Freedom of expression is especially important for elected representatives, and there is little scope under Article 10(2) for restrictions on political speech or on debates on matters of public interest. • The less egregious the conduct in question, the harder it is for a Panel, when undertaking its balancing exercise, to justifiably conclude that a restriction on an individual’s right to freedom of expression is required5. 4 Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843 5 R (Calver) v Adjudication Panel for Wales (2012) EWHC 1172 (Admin) Page 46 of 134
Page 47
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 16 of 21 • In a political context, a degree of the immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, polemical, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive, that would not be acceptable outside that context, is tolerated6. • Civil servants are open to criticism, including public criticism; but they are involved in assisting with and implementing policies, not (like politicians) making them. It is in the public interest that they are not subject to unwarranted comments that disenable them from performing their public duties and undermine public confidence in their public body7. • The acceptable limits of criticism are wider for non-elected public servants acting in an official capacity that for private individuals, because, as a result of their being in public service, it is appropriate that their actions and behaviour are subject to more thorough scrutiny. The limits are not as wide, however, as for elected politicians, who come to the arena voluntarily and have to ability to respond in kind which civil servants do not8. • Where critical comment is made of a civil servant, the requirement to protect that civil servant must be weighed against the open discussion of matters of public concern and, if the relevant comment was made by a politician in political expression, the enhanced protection given to the politician’s right to freedom of expression9. 26. The Panel noted that the ESC referred to the case of Busuoic10during his submissions and, in particular, to the Court’s finding that “there are limits to the right to freedom of expression where an individual’s reputation is at stake and the applicant had a duty to act in good faith and to verify any information before publishing it”. In this case, the Panel noted it had found the Respondent stated in the post that the Complainer and Leader had initiated the review. The Panel noted it had found this to be incorrect, in that the Complainer had neither initiated the review nor taken part in the decision to undertake one. Instead, the Complainer was only instructed by councillors to carry out the review. While the Panel accepted the Respondent had not drafted the part of the post that mentioned the Complainer, it nevertheless noted that he had taken the time to edit it before publishing. The Panel noted that the Respondent had been present at the Council meeting on 23 February 2023 where the decision to initiate the review and instruct the Complainer to instigate it had been made. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the Respondent knew the information contained in the post was incorrect. The Panel therefore considered that the Respondent had failed in his duty to verify the incorrect information contained in the post before publishing it, despite having had the opportunity to do so. The Panel further noted that it had found the naming of the Complainer in the post to have been a deliberate attempt to link him, unfairly, to the decision to undertake the review and the criticisms that followed. The Panel was not satisfied, therefore, that the Respondent had acted in good faith. 27. The Panel noted that the ESC had also referred to the case of Lombardo11. The Panel noted that the Court in the Lombardo case held that “where a statement amounts to a value judgement, the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for that statement, since even a value judgement without any factual basis to support it may be excessive”. In this case (unlike some previous cases mentioned by the ESC in his report and alluded to in his submissions), the Panel did not consider the Respondent’s statement that the “review was initiated by the Chief Executive of North Lanarkshire Council, Mr Des Murray and [the Council Leader]” to be a value judgement or opinion. This was because the Panel considered the statement to be clearly verifiable, noting it had been accepted by the Respondent that the Complainer had been instructed only to carry out the review and had not been involved in the decision to initiate it. The Panel further noted that the Respondent himself contended that 6 Heesom (ibid) 7 Heesom (ibid) 8 Heesom (ibid) 9 Heesom (ibid) 10 Busuioc (ibid) 11 Lombardo (ibid) Page 47 of 134
Page 48
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 17 of 21 the statement the Complainer had initiated the review was “factually correct” and that neither he, nor the ESC, had suggested it was only an opinion. The Panel noted that the Courts have held that factual statements made in good faith with a reasonable factual basis, or that are substantially true to a reasonable standard of proof, will be tolerated. As noted above, the Panel found that the Complainer was not involved in the decision to undertake the review. It further found the Respondent deliberately stated the Complainer had initiated this with the Leader, despite knowing this was not the case. The Panel therefore did not consider the Respondent’s statement to be made in good faith or to be substantially true to a reasonable standard of proof. 28. The Panel noted that the ESC also referred to comments made by the Court in Lombardo regarding the potential “chilling effect” sanctions may have on the exercise of freedom of expression. The Panel noted that in Lombardo, the sanction imposed could have been considered to have a chilling effect as it was “capable of discouraging [the] making [of] statements critical of the local council’s policies in the future”. The Panel accepted that councillors have a key scrutiny role and are both entitled, and expected, to engage in robust political debate. The Panel accepted, therefore, that the Respondent was fully entitled to scrutinise how the review had been conducted and to criticise the conduct of his political rivals in respect of both the decision to initiate it and to allegedly use it for political advantage. 29. The Panel noted it had found, however, that the Complainer had been named, unnecessarily and deliberately, by the Respondent in the post. The Panel did not consider that a finding of a breach of the Code for such unnecessary and deliberate naming of the Complainer and implied criticisms of his conduct could be said to have a chilling effect on the ability of the Respondent to criticise his political opponents. This was because the Panel noted that there had been nothing to prevent the Respondent from raising his concerns about the pending review, its timing, or the conduct of is political rivals, without stating, deliberately and incorrectly, that the Complainer had initiated the review and without suggesting he had done so to serve some vested, political interest and / or would conduct it in a manner intended to have such an effect. 30. The Panel noted the wide degree of tolerance the Courts have held should be shown towards political speech. The Panel acknowledged that, had it not mentioned the Complainer, the Respondent’s post would have been wholly unremarkable and not even close to the threshold of tolerance. The Panel did not consider, therefore, that a restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression arising from a finding that he was disrespectful towards the Complainer (by subjecting him to an unwarranted public attack) would have any chilling effect whatsoever on the Respondent’s (or any other elected member’s) right or ability to make political points or criticise political opponents. 31. The Panel considered that the accusation that the Complainer had somehow instigated or been involved in the decision to undertake the review, and the clear inference this was done for political reasons, had the potential to have a significant impact on his reputation, given the requirement for council officers to remain politically neutral. The Panel noted that such an accusation could have a damaging impact on how the Complainer was perceived publicly. The Panel further noted it could have affected negatively the Complainer’s relationship with other councillors and, given he is the Council’s most senior officer, the working relations between all officers and elected members. 32. The Panel noted the ESC referred to the Court’s finding in the Heesom12 case that the acceptable limits of criticism are wider for civil servants acting in an official capacity than for private individuals (albeit the limits are not as wide as they are for elected politicians). In this case, however, the Panel noted that the Respondent was fully aware that the decision to initiate the review was a political one and was not taken by the Complainer. Therefore, any political criticisms levelled at him in respect of that decision, and how 12 Heesom (ibid) Page 48 of 134
Page 49
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 18 of 21 it was made, were unfounded, unfair and exceeded even the wider bounds that he could be expected to accept in his non-political role as head of paid service. 33. The Panel noted that the context in which the Respondent’s post had been made also required to be considered. As previously noted, it was accepted the wording of the part of the post in question was agreed by members of the Respondent’s Group. The Panel accepted, therefore, that the Respondent had the opportunity to review the proposed post before publishing it and his comments could not, therefore, be categorised as spontaneous and made in the heat of the moment in response to something alleged by the Complainer or anyone else. 34. The Panel further agreed that there was no evidence that, in implementing the review, the Complainer had done anything other than to carry out a decision made by elected members, as required by his role. The Panel did not therefore consider that the Complainer could have been said to have acted in a way that somehow, even in small part, justified the insinuation that he had acted outwith his remit or failed to remain politically neutral. 35. Taking all the foregoing into account, the Panel concluded the Respondent’s accusation was entirely gratuitous and egregious, wholly inappropriate and potentially very damaging to the Complainer’s reputation. The Panel was therefore satisfied that a restriction on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression was relevant, sufficient and proportionate in order to meet the aims outline at the beginning of Stage 3, and in particular to: • act as a deterrent to the Respondent and others from engaging in unfounded public attacks and / or making serious and false accusations about officers; • protecting the mutual bond of trust and confidence between councillors and officers that enables local government to function effectively; • prevent public confidence in local government and the Council from being undermined; and • protect the reputation and rights of the Complainer. 36. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the findings of breach, and the subsequent application of a sanction, would not contravene Article 10. Submission in respect of Mitigation and Sanction The Panel noted the Complainer had submitted an impact statement. The Panel advised the Respondent that it would take into account the fact that the statement was not taken under oath and could not be tested, given the Complainer had not been asked to give evidence at the Hearing. The Panel noted that the Complainer advised, in his impact statement, that: • The impact on his health and well-being caused by the conduct in question had been significant on both a personal and professional level and caused him a great amount of stress. • He felt the post contained comments that were wholly inaccurate and damaging and lacked any basis or justification. The Complainer advised he considered the comments had been made purely for political reasons and led to him feeling as though he had been targeted personally and attacked in his role as Chief Executive. • He considered his integrity, honesty, character and independence as the head of paid service had all been questioned and, given the review was highly contentious and led to strong feelings, created a risk to his personal safety. • He felt he had no choice other than to lodge a complaint with the ESC. • He considered that the Respondent’s conduct brought the Council into disrepute. The Respondent advised that he considered the Panel had ignored the facts before it and disputed the finding that he had breached the Code. Page 49 of 134
Page 50
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 19 of 21 The Respondent noted that he would always be willing to meet with officers and reassure them if they felt they had been prejudiced by him. The Respondent questioned why no attempt had been made to resolve the issue internally and informally. The Respondent further questioned whether the Complainer’s comment in respect of the risk to his personal safety was exaggerated. SANCTION The decision of the Hearing Panel was to suspend, for a period of one month with effect from 4 November 2024, the Respondent, Councillor Crichton, from all meetings of the Council and of any committee or sub- committee thereof and of any other body on which he is a representative or nominee of the Council. The suspension will end at midnight on 3 December 2024. This sanction is made under section 19(1)(c) terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Reasons for Sanction 1. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered: • firstly, whether the interference (i.e. the proposed sanction) was the minimum necessary, or whether less restrictive means could be employed; and • secondly, whether the benefit of that least restrictive measure outweighs its adverse impact on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression. For example, whether any benefit in applying a sanction in respect of protecting the rights and reputations of others, and to ensure good administration which enables local government to function effectively, would outweigh any impact on the Respondent. 2. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to the Standards Commission’s Policy on the Application of Sanctions. A copy of the policy can be found on the Standards Commission’s website, at: https://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/cases/hearing-rules. 3. The Panel began by assessing the nature and seriousness of the breach of the Code. The Panel agreed the provisions that state councillors must behave with courtesy and respect towards others (including council officers), and to refrain from undermining officers or criticising them in public, are key requirements of the Code. The Panel noted that a failure to adhere to those requirements can lower the standards of public debate and erode public confidence in councillors and the local authorities they represent. The Panel further noted that the provisions protect the mutual bond of trust and confidence between councillors and officers, which allows local government to function effectively. In this case, the Panel noted the Respondent had agreed, as part of his acceptance of office as a councillor, that he would adhere to the terms of the Code. 4. The Panel noted it had found that the Respondent had published the post deliberately, despite knowing that it contained incorrect information, and despite its contents inferring clearly that the Complainer had failed to maintain political neutrality. The Panel considered that such a public accusation about the Complainer, as the Council’s senior officer, could have been highly damaging to both to his reputation and that of the local authority, given the accepted and widely-known obligation on officers to be politically neutral and to serve the Council as a whole. The Panel was therefore of the view that the breach of the Code was serious in nature. 5. The Panel noted, nevertheless, the Respondent’s Facebook account was only followed by a relatively small number of individuals and that the post had been removed after a few days (albeit only after the Council’s Monitoring Officer had raised concerns about its contents), meaning the breach was limited in duration. The Panel further noted it had not been presented with any evidence to show that the accusation the Complainer had initiated the review or failed to maintain political neutrality had been repeated in the media. Page 50 of 134
Page 51
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 20 of 21 6. The Panel then considered the aggravating and mitigating factors as set out in the Policy on the Application of Sanctions, beginning with those in mitigation. The Panel noted that mitigating factors are those that may lessen the severity or culpability of the breach. 7. In mitigation, the Panel accepted the Respondent had not drafted the part of the post that mentioned the Complainer by name (albeit it was evident he had edited the post before publishing and, therefore, had the opportunity to check for accuracy and amend the content accordingly). The Panel noted that the Respondent had co-operated fully with the investigative and Hearing processes. The Panel further noted there had not been any previous findings of a contravention of the Code by the Respondent. 8. The Panel then proceeded to consider whether there were any aggravating factors; being ones that may increase the severity or culpability of the breach. 9. The Panel acknowledged that the Respondent had every right to scrutinise the decision taken by his fellow councillors to instigate the review, and to query how his political opponents may seek to profit from its timing and outcome. The Panel considered, however, that the deliberate inclusion of the Complainer in this criticism and scrutiny, despite the knowledge that the decision to undertake the review had been made by councillors, was wholly unfair and inappropriate, and amounted to a personal attack. The Panel accepted that such an unjustified public inference that he had failed to maintain political neutrality would have been distressing for the Complainer (for the reasons previously outlined), particularly given he had no right of public reply or control over who and how many individuals viewed the post, and given it could never be permanently deleted (as anyone could have retained a screenshot of its content). 10. The Panel further noted that there was no suggestion the Respondent simply failed to consider the wording and content drafted by his Group before publishing the post. On the contrary, the Respondent had advised he had amended the post by adding extra paragraphs at the beginning and end. The Panel was concerned that the Respondent had not demonstrated any insight into how the post could have been perceived and its potential impact on the Complainer, even when this had been put to him at the Hearing. The Panel also noted that the Respondent had not proffered any apology, nor demonstrated any remorse for his actions. It further noted that the Respondent only removed the post after the Council’s Monitoring Officer raised concerns about its content and after the Respondent sought independent legal advice. 11. The Panel was of the view that a censure, being the minimum sanction available to the Panel, was not appropriate in light of the seriousness of the conduct, its deliberate nature and the impact it had on the Complainer. The Panel also noted the effect the Respondent’s conduct could have had on the relationship between council officers and elected members and on the reputation of the Council as a whole. As such, the Panel agreed that a censure would not achieve the aims, as outlined in the Policy on the Application of Sanctions, of: • preserving the ethical standards framework; • promoting adherence to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct; • maintaining and improving the public’s confidence that councillors will comply with the Code and will be held accountable if they fail to do so; and • achieving credible deterrence. 12. Having considered the nature and seriousness of the breach, as well as any aggravating and mitigating factors identified, the Panel concluded the imposition of a short suspension was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances. The Panel considered this was the minimum necessary sanction to achieve the aims outlined above and, in particular, to protect the right of the Complainer, as a council officer, to perform his duties without being subject to unwarranted personal attacks and to discourage others councillors from engaging in similar conduct. Page 51 of 134
Page 52
COUNCILLOR DAVID CRICHTON NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Page 21 of 21 13. The Panel noted that it may have imposed a longer suspension had it found the Respondent had drafted the part of the post that mentioned the Complainer. The Panel also noted that the Respondent’s conduct had been limited in duration given the relatively prompt removal of the post. In the circumstances, the Panel did not consider a disqualification or more lengthy suspension was warranted or justified. 14. The Panel was also satisfied that the necessary interference (being the short suspension) outweighed the adverse impact on the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression. 15. Having considered all of the matters outlined above, the Panel concluded, on balance, that the appropriate sanction, in the circumstances, was to suspend fully the Respondent, for a period of one month, with effect from 4 November. RIGHT OF APPEAL The Respondent has a right of appeal in respect of this decision, as outlined in Section 22 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. Date: 30 October 2024 Suzanne Vestri Chair of the Hearing Panel Page 52 of 134
Page 53
1. 2024 v2 Appendix 2 SUSPENSION GUIDANCE 1. Introduction 1.1 Section 19 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) outlines the options available to the Standards Commission, following the finding of a breach of their respective Codes of Conduct by a councillor or member of a devolved public body, at a Hearing it has conducted. 1.2 Section 19 obliges the Standards Commission to impose a sanction upon the finding of a breach. The options available to the Standards Commission under Section 19(1) are to censure, suspend or disqualify the councillor or member. Section 19(1) is reproduced below. 1.3 Section 21 of the 2000 Act provides the Standards Commission with the power to impose an interim suspension on a councillor or member of a devolved public body on receipt of an interim report from the Ethical Standards Commissioner (ESC) on an ongoing investigation. 19 Action on finding of contravention (1) Where the members of the Commission conducting a hearing find that a councillor has contravened the councillors’ code or a member of a devolved public body the members’ code, they shall impose one of the following sanctions— (a) censuring, but otherwise taking no action against, the councillor or member; (b) suspending, for a period not exceeding one year, the councillor’s or member’s entitlement to attend one or more but not all of the following— (i) all meetings of the council or body; (ii) all meetings of one or more committees or sub-committees of the council or body; (iii) all meetings of any other body on which the councillor or member is a representative or nominee of the council or body; (c) suspending, for a period not exceeding one year, the councillor’s or member’s entitlement to attend meetings of the council or body and of any committee or sub-committee thereof and of any other body on which the councillor or member is a representative or nominee of the council or body; (d) in the case of a councillor, disqualifying the councillor for a period not exceeding five years, from being, or from being nominated for election as, or from being elected, a councillor; (e) in the case of a member of a devolved public body, removing the member from membership of the body and disqualifying the member, for a period not exceeding five years, from membership of the body. Page 53 of 134
Page 54
2. 2024 v2 1.4 Section 19(8) provides that the Standards Commission should, after undertaking a consultation, issue guidance to councils on the extent to which a councillor should engage in activities (other than those mentioned in subsection 1(c)) which are, or could be perceived to be, the activities of a councillor during a period of suspension. 1.5 The purpose of this document is to provide such guidance. It is only intended to cover the activities of a councillor where a period of full suspension has been imposed (either on the finding of a breach under Section 19(1)(c), or as an interim measure under Section 21), as opposed to a partial suspension under Section 19(1)(b). 2. Aims 2.1 The overriding aim of this guidance is to provide clarity in respect of the impact / effect of a suspension. The purpose of imposing any restrictions on the activities of a councillor during a period of suspension is to: • discourage or prevent them from any future failure to comply with the Councillors’ Code of Conduct; • to deter similar conduct by other elected members; • protect other individuals who may be impacted adversely by the councillor’s conduct; • to prevent the Council from being brought into disrepute; and • to help ensure that public confidence in councils and councillors is maintained. 2.2 The Standards Commission recognises that councillors have been elected democratically to undertake certain tasks and that their ability to help and serve constituents should only be restricted where such a restriction is justified in the specific circumstances of the case. 2.3 This guidance is not intended to be exhaustive as it is not possible to cover every activity or duty a councillor may be expected to undertake in their role. 3. Guidance 3.1 Activities: Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 cannot, during the period of suspension, engage in any of the following: • council decision-making; • developing and reviewing policy; • regulatory, quasi-judicial and statutory duties; • formal scrutiny of service performance; • member / officer working groups; • attending meetings of any other body on which the councillor is a representative or nominee of the Council; • meetings with council officers (other than those an objective individual with knowledge of a councillor’s role would consider to be reasonably required to undertake the duties listed under paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 below); and • partnership work with outside bodies. 3.2 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 are not, during the period of suspension, to undertake any ceremonial duties or attend any external events or functions where they are representing the Council. Page 54 of 134
Page 55
3. 2024 v2 3.3 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 are not, during the period of suspension, entitled to send a substitute along to meetings (including committee meetings). 3.4 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 should still be entitled, during the period of suspension, to attend and participate in: • local bodies such as Community Councils, Local Area Forums and voluntary organisations (except meetings of any other body on which the councillor is a representative or nominee of the Council); • political group meetings, campaigns and events; and • training events; unless the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission has confirmed in its written decision that the councillor should not do so. 3.5 Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) and Section 21 are entitled, during the period of suspension, to hold constituent surgeries and to: • seek information on a constituent’s behalf in respect of a case; • advise Council officers of a constituent’s views; • help a constituent make their views known to the relevant Council officer; • give a constituent advice on the correct procedure to follow and who to contact; and • raise concerns a constituent may have about a Council service / decision, unless the Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission has confirmed that they should not do so in its written decision. 3.6 A Hearing Panel of the Standards Commission, in imposing a suspension under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21, may restrict the councillor’s entitlement to contact officers or hold constituent surgeries and / or assist constituents. This may be in circumstances where it has concerns (based on the complaint, the ESC’s interim or final report and / or its findings at a Hearing), that the councillor either poses a threat to officers or constituents, could bring the council or the role of a councillor into disrepute or disrupt the effective operation of the Council. In making such a determination, a Panel will consider the principles of fairness, public interest and proportionality. The following list provides some examples of circumstances where it might do so: • where the Hearing Panel has found that the councillor was repeatedly or seriously disrespectful to officers or third parties; • where the Hearing Panel has found that the councillor participated in, or condoned, any acts of harassment, discrimination, victimisation, bullying or other threatening behaviour; and / or • where the Hearing Panel has found that the councillor deliberately abused confidential, privileged or sensitive information for personal gain or for the gain of a close personal associate. 3.7 Nothing in this Guidance precludes a councillor who has been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 from contacting the council, council officers or using council services in their capacity as a member of the public, and in the same way as any other member of the public would be entitled. 3.8 Access to Information: Councillors who have been suspended by the Standards Commission under Section 19(1)(c) or Section 21 are entitled, during the period of suspension, to receive papers and correspondence from officers that they would normally expect to receive, had they not been suspended. Page 55 of 134
Page 56
4. 2024 v2 4. Assistance Any councillor or officer requiring assistance in interpreting and applying this guidance should contact the Standards Commission: enquiries@standardscommission.org.uk. Page 56 of 134
Page 57
North Lanarkshire Council Report Housing Committee Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref SL / GT Date 06/11/24 Housing Revenue Account – 2025/26 Revenue Estimates From Elaine Kemp, Chief Officer (Finance) E-mail kempe@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01698 302408 1. Background 1.1 Income and expenditure in relation to a local authority’s own direct provision of housing must be recorded within a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) as set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. In addition, this Act sets out the requirement for local authorities Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to present to Committee information that will enable the Council to set its Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget and rent levels for 2025/26 and provide a Revenue Budget position for financial years 2026/27 and 2027/28. The HRA Medium Term Financial Plan was presented to the Housing Committee in August 2024 and highlighted an envisaged budget gap in 2025/26 of £6.953m. The forecast position has now been updated to reflect changes in planning assumptions which has resulted in a very small net change to the forecast position with the budget gap for 2025/26 now expected to be £7.035m. Recommendations It is recommended that Housing Committee: (1) Acknowledges the key movements in the financial planning assumptions, (2) Recognises the subsequent impact on the budget gap, summarised at paragraph 2.4.6 (3) Considers the HRA reserve balances as detailed in paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7, and (4) Agrees to review the financial assumptions contained in this report at the Council meeting in December 2024 to approve the HRA Revenue Estimates and rent levels for 2025/26. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve North Lanarkshire's resource base Ambition statement (25) Ensure intelligent use of data and information to support fully evidence based decision making and future planning Programme of Work Statutory / corporate / service requirement Item 7 Page 57 of 134
Page 58
to set an annual budget to support sound financial management and helps ensure that expenditure is linked to the key priorities of tenants. 1.2 North Lanarkshire is Scotland’s largest local authority landlord, with a housing stock of approximately 36,000. The number has reduced marginally over the last year reflecting the impact of tower re-provisioning, partially offset by additions to the stock through the Council’s new supply programme and buy back schemes. 1.3 The Council approved its 2024/25 HRA budget of £174m on 21 December 2023 with £161m (92%) funded by rental income from tenants. 1.4 The average 2024/25 weekly rent in North Lanarkshire of £86.45 is the 14th lowest amongst Scottish local authority landlords and 1% below the Scottish local authority average. 1.5 Committee has received regular updates on the progress of delivering the Council’s ambitious plans for housing through the Programme of Work and specifically the Transforming Places theme with a renewed focus on transforming town centres and communities, creating places with high-quality homes and vibrant town centres. 1.6 Significant progress to date includes: • Completion of 1,490 new build homes with a further 140 on site. Sites have been identified and are at various stages of progression for a further 1,203 homes, • Expansion of the buy back scheme with 777 homes purchased through the Council Buy Back Schemes at 16 August 2024, • The approval, development and ongoing delivery of plans for investment and re- provisioning of the Council’s tower properties, • Approval of a 5 year mainstream capital programme from 2021/22 to 2025/26 that aims to deliver £315m of investment in the Council’s housing stock; greater than 20% increase from the previous 5 year planning period. 30-year Business Plan 1.7 The 30-year Business Plan included as part of the 2025/26 budget setting process is shown in Appendix 3. Finance has worked closely with Housing and the New Supply Team to confirm future investment targets to support the development and refinement of financial modelling. The 30-year Business Plan continues to demonstrate affordability and sustainability of plans based on current assumptions. Housing Benefit / Universal Credit 1.8 During the mid point of the current financial year, North Lanarkshire had over 25,000 tenants in receipt of some form of support for their housing costs, representing 71% of tenants. 43% of tenants are now in receipt of the housing cost element of Universal Credit and a further 28% are in receipt of Housing Benefit. 1.9 A rent increase would result in some tenants receiving more Housing Benefit and some existing non-claimants becoming entitled to Housing Benefit. However, unless their circumstances change, most tenants will be liable for the same contribution towards their rent, with Housing Benefit making up the difference. 1.10 Tenants currently entitled to the full housing cost element of Universal Credit would have their Universal Credit payment uplifted to reflect any rent increases up to the Local Housing Allowance cap. Page 58 of 134
Page 59
1.11 As part of the 2024/25 Revenue Estimates the Council established a recurring Rent Assistance Fund of £1m. This has gone a long way to ensure the Council maintains a stable position for rent arrears by providing support to existing tenants to prevent them falling into arrears. The arrears balance for current tenants has remained largely unchanged throughout the current financial year where other landlords are experiencing significant increases in current tenant arrears. 2. Report HRA Revenue Estimates 2025/26 2.2 Appendix 1 provides the updated Revenue Estimates position for 2025/26. Adjusted 2024/25 Budget 2.3 The starting point for determining the HRA revenue budget for 2025/26 is the 2024/25 budget of £174.169m. Expenditure Budget 2025/26 2.4 The 2025/26 revised base budget has been adjusted to reflect the planning assumptions detailed in the HRA Medium Term Plan 2025/26 to 2029/30 as presented to the Housing Committee in August 2024. As highlighted in the MTFP, a small change in the key assumptions can have a significant impact. Therefore, the planning assumptions have been revised and where changes have been made these are presented below. 2.4.1 An additional cost pressure of £0.353m for Employee related costs has been included since the MTFP. This movement allows for a re-baseline of the 2024/25 employee costs budget (£0.280m) following the most recent Pay Award negotiations between Trade Unions and COSLA. It is known that this latest pay offer has been rejected by one of the main Trade Unions and there remains uncertainty over the final pay deal. Therefore any shortfall in provision will be taken into account within the 2025/26 MTFP. In addition, the cost pressure now includes provision to rectify shortfalls for incremental payments to staff in line with the current pay and grading model as well as recognising a minor change to pension costs as a result of the amended pay award assumption. 2.4.2 The provision for the Repairs contract inflation has reduced by £3.322m in line with the BCIS indexation forecast of 2.3%. At the time of writing the MTFP the forecast was 8% and continues to be subject to change again between now and the new financial year. As in previous years however, the increases applied to the Repairs contract will remain under close monitoring with cost pressures managed where possible and burdens built into future planning assumptions. 2.4.3 Borrowing Costs are forecast to be significantly higher than previously anticipated within the MTFP with an addition £1.903m now included in the revenue estimates with interest rates falling at a slower rate than previously anticipated. This increase reflects the General Fund’s forecast for borrowing rates of 4.85%. 2.4.4 General Contract Inflation has increased by £0.192m following a further review of the contracts in place within the HRA with further provision added for Care of Gardens and factoring arrangements on new build sites. Page 59 of 134
Page 60
2.4.5 Other Costs shows an increase of £0.188m since the MTFP reflecting an updated review of the current year’s projected outturn which identified some minor cost pressures that can no longer be managed within existing budget provision. 2.4.5 Base Budget Reductions are considered each year to ensure that the HRA continues to direct its resources towards key priorities. The revenue estimates recognises the removal of the anticipated First Stop Shop Saving which is now subject to further review (£0.216m). Further to this, assumptions around potential additional rental income through changes in stock has been adjusted as a result of the phasing of the Tower Strategy and impact on nil rented voids (£0.552m). This leaves a base budget adjustment of £1.050m from a reduction in energy budgets (£0.550m) and from expected credit losses (£.500m) as per the MTFP. 2.4.6 The combined impact of these cost pressures and partially offsetting savings is a budget gap of £7.035m. This can be summarised as follows: Use of Surplus Balances 2.5 As part of its long-term HRA budget strategy, it is the Council’s policy to set aside approximately 1% of the HRA budget as a core reserve. As a result, the anticipated core reserve currently stands at £1.742m. Based on the anticipated revenue budget required for 2025/26 it is anticipated that reserve will increase to £1.812m. 2.6 Based on the most recent revenue budget monitoring position, the projected HRA reserves position at 31 March 2025 can be summarised as follows: £m Earmarked Reserves 8.415 Core Contingency Reserve 1.742 Held for risks and uncertainties to support future budget challenges 3.402 Projected at March 2025 13.560 Table 2 – HRA Projected Reserves 2.7 Elected Members are reminded of the Council’s Reserves Policy approved at Policy and Strategy Committee in January 2020 which aims to ensure that available balances are managed and utilised in accordance with effective governance principles and continue to support financial plans which are affordable and sustainable. 2026/27 and 2027/28 Revenue Budget 2.8 Appendix 2 provides a reminder of the anticipated budget shortfalls forecast for 2026/27 and 2027/28 along with the updated 2025/26 position. This illustrates the longer term financial position of the HRA. At this stage no changes have been made to the future £m Cost Pressures 8.085 Base Budget Reductions (1.050) Budget Gap 7.035 Table 1 - HRA Budget Gap Page 60 of 134
Page 61
year assumptions. Decisions taken for 2025/26 will be baselined as part of the next iteration of the MTFP. Areas of Risk and Uncertainty 2.9 As always, in preparing the Revenue Estimates there is a level of risk and uncertainty around the forecasts and assumptions made, this is evident from the movements highlighted since the MTFP. The financial impact therefore remains under continuous review with any unbudgeted pressures arising, being managed where possible through in year management action or the use of reserves held for risks and uncertainties to support future budget challenges with the recurring impact addressed in future MTFPs. 3. Measures of success 3.1 The Council is required to set a balanced budget for the Housing Revenue Account with expenditure plans fully funded by income, largely from housing rents. 3.2 The setting of an annual budget and thereafter monitoring the budget ensures that tenants can have confidence that the Council and its officers are accountable for the spending decisions they make. 4. Supporting documentation Appendix 1 Revenue Estimates 2025/26 Appendix 2 3-Year Revenue Budget Forecast Appendix 3 30-year Business Plan Summary Elaine Kemp Chief Officer (Finance) Page 61 of 134
Page 62
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The HRA budget for 2025/26 will ensure that the Council can continue to provide a highly effective and responsive housing management service for all tenants and improve the health and wellbeing and economic outcomes of communities through the delivery of significant additional capital investment in high quality and affordable social housing. If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☒ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The financial implications of the 2025/26 Revenue Estimates are outlined throughout the report. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 62 of 134
Page 63
If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? All activities undertaken by the council are subject to risk, and in acknowledging the Council’s approved Risk Management Strategy (September 2012), Services manage these as part of their overall corporate and service planning process. The current economic climate, in particular, has the potential to impact upon the Council’s ability to provide quality services within approved budget levels. The Government’s proposals for welfare reform include a number of changes to the housing benefit system which present significant financial risks to the HRA, including increasing rent arrears and cash collection costs, combined with lower levels of rental income. These risks are increased by the current cost-of-living crisis. These risks will be closely monitored throughout 2025/26 through the Council’s Financial Sustainability risk. 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Page 63 of 134
Page 64
Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 64 of 134
Page 65
Appendix 1 Housing Revenue Accounts Revenue Estimates 2025/26 £m £m 2024/25 Revenue Budget 174.169 Net Expenditure Requirements Employee Costs - Pay Award 2024/25 0.280 Pay Award 2025/26 0.496 Other Empoyee Costs 0.218 Repairs Contract Inflation 1.409 General Contract Inflation 0.294 Borrowing Costs 5.062 Other Costs 0.326 8.085 Base Budget Reductions Energy Costs (0.550) Expected Credit losses (0.500) (1.050) Expenditure Budget 2025/26 181.204 Available Resources Rent Income 160.485 Other Income 13.684 174.169 Recurring Budget Shortfall 7.035 Page 65 of 134
Page 66
Appendix 2 Housing Revenue Account 3-Year Budget Position Forecast 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £m £m £m Budget Gap per MTFP 6.953 12.928 9.075 Additional Employee Costs 0.353 Reduced Repairs Contract Inflation (3.322) Increased Borrowing Costs 1.903 General Contract Inflation 0.192 Other Movements 0.188 Remove FSS Review 0.216 Reduced Income 0.552 Revised Budget Gap 7.035 12.928 9.075 Page 66 of 134
Page 67
Appendix 3 30 Year Business Plan Summary 30 Year Year 2025/30 2030/35 2035/40 2040/45 2045/50 2050/55 Totals Average Mainstream Housing Stock 34,377 34,183 34,062 33,663 33,145 32,807 New Build Housing Stock 2,032 2,780 3,339 3,639 3,639 3,529 Average Housing stock 36,409 36,963 37,401 37,302 36,784 36,336 Capital Investment Prudential borrowing 722,466 883,362 965,565 850,123 613,827 576,917 4,612,260 Other receipts / Government Grants 85,200 85,200 80,115 0 0 0 250,515 Sub total 807,666 968,562 1,045,680 850,123 613,827 576,917 4,862,775 CFCR 100,445 100,445 100,445 100,445 100,445 100,445 602,670 Total resources 908,111 1,069,007 1,146,125 950,568 714,272 677,362 5,465,445 Loan Analysis Opening debt 571,876 1,200,199 1,906,828 2,580,090 3,034,932 3,122,795 Prudential borrowing 722,466 883,362 965,565 850,123 613,827 576,917 Principal repayment - historic debt 51,654 62,434 75,517 51,354 30,400 9,699 Principal repayment - new borrowing 42,490 114,299 216,786 343,927 495,564 656,838 Closing debt 1,200,199 1,906,828 2,580,090 3,034,932 3,122,795 3,033,175 Per house (£) - Closing Stock 32,964 51,587 68,985 81,362 84,897 83,475 Housing Revenue Account Loan Charges 289,259 507,753 809,392 1,085,969 1,341,955 1,602,873 5,637,201 Other Costs 722,448 803,844 894,893 994,940 1,104,813 1,105,877 5,626,816 Other income (67,275) (67,275) (67,275) (67,275) (67,275) (67,275) (403,650) Balance to be financed by rents 944,432 1,244,322 1,637,010 2,013,634 2,379,493 2,641,475 10,860,366 Average weekly rent (£) 98.89 129.28 167.13 206.42 248.72 279.19 Rental Income 944,433 1,244,321 1,637,012 2,013,635 2,379,495 2,641,474 10,860,369 Capital charges as a % of rent income 30.63% 40.81% 49.44% 53.93% 56.40% 60.68% Page 67 of 134
Page 68
Page 68 of 134
Page 69
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref Date 19/12/24 Electronic Voting for Council and Committee Meetings From Archie Aitken E-mail hamillm@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07811294702 1. Background 1.1 The Council at its meeting on 28 March 2024 agreed that the Chief Executive would arrange for a review of the voting arrangements for hybrid meetings and for a report setting out options would be submitted to a future meeting of the Council. 1.2 Members will recall that Council approved reports on 13 August 2020, 17 December 2020 and 7 October 2021. These reports approved the introduction of hybrid meetings of Council and Committees, the Protocol for Remote Council and Committee Meetings and the resultant changes to Standing Orders. Executive Summary The purpose of the report is set out options for the introduction of electronic voting for Council and Committee meetings The report will also reference amendments to Standing Orders and to the Protocol for Remote Meetings, to facilitate the changes. The amendments will be included in a separate report to this meeting. Recommendations It is recommended that the Council approve the award of a contract to Public I Ltd for a mobile hybrid webcasting and electronic voting system in the sum of £180,000 for an initial 3 years with an optional 4-month extension, subject to successful testing of the system. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Enhance participation, capacity, and empowerment across our communities Ambition statement (20) Improve the involvement of communities in the decisions, and development of services and supports, that affect them Programme of Work All Programmes of Work Item 8 Page 69 of 134
Page 70
1.3 A link to the reports are attached below Council - 13 August 2020 Council - 17 December 2020 Council - 7 October 2021 2. Report 2.1 To ensure that the best solution was sourced all available options were explored, as undernoted:- Option 1 – Status Quo 2.2 The use of roll call votes is now well established, and all elected members are familiar with the process. Use of the chat bar is permitted if a member has trouble communicating their vote as long as they are still connected to the meeting. Option 2 – Mobile Applications 2.3 There are a number of mobile apps available on the market. It should be noted that none of the apps are specifically designed for Council/Committee meetings. Some of the apps are free and others are around £1,000. The free apps restrict the numbers of users. The leading voting app is Slido which allows participants to vote via link to a webstite and inserting a code. Other options explored were Survey Monkey, Election Buddy and Microsoft Forms. Option 3 – Hands up Option 2.4 This option would simply ask Members in the Council chamber to raise their hand. Members online would raise a virtual hand via MS teams and a tally of combined votes would be taken to determine the total votes that each proposition has attracted. Option 4 – Current Council Chambers Microphone Voting System – Mixture of Electronic Voting and Roll Call Vote 2.5 There is currently a voting system built into the microphones in the Council chamber, it would enable Members attending in person to vote electronically. Those attending remotely would require to use the raise a hand function on MS teams or by roll call. Option 5 – Procurement of a Mobile Hybrid Webcasting and Electronic Voting System 2.6 This option would involve the procurement of a bespoke mobile hybrid webcasting and electronic voting system. The system would have electronic voting for elected members attending in person and elected members joining a meeting remotely and the ability to Webcast meetings Page 70 of 134
Page 71
from all committee rooms in the Civic Centre with the additional availability of electronic voting. 3 Assessment of Options 3.1 A desktop assessment of each of the options was undertaken, details of which are undernoted:- 3.2 Option 1 – Status Quo it is a transparent method and particularly for members of the public. Whilst it is a straightforward process, it is very time consuming particularly for the Council meeting. 3.3 Option 2 – Mobile Applications Most apps are designed for conferences, training and seminars. No current app on the market met the Council’s specification and there are concerns around security, data protection, potential issues with devices, apps crashing, app updating during the course of a meeting and risks around logging in to external websites Option 3 – Hands up Option This option would require the presence of additional Committee staff at meetings to assist with the counting of hands in the Council Chamber and for those member voting remotely. 3.4 Option 4 - Current Council Chambers Microphone Voting System – Mixture of Electronic Voting and Roll Call Vote There is currently a voting system built into the microphones in the Council chamber as a result there would be no additional costs incurred. This option would mean that there would be 2 different methods of voting for elected members There are a number of risks going forward as the microphones are operated by Nuway and the hybrid system is operated by Public I. This option would provide a short-term solution but wouldn’t be long term solution in terms of servicing, maintenance and the requirement to deal with 2 providers, 3.5 Option 5 - Procurement of a Mobile Hybrid Webcasting and Electronic Voting System Electronic voting for elected members attending in person and elected members joining a meeting remotely. The ability to Webcast meetings from all committee rooms in the Civic Centre with the additional availability of electronic voting. Page 71 of 134
Page 72
The ability to hold hybrid Community Board meetings. Assists with realising the ambition to host Council and Committee meetings in community facilities, with the ability to webcast meetings and the availability of electronic voting. This would increase the transparency of the Councils democratic decision-making process. It directly links to the Council priority “Enhance participation, capacity, and empowerment across our Communities” The procurement of the system from Public I would provide an integrated microphones and hybrid meeting system. Whilst this wouldn’t eliminate the risks associated with webcasting and live streaming meetings, it would reduce the risk. 4. Preferred Option Option 5 - the procurement of a bespoke mobile hybrid webcasting and electronic voting system. As described in section 3.5 of the report this provide the best overall solution for the Council 5. Procurement Process A procurement exercise has been undertaken via the Crown Commercial Services G- Cloud 14 – Direct Award A proposal was received from Public I the Council’s current hybrid webcasting provider, the proposal included the provision of the undernoted hardware/software:- 1 x Portable Hybrid Webcasting Encoder 4 x HD Cameras with tripods. 1 x additional connect licence Live monitoring and helpdesk support 100 x delegate microphone units with screen and goose neck microphones. 100 x voting, hybrid link and seat identification licences Training A demonstration of the system will be undertaken in the Council Chamber and to further test the robustness of the connectivity a further demonstration will be undertaken in Riverbank Community Hub both tests will be undertaken in early 2025. Elected Members and Officers will be invited to both demonstrations. 6. Financial Implications The estimated cost is £180,000, Finance have confirmed that the costs can be funded from within existing budgets. 7. Corporate Considerations 7.1 It should be noted that the Mobile Webcasting and Electronic Voting System is a corporate system, not particular to Legal and Democratic. Page 72 of 134
Page 73
Input will be required from services as undernoted:- • Training of Elected Members – Legal and Democratic and People Resources • IT Support to the System – Business and Digital • Transportation of Microphones and Equipment – Transport Team • Setting up of meetings in Community locations – Active and Creative Communities 7.2 The Council Standing Orders for meetings will be updated to reflect in introduction of Electronic Voting. 8. Measures of success 8.1 The ability to undertake electronic voting at all Council/Committee meetings. 8.2 The ability to host Council/Committee meetings in Community facilities. 9. Supporting documentation N/A Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) Page 73 of 134
Page 74
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The costs associated with the procurement of the system have been discussed and agreed with Finance 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☒ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Page 74 of 134
Page 75
Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? A bespoke network is required for the system. This will provide the connectivity for the system. This was also provide an additional level of security. Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☒ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☒ Page 75 of 134
Page 76
Page 76 of 134
Page 77
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref Date 19/12/24 Amendments to the Procedure for Considering Petitions From Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) E-mail hamillm@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07811294702 1. Background 1.1 At its meeting on 9 June 2022, the Council agreed to amend the process for considering petitions received by the Council. 1.2 A copy of the agreed report from the Council meeting on 9 June 2022 is attached at appendix 1 to this report. 2. Report 2.1 Since the introduction of the amendment process on 9 June 2022 there has been the requirement to convene two meetings of the Petitions Sub-Committee to consider five petitions. 2.2 Interpretation of the current process has to led confusion on the part of members of the public and first named signatories. Executive Summary The purpose of the report is to seek approval for amendments to the procedure for considering petitions received by the Council. Recommendations It is recommended that the Council agree to the amendments to the process for considering petitions received by the Council, as set out in the report and the Scheme of Administration and the Special Responsibility Allowances be updated accordingly The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Enhance participation, capacity, and empowerment across our communities Ambition statement (24) Review and design services around people, communities, and shared resources Programme of Work All Programmes of Work Item 9 Page 77 of 134
Page 78
2.3 In order to streamline the process for considering petitions and manage expectations for those involved in the process, it is proposed that the Petitions Sub-Committee be stood down. 2.4 Standing down the Petitions Sub-Committee would require the Scheme of Administration and the Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA) to be updated. It should be noted that this won’t have an impact on the payment to individual elected members. Proposed Process for Considering Petitions 2.5 Step 1 When the Petition is received by the Council the Chief Officer (Strategic Communication and Engagement) in consultation with the Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) will make an assessment as to whether it concerns an issue where the decision-making authority rests with the Council. If the petition concerns a matter that is the Council's responsibility, then the Community Partnership Team will allocate the petition to the relevant Chief Officer. Step 2 The relevant Chief Officer will consider whether the desired outcomes can be actioned under delegated authority, if yes, they then contact the first named signatory and the petition is dealt with. This will conclude the petition process. If the petition cannot be actioned, the relevant Chief Officer will submit a report to the appropriate Committee for consideration. Step 3 The appropriate Committee considers the petition and decides accordingly. Contact with 1st Named Signatory An acknowledgement will be sent to the first named signatory. If the petition can be dealt with at Step 2 then the relevant Chief Officer will make contact to discuss the petition. If the petition requires to be submitted to a Committee, then the first named signatory will be advised of the date/time of the Committee meeting and of the decision of the Committee, whilst the petitioners are able to attend the meeting they will be unable to participate. Exceptions to the Policy Petitions not within the scope of the Council’s authority Should the petition be focussed on a matter in which the Council has no decision- making responsibility, it will not be taken forward for consideration. Petitions submitted as part of a consultation Page 78 of 134
Page 79
Where the Council is undertaking a formal consultation, for example on a new school or a planning application, then any petitions received would form part of that consultation process (which in some cases is prescribed by legislation) and the petitions process listed above would not apply. Petitions objecting to a decision made by the Council or a Council Committee Such petitions will, in most cases, not be considered. The Council is unable to change a decision it has made for a period of six months after the date of the decision (except in the circumstances set out in standing order 37) Therefore, consideration of a petition which seeks to overturn a Council/Committee decision (regardless of whether this has been made by the Council itself or one of its committees) would be considered as “not competent” under the Council’s Standing Orders. Operational, Staffing and HR Issues Should the petition focus on an operational issue, a staffing issue or a HR issue, it will not be taken forward. 3. Measures of success 3.1 The proposed process is considered good practice and would enhance transparency of the petitions process. 4. Supporting documentation Appendix 1 – report approved by Council on 9 June 2022. Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) Page 79 of 134
Page 80
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 80 of 134
Page 81
Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The updated process will be placed on the Council website. 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☒ Page 81 of 134
Page 82
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref Date 09/06/22 Amendment to the Procedure for Considering Petitions From Head of Legal and Democratic Solutions E-mail rosean@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07951 409714 1. Background 1.1 At its meeting held on 6 December 2018, the former Policy and Resources Committee agreed a procedure to be followed upon a petition being received by the Council. 1.2 A copy of the agreed report from the meeting of the former Policy and Resources committee held on 6 December 2018 is attached as an appendix. 2. Report 2.1 Following the local government elections held on 5 May 2022 the new Council Administration indicated its desire to create a Petitions Sub-Committee which would be responsible for dealing with any petitions received by the Council. 2.2 The creation of a Petitions Sub-Committee is dealt with separately at the meeting of the Council held on 9 June 2022. There is a requirement for approval to be given for the required changes to the current process to facilitate the sub-committee. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek approval for an amendment to the procedure for considering petitions received by the Council. Recommendations Council is recommended to agree the amendment to the process for considering petitions received by the Council, as detailed in the report. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Enhance participation, capacity, and empowerment across our communities Ambition statement (24) Review and design services around people, communities, and shared resources Page 82 of 134
Page 83
2.3 It is proposed that the process be amended as detailed below:- Step 1 Petition received by the Council. If petition relates to a specific geographical area, it is sent to the appropriate Area Community Partnership Manager. If the petition relates to the Council area as a whole, or across multiple LAP areas proceed to Step 4. Step 2 The Area Community Partnership Manager considers whether the desired outcomes can be actioned immediately. If yes, this is undertaken. If no, proceed to Step 3. Step 3 Petition is considered by the Petitions Sub-Committee. Options available to the Sub-Committee are: (a) request further information, in which case it would be considered at an appropriate future meeting; (b) agree fully or in part, the terms of the petition, or (c) that no further action be taken. Should (b) “agree fully or in part, the terms of the petition”, be agreed, and there are implications which may include, but not restricted to, budgetary or resources, the petition, together with the recommendation from the Sub- Committee, be submitted to the appropriate Committee. Step 4 The appropriate Committee considers the petition and decides accordingly. 2.4 In reference to Step 3, the Petitions Sub-Committee may, if it so decides, agree to hold a Hearing to consider the terms of the petition and it may invite members of the community and/or stakeholders to address the Sub-Committee. 3. Measures of success 3.1 The proposed Council process is considered good practice 4. Supporting documentation Appendix – report approved by the former Policy and Resources Committee held on 6 December 2022 Archie Aitken Head of Legal and Democratic Solutions Page 83 of 134
Page 84
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 84 of 134
Page 85
Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? Page 85 of 134
Page 86
North Lanarkshire Council Report Policy and Resources Committee approval Noting Ref: AR/EH Date: 6 December 2018 Petitions Received by the Council From: Archie Aitken, Head of Business for Legal and Democratic Solutions Email: AitkenA@northlan.gov.uk Telephone: 01698 302295 Executive Summary This report seeks approval for a new process for considering Petitions or Deputations received by the Council which are deemed non operational. Recommendations The Committee is recommended to approve the new procedure for considering petitions received by the Council as detailed in Paragraph 2.4. Supporting Documents Council plan to 2020: Action 17 – Improve engagement with our communities to maximise involvement and empowerment. 1. Background 1.1. At its meeting on 21 June 2018, the Council agreed the terms of the following:- "That research and other works to identify examples of best practice and public engagement with Local Government be undertaken and a report to the Policy and Resources Committee be submitted for consideration." 1.2. During meetings of Political Group Business Managers at which consideration was given to a Review of Standing Orders, consideration was given to information provided by officers on options for a procedure relating to Petitions and/or Deputations received by the Council. It was agreed during those discussions that this matter would be dealt with outwith the Review of Standing Orders. Appendix 1 Page 86 of 134
Page 87
2. Report 2.1. The Policy and Resources Committee is reminded that the Council already has a Petitions Policy which was approved by this Committee on 13 May 1997. Specifically, it requires that a report be provided to the appropriate Committee providing details of the petition received together with actions undertaken and the outcome. For information, the existing policy stipulates that to be considered, a petition should be supported by no less than 10 signatures, although there is discretion to waive this requirement if deemed appropriate having regard to the merits. 2.2. The Council decision of 21 June 2018 requires consideration to be given to the introduction of a new protocol. Representations have been made to officers that such a protocol should ensure community engagement and remove any barrier to inclusion by all community groups. 2.3. Experience of Other Local Authorities 2.3.1. Following the Council decision of 21 June 2018, officers undertook a desktop exercise to review the way in which other local authorities in Scotland process petitions as detailed on the individual websites of each local authority. It became clear that virtually all of the other Scottish Councils, in respect of which information could be obtained, used a single procedure for all of their petitions – operational or otherwise. Of the 17 authorities in respect of which information was available, only five had constituted a Petitions Committee, while the remainder included the remit for considering petitions within either a single Committee or, in most cases, all Committees depending on which was the most appropriate forum to deal with the petition. 2.3.2. Of the other authorities, the majority required the petitions to contain a specific number of signatures; the lowest being one signature other than the petitioner and the highest being 1,000 (or 10% of the registered electors if related to a specific geographical area). However, two authorities allow petitioners to submit their petition without the need for supporting signatures and the petition is then published on those Councils' websites with members of the public being invited to support it. Only when the level of support reaches a specific threshold (100 and 200 signatures respectively) will a petition be considered by those Councils. In addition, different threshold requirements have been put in place across most other authorities if the petition has been submitted by a private sector organisation/commercial enterprise. 2.4. North Lanarkshire Model 2.4.1. The table below details the process proposed to be followed upon a petition being received by the Council Step 1 Request received by the Council. If petition relates to a specific geographical area, it is sent to the appropriate Community Partnership Manager. If the petition relates to the Council area as a whole, or across multiple LAP areas proceed to Step 4. Page 87 of 134
Page 88
Step 2 The Community Partnership Manager considers whether desired outcomes can be actioned immediately. If yes, this is undertaken. If no, proceed to Step 3. Step 3 Appropriate Local Area Partnership (LAP) is provided with details of the petition within its "Community Matters" business and considers whether it wishes to proceed with the petition or not. If yes, LAP may request further information, in which case it would be considered at an appropriate future meeting. If LAP able to determine immediately, then may agree (a) that no further action be taken, (b) that the LAP has available budget and delegated authority to agree that the terms of the petition be progressed, or (c) decide to refer the petition to the appropriate Committee. Step 4 The appropriate Committee considers the petition and decides accordingly. 3. Equality and Diversity 3.1. Fairer Scotland There is no requirement to carry out a Fairer Scotland assessment in this instance. 3.2. Equality Impact Assessment There is no requirement to carry out an Equality Impact assessment in this instance. 4. Implications 4.1. Financial Impact There is no Financial Impact. 4.2. HR/Policy/Legislative Impact There is no HR/Policy/Legislative Impact. 4.3. Environmental Impact There is no Environmental Impact. 4.4. Risk Impact There is no Risk Impact. Page 88 of 134
Page 89
5. Measures of Success The proposed Council process is considered good practice. Head of Business for Legal and Democratic Solutions Page 89 of 134
Page 90
Page 90 of 134
Page 91
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref LR/AH/HL Date 19/12/24 Active & Creative Communities Review – Updated Position From Lyall Rennie, Chief Officer, Community Operations E-mail RennieLy@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07855 193500 Executive Summary At a meeting of the Council on 23 February 2023, it was agreed that a full review of Active & Creative Communities (ACC) and Community Facilities would be undertaken, and thereafter the resultant findings would be presented in a report to a future Policy & Strategy committee. A full review of the asset portfolio was undertaken, and the findings presented to the Policy and Strategy Committee on 28 September 2023, where a decision was made to accept the recommendation to close 39 buildings. This decision was later overturned at Council on 5 October 2023. It was decided that “the decision of the Policy and Strategy Committee of 28 September 2023 in respect of the review of Active and Creative Community facilities be reversed and that these facilities be maintained and remain open for at least the duration of the current term of the Council.” While working fully within the commitment of continued provision of services to the community, it is clear from analysis of the data presented and ongoing monitoring of usage, that a small number of the buildings included in the report remain either unused, of limited use or have already been repurposed for use by other Services. In addition, one building is in the process of being let to a local community group. Furthermore, review of the mobile library provision has highlighted that the service has a very small number of users, and that use had decreased significantly over recent years. Within an overall context of understanding usage, members recently approved the Strategic Asset Review and Investment Strategy (SARIS) at Policy & Strategy on 26 September 2024. While primarily focussing on the school estate, SARIS recognises the importance of responding to demographic changes and usage patterns as a means for determining future use and the potential for investment. Members will also be aware that a key element of the current Town and Community Hub programme strategy is to rationalise and ‘fold in’ older assets into new build facilities, to improve the efficiency and sustainability of the overall estate. On this basis, and in the ongoing climate of financial challenges, it was felt that it was prudent to undertake a further review of the use of these limited number of facilities/services and present recommendations to Council. This report outlines the assets/services under consideration, what the proposals are for each and puts forward a small number of recommendations with the view of reducing the overall number of buildings within the ACC and Community Facilities portfolio. Item 10 Page 91 of 134
Page 92
1. Background 1.1 Following a full review of the asset portfolio for ACC and Community Facilities, a paper was presented to Policy & Strategy Committee on 28 September 2023 recommending the closure of 39 buildings. This recommendation was accepted at committee but later overturned by Council on 5 October 2023 which stated, “facilities be maintained and remain open for at least the duration of the current term of the Council.” 1.2 Services continue to monitor the usage of all venues/services across the council estate on an ongoing basis. Within a context where the council continues to face financial challenges in maintaining the estate, this ongoing review has considered which services or venues could be repurposed, delivered in an alternative manner, or removed. 1.3 This review is in full alignment with the agreed SARIS approach where the Council will look to rationalise the overall number of assets while at the same time investing in those that remain. As is laid out in the SARIS principles, this approach looks across the entire corporate estate of the Council to ensure we have an optimum number of facilities to deliver a learning, community and leisure experience which reflects the needs of our local communities, delivered within the available budget and in a way that maximises the inclusion of our community planning partners. By undertaking a data led approach which focuses on how facilities are used, and how best to maximise the most efficient use of our community facilities, this review is fully in line with the SARIS approach which seeks to ensure the most efficient use of facilities available within the broader resource portfolio. Recommendations It is recommended that Council: (1) Acknowledge the buildings listed in Table 1 as being transferred to Education and Families. (2) Note the proposed new lease agreement for Jerviston CC. (3) Provide initial approval for the closure of the buildings listed in Table 2 and agree that these would be declared surplus to requirements and considered for community asset transfer where appropriate. (4) Agree to the closure of the Iain Nicolson leisure centre with all facilities transferred to the new Chryston High School extension and surrounding campus. (5) Agree to the removal of the mobile library service. (6) Agree the revenue savings resulting from the ACC review are incorporated into the Council’s budget planning process for financial year 2025/26 onwards. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority All priorities Ambition statement (22) Facilitate a North Lanarkshire wide approach to asset rationalisation, including with communities and partners Programme of Work Transforming Places Page 92 of 134
Page 93
2. Report 2.1 The current review of facilities, under the principles of SARIS, considers potential options for buildings and services which fall into five categories: • Venues which have now been transferred for the use of other services. • One venue which is to be leased to a local community group. In line with the terms of the recently agreed Community Ownership and Management of Council-Owned Assets Policy, this will allow a lease to be considered, as set out within the terms of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. • Venues which are not being used or have limited use. In this instance, these venues are put forward for further consideration by elected members. • The mobile library service which continues to have limited usage, further consideration of recommendations for this service would again be required by elected members. • The future closure of Iain Nicolson Centre and transfer of facilities to the new Chryston High School Extension. Venues Transferred to Other Services 2.2 There are 4 buildings which have already transferred to Education, Children and Families for repurposing for Early Years and ASN use. Table 1, below outline these buildings. Table 1 – Buildings Transferred to Education and Families. Facility Transferred to New Townhead CC Education and Families – ASN Daisypark CC Education and Families – ASN Wishawhill CC Education and Families – Early Years Calder CC Education and Families – School Estate Subject to agreement, it is proposed that a report is presented for noting to the Education, Children and Families Committee and arrangements are made with Financial Solutions for the official transfer of the associated budgets. Lease Agreement 2.3 Following a long-standing partnership with the African Collaborative Working Group North Lanarkshire, arrangements are now underway to transfer responsibility for Jerviston CC under the terms of a lease agreement. This is an important factor in our support of critical community work. The recently agreed Community Ownership and Management of Council-Owned Assets Policy, will allow a lease to be considered, as set out within the terms of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Venues with Little or No Usage 2.4 Reflecting the original list of 39 facilities considered as part of the initial review, there remain 5 venues that continue to have little to no usage. Table 2 below outlines these buildings and gives details of the alternative sites which can be considered by any groups displaced as a result of this process. There are also a small number of sites with similar usage that have not been selected at this time. This is due to demand Page 93 of 134
Page 94
during the day, where it is not easy to find an alternative location for groups such as lunch clubs and toddlers and further work will be undertaken by the service to determine whether any third-party provision is available before recommending closure. Table 2 – Buildings which have very little to no usage. Building Area Weekly Usage Comments Alternative Options Rochsoles CC Airdrie 5 hours Scout Group Golfhill PS (0.3 miles) St Andrews Primary School (0.5 miles) Airdrie Academy (0.5 miles) Chapelside CC (0.9 miles) Other local charitable venues Westray CC Cumbernauld No regular usage Glenmavis CC Airdrie 2 hours Boys Brigade, occasional usage by Community Council New Monkland PS (0.3 miles) Golfhill PS (0.7 miles) Airdrie Academy (1.3 miles) Chapelside CC (1.6 miles) Other local charitable venues Waterloo CC Wishaw No regular usage Used for elections Chapelhall Senior Citizens Centre Airdrie No usage – roof damage Birkenshaw Sports Barn Uddingston Average of: 11 hours internal use 4 hours pitch use Boxing Karate Friday Night Project (due to end in Sept 2024) Aitkenhead PS (0.3 miles) Tannochside PS (1.1 miles) Tannochside PS (1.1 miles) Other local charitable venues Sports Pitch & pavilion at Antonine Community Sports Hub Croy 8 hours Used by 3 teams Some after school activities by Holy Cross PS Cumbernauld Academy (3.9 miles) Greenfaulds High School (2.4 miles) St Patricks Primary School (1.9 miles) Broadwood (1.2 miles) Page 94 of 134
Page 95
Croy Silver Band Holy Cross PS (0.3miles) 2.5 Birkenshaw Sports Barn is the focus of interest from a local community group who are at an advanced stage of discussion and are due to submit an application for community asset transfer. Birkenshaw Sports Barn is a site of low use, opened only when bookings are made. The building is in relatively poor condition, and a review of bookings has been made for the first 13 weeks of the year. With a total of 741 hours available during this period, bookings of 108 hours have been made by two sporting clubs. In addition, the club is used as one of the locations for the Friday Night Project, in conjunction with NHS Lanarkshire, for a further 36 hours over the 13-week period. This project came to an end in September 2024 due to NHSL savings decisions. The total usage for this location in the first quarter of 2024 was approximately 17%. 2.6 In addition to use of the internal space, the pitches at Birkenshaw have limited bookings, used predominantly by 2 youth clubs for Saturday fixtures. As you will be aware, Saturday mornings are extremely popular for pitch usage and it may be difficult to provide a pitch at the same time as current bookings, however, there are some spaces later in the day or on a Sunday at Tannochside Primary School and all alternative options will be explored with the club. The recently awarded contract for the new Corporate Booking System will also make it easier to identify alternative pitch availability by the amalgamation of online bookings for pitches in both the ACC and school estate. 2.7 Members will be aware that following the Community Pitch Review report to the Communities Committee in August 2024, a number of recreational pitches are assessed in relation to demand, use and condition. The 3G sports pitch based at the Antonine Community Sports Hub in Croy, has very low demand in terms of formal bookings or indeed informal use. Sports teams have been unable to use the full pitch for a considerable amount of time due to ongoing issues around subsidence, even though it has been regularly maintained over the last few years to enable it to continue to be in use. 2.8 Recently, the pitch maintenance team highlighted that the condition of the pitch was very concerning which resulted in a full survey being carried out. The results of the survey have outlined that there are a number of significant issues with the pitch relating to subsidence and raised health and safety concerns including heavy areas of severe wear, and significant trip hazards to the point that it is unsafe for users. The survey concluded that the pitch was at the end of its useful life. A decision has now been made to carry out the recommendation from the pitch assessment and the pitch was closed for health and safety reasons on the 4 November 2024. 2.9 The three teams using small sections of the pitch for training purposes have been notified and Facility Support Services have now successfully found, where required, suitable alternative accommodation for them. The service is continuing to work with Holy Cross Primary School to find suitable space for after school activities. The area is currently being reviewed to ensure appropriate signage is in place to deter access for safety reasons. The Antonine Pavilion will also close, and the Community Facilities Team will liaise with the Croy Silver Band who are the sole users of the centre and have already expressed an interest in moving to Holy Cross Primary School. Page 95 of 134
Page 96
Iain Nicholson Centre 2.10 A further proposed change, as highlighted within the SARIS report of 26 September 2024, is the proposal to fold provision of services at the Iain Nicholson Centre in the soon-to-be constructed extension at Chryston High School. Firmly within the principles of the overall Town & Community Hub programme, the proposed facilities will offer a conditioning room and a fitness studio for use by the community during the school day. 2.11 The offering and consolidation of service provision outwith the school day is significantly enhanced. The proposal creates a single “sports hub” for the local community, bringing together enhanced outdoor provision and increased indoor provision. The information below outlines the spaces that will be on offer at the new facility, for local community use, outwith the school day: • 3G Synthetic 11-aside Pitch • 3G Synthetic 9-aside Pitch • Large (4 court badminton) hall in existing building • Large (4 court badminton) hall in extension • Conditioning Room (same as community daytime provision) • Conditioning Room (daytime provision exclusive to school, available to the community outwith the school day • Fitness studio (same as community daytime provision) 2.12 Analysis of usage confirms that predominant use of the Iain Nicholson Centre takes place outwith the school day, both in evenings and weekends. Where existing provision of fitness classes, currently operating during the day at the Iain Nicholson Centre, cannot be accommodated within the new daytime facilities, these will transfer to the Community Hall within the broader Chryston campus. Mobile Library Service Provision 2.13 The mobile library service remains in use by a relatively small number of residents. It is recognised that the mobile library service has limited impact on service provision levels, while being a relatively expensive delivery model. North Lanarkshire Council is one of 20 councils to provide mobile provision The council currently has three vehicles – two of which are owned, and one which is coming to the end of a lease agreement. Unfortunately, the vehicles are prone to mechanical issues – during 2022/23 a total of 260 days were lost across the mobile library service due to the vehicle being unavailable. The position for 2023/24 was similarly affected and the cost of replacing all three vehicles is considered prohibitive with current estimates between £500K and £800K 2.14 Mobile libraries cover a range of locations across North Lanarkshire on a two-weekly cycle of visits. Use of mobile libraries has significantly decreased following the pandemic with many previous users now accessing an alternative facility. Table 3 below provides details of the overall figures: Page 96 of 134
Page 97
Table 3 - Mobile Library User figures Outreach Services 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 FY20/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 %Diff from 17/18 Issues 93926 86783 73072 80953.5 30742 50153 41607 -55% Returns 50325 47262 37743 42501 15720 21064 22491 -55% Footfall 13991 13439 14182 13819 1562 4409 5634 -59% Active Borrowers 1957 1971 1745 221 474 621 659 -66% Membership 6167 7330 7337 7320 7292 4629 4401 -28.00% 2.15 In addition to the mobile library vehicles, the service provides an outreach delivery service for residents unable to attend a local library or mobile library due to health reasons. A similar service is provided for sheltered housing residents and there would be no changes proposed to this aspect of the delivery model. 2.16 While removal of the mobile library service would represent a reduction in service, the council’s commitment to supporting library services means we will continue to support 19 libraries across North Lanarkshire, in both town centres and local community branches. Proposed Next Steps 2.17 It is proposed that the buildings listed in Table 2, Section 2.4 are closed and declared surplus to requirements. Plans of these buildings can be found in Appendix 2 to this report. We are aware through work with the Community Partnership Team that this would allow future options for the buildings to be considered, for example there is interest from community groups in undertaking a CAT transfer for Rochsoles CC. and Waterloo CC. 2.18 Chapelhall Senior Citizens Centre is not in use due to serious roof damage and is recommended for demolition to ensure that this is not hazardous to the public. This also needs to be declared as surplus to requirements. 2.19 Subject to approval, we would propose to cease provision of the mobile library service from April 2025, while continuing to provide outreach services to the vulnerable or those living within sheltered housing complexes. 2.20 In order for the service to regularly review usage a report on usage/footfall and number of bookings for ACC and Community Facilities assets, is now being reported on a quarterly basis to the Communities Committee. This information will be available to support any further reviews on the estate portfolio. Plans for Service, Current Context and Emerging Priorities 2.21 The service is transitioning towards the future operating model in line with the principles of SARIS. There is an ongoing requirement to consider the folding in of provision of services to hubs as the model develops. Page 97 of 134
Page 98
2.22 There are a number of priorities to consider in future service provision. A snapshot of the service workforce profile identifies priority areas of focus particularly in relation to the age profile of staff in some areas highlighting an aging workforce with a requirement to attract and retain new skilled staff moving forward. 2.23 A key priority for the service is to continue to consider options to improve digital service provision, both in terms of the customer facing interface and enabling staff to make best use of emerging technology. Financial Impact 2.24 From the buildings listed in Appendix 1, the savings identified will be accrued from non- domestic rates, property costs, staffing, and any lost income. The breakdown and value of this can be found in Table 4 below. The level of staffing costs and lost income demonstrate the limited usage within these buildings. Table 4 - FSS/ACC Savings Community Facilities / Birkenshaw Sports Barn Saving On Closure Saving On Disposal Total Saving £ £ £ Employee Costs £3,098 £3,098 Property Costs £60,183 £58,968 £119,151 Admin / Supplies & Services £2,571 £2,571 Lost Income -£16,638 -£16,638 £49,214 £58,968 £108,182 Mobile Library Service (excluding outreach services) Employee Costs £177,298 £177,298 Direct Fleet Costs* £58,160 £58,160 Total £235,458 £0 £235,458 Overall Total £343,640 Staffing Impact 2.25 With the exception of proposals affecting the mobile library service, the proposals indicate no reduction in staffing. This is due to the very low usage across the assets identified. The lets that are in place within the identified buildings are covered utilising additional hours for staff who are based at other locations. 2.26 Cessation of the mobile library service would affect a total of 5 FTE. While we anticipate that there will be significant interest in voluntary severance, anyone wishing to continue to work will be supported under the agreed Workforce Change Policy. 3. Measures of success 3.1 A thriving and sustainable council service which supports the delivery of culture, sport, leisure, and community facility services. Page 98 of 134
Page 99
4. Supporting documentation 4.1 Appendix 1 – List of Buildings to be considered for removal from ACC/Community Facilities Estate. 4.2 Appendix 2 – Plans for Buildings to be considered for removal from ACC/Community Facilities Estate. Lyall Rennie Chief Officer (Community Operations) Page 99 of 134
Page 100
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The EQIA highlights that there are a number of potentially detrimental impacts on a range of groups. The EQIA is a dynamic process, and it will be further updated once engagement with groups has commenced (and subject to approval). If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? This will be published upon approval by CMT to move to committee approval. Yes ☒ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Financial impact of proposals have been included within report. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Any subsequent action taken will be in line council policy and procedures. 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? We are advised that there are no legal implications – this will be kept under review. 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 100 of 134
Page 101
5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The proposal within the paper which relates to the introduction of a Corporate Booking System has been fully supported by Business Solutions. Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☒ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Full discussions with Corporate Communications are ongoing. 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? There are risks around potential challenge and reputational damage. All are being managed with appropriate support from colleagues. 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☒ No ☐ Where children/young people are impacted by potential loss of venues/sites, we would anticipate being able to move services to an alternative location. Page 101 of 134
Page 102
If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☒ No ☐ Page 102 of 134
Page 103
Appendix 1 - Buildings to be Considered for removal from ACC/Community Facilities Estate. Building Current Position New Townhead CC Repurposed Wishawhill CC Repurposed Daisypark CC Repurposed Calder CC Demolished Jerviston CC Transferred as a lease Rochsoles CC Very low limited usage Glenmavis CC Very low limited usage Birkenshaw Sports Barn Very low limited usage Waterloo CC No usage Westray CC No usage Chapelhall CC Roof damage – Not in use since April 2022. Iain Nicholson Centre Close and integrate into new Chryston Hub Extension. Antonine Sports Pitch & Pavilion Closed 4th November 2024, due to health & safety reasons. Pavilion very low usage. Page 103 of 134
Page 104
Appendix 2 - Plans for Buildings to be considered for removal from ACC/Community Facilities Estate. Page 104 of 134
Page 105
Page 105 of 134
Page 106
Page 106 of 134
Page 107
Page 107 of 134
Page 108
Page 108 of 134
Page 109
Page 109 of 134
Page 110
Page 110 of 134
Page 111
Page 111 of 134
Page 112
Page 112 of 134
Page 113
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref Date 19/12/24 Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places From Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) E-mail johnstonec@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01698 302026 1. Background 1.1 The Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, requires all Councils within the United Kingdom to conduct a review of polling places within a period of six months beginning on 1 October 2013 and within the period of 16 months beginning with the first day in October of every fifth year thereafter. 1.2 Schedule 1A of the 1983 Act specifies a number of requirements including:- • Publication of the notice of the review; • Consultation with, and the publication of any representations received from, the Returning Officer for every parliamentary constituency affected, and Executive Summary This report advises Members of the Council of the outcome of the consultation proposals for the statutory review of the Council’s polling districts and polling places in North Lanarkshire. Recommendations It is recommended:- That Members of the Council approve the proposed polling districts and polling places for all electoral events in North Lanarkshire as detailed in the Appendix to the report. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Enhance participation, capacity, and empowerment across our communities Ambition statement (19) Improve engagement with communities and develop their capacity to help themselves Programme of Work Statutory / corporate / service requirement Item 11 Page 113 of 134
Page 114
• seeking the views of interested groups or bodies, including electors, political parties and Members of the Council, as well as other Elected Members such as MPs and MSPs, and also from persons with particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for persons who have different forms of disability. 2. Report 2.1 At the Policy and Strategy Committee held on 28 September 2023, the Committee agreed that the consultation proposals should proceed on the basis of current arrangements and be adjusted only where necessary or where adjustment could demonstrate significant benefits, and that the draft consultation document should take into account the consideration of views and proposals received. 2.2 Due to the snap UK Parliamentary General Election being called on 4 July 2024, the timescales for the statutory review was extended to be completed by 31 January 2025, for any amendments to be captured in the publication of the Electoral Registers as of 1 February 2025. 2.3 Formal notice weas given that the statutory review of polling districts and polling places commenced on 28 October 2024. A notice was placed in all local newspapers and published on the Councils website. Elected Members were further consulted, in conjunction with MPs, MSPs, Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), neighbouring local authorities, Community Councils and North Lanarkshire Disability Access Panel with representations required to be received by 2 December 2024. Any representations must be published by the Returning Officer within 30 days of receipt. 2.4 The attached Appendix to this report details the consultation proposals together with, in the case of each proposal, a note of the Returning Officer’s representation, a summary of the responses received and the recommendation for consideration by this Council. 2.5 Following approval of these proposals, Members of the Council are reminded that the Policy and Resources Committee, at its meeting held on 3 December 2015, approved that authority be delegated to the Returning Officer to designate an alternative polling place, in the event of any polling place becoming not available, or in the event of its use being, in the view of the Returning Officer, inappropriate at any election. 3. Measures of success 3.1 Increase the volume of residents engaging in the electoral process. 4. Supporting documentation Appendix 1 – List of Polling Places and Polling Districts Page 114 of 134
Page 115
Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) Page 115 of 134
Page 116
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Meeting the statutory obligations of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ Page 116 of 134
Page 117
If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Corporate Communications involvement publicising the statutory consultation process. 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? Ensuring that polling places are in place and accessible for all electoral events and risks are assessed and recorded through the Project Risk Register for each election. 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 117 of 134
Page 118
REVIEW OF POLLING DISTRICT AND POLLING PLACES Polling District Ref Polling Place Ward New United Kingdom Constituency Boundary Changes Scottish Parliament Constituency Consultation Proposals and Options Returning Officer Comments Other comments/representations Recommendation NL1 St. Patrick's Primary School Backbrae Street Kilsyth G65 0NA 1- Kilsyth Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL2 Holy Cross Primary School Main Street Croy G65 9JG 1- Kilsyth Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL3 Kilsyth Academy Balmalloch Kilsyth G65 9NF 1- Kilsyth Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL4 Chapelgreen Primary School Mill Road Queenzieburn G65 9EF 1- Kilsyth Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL5 Kilsyth Primary School Shuttle Street Kilsyth G65 0BL 1- Kilsyth Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL6 Burngreen Hall Burngreen Kilsyth G65 0HT 1- Kilsyth Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL7 Banton Primary School Lammerknowes Road Banton G65 0QT 1- Kilsyth Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL8 Cumbernauld and St. Andrew's Primary Schools Eastfield Road Cumbernauld G68 0EB 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL9 Cumbernauld and St. Andrew's Primary Schools Eastfield Road Cumbernauld G68 0EB 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 118 of 134
Page 119
NL11 Eastfield Primary School 23 Cairntoul Court Cumbernauld G68 9JR 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL12 Eastfield Primary School 23 Cairntoul Court Cumbernauld G68 9JR 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL13 Cumbernauld and St. Andrew's Primary Schools Eastfield Road Cumbernauld G68 0EB 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL14 Westfield Primary School Westfield Drive Cumbernauld G68 9HJ 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL15 Broadwood Stadium 1 Ardgoil Drive Cumbernauld G68 9NE 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL16 Broadwood Stadium 1 Ardgoil Drive Cumbernauld G68 9NE 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL17 Broadwood Stadium 1 Ardgoil Drive Cumbernauld G68 9NE 2- Cumbernauld North Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL18a Ravenswood Primary School Tiree Road Cumbernauld G67 1NR 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL18b St. Mary's Primary School Liddel Road Cumbernauld G67 1JB 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL19a Muirfield Centre 1A South Muirhead Road Cumbernauld G67 1AX 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. One representation received from an Elected Member in respect of the amalgamation of 19a with 19b. No other representations received from the other consultees Merge those electors from 19a to 19b, and register 19a be deleted. NL19b Muirfield Centre 1A South Muirhead Road Cumbernauld G67 1AX 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. One representation received from an Elected Member in respect of the amalgamation of 19a with 19b. No other representations received from the other consultees. Incorporate those electors from 19a. Page 119 of 134
Page 120
NL20 Carbrain Primary School Millcroft Road Cumbernauld G67 2LD 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL21 St. Margaret of Scotland Primary School Broomlands Road Cumbernauld G67 2PT 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL22 Woodlands Primary School Melrose Road Cumbernauld G67 4BA 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL23 St. Helen's Primary School Lomond Drive Condorrat G67 4JL 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL24 Condorrat Parish Church Hall Main Road Condorrat G67 4DZ 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL25 Condorrat Primary School Morar Drive Condorrat G67 4LA 3- Cumbernauld South Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL26 Kildrum Primary School Ellisland Road Cumbernauld G67 2HQ 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. One representation received from an Elected Member proposing is that (a) 10 housing units within Cumbernauld House should be incorporated into NL31 and vote at The Village Community Centre as opposed to Kildrum Primary School, and (b) that those voters in Darroch Way should be incorporated into NL19B and vote at the Muirfield Centre. No other representations received from the other consultees. In respect of (a) in the interests of public safety for those voters requiring access to the Village Community Centre by foot, by way of an underpass it is recommended that the voters remain in Kildrum Primary School and (b) that the 164 voters in Darroch Way, be incorporated into NL19B and vote at the Muirfield Centre. NL27 St. Lucy's Primary School Oak Road Cumbernauld G67 3LQ 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL28 Whitelees Primary School Blackthorn Road Cumbernauld G67 3NJ 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL29 Abronhill Primary School Medlar Road Cumbernauld G67 3AJ 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 120 of 134
Page 121
NL30 Whitelees Primary School Blackthorn Road Cumbernauld G67 3NJ 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL31 The Village Community Centre The Wynd Cumbernauld G67 2ST 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. One representation received from an Elected Member proposing is that 10 housing units within Cumbernauld House should be incorporated into NL31 and vote at The In the interests of public safety for those voters requiring access to the Village Community Centre by foot, by way of an underpass it is recommended that the voters NL32 Kildrum Primary School Ellisland Road Cumbernauld G67 2HQ 4- Cumbernauld East Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Cumbernauld and Kilsyth No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL33 Stepps Primary School 10 Blenheim Avenue Stepps G33 6FH 5- Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL34 St. Joseph's Primary Schools Cardowan Road Stepps G33 6AA 5- Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL35 Stepping Stones Family Learning Centre 66 Cumbernauld Road Stepps G33 6EW 5- Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL36 Chryston Primary School Lindsaybeg Road Chryston G69 9DW 5- Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Coatbridge and Chryston Propose to use Chryston Community Hub as an alternative polling place. Propose to use Chryston Community Hub as an alternative polling place. NL37 Auchinloch Primary School Langmuirhead Road Auchinloch G66 5DU 5- Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL38 Glenmanor Primary School Glenmanor Avenue Moodiesburn G69 0JA 6- Gartcosh, Glenboig and Moodiesburn Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL39 St. Michael's Primary School Burnbrae Avenue Moodiesburn G69 0ER 6- Gartcosh, Glenboig and Moodiesburn Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL40 Gartcosh Hall Lochend Road Gartcosh G69 2AB 6- Gartcosh, Glenboig and Moodiesburn Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL41 St. Barbara's Primary School Elmira Road Muirhead G69 9EJ 5- Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 121 of 134
Page 122
NL42 Glenmanor Primary School Glenmanor Avenue Moodiesburn G69 0JA 6- Gartcosh, Glenboig and Moodiesburn Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL43 St. Joseph's Primary Schools Cardowan Road Stepps G33 6AA 5- Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL44 St. Bartholomew's Primary School Deveron Street Coatbridge ML5 2JB 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL45 Skills Academy, former Inclusion Support Base 41 Townhead Road Coatbridge ML5 2HT 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL46 Townhead Primary School Dochart Drive Coatbridge ML5 2PG 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL47 The Reigart Suite Summerlee Heritage Park Heritage Way Coatbridge ML5 1QD 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL48 Langloan Primary School Bank Street Coatbridge ML5 1EG 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL49 The Reigart Suite Summerlee Heritage Park Heritage Way Coatbridge ML5 1QD 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL50a Masonic Hall Coltswood Road Coatbridge ML5 2AA 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL50b Greenhill Primary School Albert Street Coatbridge ML5 3HE 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL51 Masonic Hall Main Street Glenboig ML5 2QT 6- Gartcosh, Glenboig and Moodiesburn Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 122 of 134
Page 123
NL51a Glenboig and Our Lady and St. Joseph's Primary Schools 5 South Medrox Street Glenboig ML5 2RU 6- Gartcosh, Glenboig and Moodiesburn Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL52 St. Patrick's Primary School Kildonan Street Coatbridge ML5 3LP 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL52a Dunbeth Nursery Centre Coats Street Coatbridge ML5 3NX 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL53 Holy Trinity and All Saints Church Hall Muiryhall Street Coatbridge ML5 3RZ 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL54 Holy Trinity and All Saints Church Hall Muiryhall Street Coatbridge ML5 3RZ 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL55 Holy Trinity and All Saints Church Hall Muiryhall Street Coatbridge ML5 3RZ 7- Coatbridge North Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL56 Airdrie Academy South Commonhead Avenue Airdrie ML6 6NX 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL57 St. Serf's Primary School Thrashbush Road Airdrie ML6 6QU 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL58 St. Andrew's Primary School Laggan Road Airdrie ML6 0LL 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL59 Springfield Community Centre Forrest Street Airdrie ML6 7BA 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL60 Clarkston Primary School 17 Findhorn Place Airdrie ML6 7HE 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 123 of 134
Page 124
NL61 Plains and St. David's Primary Schools 1 Annieshill View Plains ML6 7NY 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL62 Glengowan and St. Mary's Primary Schools Drumfin Avenue Caldercruix ML6 7QP 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL63 Village Hall Telegraph Road Longriggend ML6 7RR 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL64 Glenmavis Community Centre 107 Coatbridge Road Glenmavis ML6 0NJ 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL65 Greengairs Primary Schools Greengairs Road Greengairs ML6 7TE 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL66 Golfhill Primary School Ballochney Street Airdrie ML6 0LT 8- Airdrie North Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL67 Beechbank Community Centre Westermavisbank Avenue Airdrie ML6 0HE 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL68 Victoria Primary School 79 Aitchison Street Airdrie ML6 0DB 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL69 The Chapelside Centre Waddell Street Airdrie ML6 6JU 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL70 Coatdyke Congregational Church Kippen Street Airdrie ML6 9AX 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL70a Coatdyke Congregational Church Kippen Street Airdrie ML6 9AX 9- Airdrie Central Coatbridge and Bellshill Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 124 of 134
Page 125
NL71 Devonview Pre-School Centre Devonview Street Airdrie ML6 9DH 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL72 Community Education Centre 2 Clark Street Airdrie ML6 6DQ 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL73 All Saints and Rochsolloch Primary Schools Bellsdyke Road Airdrie ML6 9DU 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL74 Gartlea Community Centre Hillfoot Road Airdrie ML6 9PB 9- Airdrie Central Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL75 Victoria Primary School 79 Aitchison Street Airdrie ML6 0DB 9- Airdrie Central Coatbridge and Bellshill Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL76 Bargeddie and St. Kevin's Primary Schools Langmuir Road Bargeddie G69 7RS 10- Coatbridge West Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL77 Langloan Primary School Bank Street Coatbridge ML5 1EG 10- Coatbridge West Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL78 St. Augustine's Primary School Henderson Street Coatbridge ML5 1BL 11- Coatbridge South Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL79 Old Monkland Primary School Craigend Drive Coatbridge ML5 5TJ 10- Coatbridge West Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL80 St. Mary's Primary School Hozier Street Coatbridge ML5 4BA 10- Coatbridge West Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL81 Old Monkland Community Centre Lismore Drive Coatbridge ML5 5PG 10- Coatbridge West Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 125 of 134
Page 126
NL82 Sikeside Primary School Sikeside Street Coatbridge ML5 4QH 11- Coatbridge South Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston Propose to use Riverbank Hub Community Hub as an alternative polling place. Propose to use Riverbank Hub Community Hub as an alternative polling place. NL83 Carnbroe Primary School Kirkton Crescent Coatbridge ML5 4TP 11- Coatbridge South Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston Propose to use Riverbank Hub Community Hub as an alternative polling place. Propose to use Riverbank Hub Community Hub as an alternative polling place. NL84 St. Mary's Primary School Hozier Street Coatbridge ML5 4BA 11- Coatbridge South Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL85 Kirkshaws Primary School Old Monkland Road Coatbridge ML5 5EJ 11- Coatbridge South Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL86 Calder Parish Church Hall Bute Street Coatbridge ML5 4HF 11- Coatbridge South Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL87 The Shawhead Centre Berwick Street Coatbridge ML5 4NH 11- Coatbridge South Coatbridge and Bellshill Coatbridge and Chryston No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL88 All Saints and Rochsolloch Primary Schools Bellsdyke Road Airdrie ML6 9DU 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL89 Calderbank Primary School Main Street Calderbank ML6 9SG 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL90 Chapelhall and St. Aloysius Primary Schools 1 Honeywell Crescent Chapelhall ML6 8XW 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL91 St. Dominic's Primary School Petersburn Road Airdrie ML6 8DX 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL92 Chapelhall and St. Aloysius Primary Schools 1 Honeywell Crescent Chapelhall ML6 8XW 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 126 of 134
Page 127
NL93 Hilltop Primary School Petersburn Road Airdrie ML6 8BH 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL94 Hilltop Primary School Petersburn Road Airdrie ML6 8BH 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL95 All Saints and Rochsolloch Primary Schools Bellsdyke Road Airdrie ML6 9DU 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL96 St. Dominic's Primary School Petersburn Road Airdrie ML6 8DX 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL97 Calderbank Primary School Main Street Calderbank ML6 9SG 12- Airdrie South Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL98 Bonkle Church Hall Church Road Newmains ML2 9QG 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL99a Allanton Church Hall Allanton Road Allanton ML7 5DF 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL99b Morningside Primary School School Road Morningside Wishaw ML2 9QW 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL100 Stane Primary School Torbothie Road Shotts ML7 5JJ 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL101 Dykehead Primary School Easter Road Shotts ML7 4AS 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL102 Allanton Church Hall Allanton Road Allanton ML7 5DF 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL103 Salsburgh Community Centre Main Street Salsburgh ML7 4LS 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 127 of 134
Page 128
NL104 Community Education Centre Victoria Street Harthill ML7 5QE 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL105 Benhar Evangelical Church Covenanter Road Harthill ML7 5PB 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL106 Salsburgh Community Centre Main Street Salsburgh ML7 4LS 13- Fortissat Airdrie and Shotts Airdrie and Shotts No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL109 Aitkenhead Primary School Lincoln Avenue Tannochside Uddingston G71 5QZ 14- Thorniewood Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL110 Tannochside Primary School Douglas Street Tannochside Uddingston G71 5RH 14- Thorniewood Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL111 Fallside School Sanderson Avenue Viewpark Uddingston G71 6JZ 15- Bellshill Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill Propose to move voters to John Paul II Primary School. Propose to move voters to John Paul II Primary School. NL112 John Paul II Primary School Laburnum Road Viewpark Uddingston G71 5DG 14- Thorniewood Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL113 Tannochside Primary School Douglas Street Tannochside Uddingston G71 5RH 14- Thorniewood Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL114 Burnhead Community Centre Burnhead Street Viewpark Uddingston G71 5AT 14- Thorniewood Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL115 Bellshill Cultural Centre John Street Bellshill ML4 1RJ 15- Bellshill Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL116 Noble Primary School Shirrel Avenue Bellshill ML1JR 15- Bellshill Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 128 of 134
Page 129
NL117 Lawmuir Primary School Footfield Road Bellshill ML4 2BY 15- Bellshill Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL118 Holytown Primary School Willow Grove Holytown ML1 4SB 16- Mossend and Holytown Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL119 Holytown Community Education Centre Stevenston Street Holytown ML1 4RG 16- Mossend and Holytown Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL120 Mossend Primary School Calder Road Mossend ML4 2RH 16- Mossend and Holytown Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL120a Mossend Primary School Calder Road Mossend ML4 2RH 16- Mossend and Holytown Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL120b Mossend Primary School Calder Road Mossend ML4 2RH 16- Mossend and Holytown Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL121 Bellshill Cultural Centre John Street Bellshill ML4 1RJ 16- Mossend and Holytown Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL122 New Stevenston Community Hall Jerviston Street New Stevenston ML1 4JS 16- Mossend and Holytown Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL123 Bellshill Cultural Centre John Street Bellshill ML4 1RJ 16- Mossend and Holytown Coatbridge and Bellshill Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL124 Dalziel High School Crawford Street Motherwell ML1 3AG 17- Motherwell West Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL125 Ailsa Nursery Centre The Loaning Motherwell ML1 3NQ 17- Motherwell West Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL126 Braidhurst High School Dalriada Crescent Motherwell ML1 3XF 17- Motherwell West Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL127 Pat Cullinan Centre Logans Road Motherwell ML1 3PB 17- Motherwell West Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 129 of 134
Page 130
NL128 Keir Hardie Memorial Primary School Brannock Road Newarthill ML1 5DU 18- Motherwell North Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL129 Newarthill Primary School High Street Newarthill ML1 5JU 18- Motherwell North Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL130 Muir Street Primary School Parkneuk Street Motherwell ML1 1BY 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL131 Jerviston Community Centre Coalhall Avenue Motherwell ML1 4BJ 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL132 Jerviston Community Centre Coalhall Avenue Motherwell ML1 4BJ 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL133 Muir Street Primary School Parkneuk Street Motherwell ML1 1BY 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL134 John McCormack Community Centre Motherwell Road Carfin ML1 4EB 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL135 New Stevenston Community Hall Jerviston Street New Stevenston ML1 4JS 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL136 Our Lady and St. Francis Primary School Newarthill Road Carfin ML1 5AL 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL137 New Stevenston Community Hall Jerviston Street New Stevenston ML1 4JS 18- Motherwell North Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL138 Newarthill Primary School High Street Newarthill ML1 5JU 18- Motherwell North Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 130 of 134
Page 131
NL139 Keir Hardie Memorial Primary School Brannock Road Newarthill ML1 5DU 18- Motherwell North Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL140 Keir Hardie Memorial Primary School Brannock Road Newarthill ML1 5DU 18- Motherwell North Airdrie and Shotts Uddingston and Bellshill No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL141 John McCormack Community Centre Motherwell Road Carfin ML1 4EB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL142 Berryhill Primary School Hillcrest Avenue Wishaw ML2 7RB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL143 Jim Foley Community Centre John Street Wishaw ML2 7TG 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL144 Berryhill Primary School Hillcrest Avenue Wishaw ML2 7RB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL145 Berryhill Primary School Hillcrest Avenue Wishaw ML2 7RB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL146 Berryhill Primary School Hillcrest Avenue Wishaw ML2 7RB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL147 Glencairn Primary School Glencairn Street Motherwell ML1 1TT 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL148 Knowetop Primary School Knowetop Avenue Motherwell ML1 2AG 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 131 of 134
Page 132
NL149 Knowetop Primary School Knowetop Avenue Motherwell ML1 2AG 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL150 Muirhouse Primary School 66 Barons Road Motherwell ML1 2NB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL151 Knowetop Primary School Knowetop Avenue Motherwell ML1 2AG 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL152 John McCormack Community Centre Motherwell Road Carfin ML1 4EB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL153 John McCormack Community Centre Motherwell Road Carfin ML1 4EB 19- Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL154 St. Brigid's Primary School Newton Drive Newmains ML2 9DE 20- Murdostoun Airdrie and Shotts Motherwell and Wishaw Propose to use St. Brigid's and Newmains Community Hub as an alternative polling place. Propose to use St. Brigid's and Newmains Community Hub as an alternative polling place. NL155 Cleland Primary School 26 Main Street Cleland ML1 5QN 20- Murdostoun Airdrie and Shotts Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL156 St. Brigid's Primary School Newton Drive Newmains ML2 9DE 20- Murdostoun Airdrie and Shotts Motherwell and Wishaw Propose to use St. Brigid's and Newmains Community Hub as an alternative polling place. Propose to use St. Brigid's and Newmains Community Hub as an alternative polling place. NL156a St. Brigid's Primary School Newton Drive Newmains ML2 9DE 20- Murdostoun Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw Propose to use St. Brigid's and Newmains Community Hub as an alternative polling place. Propose to use St. Brigid's and Newmains Community Hub as an alternative polling place. NL157 Cleland Primary School 26 Main Street Cleland ML1 5QN 20- Murdostoun Airdrie and Shotts Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 132 of 134
Page 133
NL158 Carrick Hall Carrick Crescent Wishaw ML2 7JP 20- Murdostoun Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL159 St. Aidan's Primary School Coltness Road Wishaw ML2 7EY 20- Murdostoun Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL160 Cambusnethan Primary School Branchal Road Wishaw ML2 8PD 20- Murdostoun Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL160a Cambusnethan Primary School Branchal Road Wishaw ML2 8PD 20- Murdostoun Airdrie and Shotts Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL161 St. Aidan's Primary School Coltness Road Wishaw ML2 7EY 20- Murdostoun Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL162 Cleland Primary School 26 Main Street Cleland ML1 5QN 20- Murdostoun Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL163 Pather Community Centre Caledonian Road Wishaw ML2 0HZ 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL164 Wishaw Academy and St. Ignatius Primary Schools Lochpark Wishaw ML2 7EB 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL165 Muirhouse Primary School 66 Barons Road Motherwell ML1 2NB 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL166 Gowkthrapple Community Centre Off Birkshaw Brae Wishaw ML2 0ND 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL167 Thornlie Primary School Lomond Drive Wishaw ML2 0JR 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL168 Netherton Community Centre Netherton Road Wishaw ML2 0EQ 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 133 of 134
Page 134
NL169 Overtown Community Centre Main Street Overtown ML2 0QF 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL170 Waterloo Memorial Hall Wishaw Road Waterloo ML2 8EW 21- Wishaw Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. NL171 Carrick Hall Carrick Crescent Wishaw ML2 7JP 20 - Murdostoun Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke Motherwell and Wishaw No change is proposed. The current polling arrangements are satisfactory. Page 134 of 134