Calling all residents of Corstorphine/Murrayfield! On March 9 choose your new ward councillor in a by-election.
Remember to vote in person on the day, return your postal vote as soon as possible or arrange a proxy vote
Find out more: https://edinburgh.gov.uk/elections
Check out the green community projects in our neighbourhoods that need your votes to get up and running.
UK Government plans to impose minimum service levels on public services during strike action are likely to be incompatible with human rights law in their current form, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has found.
In a report published following legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Bill, the Committee finds that reforms that would make it easier to sack striking workers and leave unions at risk of million-pound fines do not appear to be justified and need to be reconsidered. The Committee finds that it would be possible to introduce minimum service levels in some sectors in a way that is more likely to be compliant with human rights law.
While the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a ‘right to strike’, Article 11 which guarantees freedom of association has been interpreted to cover the taking of strike action. This requires that any restrictions on strike action must be “in accordance with the law”, which requires its consequences to be foreseeable to those affected. Changes to the law must also meet a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the aim being pursued.
The Joint Committee finds that the Government’s Bill risks failing to meet these benchmarks in its current form. Ahead of the Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 9 March, it has called on the Government to reconsider the legislation and ensure it meets the UK’s human rights obligations. The draft report includes five proposed amendments to the Bill intended to rectify key concerns.
The Government brought forward the Strikes Bill in response to growing industrial unrest and strikes in a number of sectors, including transport, health and education. It has argued that legislation is needed to provide greater protection to the lives and livelihoods of those that may be disrupted by industrial action in key public services.
The Bill would allow ministers to set minimum service levels on public and private services subject to strike action. The employer would then be given the power to issue a ’work notice’ to a trade union, identifying who will be required to work and the work needed to meet the minimum service level.
Individual employees who failed to comply with a work notice would lose legal protections against dismissal. Trade unions who failed to take steps to ensure notices were complied with could be required to pay damages of up to £1 million.
The Joint Committee warns that the Government has not made a compelling case that such measures are necessary and finds that the Bill as drafted contains inadequate protection against arbitrary use and is unclear.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, restrictions on strikes must meet a ‘pressing social need’. However, the Government has not proven that existing strike laws and voluntary minimum service levels are insufficient across all the sectors identified in the Bill.
Claims that strike action in the sectors named in the Bill has caused significant and disproportionate damage to the public and wider economy have not been backed up with sufficient evidence, with the Government providing supporting data for the costs of previous transport strikes only.
Measures that interfere with the right to free association must be proportionate. This is more likely to be achieved if minimum service levels are established though negotiation and disputes resolved through independent arbitration. The Government has previously accepted that such an approach would work, in the Transport Strikes Bill introduced in October. The Bill, which would abandon this in favour of the Secretary of State imposing minimum service levels by regulations, risks failing to meet the requirement of proportionality.
Penalties for employees and unions who don’t meet the Bill’s requirements are high and potentially disproportionate, the Joint Committee finds. It calls on the Government to reconsider whether less severe measures would be more appropriate, particularly where a strike does not involve essential services. Existing penalties, such as loss of pay or suspension would be more appropriate in such cases.
The Bill has insufficient clarity in several key areas, the Joint Committee finds. Trade unions would be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure their members comply with a work notice, however the Bill does not provide sufficient detail to ensure they will know when this duty has or has not been met.
The definitions of the services in respect of which minimum service levels could be imposed are currently too vague, meaning that ‘education services’ could include private tutors and ‘transport services’ private taxi drivers.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The Strikes Bill will be debated in the House of Lords this Thursday and needs amending to resolve some of the deep flaws it has.
“If this proposed legislation becomes law in its current form, ministers would have the power to set minimum service levels that would leave striking workers at risk of the sack if they are not met, and unions liable to million-pound fines. Yet, the Government has not proven that such draconian measures are needed or that the current framework is inadequate.
“Heavy-handed sanctions are compounded by vague rules that would leave striking workers and unions in confusion as to whether they had been met or not. The sectors included in the Bill are also ill-defined, risking over-reach into areas only tangentially linked to the maintenance of vital public services. This means the Bill, in our view, is likely to be incompatible with human rights law which provides a right to association and with it, protection for strike action.
“The Government needs to think again and come back with legislation that better respects the protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Two pupils from a high school in Cumbernauld will address over 350 women in the debating chamber of the Scottish Parliament tomorrow (Saturday 4 March) as part of this year’s International Women’s Day event.
Zara De Almeida and Grace Lennon both in S5 at Our Lady’s High School, Cumbernauld, will address this year’s theme of breaking the bias, at the event which is held jointly with the Scottish Women’s Convention.
The First Minister the Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP will also address the Chamber, along with comedian Susan Morrison and academic Dr Radhika Govinda.
A cross party panel of MSPs (Meghan Gallacher MSP; Rhoda Grant MSP; Kaukab Stewart MSP; and Beatrice Wishart MSP) will also take questions from those attending.
The Presiding Officer, the Rt Hon Alison Johnstone MSP, speaking ahead of the event said: “The Scottish Parliament has celebrated International Women’s Day with this event for over 15 years, inviting women from across Scotland to address collectively the challenges they face.”
Agnes Tolmie, Chair of the Scottish Women’s Convention said: “Women make up more than 50% of the Scottish population and we have still not achieved equality.
“However, when we look at the wonderful work done by women in Scotland we have every reason to celebrate. We are looking forward to an afternoon of inspiring and motivational contributions which showcase Scotland’s achievements in working for a fairer society.”
Women from across Scotland will join the event at the Parliament, including 60 high school pupils from S4 to S6 from Our Ladies High School, Cumbernauld; Drumchapel High School; Govan High School; St Ninian’s High School, Kirkintilloch; University of Edinburgh’s Women in Politics society; and members of the Digital Dairy Chain from the University of Strathclyde.
The event will be broadcast by the Scottish Parliament and will begin at 2.00pm on Saturday 4 March.
The candidates standing in the forthcoming Corstorphine/Murrayfield Council by-election, which will take place on Thursday 9 March, have been announced.
The by-election will elect one councillor from nine nominated candidates to represent the ward along with two existing councillors.
The candidates standing for election are (in alphabetical order):
Andrew Kerr, Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council and Returning Officer, said: “Now that nominations have closed, residents in the Corstorphine/ Murrayfield ward can begin to think about who they will vote for in March.
“The role of our councillors is extremely important to the democratic process, with responsibility for some of the most important decisions our city can face. Therefore, I would encourage as many residents as possible to participate in the by-election. It’s crucial that you make sure you’re registered to vote by midnight on 21 February. Anyone can also register for a postal vote before 22 February.
“The by-election will use the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system where voters can rank candidates in order of preference using numbers rather than a single cross. Voters can choose to vote for as many or as few candidates as they like. We will announce the result once the votes are counted after polls close at 10pm on Thursday 9 March.”
Poll cards will be delivered to registered voters in the area from today (Tuesday 7 February) including further information on when and where to vote.
Polling stations will be open from 7am to 10pm and will be at:
The by-election follows the resignation of Councillor and former Lord Provost Frank Ross in December.
Find out more about the Corstorphine/Murrayfield by-election.
Hustings event to be held at Corstorphine Community Centre on 20.02.23
Submit your questions via our online form.
Come along and find out what the future plans and priorities are
Nominations open today (Monday 23 January) for candidates to stand in the forthcoming Corstorphine/Murrayfield by-election which is being held following the resignation of Councillor Frank Ross.
On Thursday 9 March, Corstorphine/Murrayfield residents will go to the polls to select a new councillor to represent the ward which also covers Balgreen, Broomhall, Carrick Knowe, Ravelston and Roseburn and has a current electorate of 19,287.
An official Notice of Election was published on Friday explaining how to stand as a candidate, who is eligible to vote and how to make sure you are on the Electoral Register.
In order to stand as a candidate, individuals must submit nomination papers by 4pm on Monday 6 February.
Andrew Kerr, Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council and Returning Officer, said: “The Notice of Election signifies the official start of the election period for Corstorphine/Murrayfield.
“I would urge all citizens in the ward to make sure they are registered and have their details or preference of how they would like to vote up to date in plenty of time. They should now think about the way they want to cast their vote – in a polling place or by post – and make sure to use that vote on 9 March.”
Anyone unsure about how to register, where to vote or how to vote by post can find more information on the Council website.
Polling stations will be open from 7am to 10pm on 9 March. Details of where these are will be announced shortly.
People aged 16 and over and all those legally resident – including foreign citizens – can register to vote in this election.
Find out more about elections in Edinburgh and how to register to vote.
The deadline to register to vote is midnight Tuesday 21 February, to apply for a postal vote the deadline is 5pm on Wednesday 22 February, and for a proxy vote the deadline is 5pm on Wednesday 1 March.
Scotland’s Council Leaders have written to the First Minister expressing their collective deep concern about the impacts of the financial settlement that Scottish Government has proposed for Local Government as part of this year’s Scottish Budget.
At a special meeting of Leaders on Monday 16th December, it was unanimously agreed that the budget settlement as it stands means another real terms cut to Councils’ core funding, at a time when many in our communities are struggling with the impact of rocketing prices across fuel, food and other bills, and facing unprecedented levels of poverty in a modern era, in an era where Local Government continues to provide the targeted and ongoing support deemed so vital to those most in need.
Council Leaders feel that this budget settlement will have a detrimental impact on vital local services, on our ability to focus the necessary resources and supports to our communities and on those who are already impacted by this cost-of-living crisis.
Leaders added that significantly, it will lead to the loss of jobs, both within Local Authorities and within the local companies who supply goods and services to councils and are reliant on their contracts to employ local people.
In the letter Leaders did acknowledge the impact of inflation, the UK Government’s mini-budget and global economic factors that are continuing to weigh heavily on the Scottish Government’s budgets and spending plans.
Given the pressures facing Councils, Leaders are keen this year to meet with Ministers so they can hear concerns first-hand, look at possible solutions and to work collaboratively with Government to enable Local Government to continue to deliver vital services to our communities.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said last night: “I have decided to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
“After thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications, I am concerned that this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation.
“Transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding. My decision today is about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters.
“I have not taken this decision lightly. The Bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales. I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action.
“If the Scottish Government chooses to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
“I have written today to the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer informing them of my decision.”
Reacting to the announcement last night, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and it’s ability to make it’s own decisions on devolved matters.
“@scotgov will defend the legislation & stand up for Scotland’s Parliament. If this Westminster veto succeeds, it will be first of many”
The Scottish Secretary will address Westminster later today to further explain the reasons for this unprecedented decision. Doubtless Holyrood, too, will have much to say.
‘FUNDING REALITY IS A REAL-TERMS CUT’
Local Government spending decisions are being increasingly directed by Scottish Government, and the way Local Government finances are presented by Scottish Government is potentially confusing for the general public.
This can lead to raised expectations and lack of clarity in our communities about the reality of what is now possible to deliver on the ground, COSLA said today (Monday 16th January).
COSLA was clear that this year we needed and asked for a £1bn extra in real terms however we have ended up with £38million and that this was simply not good enough.
COSLA added that to avoid socially harmful cuts, the finances of Local Government need early and proactive discussions to avoid an annual public argument about the reality of what can and cannot be afforded by Councils.
Councils also need more freedom to address local priorities and the ability to focus on improving outcomes.
Commenting today, COSLA’s Resources Spokesperson Councillor Katie Hagmann said: “Given the significance of our council services to the lives and livelihoods of everyone across Scotland, communities deserve clear and consistent facts in relation to Local Government finance rather than a yearly debate on how much money is or is not available.
“All our communities are concerned about is the level of service they can expect that there is support for the most vulnerable and want to ensure their local environment looks and feels as good as it can – all of these things are under threat because of successive years of underfunding.
“Last week saw the publication of the Accounts Commission’s report on the health of council finances. The report makes it clear that councils are going to have to take very tough decisions over the next few years to balance the books, given the financial pressures they face.
“Responding to the Accounts Commission report, Scottish Government has quoted both real and cash terms increases of £2.2 bn between 2013-14 and 2022-23, but this is contradictory.
“We owe it to our communities to be clear, consistent and transparent about the starting point and how much less, in reality, councils have to spend year on year on the services that our communities rely on.
“In 2013-14, the Local Government funding settlement was worth £10.3 bn. Looking to 22-23 the Scottish Government provided £12.5 bn. This does equate to a £2.2 bn cash increase. However, that increase is heavily ring fenced and directed funding for core services and local priorities has stayed the same.
“The reality of having the same amount of money this year as 10 years ago for core services is a real terms cut. As well as increasing costs, this money is also now required to deliver more services than it was 10 years ago – Scotland’s population has increased, the number of households has gone up, COVID has left a legacy of support needs for the most vulnerable and as people live longer, their care needs have become more complex. This is just a snapshot of the demands being faced by councils, not to mention inflation and energy costs.
“For 2023-24, Scottish Government has stated that councils have seen a “£570m increase in their budgets” but the reality is, that only £38m of this can go towards pressures such as inflation, pay and service demand with the rest is for policy commitments that are already in the system, for example £100m to meet Real Living Wage commitments in social care.
“To put this into perspective, a 1% increase in pay across the Local Government workforces equates to around £100m. £38m will not go very far, especially when combined with energy price hikes, supporting the most vulnerable and our commitments to tackle the climate emergency.
“This year, demand for services like social care is at an all-time high but given the range of pressure facing councils, they simply don’t have the resources they need to work towards keep people out of hospital.
“Each day during winter, there is quite rightly a focus on getting people out of hospital to free up beds– currently councils support just over 97% of patients to be discharged without delay.
“The problem is not just getting people out of hospital but stopping them going in – councils simply don’t have the resources they need to provide the care packages or the interventions that prevent ill-health.
“COSLA’s key concerns are not only the socially harmful impact of cuts on our communities, but the way in which Local Government finance has been presented to them. The messaging is that there is more money for essential services each year despite this not being the case with councils asking communities about where they want to see cuts and reductions if essential services, like schools, roads, waste collection, child and adult protection, environmental health and social care are to continue to be delivered, every day of every year.”
