Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Match cash to fight stench, says Chisholm

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 June 2008
A LOCAL politician has called on the Scottish Government to match the money being invested by Scottish Water to tackle the notorious Seafield stench.
Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm said the £18 million of works currently planned at the sewage treatment plant would only remove 69 per cent of the smells endured by nearby residents for years.

But he claimed a further £16m would pay for the tanks and all other areas which are producing smells to be covered over.

Mr Chisholm said: "During last year's Scottish election campaign, Alex Salmond promised, on camera, that the SNP would once and for all fix the problem.

"For this to happen, the primary settlement tanks must be covered, as demanded by the Leith Links Residents Association."

But a Scottish Government spokesman said: "It would be inappropriate for us to match funding when there is an existing PFI contract in place."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 June 2008 10:55 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish Water
 
1

democracy,

Scottish Borders 06/06/2008 12:48:13
We just use other articles to make a point of not being able to remark on other articles.
I mean, it's blatantly obvious when HAMISH MACDONELL
writes his biased Unionist remarks on the SNP Government and allows no response, in the so called SCOTSMAN (ha,ha,ha.)All this amounts to is, ONE persons opinion among MILLIONS!!
2

Talorthane,

06/06/2008 13:17:06
Malcolm Chisholm's party, when in government, identified a problem to be solved.

They decided to tender this work outto a private company, in the form of a PFI arrangment.

Now it is clear that either; Chisholm's then government only contracted the company to deal with 69% of the problem, the company have not fulfilled their obligations, or the contract's duration still has time to run.

The solutions seem clear. Either; arrange a new contract to deal with the remaining 31% of the problem (best done when the first contract is complete), apply remedies or penalties to the comapny for failing their contractual arrangements, or wait for the duration of the contract to be completed.

Malcolm Chisholm's idea is none of these, he would prefer that more public money is handed out to the private sector to cover up whatever problems exist with the original contract.

However, this does seem to be typical of Labour's irresponsible attitude to the use of public money, either when in power or opposition.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.