Hype Could Obscure Cronyism Facts

Press Release Wednesday 6th March 2002
Glenrothes Scottish Socialist Party spokespersons have expressed a worry that the hype over the ‘Officegate’ inquiry could lead to the facts being obscured when the report is finally published. They say that the action recommended by Fife Council chief executive Douglas Sinclair to deal with the allegations of cronyism will be just as important as finding those responsible for the two grants totalling £40,000 awarded to the Third Age charity group.

Felicity Garvie, secretary of the Glenrothes Branch pointed to the treatment of recently resigned local councillor Angela McCallum as a salutary example.

"Angela McCallum was accused of scapegoating Henry McLeish, but Mr McLeish’s failure to declare the Third Age sublet in his so-called ‘full and frank disclosure’ meant that any future mention of Third Age would be subject to considerable suspicion and subsequent scrutiny. If Fife Council had exercised a reasonable degree of scrutiny in the first place there is a good chance we would not have all this hype threatening to obscure the all important facts.

"Any action taken by Fife Council to prevent a repeat of this fiasco will require to be open, accountable and immediate. The delays surrounding the release of the inquiry report have given the impression that Fife Council were looking for extra time in order to find any loophole whereby they could prevent the full publication of the report’s contents."

Regarding the imminent release of Douglas Sinclair’s report, Jim Balfour, SSP Glenrothes Press Officer gave some thoughts on what issues the party would feel a need to respond to.

"If the report offers proof that Henry McLeish knew about the Third Age sublet then we will demand that Mr McLeish stand down as MSP for Central Fife. That’s nothing new, we’ve been demanding his resignation since November last year. Further implication of Mr McLeish would be particularly embarrassing for him.

"What might be more damaging though is if the initial report made by Douglas Sinclair that cleared Mr McLeish’s wife of any part in the awarding of two £20,000 grants is shown to be in error. Mr McLeish could face incrimination on two fronts in that case.

"If there is no mention of Mr McLeish or any of his party colleagues that could be the worst scenario of all for him, as it will reek of yet another cover-up."