Monday, 25 May 2009
The big picture is about their accommodation allowances which allow many MPs to acquire a small personal fortune – at public expense.
Take the case of Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North.
According to the Daily Telegraph Mr Gibson bought a flat in 1999 for £195,000 – and paid for the upkeep and maintenance costs out of his accommodation allowance – over four years he claimed £80,000 in mortgage interest and bills.
Nothing wrong with that in itself – because MPs should not be out of pocket for having to live in London when Parliament is sitting – commuting is not an option for most, so the only answer is to rent or buy a property or stay in a hotel.
But Mr Gibson’s case illustrates well – what’s wrong with the present system.
Firstly, he allowed his daughter and her partner to stay in the property – he was there himself only 3 days a week - so he must have bought a property that was larger than his own needs.
Mr Gibson also allowed his daughter and her partner to live there rent free – so in effect the tax payer handed a sizeable rent free gift to the MP and/or member of his immediate family.
But the real scandal is that Mr Gibson went on to sell the property to his daughter at a knock down price of £162,000 – £33,000 less than he paid for it – and much less than the property was actually worth – £325,000 or thereabouts according to the Daily Telegraph and other media reports.
So, the MP made a huge personal profit of around £130,000 (£325,000 - £195,000) which he gave generously his daughter – but of course this profit was acquired using public funds.
If that is representative of other MPs – they are receiving a huge windfall (tax free in many cases) – at public expense.
If just half of the 646 MPs are in the same position as Mr Gibson the sums are – 343 x £130,000 = or an eye watering £44.59 million.
Now that really is crazy – because MPs are not working for this money, they're not doing a job, providing a service, or taking a risk – they're just benefiting out of the property market - but using public money to do so.
And that’s what should be stopped – when such properties are sold they should be sold for their true market value – and the ‘profit’ element should go back to the tax payer – not into the pockets of MPs – their friends, families or business acquaintances.
And £44.59 million could always make a helpful contribution - towards meeting the costs of equal pay.
Friday, 22 May 2009
The first is from Tory grandee, Sir Peter Viggers, who bought a floating duck island - at a cost of £1,645 to the public purse. Taxpayers will be relieved to learn that the structure is based on a 18th century building in Sweden and is designed to protect the birds from foxes and suchlike.
The second is from a 'left-wing' Scottish MP, Michael Connarty, who is reported as claiming for - amongst other things - a Bose iPod Docking Station (£211.91), Bose Sound Dock Headphones (£191.49), an alarm clock/radio (£249.99) and plasma TV (£1,099) - making a grand total of £1,752.39
Quite how these claims can be squared with the principles that underpin the 'Green Book' on expenses claims (see post dated 21 May) is anyone's guess - here are just two of the rules that would appear to make such claims ineligible.Extract from the Green Book on Expenses Claims
"Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties."
"The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious."
Some MPs are now falling over themselves to pay money back - others say they have done nothing wrong - because their claims were approved by the House of Commons fees office.
But that ignores the obvious question: Why were they made in the first place?
Thursday, 21 May 2009
In particular, Rules 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 – seem like good old-fashioned common sense.
But what’s gone wrong is that for years MPs - in their droves, not just the odd one or two – have been ignoring, bending and breaking the rules - with impunity.
We have neither the time nor inclination to name all of the wrong doers – but in areas where low paid workers are still fighting for justice on equal pay – no doubt people will be interested in how their own MP has behaved – and whose noses have been in the trough.
So, we plan to publish a few case studies in the weeks ahead.
Meantime here are the Green Book principles that were supposed to underpin MPs expenses claims:
1. Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.
2. Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
3. Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. Claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a party political organisation.
4. It is not permissible for a Member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is claiming from any other source.
5. Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.
6. Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
7. Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.
8. The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.
9. Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary.
Nothing wrong with this set of principles – you might be tempted to say – and you’d be right. The problem is that they have been treated with so much contempt for so long - by so many ‘honourable’ members.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
A series of GMF hearings are underway across Scotland – which is why things are starting to heat up.
For the past year or so, East Ayrshire has been blowing hot and cold on the subject of a negotiated settlement – so now’s the time to either put up or shut up, as we head towards the GMF hearing in August.
East Ayrshire has protected the higher (bonus related) earnings of its traditional male workers for a period of 4 years - so the women workers in East Ayrshire have a 4 year claim for the full protection period.
East Ayrshire now has a final opportunity to consider its position – but if the council does not come to its senses in the next few weeks, the GMF hearing will proceed as planned.
A contest is required because the sitting SNP councillor – Bill Kidd – is now a Holyrood MSP and the June by-election will elect his replacement to serve as a Glasgow City councillor.
The seat is in the Drumchapel–Anniesland ward – where the Labour party already holds 3 out of the 4 local council seats – so Labour is going for a clean sweep.
As usual, there will be lots of activity in the run up to polling day – lots of knocking on doors, distributing party leaflets, holding local meetings (or hustings) where the candidates will strut their stuff - and appeal for people’s votes.
Drumchapel-Anniesland is bound to have its fair share of local voters pursuing equal pay claims – after all Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross Solicitors are representing well over 5,000 claimants across Glasgow as a whole.
So, this is an ideal opportunity to put the candidates and party workers on the spot.
Ask them why Glasgow City Council has still not resolved equal pay after all this time – and ask the candidates what they will do to sort things out - if they get elected.
If you don’t get straight answers to straight questions, you know what to do with your vote.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
No more shuffling along to MPs surgeries at awkward times of the day or night – often in dreadful weather.
Oh no, once you realise how quick and easy it is to drop an e-mail to your local ‘honourable’ member – there’s no looking back!
And the formula’s always the same – it’s the MP’s surname followed by the first initial. Let’s start at the top with the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, whose e-mail address (as a local Fife MP), is:
Likewise with the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin - but you’d better hurry because he’s on his way out of the House of Commons after the MPs expenses fiasco - and reportedly off to the House of Lords (where expenses are also said to be incredibly generous):
And so it goes on for the remaining 644 ‘honourable’ members – here are a couple that might come in handy for readers in South Lanarkshire, for example:
Adam Ingram, MP for East Kilbride: email@example.com
Tommy McAvoy, MP for Rutherglen: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you don’t know the name of your local MP, the details can be found on the House of Commons web site at: http://www.parliament.uk/
MPs and Equal Pay
Apart from overseeing their own Alice in Wonderland expenses – see post dated 10 May 2009 - MPs’ are also responsible for employment legislation and the legislative framework surrounding equal pay.
So, if you want to put across a point of view or ask what your MP is doing about equal pay - it’s easy as easy as can be.
So don’t be shy!
Monday, 18 May 2009
Some say that Labour MSPs are unlikely to ask tough questions of their colleagues in a Labour-run Council - and the same may be true of politicians from other parties as well.
In the present climate – when the reputation of politics is a rock bottom – you would expect MSPs, MPs and local councillors, from all parties, to be standing up for their local constituents – asking sensible questions of senior officials and demanding straight answers.
If any readers want to contact Michael McMahon, his e-mail address is: Michael.McMahon.email@example.com
If you wish to make your voice heard with other regional list MSPs, their names and contact details are in the previous post dated 1 May 2009.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to comment.
It shames everyone in politics that there remains today any hard working and dedicated public sector employee who does not, through their earnings, receive the equal recognition with their colleagues that they deserve. I fully support the collective desire that the workforce in South Lanarkshire Council affected by this disgraceful situation has to finally end the discrimination which their local authority employers have allowed to exist for far too long.
For as long as they continue to work together with their trade union representatives to achieve this outcome, rather than money grabbing lawyers who seek to exploit this situation for their own financial gain at the expense of other public sector workers jobs, they will continue to have my full backing.
I think you are trying to have you cake and eat it - by qualifying your 'support' for equal pay on the basis that it should only be achieved by collective (i.e. trade union) action. In my view, your attitude is hypocritical because this is a practical impossibility - a modern day Catch 22! No doubt council employees would have welcomed union support when it was required – several years ago.
The point is that the unions are part of the problem - they kept their members in the dark about equal pay for years - they are not fighting a single equal pay case in South Lanarkshire - and the council itself says the unions endorsed their new pay and grading structures - which favour traditional male jobs, especially those in post pre-April 2004.
So, I fail to see how your approach can be of any practical help to your constituents because it ducks the central issue of effective representation We provide a service to our clients and charge a reasonable fee - to call this money-grabbing is plainly ridiculous. The unions, on the other hand take money from their members money every week – but what do they have to show for when it comes to equal pay?
On a positive note, I do admire your willingness to debate the issue and I will ensure that you are invited to any future Action 4 Equality Scotland meetings in the Hamilton area.
PS As indicated previously I will publish you comments on the blog site - along with a copy of my response
Friday, 15 May 2009
Is the union becoming paranoid and xenophobic – because why else would they mention race and nationality - when these terms are of no relevance to equal pay?
‘Dog whistle’ politics is about sending a hidden message – one that you don’t want to admit to, up front at least, but the underlying intention is perfectly clear – emphasise a point (a negative one, of course) that you think will play to the prejudices of your audience.
In this case, a rather bizarre anti-English sentiment – it would appear - which is to be pitied, not admired.
Mark Irvine and Carol Fox are both Scottish – Stefan Cross lives and works in Newcastle, but does anyone (other than Unison) care?
We’re not motivated by people’s politics or where they come from – to paraphrase Martin Luther King: “It’s the quality of a person’s character that counts”.
As you’d expect, we’re happy to defend our colleague Stefan’s right to be English – to support Newcastle United, rather than Celtic or Rangers, Hearts or Hibs – or anyone else for that matter.
And here’s another amazing revelation - Mark Irvine was actually born in Canada - but so far at least no one has held that against him.
So, to lighten the mood we’re highlighting 10 good things to have come out of England and helped make life that little bit better for many Scots:
1. The Road to Scotland
2. Emmeline Pankhurst – women’s rights activist and suffragette
3. Cockney Rhyming Slang
4. JRR Tolkein and “The Lord of the Rings”
5. Liverpool Football Club (1977 – 1987 vintage)
6. The Tolpuddle Martyrs – transported to Australia for trade union activity
7. The Beatles
8. The Daily Telegraph – for its scoop on MPs expenses
9. Gin and Tonic
10. Stefan Cross and Action 4 Equality
If you have any other suggestions, let us know – we’ll share the best (and worst) on the blog site.
PS If Stefan Cross had been Welsh, does anyone think Unison would have mentioned that in their advert?
Apparently, the unsions are putting it about that Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross won't be able to pursue equal pay claims against the council - because of some mysterious and unexplained change in European law.
Now this all sounds very odd - and that's because it's complete baloney - made up from start to finish - possibly in a cack-handed attempt to cover up the embarassment that must be felt by the unions - who are not pursuing a single equal pay claim in South Lanarkshire.
So, the motto is - don't listen to gossip and rumour - ask any union reps that are peddling these stories to put what they have to say in writing - and they'll run for cover.
The truth is that the challenge to South Lanarkshire's job evaluation scheme is well underway and is likely to be held in the autumn.
Watch this space for news.
An important appeal hearing for the Home Carers is taking place on 1 September 2009 – and the case in North Lanarkshire is similar to what has been going on in Falkirk – see previous post dated 14 May 2009.
Again in 2008, North Lanarkshire argued that equal pay claims from Home Carers should be treated differently – the council said that the claims of the Home Carers should not be treated the same way as other ‘manual worker’ groups because of an internal reorganisation back in 1999.
But the 1999 reorganisation did not evaluate jobs properly – Home Carers jobs were not re-assessed under the national job evaluation (JE) scheme – all that happened was that the old pay rates changed, and by not very much at that!
What’s worse is that this was all done under the noses of the trade unions – which has left many of the Home Carers feeling completely betrayed - by the people who were supposed to be looking after their interests.
Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross Solicitors refused to accept ‘second class’ treatment for the North Lanarkshire Home Carers – our view is that these claims should be dealt with in exactly the same way as other ‘manual worker’ groups.
The employment tribunal agreed with the case put forward by Stefan Cross Solicitors and rejected this council’s argument, but the council appealed - wasting public money, in our opinion - to delay and frustrate what we believe to be perfectly valid claims.
You would think that in this Labour run council, some local politicians would stand up and be counted. After all, what kind of way is this to treat a highly dedicated group of workers – who have served their local community for years?
The North Lanarkshire case may be affected by the outcome of the earlier Falkirk Council case which is due to be heard on 19 June 2009.
Let’s hope so – because the treatment of the Home Carers is a disgrace – as is the delay in dealing with the outstanding claims of other groups.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Unusually, this is an appeal hearing because Falkirk lost a previous Pre Hearing Review (PHR) in 2008 - which were about the equal pay claims of Home Care staff, the biggest single group of claimants.
In 2008, the council tried to argue that equal pay claims from Home Carers should be treated differently from other Falkirk claimants.
Essentially, the council argued that the claims of the Home Carers should be restricted or limited - because of an internal reorganisation back in May 2002.
In the council's eyes this reorganisation changed people's contracts of employment and the nature of their claims.
So, the council argued that the equal pay claims registered on behalf of the Home Carers' should not qualify for the full period of 5 years backdating - to the year 2000 - as is the case for other ‘manual worker’ groups in Falkirk.
Sensibly, the employment tribunal rejected this argument, but the council then appealed the decision - using and wasting public money, in our opinion, to delay and frustrate what we believe to be perfectly valid claims - from a key group of highly dedicated staff.
We believe that next month's appeal hearing will decide the issue in favour of the Home Carers - so watch this space for further news.
Falkirk Council indicated a desire months ago to settle the claims on a negotiated basis - but it has been blowing hot and cold ever since - there have been talks behind the scenes, but as yet no firm proposals.
We are currently pushing the council to make up its mind - but if there is no progress, the scheduled hearing of the Stefan Cross cases goes ahead on 19 June 2009 as planned.
The reader - a long-standing union member, by the way - came up with the perfect rejoinder to Unison's belated interest in equal pay, having kept its members in the dark for years:
"They must have been up all night polishing their brass necks", she said - as someone who was denied union support in 2005 and turned to Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross for help with her equal pay claim.
It's not often that we're lost for words - but her comment hit the nail so squarely on the head - there's nothing more to say.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
The feedback from the hearing has been really positive and as usual Stefan Cross Solicitors fielded a high calibre and experienced legal team:
1. Paul Clark – a solicitor with Stefan Cross who has been involved with the North Ayrshire cases since the successful pre-hearing review– when were costs were awarded against the council
2. Carol Fox – Head of Litigation for Stefan Cross Solicitors in Scotland
3. Derek O’Carroll – a leading Scottish advocate and specialist in discrimination law
All of the Stefan Cross test claimants gave clear, strong testimony – emphasising their commitment towards their clients and great pride they take in their jobs - while also explaining how undervalued they feel knowing that male colleagues receive significantly higher pay – even though the men are on the same, or even lower, grades than the women.
The hearing resumes on 15 September 2009 to take evidence from the 4 remaining Stefan Cross test claimants - 16 of the 20 gave evidence before the case adjourned. The tribunal will then consider the Council's evidence in the earlier weeks of November 2009
We remain willing to discuss a negotiated settlement with the council – but if that does not happen, the North Ayrshire cases are on course to conclude later this year.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
The union has taken out a newspaper advert in May 2009 attacking us – despite the fact that:
1. Unison has a terrible track record on equal pay
2. Thousands of women have turned to Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross for help and advice
3. Stefan Cross started fighting for equal pay in Scotland in 2005
4. The journey to justice can be long and hard
5. Stefan Cross has a top calibre legal team fighting cases
6. In South Lanarkshire Council we have nearly 2,000 cases - while Unison has precisely none!
These are the facts - we represent over 10,000 clients in Scotland - our clients know the facts and they tell us what they think about the union and equal pay.
What's truly amazing is that the union has never run a single national newspaper advert - to explain the big pay gap between traditional male and female jobs.
Maybe that's because the union helped to prop up these discriminatory pay arrangements for years - after all the employers didn't negotiate them single-handedly.
So, far from leading the fight on equal pay - the union only seems interested in attacking us.
The union feels threatened because they know that Stefan Cross Solicitors will soon be operating from a new Scottish base (in Edinburgh) - and that presents a real threat - so they're lashing out in a mixture of panic and desperation.
We, on the other hand, are happy to stand on our record.
Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross Solicitors have helped thousands of council workers pursue equal pay claims - and the signs are that many of these cases are beginning to come to a successful conclusion.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
A standard defence has emerged as government ministers and backbenchers scramble to explain themselves to a bewildered public.
“My claims were all within the rules”, they say, to a man and a woman – as if common sense and good judgment has gone out the window.
MP’s are fully entitled to be reimbursed for costs that they actually incur – in the course of doing their jobs.
And that’s as it should be – unless you happen to live in some sort of parallel universe (formerly known as Westminster) - where the Mad Hatter is clearly in charge of the Tea Party.
How can it possibly be OK – or within the rules - for an MP to charge the public purse for someone to clean his flat?
If an MP leads a very busy life and wants to avoid the everyday drudgery of housework – then he (or she) is perfectly entitled to engage the services of a cleaner.
Lots of people do so - without creating a fuss.
But that’s because the ‘lots of other people’ have to pay the cleaner out of their own hard earned cash – they don’t expect to put it on their expenses claims.
And nor should they - because it has absolutely nothing to do with their jobs.
So, it’s hard to summon up much sympathy for the MPs now on the rack – they have enjoyed living in a surreal world for far too long – a world where common sense can be suspended, or stood on its head, to suit the needs of the storyteller.
In the weeks ahead there are bound to be further revelations – if they have any relevance to the ongoing fight for equal pay, we will let you know.
Friday, 8 May 2009
While ordinary people struggle to make ends meet - while low paid workers fight for equal pay - many of the MPs we send to Westminster have been lining their pockets at public expense.
Some have made tens of thousands of pounds by cleverly manipulating the system when it comes to housing allowances - while others have made their lives that little bit more comfortable - by helping themselves to things like 2 (not 1) flat screen televisions and even the occasional bath plug or Kit Kat.
You simply could not make this up - yet these are the same people responsible for policing and enforcing the legislative framework surrounding equal pay.
MPs may say they were operating within the rules - though that conveniently avoids the rather obvious point that MPs were in the position of making up the rules themselves - without proper scrutiny - indeed they fought tooth and nail to keep all of this information under wraps .
The game is up and things will change - that's for sure - but the public ridicule that's being heaped on our Westminster MPs is not only well deserved, it's also long overdue.
If MPs had put the same effort into supporting their constituents over equal pay - as they have on claiming every possible penny on their expenses - the fight would have been over long ago.
So, in the weeks and months ahead we will be inviting MPs to explain where they stand on equal pay, what they're doing to support their constituents - and we'll share what they have to say on the blog site.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
A number of MSPs have already been in touch - and we will be offering to meet any local politician that shows an interest in equal pay - and the way in which South Lanarkshire Council has implemented the 1999 Single Status Agreement.
MSPs are in a better position to raise any concerns they might have with the council - if they are doing so on behalf of people living and working in the area.
So this is an ideal opportunity for local people to say what they think - and ask why South Lanarkshire has behaved so differently to every other council in Scotland - when it comes to single status and equal pay.
1. Why is it so difficult for people to understand how their job is graded?
2. Why is it so difficult for people to understand how other jobs are graded?
3. Why is it so difficult to people to understand the link between grading and pay?
4. Why have traditional male jobs fared so much better than traditional female jobs?
5. Why has the council permanently preserved the higher earnings of some male workers - when this is a clear breach of the 1999 Single Status Agreement?
If you need any further information at this stage, contact Mark Irvine at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Again Stefan Cross Solicitors were represented by a highly experienced legal team:
1. Carol Fox – Head of Litigation for Stefan Cross Solicitors in Scotland
2. Paul Clark – a solicitor with Stefan Cross who has been involved with the Fife cases from the outset
3. Robin Allen, QC – a highly experienced barrister and recognised as a one of the leading experts on equal pay in the UK
4. Juliette Casey – another advocate, involved in the Glasgow GMF, based in Scotland
The council has already agreed to abandon some of its initial GMF defences – and the hearing has been adjourned for the moment.
Discussions have taken place with the council regarding a negotiated settlement to the Fife claims – no firm answer as yet - but if the council does not come to its senses, then the cases will proceed to a conclusion.
Monday, 4 May 2009
The feedback from the hearing has been very positive and Stefan Cross Solicitors fielded a highly experienced legal team:
1. Carol Fox – Head of Litigation for Stefan Cross Solicitors in Scotland
2. Paul Clark – a solicitor with Stefan Cross who has been involved with the Glasgow cases from Day 1
3. Daphne Romney, QC – one of the leading equal pay barristers in the UK
4. Juliette Casey – another talented advocate, based in Scotland
The main Stefan Cross witnesses – low paid women workers with the city council – all gave very powerful evidence to confirm that big bonus payments were never offered to groups of female workers.
The big pay gap between male and female jobs is not in dispute – and it is for the council to show how that difference in pay can be justified.
We have offered to discuss a negotiated settlement with the council – but if that doesn’t come about, the cases will proceed as planned.
We will let people know – as soon as there are any further developments.
Friday, 1 May 2009
South Lanarkshire and Equal Pay
I attach a recent article on South Lanarkshire and Equal Pay from the Action 4 Equality Scotland blog site.
As you know, equal pay is a big issue for thousands of council workers in South Lanarkshire, not least because their employer has dealt with Single Status and Equal Pay in a unique way - one that is completely different to every other council in Scotland.
We are in the process of arranging a further round of meetings in South Lanarkshire to update the many clients that we currently represent. We plan to invite local MSPs along to these meetings to hear what local people have to say.
We are also encouraging local council workers to enter into a dialogue with their elected politicians – because our feedback is that many MSPs do not fully appreciate what South Lanarkshire Council has done through its local implementation of the 1999 Single Status Agreement.
If you would like to make a brief comment on the issue, I would be happy to publish this on the blog site – as it may help people decide which local MSPs to contact regarding equal pay.
By way of background information, I also enclose a copy of the written evidence submitted by Action 4 Equality Scotland to the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee.
If you want to make a point about equal pay, you can contact either your constituency MSP – if you live in that MSP’s constituency – or you can contact one of the Regional MSPs whose remit covers the whole of the South Lanarkshire Council area.
The choice of which MSP to approach is yours – Constituency and Regional MSPs have the same standing.
We are sending all MSPs a copy of the article from the blog site dated 17 April 2009 – and we will offer to put any brief comments that MSPs’ might wish to make up on the blog site - as that may help people to decide which MSP to approach.
SNP - 5
Linda Fabiani – Linda.Fabiani.email@example.com
Jamie Hepburn - Jamie.Hepburn.firstname.lastname@example.org
Christina McKelvie – Christina.McKelvie.email@example.com
Alex Neil - Alex.Neil.firstname.lastname@example.org
John Wilson – John.Wilson.email@example.com
Lib Dems - 1
Hugh O’Donnell – Hugh.O’Donnell.firstname.lastname@example.org
Conservatives - 1
Margaret Mitchell – Margaret.Mitchell.email@example.com
Constituency MSPs – 5 (all from the Labour party)
East Kilbride: Andy Kerr – Andy.Kerr.firstname.lastname@example.org
Rutherglen: James Kelly – James.Kelly.email@example.com
Hamilton South: Tom McCabe – Tom.McCabe.firstname.lastname@example.org
Hamilton North: Michael McMahon – Michael.McMahon.email@example.com
Let us know how you get on – feedback is always useful.
If you want a word or further advice, contact Mark Irvine at: firstname.lastname@example.org