News / Water under the Bressay brig
COUNCILLORS have decided to finally “draw a line” under the Bressay Bridge affair, after being given assurances that a similar event was unlikely to happen in the future.
An attempt by councillor Jonathan Wills to reject a report before councillors and instead go back to the insurers to negotiate a settlement didn’t find a seconder.
However several councillors expressed their “unease” after hearing the conclusions of a report prepared by Brian Lawrie, the outgoing executive director for corporate services.
They were told that they had not been insured for an event such as this because the council cannot make an insurance claim against itself, a view confirmed again by an opinion sought from senior counsel, in May this year.
Responding to George Smith’s searching questions, council convener Malcolm Bell said: “All of us feel uneasy.”
Political leader Gary Robinson said he was keen to draw a line under the “sorry affair” insisting procedures had been changed.
North isles councillor Robert Henderson then came up with the memorable line that Bressay bridge affair was “water under the brig”, and added that the council needed to move on.
Earlier in February, the SIC settled out of court with Lerwick Port Authority and paid £4.8 million in damages incurred when the council was granted an interim interdict that aborted plans by the port authority to dredge the north entrance of the harbour.
The interim interdict was granted in August 2005 by Lord Hodge, but was recalled in January 2007 by Lord Reed as part of his judgment in favour of the port authority, a decision that made the original interdict wrongful.
In his report, jointly written with outgoing chief executive Alistair Buchan, Mr Lawrie said that had the case been heard before Lord Reed at the first hearing there may never have been an interim interdict.
“In simple terms Lord Reed’s opinion of the law was different to Lord Hodge’s,” Mr Lawrie wrote.
Councillors were then given assurances that thanks to changes in a number of procedures, the council was now well protected against anything similar happening again.
Back in 2005, invoking emergency powers only required one person (the convener or vice-convener) to be consulted, while today at least four people (the three or four ward members plus the political leader or committee chair) had to be involved.
Mr Lawrie admitted that he was “quite shocked” when during his research he came across the policy that just two people were needed to invoke emergency powers.
He added: “Mistakes were made, but that there is a difference between that and negligence.”
The report said: “I do not believe that anyone would disagree that, with the benefit of hindsight, different decisions could have been made throughout the process.
“However, these decisions were made in accordance with council policy and procedure, prevalent at the time, having sought advice from relevant professionals in their field.”
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider paying for membership to get additional features and services: -
- Remove non-local ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
