THERE are several acres of East Lothian which are very dear to me, so I make no apology for returning to the vexed issue of Musselburgh Racecourse and its future.
It is my firm belief that due to political machinations that border on the insane, the course is facing an existential threat as the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), which is frankly sick and tired of what has happened with the governance of the course, may well withdraw its licence to race, reducing Musselburgh to the status of a flapping track if anyone decided to continue racing there.
As I have previously reported, Musselburgh has been the subject of internal conflict for years between East Lothian Council (ELC) and the Lothian Racing Syndicate (LRS) of racing professionals who jointly run the course, though the actual day-to-day management is in the hands of the highly respected Bill Farnsworth and his team.
The problem is caused by one simple fact: the racecourse lies on Musselburgh’s Common Good land but the buildings on it are all owned by ELC which makes the Council its overall controller.
Four councillors appointed by East Lothian and three members of the LRS together form the Musselburgh Joint Racing Committee (MJRC) which holds the licence for the course.
The four councillors are Willie Innes, Andy Forrest and Fiona O’Donnell (all Labour) and Conservative member Kate Mackie.
The SNP group of six councillors is not represented, nor is the fact that the Musselburgh area elected two SNP members against one Labour and one Tory reflected on the MJRC. That’s what happens when you get an alleged minority Labour administration propped up by the Tories – and it’s a Lab-Con coalition actually, and people should stop telling lies otherwise.
Even before those four got appointed last May, the conflict had been going on between councillors and LRS behind the scenes for years, but erupted into public view last year when the course nearly lost its licence.
On June 28 last year, Nick Rust of the BHA wrote to council leader Innes saying that if MJRC was unable to ensure the racecourse is governed effectively it would cast serious doubt on its suitability to hold a licence. Under pressure, Innes agreed to an independent review of the governance which was carried out by law firm Pinsent Masons.
Their report made three recommendations, all of which seem sensible on the face of it.
The one that East Lothian have chosen is to make the racecourse an "associate committee" of the Council, but they could also have gone for an Arms Length External Organisation or put the management of the course out to tender.
The latter two options would have meant councillors not being able to run things the way they like, so East Lothian Council decided to go for Associate Committee status. They did so without any consultation with LRS members and also not going through MJRC – I know, I have checked – and that stinks, frankly.
As I reported last week, the Pinsent Masons report states that ELC has admitted that it doesn’t know how to run a racecourse and doesn’t have the skills to do so, and surely that is to be expected – councils should be facilitators, not hands-on managers.
Yet at the next full council meeting on February 27, the Lab-Con coalition will use its majority to force through the changes which, among other things, will make racecourse staff council employees at a time when councils everywhere are shedding staff by the hundreds.
An Associate Committee has to have councillors in the majority, so that would actually continue and not address the problem which has caused the previous lack of proper governance – amateur council members telling professionals what to do.
If the council is silly enough to push through the Associate Committee option, I can see this all ending up in the courts. For a start, the BHA are unlikely to agree to it and the Syndicate members will never do so, which means East Lothian will have to go to the Court of Session to get permission to annul all the previous arrangements – a very, very expensive process.
I understand that the first-most people at Musselburgh knew what was going on was when Councillor Fiona O’Donnell and council official Carlo Grilli met racecourse staff last Tuesday.
I have it on very good authority that the staff are extremely concerned and think it is in the best interests of the racecourse.
There are also some serious questions to be asked, and if it takes a Freedom of Information request then so be it.
For instance, is it true that in ELC’s annual accounts, the racecourse is described as a subsidiary? If so, when did that change happen?
Associate committees and council departments don’t pay rent to councils, so will the racecourse have to be repaid its £80,000 annual rent?
Apparently ELC says the change is all temporary. If so, for how long and why so rushed when the racecourse licence doesn’t expire until April and the BHA have made it clear that an extension is available?
Is it not just the case that the Lab-Con coalition are making a blatant power grab with an appalling abuse of power in the way they are treating hard working and dedicated staff?
Why are Labour councillors imposing these changes to people’s employment status without real consultation? Is that what Labour does now? Oh, and which trade union was consulted?
And what about the course’s true owners – the people of Musselburgh. Have they been consulted?
At a time of continued austerity and cutbacks, in what parallel universe does it make sense for a local authority to take on the further burden and responsibility of running a complex and challenging sports and leisure business?
Why not look at other ownership options such as a Community Asset transfer or a Trust? More importantly, has anyone at ELC considered the possible serious repercussions for the wider Scottish racing industry?
I think we should be told.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here