A meeting of Luton Council’s Scrutiny Board convened to discuss the unloved Luton-Dunstable Busway was described by councillors present as a farce. Senior managers in charge of the £90M project attended to answer questions from councillors but almost no new information emerged.

Fuming Liberal Democrat leader, councillor David Franks, said:

“The 31st August meeting was a complete farce and made a mockery of the whole scrutiny process. The Board’s request for the Busway report could not have been more clear. The minutes record that what was asked for was ‘a report with sufficient information for the Board to establish whether the project was proceeding on time and on budget’. We received nothing of the kind.”

“The written report gave no useful information and the managers present did not answer any of the serious questions which were asked. Given the closeness of these managers to the project it seems unlikely they did not know the answers.”

“I asked what was their current estimate of the construction costs to completion and they said they did not have that information with them. Of course it makes me suspicious. Is this project heading for a huge overspend and they are afraid to admit it?”

Liberal Democrat councillors have persuaded Luton Council’s Scrutiny Board that the consequences for Luton taxpayers of the Luton – Dunstable Busway project costs running out of control are so serious that they should monitor its progress carefully.

“Major capital projects at Luton Borough Council usually end up costing more than originally planned”, says Liberal Democrat leader David Franks.

“When you start with a budget as massive as £90 Million even a 10% budget over-run would cause very serious problems. It is vital somebody keeps a close eye on this scheme to see whether it is progressing on time and on budget.”

“The guided part of the route has already been reduced to save costs and so much of the way the buses will run on ordinary roads. With much of the claimed benefit being dubbed ‘doubtful’ we really need to see what Luton is going to get and how much it is costing.”

On 22nd August Luton Council’s Labour Executive is due to take a decision “To Further Rationalise & Restructure Local Authority Elder Persons’ Homes” and Liberal Democrats asked at last Tuesday’s Council meeting for assurances this does not mean more closures of Council run residential homes.

Despite repeated questioning from Liberal Democrat leader, Councillor David Franks, the Labour Councillor responsible for old peoples’ care could not be budged from her refusal to give any guarantees.

“I really hope this is not leading to another round of the anxiety, concern and uncertainty which surrounded Labour’s closure of Sherd Lodge and The Mount,” said David Franks. “I’ve not met anybody who believed those so called consultation exercises were real; most thought they were a bit of window dressing with the decisions already taken beforehand.”

“If they are planning residential home closures then they should come clean and own up, the sooner the better. It is just not fair that they create these long periods of uncertainty. It causes totally unnecessary pain and anguish for all those involved.”

A report considered by the Labour executive committee of Luton Council on Monday 11th July has revealed that Central Bedfordshire Council is planning to set aside £250,000 a year in future budgets for maintenance of the Luton – Dunstable Busway. Luton’s Labour Council has already included £307,000 a year from 2013 onwards in its financial plan taking the total figure to £557,000 a year.

“For years Labour Councillors have told us that once it was completed the Busway would be self financing,” says Liberal Democrat leader David Franks. “There have been regular claims that future costs would be covered by the fees the bus companies paid to use it. We never believed that and always thought it would be a constant drain on Luton’s Council Tax payers.”

“This is a Council Tax funded £557,000 a year maintenance cost for a Busway that almost nobody wants. It’s an outrage.”

At the meeting of Luton Council on 19th July Liberal Democrat councillors tried to force a review of a vital service plan which will define the way the Council inspects food premises across the town for the next 12 months. But their proposed amendments were rejected by the Labour run Council and what Liberal Democrats described as an unsafe plan was approved by the Labour majority.

“I am sure most food establishments operate to very high standards of hygiene and produce & sell perfectly safe high quality food to satisfied customers,” says Liberal Democrat leader David Franks. “Sadly not all achieve the required standards.”

“Just look around the town, you cannot avoid seeing the explosion in numbers of fast food shops and it’s the Council’s job to make sure they all live up to the high standards of the best. Yet this service plan says fewer food premises are to be inspected.”

“Horrible, food hygiene related health problems like e-coli are on the increase. People die of e-coli. Yet Luton’s Labour Council plans to cut back on food premises inspections at a time when risks are increasing and the numbers of fast food outlets is rapidly increasing.”

“Labour members should be ashamed of themselves for approving a so called ‘service plan’ which actually states the Council will not meet its statutory obligations.”

“The service plan says 30% of medium high risk food businesses due a hygiene intervention will not get one. 414 food premises are due an inspection so 124 of them will not be inspected.”

“The service plan even says the Food Standards Agency insists microbiological examination & analysis of food, including inspection for and identification of insects, is a priority enforcement tool. The so called Service Plan also says there will be a 30% reduction in microbiological examinations & analysis.”

“The Labour Council has the bare faced cheek to actually force through Council a Food Law Enforcement Service Plan which puts Luton residents at greater risk of serious food related illness and states perfectly clearly the Council will not even meet its statutory obligations.”