I AM replying to stories about the Covered Market crisis. What crisis?

At the council meeting on November 25, I presented a cross-party motion to council about the Covered Market.

My fellow presenters were Mary Clarkson and Elise Benjamin; we are part of a Scrutiny Panel examining the Covered Market. In particular we have looked at the relationship between the council and the traders and how this might be improved.

It was clear to us that there is a significant lack of trust between the two parties and that what should be a productive partnership has become more a succession of confrontations in which each side blames the other. As a result the clear management that is needed has often been missing.

Our motion welcomed the Retail Group’s report and called on the Executive Board to respond positively to its proposals. Without blaming either individuals or groups, we also asked the council to acknowledge its own responsibility for some of the problems that have arisen.

Oxford Mail:

  • The Covered Market has been under the spotlight recently after some stores have closed and traders argue rents are too high

The Labour Group’s response to our motion was an amendment removing all criticism of the council. They argued that, if there was a crisis, the fault did not lie with them but, by implication, with the traders. In the ensuing vote, with one honourable exception, they followed their leader, supporting an amendment that effectively emasculated the motion.

I have two serious concerns. The first is that, when they hear what happened, many traders will feel that, once again, the council is letting them down and will be reluctant to engage with them. The second is that the role of Scrutiny, as a non-party mechanism for calling the administration to account, is being undermined.

Labour are happy to support the principle of scrutiny provided it doesn’t criticise their performance.

JIM CAMPBELL, City Councillor, St Margaret’s Ward