COUNCIL officials facing controversy over a £1 billion privatisation scheme have censored a report detailing public opinion of the proposals.
Edinburgh City Council com-missioned the report following advice from the spending watchdog, Audit Scotland, that it should engage with residents on its Alternative Business Model plans.
However, trade union Unison claims the council has now refused to reveal the findings under a Freedom of Information request as it would “prejudice its interests”.
Spokesman Peter Hunter described the actions as “utterly bizarre”, saying: “The council has refused the FoI request on the basis it would prejudice their interests, but the interests of the council are supposed to be interests of the people of Edinburgh. This is like having a general election and not telling anyone the results.
“The council has a legal obligation to consult stakeholders on the great service sell-off and there has been growing criticism of the veil of secrecy surrounding plans for privatisation. When we heard a rumour that the report was being suppressed we made a FoI request which has been refused. We’ll see what the courts make of that, but in the meantime we’re calling on councillors to make a stand.”
Referring to the controversy over plans to bring trams to the capital, Mr Hunter added: “The lesson of the tram fiasco is we need more scrutiny, not less.”
Pollsters IPSOS MORI carried out the consultation, which is believed to have involved focus groups of residents who were asked their opinions on the plans to privatise everything from refuse collection to housing.
However, Unison claims that, even if the results were revealed, the consultation was too late.
Mr Hunter added: “Unison and the council’s consultants have been calling for consultation for over a year, but secrecy is the name of the game in Waverly Court.”
A council spokesman: “Unison had been offered sight of the report on Tuesday so to say that they have been denied it is wrong. The reason for the timing is so that we can brief councillors and the unions equally on all the background papers, of which this is one.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article