A recent inquiry has cast a spotlight on Perth and Kinross Council’s commitment to public transparency, revealing that the local authority was the sole outlier among five neighbouring councils in its refusal to fully disclose information regarding the procurement costs of wheelie bins. This incident adds to a growing list of concerns surrounding the council’s handling of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and its overall record-keeping practices, prompting questions about accountability and public access to vital local government data.
The specific FOI request sought details on the unit cost of wheelie bins acquired by the council and whether these costs escalated when purchased in smaller batches for replacement purposes. While Angus, Fife, Stirling, and Dundee councils readily provided the requested figures, Perth and Kinross Council declined, asserting that full disclosure would “prejudice substantially the commercial interests of both the council and the company submitting the successful tender.” A Pattern of Non-Disclosure and Investigation
This latest refusal comes at a time when Perth and Kinross Council is already under intense scrutiny. Earlier this month, the Scottish Information Commissioner launched a formal investigation into the council over the unrecorded decision to discontinue a director-level position, valued at £128,000 per annum. The council claimed that all discussions leading to this significant organisational change were conducted verbally with chief executive Thomas Glen, leaving no paper trail or digital records. The Commissioner branded this explanation as “astonishing” and openly questioned whether the council might be intentionally sidestepping public accountability through a lack of documentation.
The issue of local government transparency was further highlighted in Holyrood, where the editor of a prominent publication raised these very concerns during a debate on proposed reforms to Freedom of Information legislation in Scotland. This ongoing discussion underscores the importance of robust FOI processes for effective democratic oversight.
Adding to its transparency challenges, the council had previously issued an apology earlier in the year for initially refusing to disclose a relocation fee paid for the same £128,000 director role. The council first argued that revealing this figure was not in the public interest, only to reverse its stance and release the information at a later date, following external pressure. Concerns Over Record Keeping and Public Trust
The council’s approach to information management has also drawn criticism in other sensitive areas. Just last week, it was reported that Perth and Kinross Council opted not to release records of meetings held with immigration officials concerning asylum seekers. The justification provided was that publishing these weekly discussions with the Home Office could potentially “prejudice the prevention or detection of crime,” a broad claim that has raised eyebrows among advocates for transparency.
Statistical data from the previous year further paints a worrying picture: Perth and Kinross Council responded fully to less than one-third of all Freedom of Information requests submitted. While a data officer defended this performance, suggesting that the mere redaction of a phone number could technically reduce a response from ‘full’ to ‘partial,’ and stated she couldn’t recall instances where the council genuinely failed to hold expected information, these explanations have done little to quell public and media concerns. The continuous pattern of withheld or partially disclosed information raises fundamental questions about the local authority’s commitment to openness and its relationship with the citizens it serves in Perth and Kinross.
For residents, ensuring transparent governance at their local council, located prominently near the River Tay in Perth, is paramount. Access to information about local government operations, from bin procurement to high-level staffing decisions, is crucial for fostering public trust and enabling informed civic participation. As the debate around FOI reform continues in Scotland, the experiences within Perth and Kinross serve as a timely reminder of the tangible impact these policies have on local communities and their right to know how public funds are being spent and decisions are being made within the corridors of the local council offices at 2 High Street.
The specific FOI request sought details on the unit cost of wheelie bins acquired by the council and whether these costs escalated when purchased in smaller batches for replacement purposes. While Angus, Fife, Stirling, and Dundee councils readily provided the requested figures, Perth and Kinross Council declined, asserting that full disclosure would “prejudice substantially the commercial interests of both the council and the company submitting the successful tender.” A Pattern of Non-Disclosure and Investigation
This latest refusal comes at a time when Perth and Kinross Council is already under intense scrutiny. Earlier this month, the Scottish Information Commissioner launched a formal investigation into the council over the unrecorded decision to discontinue a director-level position, valued at £128,000 per annum. The council claimed that all discussions leading to this significant organisational change were conducted verbally with chief executive Thomas Glen, leaving no paper trail or digital records. The Commissioner branded this explanation as “astonishing” and openly questioned whether the council might be intentionally sidestepping public accountability through a lack of documentation.
The issue of local government transparency was further highlighted in Holyrood, where the editor of a prominent publication raised these very concerns during a debate on proposed reforms to Freedom of Information legislation in Scotland. This ongoing discussion underscores the importance of robust FOI processes for effective democratic oversight.
Adding to its transparency challenges, the council had previously issued an apology earlier in the year for initially refusing to disclose a relocation fee paid for the same £128,000 director role. The council first argued that revealing this figure was not in the public interest, only to reverse its stance and release the information at a later date, following external pressure. Concerns Over Record Keeping and Public Trust
The council’s approach to information management has also drawn criticism in other sensitive areas. Just last week, it was reported that Perth and Kinross Council opted not to release records of meetings held with immigration officials concerning asylum seekers. The justification provided was that publishing these weekly discussions with the Home Office could potentially “prejudice the prevention or detection of crime,” a broad claim that has raised eyebrows among advocates for transparency.
Statistical data from the previous year further paints a worrying picture: Perth and Kinross Council responded fully to less than one-third of all Freedom of Information requests submitted. While a data officer defended this performance, suggesting that the mere redaction of a phone number could technically reduce a response from ‘full’ to ‘partial,’ and stated she couldn’t recall instances where the council genuinely failed to hold expected information, these explanations have done little to quell public and media concerns. The continuous pattern of withheld or partially disclosed information raises fundamental questions about the local authority’s commitment to openness and its relationship with the citizens it serves in Perth and Kinross.
For residents, ensuring transparent governance at their local council, located prominently near the River Tay in Perth, is paramount. Access to information about local government operations, from bin procurement to high-level staffing decisions, is crucial for fostering public trust and enabling informed civic participation. As the debate around FOI reform continues in Scotland, the experiences within Perth and Kinross serve as a timely reminder of the tangible impact these policies have on local communities and their right to know how public funds are being spent and decisions are being made within the corridors of the local council offices at 2 High Street.