Council privatisation scheme under scrutiny

The campaign surrounding Edinburgh City Council’s proposed Alternative Business Models (ABM), took a turn in favour of the protestors as the SNP declared that they would not back it.

The ABM policy, proposed by the council in December 2009, would see managerial and environmental services farmed out to private companies who would run them on the Council’s behalf. The Council have claimed that delegating its services to companies specifically catered to providing them will improve services to Edinburgh residents, increase efficiency and may also lead to the creation of new jobs. Union leaders and local protest groups however, have hit back.

UNISON, the public services trade union, claim that the introduction of profit-driven companies would lead to either a reduction in the quality of services, or mass job loss. They cite the example of Blackburn, considered a flagship by those in favour of ABM, where privatisation of council services led to the loss of over 1,000 jobs, and where the provision of care and support to the elderly and vulnerable has been labelled a ‘disgrace’.

ABM has also been met with a great deal of scepticism from within the council itself. Labour representatives have steadfastly maintained that they will not vote in favour of the policy, claiming there are alternative solutions. Councillor Andrew Burns, speaking at a public meeting on 23 October, said the council deficit could be met “if the right amount of political will was applied." Labour suggests an “in-house” approach to service provision, proposing that the shortfall could potentially be met by scrapping expensive and unpopular policies.

With regards to this, Mr Burns reported that ABM will save roughly £7 million a year, compared to £4 million using the “in-house” method, pointing out that the current council has just committed £15.3 million annually for the next 30 years to get the tram to St. Andrews Square.

He went on to criticise the council for trying to implement this policy so soon before elections, as, if the ABM proposition does go through, it will tie the council into contracts of at least seven to 12 years, over which the new session will have little power.

The Conservative Party, along with the Liberal Democrats, have pledged to support the policy when it comes to the vote, claiming that ABM was the only solution to the council deficit that “doesn’t draw money out of frontline services." The parties support the theory that privatisation will improve public services, claiming that companies will be held to a standard and will be strictly penalised if they do not meet it. However, critics argue that the Council lacks the necessary skills to manage companies of this nature, or to effectively enact punishment upon them, and cite the trams fiasco as an example.

The discussion of ABM has raised several other issues about the conduct of Edinburgh City Council, particularly regarding the way in which it consults the public. Campaigners, as well as opposing the policy of ABM, have noted how little the council has engaged the public on the issue and have even claimed that evidence against the policy has been deliberately suppressed.

The results of an Ipsos Mori opinion poll - which found that the vast majority of the Edinburgh populace distrusted privatisation - was never published, and knowledge of it has only come to light because of councillors leaking it to their constituents. Both the Labour and Conservative councillors present at the meeting on 23 October were quick to criticise the Council’s failings in this matter, whilst at the same time conceding that their own parties have been less than proactive regarding this same issue.

UNISON are currently investigating whether the lack of public consultation on this issue is, as some claim, an infringement upon the councils ‘statutory consultation laws’, in which case they claim they will fight ABM on a legal basis.

In a meeting held on 27 October councillors agreed to defer a final decision on the ABM scheme until 24 November.