Dangerous to whom? Councillors must be able to speak up on safety.
Responding to: Councillor censured for leaking confidential correspondence defends his action (Daily Record)
The Daily Record reports that East Ayrshire councillor James Adams has been censured by the Standards Commission for breaching the councillors' code on confidentiality and use of council resources, after forwarding council correspondence to a third party. He told the council he had warned senior officers about a fire risk 36 hours before a fire, and he has accepted that forwarding the email was wrong.
I'm not going to retry the case. The Commission made its findings and Cllr Adams has accepted them. But one line from the debate stuck with me. Councillor Linda Mabon said there is information that is "dangerous to be shared publicly."
I understand that some things have to stay private, like personal details or legal matters. But I'd ask a simple question: dangerous to whom? When a councillor raises a fire risk or an unsecured building, the public deserves to know that the warning was made and what was done about it. Residents shouldn't find out after the fact.
That's why I believe any councillor, elected by the people they serve, should have proper whistleblowing protection. A councillor must never feel they can't speak up about a safety risk. Confidentiality rules should protect individual's private information, not shield decisions from scrutiny.
I welcome the move towards better training for councillors, and I'd want it to set out clearly how to raise safety concerns and what support is there for doing so. The chief executive's advice that Police Scotland is the first call for buildings the council doesn't own is useful, but councillors and residents also need to know what happens next.
People bring worries about empty and unsafe buildings to their councillors because they trust them to act.
If you've reported a safety worry in your area, or just have a view on this, please leave a comment below.
