WHILE it would be lax of the council not to try and do everything in its power to be financially prudent some might argue their plans to enlist private firms to carry out roles which they are responsible for is perhaps a step too far.
Yesterday we reported that the council planned to approach Princes Street traders to try and persuade them to detail staff to mount litter patrols. While it could be argued that shops have a vested interest in ensuring a clean city centre is it their
responsibility to do anything other than dispose of their own waste in an responsible fashion?
They pay rates to the council and should be entitled among other things to see adequate provision made for the collection of litter. If there are not enough bins in areas like Princes Street and the gardens, and they are not emptied on a regular enough basis, surely that is the responsibility of the council to up its efforts. Traders cannot be held responsible for the untidy habits of others.
Today we see the council seeking to enlist the help of supermarkets to fill in for essential services to the elderly which they axed as part of their budget cuts. They want the retail giants to fill in the gap of delivering groceries to those too infirm to go to the shops on their own.
While some might argue there is a sales opportunity for supermarkets, many of whom already operate home shopping delivery schemes, the reality is that most of these are online orders. It is doubtful, considering the low computer ownership and usage of senior citizens, whether a practical method of the placing orders could be found – even if the supermarkets were willing to take on the task.
Again it could be argued that such a service is not the responsibility of firms and should the council be of the opinion it was a valuable service to vulnerable people why did they axe it in the first place? Savings could surely have been made elsewhere?
On the other hand the council has once again come under fire today, being accused by the pub and restaurant licensed trade of wasting money through plans to appoint eight licensing enforcers at a cost of almost £300,000 – more than double the number that cities such as Glasgow plan to appoint to meet statutory requirements.
Coming so soon after announcing plans to raise outdoor dining and drinking licences by up to 700 per cent has it suddenly become clear how the council is seeking to finance these posts – by making the private sector pay for it?
The full article contains 452 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
