DETAILS of a “lessons learned” workshop into an abortive waste management deal which cost Scottish Borders Council £2.4m when it was scrapped last year should not be disclosed to the public.

That is the ruling of the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) who has, after a six month investigation, concluded that the local authority was right not to divulge what was said during that post mortem.

“Disclosure would not be in the public interest,” says SIC Rosemary Agnew in a decision notice issued last week.

In February last year, the council scrapped its 24-year multi-million pound deal with New Earth Solutions (NES) for an advanced thermal treatment (ATT) plant at Easter Langlee near Galashiels.

The council later admitted it had already spent – and written off - £2.4m on the project, but offered an assurance to the Borders public that “lessons would be learned”.

In March this year, retired journalist Bill Chisholm used Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation to ask SBC to disclose what lessons had, indeed, been learned.

The council refused, telling Mr Chisholm: “The purpose of a lessons learned workshop is to critically analyse and examine the project to highlight any things that could or should have been done better, or differently, or not at all or, indeed, to identify other approaches which could have been taken.

“This process will only be effective and worthwhile if those participating are free to be open and honest and the information can be properly recorded for internal purposes on that basis.

“If it is likely that the contents of that debate or discussion will be released into the public domain, it would inevitably lead to those people being restrained in their communication and the workshop’s effectiveness being significantly reduced as a result.

“The public interest in securing this free and frank internal communication outweighs any public interest in this particular information being released.”

Having been supplied with all the documentation denied Mr Chisholm, Ms Agnew has now concurred with the council’s view.

She says it is important authorities are not deterred from reviewing their actions and decisions – especially in situations which have not had a positive outcome – so the knowledge and experience gained can be utilised in future projects.

And she determines that the disclosure of “frank discussions between officers about their own experiences” would not be in the public interest.

“It would not add to public understanding of the council’s assessment of overall performance, as the discussions focus on personal experiences” states Ms Agnew.

“Disclosure of this kind of information may well lead to the harm anticipated by the council as officers may not wish to contribute their thoughts so freely in future…even with their names redacted.”