Thanet Council’s Freedom of Information Shenanigans

2015 marked the 10^th anniversary of the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act. Heralded as a major extension of democracy, the Act has enabled members of the public and journalists to hold to account public bodies such as government departments, local councils, schools, the NHS, the Police and the managers and politicians who run these organisations.

In its 10 years of operation the Act has been used to expose countless instances of injustice, maladministration and  downright criminality the most notable  being the  MPs expenses scandal. Had it not been for the  FOI  Act we would never have known about how hundreds of MPs were maxing out their expenses and allowances to top up their already generous salaries and pensions in a state funded  orgy of naked greed. Thankfully once exposed their reputations were deservedly trashed. Many of these grasping carpet baggers were removed from the Lords or Commons and some, but not enough, were imprisoned for taking a ride too far on the Westminster gravy-train. Yet instead of celebrating the 10^th anniversary of the FOI Act and proudly proclaiming its effectiveness in holding public intuitions and politicians to account, the Government instead unveiled plans to weaken this important democratic tool.

In the autumn of 2015 it set up the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information to review the workings of the FOI Act. Members of the Commission include several people who have made criticism of the FOI Act and who appear to be unfriendly towards the democratic principles of freedom of information. The consultation exercise being carried out by the Commission also appears to be skewed in favour of undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act.  Amongst other things, the Commission is canvassing opinion on whether to charge fees for making FOI requests and appeals, whether to exempt  internal  briefings and discussions of public bodies from the Act altogether, and whether to allow public bodies to impose much lower cost/ hours  thresholds for rejecting FOI requests.

Sadly, Thanet Council is one of those organisations which has joined in the anti-democratic hullabaloo to undermine and weaken the  FOI Act. In a response to the Commission’s call for evidence, TDC has shamefully proposed the introduction of a £25 charge for each FOI request made to the Council. It has also proposed the  tightening up of the hours and cost rule to enable the rejection of a large number of  FOI requests, and changing the rules to make  it easier to reject what TDC judges to be spurious/ vexatious FOI requests. You can see TDCs submission here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/487269/Responses_R_-_Z.pdf

I accept that processing FOI requests is time consuming and costly. I also accept that TDC receives its share of vexatious/ spurious FOIs. However the overwhelming majority of FOI requests are reasonable and legitimate. Some FOI requests also serve the extremely important democratic purpose of exposing the incompetence of TDC’s politicians and senior officers, breaking down their culture of secrecy and holding them to account.  For example, the  FOIs I have submitted on Pleasurama, TransEuropa Ferries and the East Kent Opportunities development at the New Haine Road   revealed extensive mismanagement,  cover-ups, abuse of power and bad practice  which former Labour Leaders and top council officers would have preferred to have remained hidden from public view. Indeed former Labour Leader Clive Hart actually cited my use of FOI requests as one of the reasons why he resigned  as Council Leader in 2014 (see http://thanetgreencouncillor.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/ian-driver-statement-re-clive-harts.html )

Most  recently an FOI request from Margate-based campaigner, Louise Oldfield,  has revealed serious mismanagement of the troubled Margate Dreamland Amusement Park project. It’s no exaggeration to say that our FOI laws are a vital component of a modern democracy and should actually be strengthened and extended rather than weakened and restricted as TDC has argued in its submission to the Commission. 

I must confess to being confused as to why TDC has become so hostile towards FOI requests. Its own Constitution makes 18 separate commitments to being open, transparent  and accountable to the people of Thanet. TDCs own Independent Standards Advisers also suggested  that one of the ways of restoring the council’s tarnished reputation and rebuilding confidence in its politicians was “for citizens to be able to access information held by the Council they have elected”. Yet TDC bosses appear,  on the basis of their submission to the FOI Commission, to be hell bent on reducing and limiting openness and transparency and making it even more difficult, especially for those on low income, to get information from their council.

It would also appear that efforts have been made by TDC to exclude elected councillors from having any involvement in formulating its response to the FOI Commission. The Commission invited all UK public bodies to comment on the operation of FOI laws on 9^th October 2015. The consultation deadline was 20^th November 2015. I have checked the minutes of all TDC meetings between these dates and can find no reference to councillors being asked for their views on this important consultation. I can only assume therefore that important recommendations about the public’s right of access to TDCs  information have been decided in secret, presumably by a small cabal of top officers and cabinet members, who may have vested interests in avoiding public scrutiny.  This is simply unacceptable and undemocratic – all councillors should have had the opportunity to express their views on this very important matter.

But most mysterious of all, I was surprised by the fact that TDCs submission to the Commission appears to have been at odds with what I understand to be its ruling party’s (UKIP)  policy on FOI. According to what I have been able to find out “UKIP supports the right for the British people to find out more from government about how decisions are made, information the government keeps on government business and where the government spends our money. The Freedom of Information Act is an invaluable tool to empower the British people”. (link http://www.confirmordeny.org.uk/?p=117 ) UKIP MP Douglas Carswell also had published in the Daily Mail in July 2015 a long article supporting the FOI Act and opposing efforts by the government and  the Freedom of Information Commission to weaken and undermine it (link  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3166828/This-law-allowed-expose-dodgy-MPs-paedophiles-nuclear-risk-RAF-air-raids-scroungers-s-no-wonder-Tories-want-ban-Freedom-Information-writes-DOUGLAS-CARSWELL-MP.html)

It seems strange to me that a UKIP controlled council would support a submission to the FOI Commission which is at odds with UKIPs  policy on this important matter. Unless of course UKIP policy has changed;  Thanet UKIP councilors are unaware of their party’s policy on this matter; or more worryingly  the submission to the Commission was prepared and submitted by officers without the knowledge and approval of TDCs ruling political group. If the latter is the case then the Leader of the Council has no option but to contact the Commission and withdraw the submission and speak to the officers concerned. I have written to TDCs Leader Chris Wells and Deputy Leader Lin Fairbrass to see if they can throw any light on this matter.

Although this is a long and complex posting surely the bottom line must be that all public bodies must be accountable to the people they work for, especially a public body like Thanet Council which has long history of corruption, incompetence, secrecy, and maladministration. Yet here we have  the appalling spectacle of  what most surely be one of the most disreputable councils in the UK lobbying  the FOI Commission for permission to become even less accountable, transparent and open than it  now is. The people who drafted this submission, have learnt nothing from recent events. They  should be utterly ashamed of themselves. And those politicians who approved this submission  should step aside for those with a stronger commitment to democracy