A row about council secrecy is overshadowing a £6 million specialist housing scheme in Hove.
Opposition councillors said that they were prevented from properly scrutinising the project because of a cover up of the relevant numbers in an official report.
Members of two political groups on Brighton and Hove City Council called in a decision to grant a 125-year lease for Brickfields – a new-build on the site of Knoll House – to the not-for-profit housing and care provider Southdown.
But key figures were kept not just from the public but also from the Greens and the Brighton and Hove Independents, echoing concerns raised in a report on the i360 financial fiasco.
The decision to grant the lease to Southdown was debated at a special meeting of the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee at hove Town hall on Tuesday 2 June.
Outside the meeting, opposition councillors questioned the decision to restrict papers for the private section of the meeting, with redactions concealing the important financial aspects.
Green councillor Ollie Sykes represented the 11 councillors who called in the decision. He is not a member of the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee and said that he had no access to the non-public information.
Councillor Sykes asked why, in the early stages, four specialist providers were interested but only one, Southdown, ended up in the running for the project.
He said that the original business case in 2021 said that the council’s housing team could manage the building repairs and maintenance at Brickfields which is on a council estate next to sheltered housing.
Councillor Sykes said: “I had access to no non-public info which I consider an unnecessary and over-defensive position from the administration.
“All councillors have signed the code of conduct and are aware of the risk of bringing the authority into disrepute and undermining commercial processes.
“My role there was to bring issues to the attention of the scrutiny committee – and (as a councillor) I had to do this with one hand tied behind my back.
“That hindered transparency and restricted open council governance.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks, who is a member of the committee, asked why the non-public papers – known as the “part two” papers – had been redacted.
Councillor Shanks asked if members would be given more information when the committee went into closed session because the redactions meant that members did not have the information that they needed to carry out their job.
Outside the meeting she said: “My concern was that we might be spending more than if it came ‘in house’ but (it was) impossible to see that.”
Conservative leader Alistair McNair was equally frustrated, having been told that the redaction process was put in place as a change of practice when the council switched to the cabinet system two years ago.
Councillor McNair was told that the council had been subject to leaks so there was a resistance to sharing information more widely than necessary.
He said: “Because cabinet makes the decisions, it is felt only they should be privy to the whole financial picture.
“But it can be argued this does not allow proper scrutiny, especially as the council is borrowing money to go ahead with the scheme.”
The Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey said that the council was committed to ensuring that all members could scrutinise decisions while following the legal framework.
She said that all the relevant reports were provided with “certain limited sections” receiving “necessary” redactions of commercially sensitive and financial material in line with schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Councillor Sankey said: “I do find it interesting that the Green Party complains so frequently about the council complying with its legal obligations.
“And given their track record – which includes proposing an amendment to our budget this year, which would have made it unlawful, as well as squandering millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on the i360 – residents should probably take their views on the financing of our excellent Brickfields development with a pinch of salt.
“Labour is focused on delivering high-quality services on the things that matter – in this case, an outstanding supported living development for people with disabilities so that residents can live independently and with dignity.”
An independent report on the i360 said that the council had kept the business case secret from public scrutiny when it decided to lend £36 million to the developer Marks Barfield, citing commercial confidentiality.
It prevented most councillors and the wider public from being able to see how council tax payers’ money was being placed at risk.
As a result, there was a lack of independent scrutiny as the project developed a momentum fuelled by “optimism bias” and important chances were missed to make better decisions
As far as the Brickfields scrutiny is concerned, questions remain about whether the council interpreted the law correctly.
Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 provides for exemptions from disclosure to councillors during the decision-making process.
But regulation 17 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 usually requires disclosure, even of financial information that would normally be exempt.
This is in addition to the common law principle which gives all councillors the right to access information held by their council when it is reasonably necessary to enable them to perform their duties.
Bi of a smell about this bit of business.
Vote them down on every matter until they change. Shout about it at every election until they change. If other members of the council believe there is illegal practice they have a DUTY to report it to central government AND the police and to let the public know.. Stop playing nice…
See, if they genuinely thought that there was unlawful practice, I’m certain they would. They have no loyally to Labour, after all. The fact they have not suggests they do not think that, right?
This article highlights something that goes beyond a single procurement decision. The practical effect of the current redaction regime is that meaningful scrutiny of executive decisions is available only to Labour councillors. Opposition members, whether Green, Conservative or Independent, are being asked to scrutinise decisions with, as Councillor Sykes put it, one hand tied behind their back.
The justification that redactions are necessary because of leaks is concerning. It amounts to saying that elected members cannot be trusted with information relevant to their scrutiny role unless they are members of the governing party. That is not how democratic accountability is supposed to work.
The i360 comparison made in this article is apt. When financial scrutiny is restricted and information is withheld from those whose job it is to ask difficult questions, poor decisions go unchallenged. Brickfields may well be an entirely sound decision, but without access to the numbers, nobody outside the Labour group can say so with confidence.
Governance, scrutiny, transparency and accountability are vital. The Cabinet system, as it is operating in Brighton and Hove, seems to be moving us in the wrong direction on these issues.