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.”
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.