Residents should not have to hunt for the truth about their council

When an independent regulator, ombudsman, inspector, court or tribunal makes an important finding about Brighton and Hove City Council, residents should be able to find it easily.

At present, these findings may be scattered across different websites, reports and committee papers. There is no single place where people can see what an independent body has found, how the council responded and what actually changed as a result.

A proposal put forward by Councillor Samer Bagaeen and myself at full council on Thursday (1 October) was simple and straightforward: consider the formation of a readily accessible public register on the council website.

It would have covered all substantive findings, the council’s response to a finding and any action taken as a consequence.

This register is not intended to embarrass councillors or officers. A register should include positive findings, findings of no fault and examples of good practice, as well as cases where things went wrong. Openness must work both ways.

But when mistakes do happen, the important thing is what follows. Did the council learn from its mistakes? Were recommendations acted on? Was the problem fixed and were steps taken to stop it happening again?

And how can best practice in one directorate be used for positive learning to improve services in other directorates which may not be performing as well?

In 2011, Councillor Bella Sankey, then the director of policy at Liberty, wrote an article about the importance of the Freedom of Information Act, published in the New Statesman.

In this article she wrote: “Data held by authorities is our data. We have a right to know how our institutions are run and our money spent.”

It is disappointing that the Labour administration which she now leads does not appear to share this view and voted against our motion on transparency and accountability.

A single register would have made it easier to spot patterns across services, to see if recommendations remain outstanding and to show where changes have led to better services. That is what a confident, accountable organisation should want.

Instead, the administration voted against the proposed transparency motion, citing the additional workload it could create for officers. That concern does deserve to be considered, particularly when council teams are already managing significant demands.

However, with the use of AI, such a register need not create a large new burden for council officers. Used carefully, AI could scan published material, identify relevant findings, pull out recommendations and deadlines and prepare draft entries for the register.

People would remain in charge. Officers could check every entry for accuracy, context and data protection before anything was published.

Technology would handle the repetitive searching and sorting, while accountable decisions would stay with council staff.

A large additional burden would then only be placed on officers if the council is actually subject to an extremely high volume of rulings and judgments.

The council was recently served an enforcement notice by the Information Commissioner’s Office on Monday 21 September because of a lack of compliance with Freedom of Information (FoI) requests.

It is entirely possible that the creation of a register would reduce workloads as it is entirely conceivable that it would result in fewer FoI requests as important information about the council’s performance would be readily available in an easily accessible format.

Workload considerations should shape how the register is designed rather than be used to close down the principle altogether.

A proportionate system could focus on substantive findings, use existing published information and employ carefully governed technology to prepare draft entries for officer review. That would keep human oversight and accuracy at the centre while limiting unnecessary administration.

This should not be a party political issue. Independent scrutiny is most valuable when it is uncomfortable because that is when openness matters most.

Residents should not have to become detectives to understand findings made about their council. We should publish the information clearly, explain our response, learn from it and show what changed.

That is the kind of transparency people can trust and what an administration which believes in genuine accountability would welcome.

Our city deserves an administration which is open, transparent and accountable at all times. It is extremely disappointing that residents will have to wait until the Hillsborough Law comes into effect.

At that point, public bodies will have a legal duty of candour, making anything other than complete transparency and accountability, at all times, from all public bodies and public servants, illegal and also criminal.

Transparency and accountability will happen but, under the current administration, it looks like Brighton and Hove City Council will have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards achieving both.

Councillor Birgit Miller is an Independent member of Brighton and Hove City Council.