Government Blocks Release of Information on Devolution for Kent and Medway
Minster told former leader of Kent County Council "nothing more to add" in terse exchange on plans
If you were wondering just what led the government to exclude Kent County Council and Medway Council from its devolution fast track, stand by to be disappointed.
The government says it would not be in the public interest to release information about its controversial devolution plans, which could see some kind of elected mayor for Kent and are likely to impact on thousands of council employees.
The Ministry of Local Government has blocked our request made under the Freedom of Information Act, citing a public interest exemption.
The plans for devolution and a reorganisation of local government are set to scrap Kent County Council and replace it with an as-yet unknown number of unitary authorities. It has been cited as one of the most radical shake-ups in local government in a generation.
Despite the significance and repercussions of devolution, it is not known what is driving the government’s devolution agenda.
The ministry said disclosure of documents would “unacceptably erode” the safe space needed by politicians to consider the devolution policy and would be liable to cause a "chilling effect".
It has been argued that while it holds relevant information about the shake-up, releasing it now would inhibit the government from deliberating on the devolution policy and local government reorganisation.
It has refused to put the information in the public domain on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest.
It invoked an exemption under the Act that permits public bodies to withhold information because the government is still considering the policy in question. Section 35 is often deployed by the government and is known as the ‘catch-all’ exemption.
Among the material we asked to be disclosed were the specific concerns the government had about population disparities in Kent and the evidence considered by minister Jim McMahon and civil servants.
We also asked if a cost-benefit analysis had been considered in the context of the likely costs of re-organisation caused by large scale redundancies.
In its reply, the ministry said the information on these issues was deemed exempt from disclosure as it related to the formulation of government policy.
It acknowledged that where the exemption was used, public bodies still had to weigh the public interest arguments. On this occasion, it said those were not greater than the grounds for withholding it.
Its formal response stated: “There is always a degree of benefit in making information held by public authorities available, as it increases public participation in decision making and aids the transparency and accountability of government. The department recognises this public interest allows for the scrutiny of government policy and decision-making processes, in particular with regard to increasing public understanding of this subject.”
It continued:
“However, the department must also consider the public interest which lies in maintaining a ‘safe space’ in which policy officials and ministers are able to formulate policy, ideas and reach decisions away from external interference and distraction.”
As a result, it had decided that the information we requested related to a live policy and disclosure of this information would unacceptably erode the aforementioned "safe space" and would be liable to cause a "chilling effect".
“Officials and ministers must feel able to consider the information and advice before them and be able to reach objective, fully informed decisions without impediment and free from distraction that such information will prematurely be made public.”
ANALYSIS
So, what is the counterargument and the case for disclosure?
For councils having to calibrate and second guess what the government’s intentions are, such information could be considered to be fairly significant. Engaging the public in the case for and against devolution won’t be enhanced by secrecy and will arguably harm the government’s case.
Council tax payers will certainly want to hear if their bills will go up while businesses will be keen to understand if their rates are to rise.
KCC’s previous Conservative administration had complained bitterly about the exclusion of Kent and Medway from a group of councils who would be placed on a priority “fast track” for devolution.
Kent and Medway council initially sought a devolution deal that would create a combined authority with an elected mayor, similar to other areas like Manchester and the West Midlands.
But former Tory leader Roger Gough said he had still not received an explanation as to why Kent had been excluded from that list in the run-up to the county council election, labelling it as “totally incomprehensible and confusing.”
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government did release a copy of two letters it had sent to Mr Gough in which the minister Jim McMahon said “there was nothing further to add” to previous exchanges on the matter.
There are growing concerns about the timetable for devolution and the reorganisation of councils in Kent. In particular, there are fears the process is being rushed through with councils given until November to come up with their proposals.