By Carole Dennett
Our council claims to be open and transparent, but actions count far more than words.
When the Economy, Regeneration, Transport and Infrastructure Committee (ERTIC) published its October 6 agenda, there was no clue that the public and press would be excluded from discussions about the Business Improvement District (BID), which funds Visit Isle of Wight. It was important – if the BID ballot was won, tourism businesses would pay a mandatory levy for five years.
The day before the meeting, after hearing rumours that the press public would be excluded, we asked the council if it was true and if so, how it came about. We got no answer. Sure enough, the committee decided to go into secret session.
Our questions were simple. We didn’t ask about the BID itself, anything that was commercially confidential, views expressed in the closed session, or the ballot outcome. We simply asked to know how an advertised public meeting became a secret one.
Instead of a straight answer, the council treated the query as a Freedom of Information Act request – giving themselves 4 weeks to refuse to answer – relying on arguments known as “safe space” and “chilling effect” issues. They claimed answering would inhibit free and frank advice, discourage open views, and prejudice “the effective conduct of public affairs”.
That sounds impressive until you consult the Information Commission (IC). The IC is clear that authorities cannot simply claim a theoretical risk of damage; they must give specifics. Generalising about “sensitive” issues is not enough.
The chilling effect argument is particularly weak. Public servants are expected to be robust enough to provide professional and impartial advice – even if it later becomes public. After all, the Freedom of Information Act has existed for more than a quarter of a century. If an official or councillor believes an opinion is not fit for public eyes, should they be expressing it at all?
The council’s safe space argument also holds little weight. While temporary privacy is sometimes needed during policy formulation, the IC’s guidance says that the need diminishes significantly once decisions are reached. The decision to hold the meeting in private happened on October 6; why do we still not know who wanted it and why?
Equally troubling was the committee meeting itself. Only one councillor, James Whelan, questioned why the discussion must be held in private. His concerns were brushed aside by officers, and the meeting proceeded in secret with no more challenges. Too often, councillors simply rubber-stamp such recommendations. Councillors are elected to scrutinise decisions and represent the public interest – not do as officers tell them.
This issue is much bigger than one committee meeting or the BID ballot. Every refusal to answer straightforward questions increases public distrust.
We have asked the IW Council to reconsider their position – if they don’t, we will ask the Information Commission to look at it.
Tilly Walder