Editorial: Transparency issues over watchdog ruling giving councillors anonymity

​The decision of the Information Commissioner not to reveal the identities of councillors involved in a democratic process is somewhat surprising.

It relates to a ‘call-in motion’ at Ards and North Down council – which meant a majority vote for flying the Union Flag at war memorials 365 days a year was overturned.

The council later accepted – after a court case brought by loyalist Jamie Bryson – that it hadn’t been done on time, rendering it void. Mr Bryson then pursued the identity of the councillors who had made the request under Freedom of Information laws – something the council objected to.

Now, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – which adjudicates on these matters – has ruled that it would be unlawful to release their names, citing concerns about councillors’ safety and the sensitivity around flags in Northern Ireland.

​Whatever someone’s view about the flying of the Union Flag, or indeed about Mr Bryson, this decision is about something more fundamental. Do we always have a right to know who is making decisions which affect our lives?

Anyone who has followed this case might well have expected that the identities of the councillors would eventually be revealed.

After all, the principle here appears quite clear. Democratically elected politicians made a decision, under protections for minorities, to block a majority decision in council – as is their right.

It is crucial we know who makes decisions that affect our lives. It allows the electorate to decide, come election time, whether on balance they want more of the same or a change.

The ICO decision could result in a greater level of secrecy around decisions made in councils, and that cannot be a good thing for anyone.