Council behaving like a 'corporate ostrich' over new refusal to release Union flag motion details amid 'review'

Loyalist campaigner Jamie Bryson had sought the details under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request – which was turned down by council officials. They said that the individual councillors had not consented to their details being released.

Early last week, the News Letter had twice asked the council if it would commit to being transparent with the public about the call-in motion - regardless of the FOI process. The purpose of this question was to establish whether or not the only reason the information wasn’t being made public was because of a technicality that it wasn’t permitted under the FOI process – and to give the council an opportunity to ensure full transparency in line with its own public commitments for such.

Initially, the council said that it couldn’t respond within the given time frame.

Then, on Friday afternoon, a council spokesperson said: “This matter is now under review by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The council is actively engaging with the process and any further comment/release of information will be guided by this review.”

DUP group leader on Ards and North Down Borough Council, Alderman Stephen McIlveen, said: “In every taxpayer-funded organisation, there should be a basic expectation of transparency. Such transparency enables people to have confidence in decision making and in how resources are used.

“We are part of the United Kingdom, men and women gave their lives in defence of that Union Flag. Those seeking to limit the flying of the Union Flag should have confidence of their beliefs to state openly why they hold those views.

“I trust all concerned will see sense both with the proposal and with the decision making process.

“The DUP proposed to have the debate and vote on the flag motion in public (which was passed despite Alliance opposition) because we felt it was important to have transparency and openness.

“The Alliance often talk about openness and transparency but their actions in this regard seldom match their words.”

Mr Bryson, who has now lodged a judicial review into the council’s decision, told the News Letter the local authority’s decision is unsustainable.

“The council are howling at the moon and adopting the approach of a corporate ostrich with its head in the sand, at the same time. If that conjures up images of a rather confused contradictory approach, it’s because it’s meant to.

“Their position is plainly unsustainable, but instead of simply putting the hands up and handing over the material, instead they are going to hide behind what is often a lengthy ICO process. As they do so, with every passing day trust in the democratic process and the suspicion that there is something rather dubious afoot here only grows.

“They are now fighting on two fronts, both having to defend the decision itself to block the Union Flag flying from war memorials in the High Court and having to defend their indefensible approach to the Freedom of Information Act in proceedings before the ICO.

“All of this comes at huge cost to the public purse in their legal fees, and I am sure ratepayers would much rather we ended the charade and this council simply stayed down for the count.”

A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner’s Office said: “We can confirm we have received a complaint regarding this decision and are considering it.”

Last week the News Letter revealed that in February a tribunal ruled that Belfast City Council should release the details of a similar DUP call-in motion on Irish language signs – including legal advice sought by the council on the matter.

Call-in motions are often used by minority groups in councils, as they require the support of only 15% of councillors to have a policy paused and reconsidered – with a supermajority of 80% then required for a second vote.

They must be called on the basis that there was a procedural error – or that it would “disproportionately affect adversely” any section of the community.