Council refuses to release details of Union flag call-in motion - citing 'individual data rights' of councillors

A council policy to allow the national flag to fly on war memorials 365 days per year was objected to by some local councillors.

In Northern Ireland, decisions which might “disproportionately affect adversely any section of the inhabitants of the district” can be called-in, meaning they need to be reconsidered.

Loyalist Jamie Bryson submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the council in a bid to obtain the request from elected representatives to the chief executive – but the council refused on the grounds that “the information was provided to the council in confidence”.

Mr Bryson then lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the matter. He told the News Letter that “it is an extraordinary state of affairs” that political parties can deploy a call-in motion but the content of their application “is held in utmost secrecy”.

“In this instance Alliance and SDLP used this mechanism to block the democratic decision approved by council to fly the Union Flag 365 days a year from war memorials.

“But, on the council’s case, citizens of the borough are not entitled to be provided with a copy of this application to see the reasons and purported facts relied upon to ground this exercise of a public power.

“Rather, it is a process which – the council claim – is held in confidence between the complaining elected representatives and the chief executive. Indeed, in their response, the council actually state that the mayor instructed council members not to refer to the facts in public. Why not?

“It must be open to other elected representatives and indeed citizens of the borough to access this material in order to probe the veracity of what is relied upon in taking a very significant step of blocking a democratic decision of the majority.”

The loyalist campaigner called the situation “a flagrant assault on democracy and transparency” as well as on the memory of those, from all backgrounds, who gave their lives fighting for freedom and democracy.

In the council's justification for the lack of transparency on this issue it claimed that members who submitted the ‘call-in’ notice did not consent to its release.

The News Letter asked Ards and North Down Borough Council a series of questions on the matter, including on how its argument that information was provided to the council in confidence overrides the right of the public, and indeed other councillors, to scrutinise the actions of elected representatives and indeed the chief executive.

The News Letter also asked where in the FOI Act is there a requirement for the consent of a democratically elected politician to allow the council to release information which is a normal part of the democratic process.

A spokesperson said: “Ards and North Down Borough Council is a legal entity in its own right as a corporate body. As such, it is entitled to enjoy the same privileges as any legal entity, in that it can receive and consider legal advice with the protection of privilege and client confidentiality.

“Under section 42 and 43 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (the ‘Act’), a local government body may exempt members of the public from portions of its meetings or information, specifically using Schedule 6, paragraph 5 of the Act, in this case being information relating to legal advice treated under professional privilege and held in confidence. Those exemptions were applied to the relevant report.

“With regard to the identity of those elected members who signed the call-in notice, they retain individual data rights protected by legislation, and this is not waived by their position as elected members of a local government body.

“The Freedom of Information request ... was responded to appropriately with confirmation that section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is being applied.”

The News Letter asked the Alliance Party and the SDLP if they agree with the council’s position, if it is democratic in their view, and whether their councillors will give the council their permission to make this information – which is undoubtedly in the public interest in a democracy – public.

There was no response by the time of going to print.