Council secrecy row: Pressure mounts on Ards and North Down Council amid judicial review bid
The row over the decision of Ards and North Down Council to keep information about the political actions of serving councillors secret has taken a new twist after it emerged a court has previously ruled against similar moves by the local authority in Belfast.
In a tribunal earlier this year, it was decided that Belfast City Council should release the details of a DUP call-in motion on Irish language signs – including legal advice sought by the council on the matter.
Meanwhile, loyalist activist Jamie Bryson has lodged an application for a judicial review into the council’s handling of the procedure – and the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) said the reasoning for the decision needs to be made public.
The DUP said it wasn’t consulted by the council on its decision to withhold information from the public – and an Ulster Unionist representative said councillors are being accused of secrecy because of the decisions of officials.
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.
The Belfast case related to a DUP motion to call-in a decision on Irish language signs, while the recent Ards and North Down row is over the policy of flying the Union Flag 365 days per year on war memorials.
The Bangor-based council decided it would not release the names of the councillors who made the request – nor would it release the legal advice it was required to seek when the bid was made.
Daniel Holder of lobby group CAJ told the News Letter: “The legal threshold that has to be met for this type of ‘call-in’ is that a council policy decision would ‘disproportionately affect adversely’ a group in the council area – this essentially means the policy would have a serious discriminatory impact.
“That such a threshold is met should not be determined in secret. There needs to be transparency regarding how this is argued and the reasoning for the decision needs to be made public.”
The tribunal on the Belfast City Council case, held at the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast in January, decided that the council had “not established significant interest in withholding the information beyond the inbuilt interest in the protection the relationship between the client and the legal advisor”.
In a parallel with North Down, the DUP-led call-in in Belfast had overturned a majority vote in the council.
The tribunal's judgment said: “The circumstances of the case, the fact that the legal advice effectively overturned the majority vote in the council points towards the value of a public explanation.”
It continued: “The ability and preparedness of UK bodies to explain to their own population how they are (or are not) meeting their aspirations is a substantial matter of public interest far outweighing the public interest of legal privilege and, given the circumstances, doing no harm to that interest.”
DUP group leader on Ards and North Down Borough Council, Alderman Stephen McIlveen, said DUP councillors supported the original motion when it was presented to council.
“We believe it is appropriate that the Union Flag be flown at war memorials across Ards and North Down Borough Council.
“The DUP council group on Ards and North Down Borough Council believe that those who called in this decision should be open and transparent in outlining the reasons for their decision to do so. At no time have we been consulted on the decision by the council to withhold this information from the public,” he said.
The News Letter asked the Alliance Party if its councillors will commit to making their call-in motion public, or not. The party did not respond.
We also asked Ards and North Down Council if, in light of the Belfast City Council judgment, it would now commit to being transparent with the public about the call-in motion – regardless of the Freedom Of Information (FOI) process.
On Monday, we had asked if they would release the information outside the FOI process, given their public commitment to transparency.
On both occasions the council said it is not in a position to provide an answer “within the given time frame”.
The News Letter has asked what an acceptable time frame for a response would be.