The total absurdity to the answer given to 'makethem99' is that on
11 January 2013 I received a Notice of Refusal signed by Stephen Taylor in relation to my request to make the PWC report public.
The refusal was based on Mr Taylor's opinion that the 'public interest in witholding the information is not outweighed by the public interest in releasing it" and covered the same three areas to which Sharon Druett refers.
I think Mr Taylor is mistaken in thinking he knows the mind of the 'public' - the reality is that the report is critical of the administration and officers, particularly the failure of officers to secure the debt aganst the assets of the company by way of a legal charge.
For those who can suffer a review of the saga, you will recall the Council and Coun Perkins maintained they had secured the loan by way of a charge, this regrettably turned out to be untrue.
But why Sharon Druett would require 'further time' to research or prepare an answer is a mystery as she has already done the work. All she had to do was copy the answer from Mr Taylor. In writing the response she did, sadly she confirmed three points. The first that the right hand does not know what the left is doing; second, the practise of stalling is endemic within the Council and third, the attitude of the Council is naything but honest and transparent.
For the record here are the reasons given by SBC for not making public the £10,100 taxpayer funded report.
1.
Commercial Interest The Council argues that ‘The report contains information relating to entities other than SBC including the financial information of Digital City UK Limited and the shareholdings of Avidity and aQovia. The conclusion of this argument is that the release of the report would prejudice the commercial interests of all the parties concerned, including the Council.
The fact is that Digital City is not trading and according to the Annual Accounts of the company, is not a ‘going concern’.
The accounts of Digital City are a matter of public record as is the shareholding of Avidity and aQovia.
It is also the case that Avidity Consulting has ceased trading and has been wound up by Companies House.
I submit it is extremely difficult to argue how the release of the PWC report could prejudice any of the parties referred to.
2.
Public Interest The Council agrees that the default position should always be ‘to disclose’ and agrees with the view of the Information Commissioner that the presumption running through the Freedom Of Information Act is that openness is, in itself to be regarded as something that is in the public interest.
The Council has obviously considered the fact that openness and transparency will enable the public to gain a better understanding of the relationship between Digital City and the Council. It dismisses this positive position by citing issues which may or may not arise in the writing and commissioning of further reports. However, such a view ignores the fact that the report was commissioned in 2011 at a point when Digital City was already in default with its interest payments, and when it was abundantly clear that the company could not fulfil the terms of its contract which was to provide a Borough wide Wi-Fi system.
The Public Interest is compelling, not simply as a prurient exercise but to gain a greater knowledge of what appears to be a commercial decision based on half truths and inaccurate information which resulted in the Council loaning £400,000 of taxpayer money to what can only be described as a dodgy venture.
3.
Information Provided in Confidence The Council claims that the content report is the ‘property’ of PWC even though the Council paid £10,100 for the report. The Council also claim they signed a contract which gives PWC ultimate control of who sees the report and whether any part or parts can be disclosed. It is quite amazing that the Council has agreed to such a clause.
4.
Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs The Council argues the report was prepared for the exclusive use of SBC and Digital City. It also argues that if the participants had known the content was to be made public they may have been less frank in the views and comments expressed.
The Council acknowledges that the publication of the report might inhibit open discussion in future reports; while an interesting argument it has no basis in fact but is merely a supposition commonly used to suppress the release of information which might ‘embarrass’ the administration or officials within the administration. Section 36 was not meant to provide a ‘get out of jail’ card and protect the egos of officers or councillors. The Council’s attempt to hide behind this clause demonstrates exactly why the document should be made public.
The Council has released a large number of documents in to the public arena. However, it also still refuses to answer questions on the project.
The Council claims this document was commissioned to assist the Council ‘on its future options in relation to Digital City’. The Council has never previously suggested this report was a joint venture with Digital City and has never claimed the PWC report was for the use of Digital City.
5. Personal Data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act The Council argues that the report contains data relating to third parties who are not Council employees. I suspect this all embracing catch all clause refers in a large part to the companies already referred to, Digital City and aQovia.
