GBC Keeps a Closed Mind to Open Government

Published on: 25 Oct, 2018
Updated on: 28 Oct, 2018

Guildford Borough Council clearly does not understand the fundamental imperative of openness in democracy.

A stark example this year has been the way it handled the proposal to invest a hefty £81 million (nearly up to its entire annual spend) in student accommodation at the University of Surrey.

As central government funding dries up, the council is being pushed to obtain revenue from speculative investments by a government policy encouraging councils to be “entrepreneurial”. And, putting the wisdom of introducing commercial level risk into public financing to one side, there was a reasonable case to be made for such an investment.

Property investment is among the safer areas and there is continuing demand for student accommodation, 16,000 are enrolled in our university this year. If more of them can be accommodated in dedicated buildings the growing pressure on private housing, much needed for ordinary Guildford residents, would be reduced.

A spin-off benefit could be that fewer students would face sub-standard rentals, shoe-horned in by greedy landlords.

Of course, such a GBC plan has hazards. What happens if something unforeseen leaves the taxpayer with a devalued asset? Should the council be encouraging further expansion of the University of Surrey? Is that sustainable? Would such an investment lead to a compromised position when considering related planning applications?

No doubt there are other arguments for and against.

The problem is none was aired in public and, unless they were, how can the council possibly assess public opinion on the matter?

But concern about public opinion has never been this council’s priority. Instead, once again, it used the excuse of commercial confidentiality to prevent open debate.

Let us remind ourselves of the fifth “Nolan Principle” of the seven by which GBC are required to operate. Under the heading “Openness” it says: “Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”

Obviously, “clear and lawful” reasons to withhold information might include different rates of interest offered by different lenders but what justification is there for not openly discussing whether such a large investment should have been made at all? It is clearly a matter of public interest: the money would be borrowed and invested in our name and we all stand to gain or lose.

To debate the principal decision without revealing anything confidential would have been perfectly possible, easy even, and fair to we taxpayers

Imagine a debate in parliament on our nuclear deterrent being held in secret because detailed plans of our nuclear submarines are classified?

That is unthinkable. As unthinkable as Guildford Borough Council really meaning what it says about openness.

Share This Post