Agenda item

Bristol Energy Company

“This Council is increasingly concerned that all major decisions relating to Bristol Energy are being taken behind a legal cloak of commercial confidentiality.  By so doing, proper scrutiny of (and accountability for) this – at best – speculative venture is being limited and Members unreasonably constrained from expressing concerns about the Municipally-owned company.

The Cabinet decision of 3^rd March – which concerned an operational report update - was treated as a wholly exempt item of business ‘by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.’  This grants exempt status to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). In addition to excluding most Members from accessing this deemed sensitive information, the Mayor even removed the ability to call-in any decision taken, apparently on the grounds of urgency.

However, Council believes these restrictions are meant to be qualified and not absolute in their operation, nature or scope.  Information ceases to be exempt when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the supposed public interest in maintaining the exemption.

Now, it has been reported that EY have been engaged in various activities relating to assessing the future viability of this failing business – including disposal of its customer book.  In the current circumstances, Council asserts that the public’s right or need to know overrides the judgement to withhold knowledge around an enterprise which has already required considerable public investment to underpin its business plan.

The use of secrecy is also acting as an oppressive gag on Members from airing their views or knowledge in this matter.  This is not acceptable or reasonable. Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor to lift these embargoes around Bristol Energy and:-

(i)            Offer on-going briefings to all Members on the present position and options available to the Authority;

(ii)          Allow an open and honest debate to take place about this company – free from the threat of criminal (or any other) charges, penalties or sanction;

(iii)         Prior to this year’s local elections, reaffirm his commitment not to exceed the agreed total cash funding envelope for this energy supply business which has been set at £37.7m;

(iv)         Confirm that any payments made to Bristol Energy under delegated powers will be notified to Party Group Leaders and OSM within 24 hours.

(v)      To ensure clarity, transparency and demonstrate genuine recognition that lessons have been learned in this matter, an independent inquiry into governance and financial decision-making will be established.  Membership of this body to be cross-party and agreed in consultation with the sponsors or supporters of this resolution.  A report on its findings to be brought back to Full Council for further consideration.

Council notes that a further resolution in relation to this serious matter is to follow and be taken in closed session.”

Councillor Hopkins moved the following motion:

“This Council is increasingly concerned that all major decisions relating to Bristol Energy are being taken behind a legal cloak of commercial confidentiality. By so doing, proper scrutiny of (and accountability for) this – at best – speculative venture is being limited and Members unreasonably constrained from expressing concerns about the Municipally-owned company.

The Cabinet decision of 3rd March – which concerned an operational report update - was treated as a wholly exempt item of business ‘by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.’ This grants exempt status to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

In addition to excluding most Members from accessing this deemed sensitive information, the Mayor even removed the ability to call-in any decision taken, apparently on the grounds of urgency.

However, Council believes these restrictions are meant to be qualified and not absolute in their operation, nature or scope.  Information ceases to be exempt when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the supposed public interest in maintaining the exemption.

Now, it has been reported that EY have been engaged in various activities relating to assessing the future viability of this failing business – including disposal of its customer book. In the current circumstances, Council asserts that the public’s right or need to know overrides the judgement to withhold knowledge around an enterprise which has already required considerable public investment to underpin its business plan.

The use of secrecy is also acting as an oppressive gag on Members from airing their views or knowledge in this matter. This is not acceptable or reasonable. Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor to lift these embargoes around Bristol Energy and:-

(i) Offer on-going briefings to all Members on the present position and options available to the Authority;

(ii) Allow an open and honest debate to take place about this company – free from the threat of criminal (or any other) charges, penalties or sanction;

(iii) Prior to this year’s local elections, reaffirm his commitment not to exceed the agreed total cash funding envelope for this energy supply business which has been set at £37.7m;

(iv) Confirm that any payments made to Bristol Energy under delegated powers will be notified to Party Group Leaders and OSM within 24 hours.

(v) To ensure clarity, transparency and demonstrate genuine recognition that lessons have been learned in this matter, an independent inquiry into governance and financial decision-making will be established. Membership of this body to be cross-party and agreed in consultation with the sponsors or supporters of this resolution. A report on its findings to be brought back to Full Council for further consideration.  Council notes that a further resolution in relation to this serious matter is to follow and be taken in closed session.”

The motion was seconded by Councillor Steve Smith

Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the motion was LOST (32 For, 34 Against)