By Joe Locker, Local Democracy Reporter
A test is being done to see if it is in the public interest to publish a report highlighting “very serious concerns” over how Nottingham City Council handles its finances.
A review was recently carried out by accounting firm Ernst and Young Global Limited (EY) to check for any potential manipulation in the Labour-run council’s historical accounting practices.
It came after the 2021 discovery that millions of pounds strictly intended for council housing and tenants had been unlawfully transferred to the council’s general fund over a series of years.
While no evidence of fraud was uncovered it is review, EY concluded controls over how money is managed by the authority are “not fit for purpose” and said there is a culture which is “not focused on compliance”.
In June, the authority published a short summary of the report, but said the full report cannot be made public.
Council leader Cllr David Mellen (Lab) claimed he too had not seen the report in full and had instead been briefed by officers.
The failure to publish the report in full has led to criticism from members of the public and opposition councillors.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking that the full report be published because it is in the public interest to do so.
The council has responded to say it will require additional time to consider the public interest arguments both in favour and against disclosing the information.
“The council has identified the requested information may need to be withheld under section 36 of the Act,” the Freedom of Information team said.
“We are currently in the process of applying a Public Interest Test to the information.
“This is a test to see whether the public interest in withholding the information is greater than in releasing it.
“As a result of the above and in accordance with section 10(3) of the Act, the council is extending the statutory deadline by which we must respond to this request.”
Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act relates to the potential to prejudice effective conduct of public affairs of a government department or any public authority.
It applies where complying with the request could prejudice or would be likely to prejudice “the effective conduct of public affairs”.
Section 36 differs from all other prejudice exemptions because judgement over any potential prejudice must be made by a legally authorised “qualified person”.
The qualified person is not chosen by the authority itself, and can include the council’s monitoring officer, for example.
The council says it will respond in September.
