Last Updated on September 15, 2024 by Phil Hamerton
This update follows two significant events this week: the meeting of the Harbour Board and a response from the Information Commissioner regarding our request that all objections should be published, suitably redacted.
Harbour Board: 12th September
The Harbour Board meeting yesterday was a disappointment, for us and for democratic process. Two motions were submitted by local Councillors, both of which were intended to provide Harbour Board Members with necessary information for them to discharge their responsibilities. Both failed. It is noteworthy that, in the immediate run-up to the meeting, Members of the Board had received a confidential briefing note, the content of which is – as you might expect – currently unknown. (A Freedom of Information request has been submitted.)
The first, an urgent motion, was a request to convene an additional Board meeting to update Members on the current state of play with the draft HRO. This was refused consideration by the Chair and consequently the current situation regarding the progress of the Council’s draft HRO has not been publicly shared with Harbour Board Members.
Despite this the Council’s written representation to Transport Scotland is due for submission by today and will apparently be made without Member scrutiny, even less with their approval.
The second motion, which had been properly submitted in advance, was to make public the annual accounts for each of Argyll & Bute’s statutory harbours, starting with the current financial year, and to develop a non-financial performance reporting mechanism for all the authority’s ports and harbours. The Chair had earlier proposed an amendment which asked for a report on the matter at some point in the future. The motion and amendment were voted upon and each was supported by 4 of the 8 Members of the Board. With a 4-4 split on the original motion the Chair then had the casting vote and, predictably, voted for his amendment.
So we now have a situation where a motion which reflected the 1964 Harbours Act, where the statutory duty to publish harbour accounts is made very clear, was not passed by Argyll & Bute Council! Sadly Transport Scotland have stated that, for some reason unknown to us, they have no power to enforce A&BC’s compliance!
Nevertheless, in another part of the meeting 3 new policies – which had not been the subject of any consultation, as far as we can establish – were nodded through by the Board. These relate to Consultation (yes, really!), to Harbour Use (e.g. no photography will be allowed in any A&B Harbour without the permission of the Harbour Master, though it was explained that won’t apply to tourists, family photos etc but how this will be assessed is not clear!) and to Collection of Fees. Ironically the Consultation Policy says:
Argyll & Bute Council as Harbour Authority agree to:
Consult as early as is practicable with stakeholders and beneficiaries when changes to Argyll and Bute Council legislation and policy are being considered.
It’s a shame they didn’t consult stakeholders about the policies before bringing them to the Board!
Request to publish all draft HRO objections: the judgement of the Information Commissioner
In January OCHDA and Oban Community Council had asked Argyll & Bute Council for copies of the text of all submissions made during the public consultation on the Oban Harbour Revision Order 2023. The Council considered the request under Freedom Of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA) and refused the request on the basis that disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the effective conduct of public affairs.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Authority had considered the request under the wrong legislation. The requested information is regarded as environmental, and the Authority should have considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs). The Commissioner required the Authority to respond to the request under the EIRs. This request must be complied with by 28th October 2024.
You can read the summary and the full text of the judgement by clicking on one of these buttons.
Conclusion
Democratic processes seem to have failed completely in the matter of developing the new HA for Oban. Not only have the Officers refused to meet concerned members of the public, they have also failed to consider objections sufficiently carefully to be able to answer them and have – again – refused to allow the Elected Members who make up the Harbour Authority Board to have access to all the relevant information that they require to ensure that their current duties can be discharged effectively.
When Elected Members request information the request is refused or – perhaps – provided on a confidential basis only. The same reluctance to be open and transparent in dealing with matters of public interest and significance also lies behind the refusal to publish the 120+ objections. The Council’s own Code of Conduct specifically refers to the Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life, which include Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, and Honesty, yet the operation of the Council seems routinely to flout these principles.