As efforts continue in a bid to have the 'real' value of the Lowood Estate, near Melrose, revealed for the benefit of council taxpayers who will pay for it, separate Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the two public bodies involved have shown a fierce determination by both parties to hide the truth.
Scottish Borders Council, which paid an inflated price for 110 acres together with a mansion and eight other properties, has strongly resisted calls to disclose the figure put on Lowood by the District Valuer [DV], a public official whose department, like the local authority, is FOI compliant.
We have argued consistently that Borders taxpayers should be told how the £9.6 million which SBC paid to two companies based in the Cayman Islands to get their hands on Lowood compares with the DV's estimate. Unfortunately all 34 of our elected councillors have taken a vow of silence after being warned not to disclose the potentially embarrassing figure even to those who elected them.
But while SBC has claimed it was told by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) it must not publicise the DV's Lowood calculation, the VOA itself does not even concede it holds such information of the estate's worth, and defends its position by quoting legislation. How ridiculous is that, and what is the point of quizzing the VOA if it has a permanent get-out clause?
The DV's employers were asked for the information after Councillor Stuart Bell, leader of the SNP opposition group at SBC told a council meeting: "I don't believe this site is worth £9.6 million, when you go into the detail of the terms and conditions of the sale; and that - as we know - was the opinion of the District Valuer whose assessment with vacant possess ion (which we will not have) was much lower than £9.6million. Even when adjusted up for a "special assumption" she valued the land at a price lower than we are paying".
The FOI to the VOA stated: "Given the high level of public interest in this transaction, and because council taxpayers will be paying for the purchase of Lowood Estate please provide the valuation figure which the District Valuer placed on the estate with vacant possession and also the adjusted valuation with the 'special assumption' referred to by Mr Bell."
In response the VOA declared: "Under section 44(2) of the FOIA I cannot confirm whether or not the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) holds information falling within the scope of your request as doing so is prohibited by an enactment. Section 44(2) removes the obligation at section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The relevant enactment is section 23(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act (CRCA) 2005. To determine whether the requested information, if it were held would be covered by section 23(1) CRCA."
There was more, but how is anyone outside the VOA supposed to comprehend that answer? And how is the VOA allowed to give such a response to a FOI request, then promptly proceed to tell Scottish Borders Council it must not disclose the DV's Lowood calculation?
For this is how SBC reacted initially to a virtually identical question on Lowood which will in fact cost taxpayers at least £11 million when fees and loan charges are added.
"The Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 allows a public authority to withhold information in response to a request, where one or more exception listed in EI(S)R applies. In this case Scottish Borders Council considers that the following exception applies: 10(5)(e) Confidentiality of commercial and industrial information. It is the Council’s view that its disclosure would be likely to cause the substantial prejudice envisaged by this exemption.
"The Council accepts that there is public interest in making information available in order to improve accountability and transparency, ensuring effective oversight of expenditure of public funds and that the public obtains value for money. However, it is the Council’s view that disclosing the information requested would prejudice the Council’s ability to negotiate in private and consult on matters internally and externally. Releasing would inhibit the Council’s ability to carry out transactions with third parties. It is also considered that the public interest in interrogating transactions is effectively met through other restrictions such as approvals being made by full Council.
"In addition, the Council is subject to a legally binding duty of confidence in terms of the report (obtained on the valuation) between the Council and the District Valuer Scotland (DVS). The Council consulted with the DVS and it is their view that no information should be released, as stated within the report. Disclosure of the information would cause substantial harm to the legitimate economic interests of the Council by releasing this information as it could prejudice the ability of the Council to compete in the open market in the future. Furthermore, it could put in jeopardy the Council’s integrity and trust with the DVS. It is the Council’s view that the DVS’ economic interests may also be damaged by providing this information and it is therefore the Council’s decision that the public interest lies in favour of withholding the information at this time."
The council was asked to review its refusal to disclose, but produced a virtually identical response.
"The Council's FOI Advice Group acknowledged that the public had an interest in obtaining the information requested in order to scrutinise the council's decisions in light of its obligations to achieve best value.
"However, the Group also noted that the DV had asked the council to observe the confidentiality of the information requested, and not to release it. It was therefore noted by the Group that release of the information requested into the public domain would prejudice the council's relationship with the DV.
"The Group concluded that it is crucial to preserve this relationship in order to ensure that it achieves best value in future transactions. In addition the Group felt that releasing the requested information may affect the council's ability to make a profitable return on the future marketing of this property, or any part of it.
"This is because of the risk that releasing the details of the valuation into the public domain could place prospective developers at a commercial advantage in any future negotiations".
One conclusion to be drawn from this elaborate cover-up...The VOA DOES have the information it was asked for!
No comments:
Post a Comment