Reform UK’s Push for Transparency at Kent County Council Raises Legal and Constitutional Questions
Updated @ 11.20am
Kent County Council’s new Reform UK leadership is facing a constitutional and legal backlash after attempting to install an investigatory team with sweeping access to confidential council records—raising fundamental questions about power, process, and the rule of law.
Today, members of Reform UK’s self-styled Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E. team) are set to arrive at County Hall, armed with a sweeping mandate to investigate every corner of Kent County Council’s £2 billion operations. Inspired by a Donald Trump-era federal initiative in the U.S. and briefly associated with Elon Musk, the D.O.G.E. team is Reform UK’s flagship mechanism to audit all ten councils under its control.
The group—comprised of software engineers, forensic auditors, and data analysts—will examine capital projects, procurement contracts, whistleblowing cases, and governance procedures. It is backed by a formal directive dated 26 May 2025, co-signed by KCC Leader Cllr Linden Kemkaran (pictured), Nigel Farage MP and Reform UK Chairman Zia Yusuf The letter warned:
“Should you resist this request, we are ready to pass a council motion to compel the same and will consider any obstruction of our councillors’ duties to be gross misconduct.”
The directive added:
“The Council’s leadership has resolved to undertake a review of the Council’s financial management, procurement activity, and associated governance arrangements as a part of their role as elected councillors… under the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the common law ‘need to know’ principle, and in the public interest.”
Yet neither the formation of the D.O.G.E. team nor its scope has been subject to full council debate or formal scrutiny. Instead, Reform UK asserts it can lawfully demand this access unilaterally—a claim that collapses under close legal examination.
KCC’s constitution is the authoritative framework for how power is exercised. It sharply limits the use and distribution of confidential information:
- Section 23.22(a): “You must not use [confidential information] for personal reasons or benefit or pass it on to others… including information about the work of KCC, its employees or members of the public.”
- Section 22.25: Officers must maintain confidentiality of political group meetings.
- Section 23.29: “Officers serve the Council as a whole and not just those of the controlling Group.”
These rules protect the neutrality and professional integrity of civil servants. They are not subject to political override.
Councillor Access Rights: Structured and Constrained
While Reform UK claims councillors are entitled to all council information, actual rights of access are layered, conditional, and legally bounded.
Statutory Rights under the Local Government Act 1972:
- Section 100F grants access to documents for council or committee business.
- Exempt information—e.g., personal data, legal proceedings, commercial contracts—may be withheld under Schedule 12A.
- The 2006 Variation Order aligned this with FOIA 2000.
Executive Access under the 2012 Regulations:
- Regulation 16 allows councillors access to documents for executive meetings.
- Regulation 17 permits scrutiny members to request records relevant to decisions, but protects legal and political advice.
- Requests must be fulfilled within 10 days or refused with reasons.
Common Law ‘Need to Know’ Doctrine:
- Councillors can only access data necessary to carry out duties.
- Courts bar politically motivated or speculative access.
- This principle does not apply to unelected operatives like the D.O.G.E. team.
The Local Government Act 1972 and FOIA 2000 require councils to weigh disclosure against harm:
- Exempt categories include personal data, legal advice, and commercial negotiations.
- The public interest test requires balancing openness against risks.
- Guidance from the ICO warns: “Interest” is not the same as “public interest.”
Final disclosure decisions must be made by the Monitoring Officer, not elected politicians or political advisers.
- Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992]: Local authorities must act within statutory powers. Anything beyond is void.
- Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004]: Confidentiality must be maintained unless there is a compelling public interest.
These rulings reaffirm that governance by edict is unlawful.
KCC’s finances are already open to scrutiny through established channels:
- LAAA 2014, Section 26: Any interested person may inspect financial records.
- 1972 Act, Section 228(3): Councillors can access financial documents.
Audit trails, invoices, and budget data are accessible. Personal staff records and ongoing investigations remain protected. Reform UK’s D.O.G.E. team has no special right to bypass this legal framework.
- Green Cllr Rich Lehmann: Warned the move mimics Trump and undermines oversight.
- Lib Dem Leader Antony Hook: Voiced alarm at risking resident data with unvetted “free” tech volunteers.
- Conservative Cllr Harry Rayner: Acknowledged room for efficiency, but underscored the need for lawful methods.
The cancellation of scrutiny meetings and the absence of vetting for D.O.G.E. members only heightens unease.
The D.O.G.E. team is not subject to:
- FOIA requests;
- Council scrutiny committees;
- Transparency protocols applicable to public officers.
Reform UK has not disclosed:
- Internal communications with donors;
- Private messages from MPs or HQ;
- Vetting of engineers accessing council data.
Transparency, if sincere, must apply equally to the governors and the governed.
Reform UK promised to disrupt the status quo. But lawful reform begins with lawful governance. The structure for oversight already exists and is among the strongest in the democratic world.
To ignore it is not innovation. It is illegality.
If the D.O.G.E. team seeks the truth, it must do so lawfully—and with full transparency about its own operations. Anything less is not reform. It is abuse of power.
The Shepway Vox Team
The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness
I cant comment on the above, but I was told that reform KCC are now refusing to engage in the local council re-organisation process.
Excellent unbiased article which sets out whats possible or not. Lets hope the Monitoring Officer at KCC says no.
All this is going to do is disrupt business pushing officers to deal with this instead of dealing with services. They should not be given access to any records that they access in the normal way or they will have to send a lot of FOI requests .
It should also be remembered that councillors have non jurisdiction over the staff side.They can not dismiss or sanction staff.
Now… let me get it right…It now appears that although you constantly (legitimately) berate the Council; both Kent & F&H) for its poor financial management and lack of transparency, you now object to requests for transparency…? Because surely that is what is being requested. As a local taxpayer and looking at the parlous state of local government finance I welcome the actions taken by the new Council.
The move has been criticised as “political theatre” by senior local authority figures and opposition politicians.
Plus it is nothing but the act of a bully. The way they have gone about it, is NOT correct and then threatening people with any “gross misconduct” for failing to comply, demonstrates that. There are ways of doing this, but the way they are going about it is NOT the right way.
Presumably these unit of data analysts etc are not doing this for free? Are KCC footing the bill for their services? if so should they not be following procurement rules to be able to appoint them legally?
Is there such a thing as a “free” lunch?
I hope that answers your question.
Local Government legislation is extensive, Reform, lead by KCC, must respect that legislation.