Reform UK’s ‘Doge Unit’ Targets KCC: Transparency or Political Muscle?

Reform UK, which now holds sway at Kent County Council, has brought in its Department of Government Efficiency—known as the Doge unit—to scrutinise council spending, warning that the process “will take as long as it takes” to deliver recommendations.

A High-Profile Arrival at County Hall

On Monday, the Doge team arrived at County Hall in Maidstone for its first meeting. Party chairman Zia Yusuf met with council leader Linden Kemkaran and senior staff, joined by millionaire party donor Arron Banks and Nathaniel Fried, a tech entrepreneur said to be heading the unit.

A Model Inspired by Musk and Trump

The initiative, inspired by a Doge unit reportedly set up by Elon Musk during Donald Trump’s second presidential term, aims to use artificial intelligence, advanced data analysis and forensic audit techniques to “identify wasteful spending and recommend actionable solutions.”

Council’s Official Response

A KCC spokesperson said the council “has always been committed to transparency and accountability,” and would work “collaboratively and professionally” with the Doge team. While Reform described Monday’s meeting as “very productive,” the party admitted it has no clear timeline for when the unit will deliver its findings.

The Request—or Ultimatum—Letter

The D.O.G.E. “Request for Co-operation” letter, sent to KCC management on 26 May 2025, outlines the unit’s mission to “identify wasteful spending and recommend actionable solutions.” It begins by stating:

“Following the outcome of the recent local elections and the formation of a new administration under the Reform Party, the Council’s leadership has resolved to undertake a review of the Council’s financial management, procurement activity, and associated governance arrangements as part of their role as elected councillors.”

The letter goes on to assert that the council leader is

“entitled to all information available 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.”

Threats Under the Guise of Cooperation?

While the letter is styled as a “request,” its tone suggests something more forceful. It warns:

“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. We trust this will not be required.”

Linguistically, there are two ways to make a request: asking for something, which is typically done using polite and indirect language such as can, could, would you mind if, or may; and asking someone to do something, which often relies on expressions like please pass the salt, or, please sit down, to soften the instruction. By these standards, one must ask: have Reform truly made a request—or are they issuing threats under the guise of cooperation?

Legal Rights and Misunderstandings

Coming back to the section of the letter in which council leader Linden Kemkaran asserts she is “entitled to all information…” it’s important to clarify that these rights are not unique to the current leadership. They apply equally to all 81 councillors at Kent County Council. These legal entitlements have been in place for every elected member of local government since 1972 onwards. Reform, like every administration before them, must act not only within the letter of the law—but also, one would hope, within its spirit.

Overlooked Legal Tools: Public Inspection Rights

What Linden Kemkaran’s cited legislation overlooks are two additional legal tools found in separate legislation. First, under the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, a council’s responsible financial officer – at KCC this is currently John Betts (pictured) – he is required to make key financial documents available for public inspection to any person on the electoral roll for Kent —or recognised journalists. Requests from those outside these categories may be refused. The inspection period must run for 30 working days, during which access must be provided at reasonable times and with reasonable notice.

The scope of documents, as defined under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, which can be inspected include:

“the accounting records for the financial year to which the audit relates and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers, receipts and other documents relating to those records.”

The process begins with the council’s annual Notice of Public Inspection, published online alongside the draft statement of accounts.

Case Study: Veolia v Nottinghamshire

The right to inspect documents under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 was tested in the case of Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1214. A local resident requested access to documents relating to a large waste management PFI contract. Veolia sought a judicial review to block disclosure, arguing that the documents contained confidential commercial information.

Veolia accepted that the documents were “contracts, bills or vouchers,” but argued they did not relate to the “accounts to be audited” because they were not referenced in the council’s published statement of accounts. The court rejected this argument. It held that both “accounts to be audited” and the phrase “relating to” should be interpreted broadly.

However, the court also recognised that confidentiality concerns are legitimate. It ruled that, under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, genuinely confidential information may be protected—so long as any redaction or withholding is justified, proportionate, and necessary.

Case Study: Moss v Kingston

The interpretation of section 26 was further tested in Moss v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames [2021] EWHC 1032 (Admin). Mr Moss, a local elector, requested access to documents related to Kingston’s housing expenditure for 2018–19, including invoices and supplier contracts. The council initially attempted to comply, then refused, citing excessive staff time.

The court firmly rejected this. Mrs Justice Thornton ruled that councils cannot lawfully refuse to comply with section 26 based on time or cost. The legislation makes no such allowance. She said,

“It is not hard to see that any such control mechanism in the hands of a relevant authority could be used to impede proper public scrutiny.”

While the judge upheld the redaction of some information, the ruling made clear that public inspection rights under section 26 are broad and cannot be curtailed by internal capacity constraints.

The Law Already Demands Diligence

Reform UK’s Department of Government Efficiency may assert that it “will take as long as it takes” to produce recommendations. But that stance is far from revolutionary. As confirmed in Moss v Kingston, councils cannot refuse access to financial records simply because fulfilling a request is time-consuming. Democratic scrutiny demands effort—whether initiated by an elector, a journalist, or one of Kent’s 81 councillors, as a resident.

The Political Lens

That right, however, is now being reframed through a political lens. Reform UK’s so-called “Request for Co-operation” includes a pointed warning:

“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. We trust this will not be required.”

This begs the question: is this truly a request for co-operation—or the veiled threat of a political enforcer?

Free Oversight? Hidden Costs

And while the Doge unit is said to be “free,” it’s worth asking the age-old question: is there really such a thing as a “free” lunch? Transparency initiatives may cost nothing up front, but their political and institutional price tags can be significant as the Rotten Boroughs pages of Private Eye remind us fortnightly.

Closing Note

We at the Shepway Vox Team, proudly subscribe to the Mrs Angry School of Local Government—a school of thought that teaches one simple but powerful truth: to be an effective resident auditorof KCC accounts —or indeed a Doge auditor—

“the most important quality is an instinct for misinformation and a deep-seated suspicion of how local authorities operate. Always assume the worst: you will almost always be right.”

In Kent, as across the country, that principle remains the cornerstone of genuine accountability. Both councillors and local government officers must be subject to the auditor’s professional scepticism to ensure that any “deep-seated suspicion of how local authorities operate” is properly examined—and, where necessary, rooted out.

Equally, the “instinct for misinformation,” exposed fortnightly in Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs column, must be addressed with openness and transparency. According to Crowe’s 2023 Annual Fraud Indicator Report fraud in local government (excluding benefits) is estimated to have risen from £7.8 billion in 2017 to £8.8 billion in 2021–22. That figure alone demands serious scrutiny regardless of the County.

Reform UK’s approach—threatening accusations of gross misconduct—risks alienating the very people they must work alongside for the next three or four years. After all, the responsibility for managing £2 billion of public money each year at Kent County Council lies with every councillor and every officer. The need for vigilant oversight—and a healthy dose of professional scepticism—has never been greater.

As the old song warns:

“We can’t go on together With suspicious minds. And we can’t build our dreams On suspicious minds.”

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent