Selective Secrecy: How Kent Councillors Exploit a Transparency Loophole

When Parliament passed the Localism Act in 2011, it aimed to strengthen public confidence in local government by making councillors’ financial interests transparent. The law was clear: elected members must declare any “disclosable pecuniary interests” within 28 days of taking office. These declarations—including paid employment, company shareholdings, and property ownership—must be made public via a register held by each council’s Monitoring Officer.

But recent inconsistencies in how this law is applied across Kent County Council (KCC) and its district councils have exposed something farcical, if not troubling, in the system.

Under Section 29 of the Act, the public has a legal right to inspect the register of interests and view it online. This includes disclosure of any property a councillor owns or rents within the local authority area. Yet a safety clause—Section 32—permits councillors to withhold this information if both they and the Monitoring Officer agree that publication could expose them or someone close to them to the risk of “violence or intimidation.”

In principle, this is a sensible protection. In practice, it appears to have become a loophole that undermines the entire regime of transparency.

At the time of writing, no Reform UK councillor at KCC has a public Register of Interests visible on the county council website. In contrast, opposition members are listed—but that is where the transparency ends and the absurdity begins.

Take Cllr Alister Brady (Labour – pictured), who sits on both Kent County Council and Canterbury City Council. At KCC, Brady invokes Section 32 to withhold his home address from the public register. Yet on Canterbury City Council’s website, he openly discloses the same address. The contradiction is glaring. Are residents to believe that the threat of violence applies only when he wears his county hat but disappears entirely when he attends city meetings?

Then there’s Cllr Rich Lehmann (Green -pictured). Also a dual-hatted councillor, he represents constituents at both KCC and Swale Borough Council. Once again, his KCC Register withholds his home address. And yet, miraculously, it reappears without redaction on Swale’s website.

The pattern continues with Cllr Tim Prater (Liberal Democrat), who serves on KCC and Folkestone & Hythe District Council. At the county level, his address is deemed too sensitive to publish. But at the district level, it’s there in black and white.

Three councillors. Four different councils. One glaring inconsistency.

The likely explanation is bureaucratic, not criminal. Each council has its own Monitoring Officer—often a qualified solicitor—who interprets the same law differently. But this only adds fuel to the fire. “Who said the law is an ass?” one might ask. The idea that a councillor’s address is a security risk at one level of government but not another stretches credulity to its limits.

It also raises a more serious point. If these councillors themselves have already disclosed their addresses on one council’s public register, then what harm could possibly come from also disclosing it on the other? After all, the information is already in the public domain. Is it plausible that intimidation only occurs when a document bears the Kent County Council logo?

As it stands, this selective application of Section 32 smacks less of safety and more of convenience. “That’s having your cake and eating it,” as one observer put it. By invoking the exemption only when it suits them, councillors risk eroding public trust in a system designed to ensure accountability.

The public has a right to know if their elected representatives stand to benefit from decisions they make on planning, procurement, or public services. That’s the whole point of the disclosable pecuniary interest regime. If councillors are going to redact critical information on the grounds of personal safety, they should apply that standard consistently—or not at all.

Anything less looks like evasion. And democracy cannot thrive on half-truths.

The Shepway Vox Team

Journalism for the People NOT the Powerful