Kent LGR Secrecy: FHDC Withholds MoU Figures Under FOI Section 22 — Even Though They’re Already Public

An FoI request submitted to Folkestone & Hythe District Council on 30 July 2026 asked for the Local Government Reorganisation Implementation Reserve Memorandum of Understanding.

The document supplied by FHDC describes itself as “LGR Implementation Reserve MOU – agreed by Chiefs 06.03.26” — redacted figures

There’s just one snag.

The same document, complete with the figures FHDC has blacked out, can be downloaded here ⇒ “LGR Implementation Reserve MOU – agreed by Chiefs 06.03.26” — unredacted figures

FHDC accepts it holds the information. But it has withheld financial figures under Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, arguing that the information is intended for future publication.

There’s a rather obvious problem with that.

The council says the figures are “under review” and “subject to change and update ahead of the budget-setting process for the next financial year”. It also claims releasing them now could “cause confusion about the programme’s possible costs and its effect on services and taxpayers”.

Yet the unredacted March MoU data already shows an estimated pre-vesting implementation cost of £11,923,819, an assumed £4.4 million Government contribution, leaving a £7,523,819 funding requirement.

So what, exactly, is FHDC protecting the public from?

Philip Coppel KC’s Information Rights, a leading practitioner text on freedom of information law, explains that Section 22 has three requirements.

The information must be held with a view to future publication; that intention must already have existed when the FoI request arrived; and it must be reasonable, in all the circumstances, to withhold the information until publication.

That second requirement matters.

Coppel says there must be more than a mere “hope or aspiration” that publication will happen. There should instead be a “concluded intention” to publish, judged at the point the request was received.

In other words, a council can’t simply receive an awkward FoI request and then decide: don’t worry, we’ll publish this at some unspecified point later.

FHDC doesn’t give a publication date.

That doesn’t automatically defeat Section 22 because the legislation doesn’t require a fixed date. But Coppel makes another important point: the more uncertain the timetable becomes, the weaker the case that withholding the information remains reasonable.

And FHDC creates another difficulty for itself by insisting the figures are still being reviewed and might change.

Coppel explains that where a draft document will later be finalised, whether its contents can properly be regarded as information intended for future publication becomes a question of “fact and degree”. How far the final version is expected to contain, alter or omit the information can be important.

Which leaves FHDC with an interesting dilemma.

If these March figures are substantially the information it intends eventually to publish, why not release them now and clearly state that they were the estimates agreed at that point?

But if the figures are going to change significantly before publication, what exactly does FHDC say it had a settled intention to publish when the FoI arrived on 30 July?

Then there’s the public-interest test.

Section 22 isn’t absolute. Even where the exemption technically applies, information may still have to be disclosed where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the case for keeping it secret.

Coppel specifically notes that Parliament’s decision not to make Section 22 absolute means there will be circumstances where information falling within the exemption must nevertheless be released. He even refers to the public interest in significant information being “aired in public as soon as possible”.

That goes straight to the heart of this.

Local government reorganisation is happening now. Councils are committing money now. The March MoU creates an implementation reserve, sets out how councils contribute to it and provides for further contributions if the original pot proves insufficient.

This isn’t some dusty old spreadsheet from years ago.

Scrutiny matters while decisions are being made — not months later, after the figures have been rewritten, superseded or overtaken by events.

And if FHDC genuinely worries that publishing provisional numbers might create “confusion”, there’s a remarkably simple answer: publish the March document and say, plainly, that these were the figures at that point and may subsequently change.

So why don’t they want you to see them now?

What evidence existed on 30 July showing a settled intention to publish these figures? When does FHDC expect that publication to happen? How much of the March information will actually appear in it? And what public interest is served by withholding financial information until the moment for meaningful scrutiny has passed?

Section 22 can legitimately protect information genuinely intended for future publication.

But “we’ll tell you later” isn’t a magic set of words that makes public scrutiny disappear.

Have a story that needs telling, or information you think may interest us? Please get in touch. All correspondence will be treated in the strictest confidence TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime