We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are arnold dixon please sign in and let everyone know.

Letter issued by KPMG LLP, a

We're waiting for arnold dixon to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Scarborough Borough Council,uest

Please provide:

1. a copy of the purchase invoice from KPMG LLP dated 30 September 2022 with reference 5502508914 in the sum of £5,000 + VAT that is recorded as paid on 10 October 2022,

2. a copy of the instructions sent to KPMG LLP regarding the advice sought in relation to the Yorkshire Coast BID, together with a copy of the Engagement Letter issued by KPMG LLP, and

3. a copy of the report prepared by KPMG LLP in relation to the above.

Yours faithfully,
Arnold Dixon

Scarborough Borough Council

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Dixon,

 

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Please find attached an extract of the purchase invoice from KPMG LLP
dated 30 September 2022 with reference 5502508914 in the sum of £5,000 +
VAT that is recorded as paid on 10 October 2022.

 

Also attached is a copy of the Terms of Engagement and an extract of the
scope of the works provided by KPMG LLP. Please note that the Terms of
Engagement includes redactions where information is exempt from disclosure
by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (amended
by Schedule 19(58) of the Data Protection Act 2018).

 

Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts personal
information from disclosure if disclosure would breach one or more data
protection principles specified by Section 5(1) of the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR). In this case we consider that disclosure
would breach the first principle, namely that personal information must be
processed lawfully, fairly, and in a transparent manner in relation to the
Data Subject. In this case we consider that the disclosure would be unfair
and none of the conditions for processing, listed in Articles 6 and 9 of
the GDPR, would be met.

 

This exemption is an absolute exemption and therefore not subject to the
Public Interest Test.

 

In additional to the third party personal data, information has been
redacted under section 43(2) as it is considered commercially sensitive.
KPMG LLP operate in a very competitive environment. It would be harmful to
their business in future, if their competitors found out how much they
charged for work should this financially sensitive information be made
public. It is important to remember that disclosure under FOIA is not just
to the requestor and is disclosure into the public domain and therefore to
the world at large.

 

The council needs to ensure that it is able to obtain best value, and that
third party suppliers remain willing to enter into contracts with the
Council. The Council has considered the public interest test, which
requires us to weigh the public interest in disclosure against the public
interest in maintaining the exemption. It is clear that you, having made
the request, has an interest in the requested information.

 

The public interest arguments for disclosure considered were as follows:

•             The public have an interest in ensuring that best value is
obtained when contracting services. Disclosure of the information would
aid the public in assessing whether best value had been obtained.

•             Where information is kept out of the public domain it may
lead to allegations that decisions are not being made in an open and
accountable manner. Disclosure of the information would allow the public
to satisfy themselves that the process has been undertaken lawfully and
appropriately. It is acknowledged there is a public interest in the costs
and in transparency and accountability, to promote public understanding
and to safeguard democratic processes.

•       Ensuring transparency– there is clear public interest in ensuring
that the Council achieve the best possible price when contracting with
third parties. Disclosure of the information would allow the public to
understand the Council’s position thus increasing transparency. 

 

The public interest arguments considered in favour of maintaining the
exemption, and not disclosing the information were as follows:

•             Ensuring well informed decision making – commercially
sensitive information is required by the Council, so that we are able to
make well informed decisions, in the best interests of the Borough.
Disclosure of commercially sensitive  information has significant
potential to impact upon the willingness of parties to deal with the
Council in future. The public have an interest in the Council being able
to conduct its affairs in an appropriate manner, intrinsic to which is the
requirement to achieve best value. If parties were unwilling to contract
with the Council this would be likely to be prejudicial to achieving best
value and securing the most advantageous arrangements.

•             There is an obvious public interest in maintaining trust and
preserving the free flow of information which is required for the
performance of public functions. The public also have a clear interest in
the Council being able to conduct their commercial affairs to the benefit
of the Borough. It cannot be within the public interest for the Council to
have to disclose details connected to these affairs where there is no
suggestion or allegation of impropriety.

•             The disclosure of the information would cause significant
harm to KPMG’s business as outlined above.

 

Consequently, the Council considers that the public interest weighs in
favour of maintaining the exemption.

 

I can confirm that Scarborough Borough Council holds the information
requested regarding the report prepared by KPMG LLP, however it is exempt
from disclosure by virtue of Section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. This is because its disclosure would, or would be
likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

 

The Local Authority’s ‘Qualified Person’ – which, as defined by the Local
Government Act 1972, in this case is the council’s monitoring officer -
has reached this conclusion as the Council should be able to conduct its
business and request reviews of its actions, processes and procedures from
external parties without such requests prejudicing the Council’s ability
to fulfil its functions and provide services.

 

For local authorities, this exemption is a qualified exemption which means
that it is subject to the Public Interest Test. It has been determined
that the public interest in withholding the requested information
outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. The following factors were
considered:

 

Prejudice to the effective conduct of affairs could refer to an adverse
effect on the public authority’s ability to offer an effective public
service or to meet its wider objectives or purpose, but the effect does
not have to be on the authority in question; it could be an effect on
other bodies or the wider public sector. It may refer to the disruptive
effects of disclosure, for example the diversion of resources in managing
the effect of disclosure.

 

Factors in favour of disclosure:

·            The Council has a duty to ensure that it’s dealings with the
Yorkshire Coast BID is conducted correctly.

·            The general public confidence in the Council in undertaking
its functions by allowing scrutiny of its performance.

·            Transparency and openness are important principles of the
Freedom of Information Act.

 

Factors in favour of withholding information:

·            The disclosure of this information could prejudice the
conduct of public affairs, as it relates to the Council's dealings with
the Yorkshire Coast BID.

·            The council has two overview of scrutiny committees and one
audit committee who have oversight of decisions made by the Council, and
their ability to conduct their work effectively could be compromised by
the disclosure of this information.

·            The potential damage to the Council’s relationships with
third parties, such as Yorkshire Coast BID Ltd, which could result in an
adverse impact on the willingness of third parties to participate fully
and cooperate with the Council. There is an obvious public interest in
maintaining trust and preserving the free flow of information which is
required for the performance of the Council’s functions in this
relationship.

 

After conducting a public interest test, Scarborough Borough Council has
determined that at this moment in time, the public interest in withholding
the requested information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

 

However, this decision is subject to change, as the public interest may
shift over time. For example, if the ongoing court proceedings related to
the Yorkshire Coast BID were to conclude, the council may reconsider its
decision and release the information in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act.

 

Please find attached the council’s information governance appeals
procedure for your information. Please remember to quote the reference
number above in any future communications.

 

Yours Sincerely

Rebecca Ward

Senior Information Governance Officer

 

 

 

 

SAVE COSTS - PLEASE DON'T PRINT UNLESS YOU HAVE TO

VERITAU EMAIL DISCLAIMER

This communication is from a Veritau group company. Veritau provides
internal audit, counter fraud and information governance services and
other related assurance services to the public sector. Any opinions or
statements expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not
necessarily those of Veritau, or its clients.

The information contained within, and in any attachment(s), is
confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the
intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please
note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication,
or the information within, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Equally, you must not disclose all, or part, of its contents to any other
person.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
at the above address, then delete and destroy all copies of it.

Veritau's computer systems and communications may be monitored to ensure
effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Although we have endeavoured to ensure that this e-mail and any
attachments are free from any virus we would advise you to take any
necessary steps to ensure that they are actually virus free.

Veritau disclaims any liability for action taken in reliance on the
content of this communication.

The Veritau Group includes Veritau Limited (6794890), Veritau North
Yorkshire Limited (7931990) and Veritau Tees Valley Limited (12363643).
The companies are registered in England and Wales. The registered office
for all of the companies is West Offices, Station Rise, York, YO1 6GA.

Please visit the Veritau website www.veritau.co.uk for details of each
company’s ownership.

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are arnold dixon please sign in and let everyone know.