THE jury is out on a bid by Thurrock Council to keep its financial secrets.

Over the past week Thurrock Nub News reported on the impact of national newspaper reports highlighting alleged major failings by Thurrock Council that could costs up to £200 million.

In addition, irrecoverable money totally tens of millions has been paid to dodge financial advisors.

At a hearing called to decide if Thurrock Council has to open its accounting books to the public, the authority's financial director has defended a controversial investment scheme.

Sean Clark gave evidence to an information rights tribunal hearing – the latest stage of a three-year attempt by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism to obtain details of the council's investments under the Freedom of Information Act.

In 2019 the Bureau requested information about the council's £1bn borrowing and investment strategy, which was overseen by Mr Clark. Thurrock rejected those requests on the basis that the information is commercially sensitive and disclosure would damage its ability to conduct its affairs.

Leo Davidson, acting for the Bureau, put it to Mr Clark that the council had refused the requests because it didn't want "embarrassing details" about the deals to come to light.

Mr Clark said neither he nor the council was trying to avoid scrutiny. He added: "What I am worried about is any detriment that could come from releasing this information."

Mr Davidson told the tribunal that the Public Accounts Committee, National Audit Office and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy had all raised concerns about the sort of investments Thurrock had undertaken.

These concerns include a lack of transparency, decision-making by very small groups of people, borrowing and investments that are disproportionate to a council's resources and an over-reliance on commercial sensitivity as an excuse for limiting the information disclosed to the public.

Mr Clark admitted that the council was at the "top end" when it came to how much it had borrowed and invested but said that the policy had brought in significant extra income to the council and had been taken with the full support of councillors.

Sean Clark, left, says councillors including Labour leader Cllr John Kent (third from left) have had ample opportunity to question his decisions.

That assertion before the tribunal has since been challenged by local councillors, including the Labour opposition leader Cllr John Kent. He refuted an assertion Mr Clark that councillors had not expressed disquiet and had not taken advantage of an opportunity to request meetings in private so confidential details could be discussed.

"They never pushed me on any of those commercial arrangements when they could have done," he told the tribunal.

Philip Coppel QC, acting for the council, said releasing the information would still be damaging because it would jeopardise the council's ability to "extricate [from] or otherwise refinance" the investments.

He said: "Much has been made about the scale of the loans and the investments and about the council's fiduciary obligation to ratepayers. We don't take issue with any of that. It is because of the scale of the loans and the investments and about the council's fiduciary obligation that caution in disclosure is prudent.

"Careless talk costs investments. It is the ratepayers who suffer."

Mr Davidson responded by saying: "If, as a local authority, your financial scheme depends on secrecy and cannot provide public scrutiny, it's a pretty good clue that you've adopted the wrong strategy."

"We say what clearer evidence can there be that something has gone wrong? If, as a local authority, your financial scheme depends on secrecy and cannot provide public scrutiny, it's a pretty good clue that you've adopted the wrong strategy."

After the conclusion of the hearing, judgment was reserved and it could be some months before a decision is announced.

A full report of the hearing can be found via this link.