Subscribe to trusted local news
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
12
May 2021
Investigation: Council's 'inconsistent' approach to disclosing information
Yesterday we reported on how the council’s has a shocking record of withholding information compared with similar councils.
Today, we are looking Harrogate Borough Council’s response to public and the press who use the Freedom of Information act and other means to force the council to reveal information they have kept secret.
Over the past year, the Stray Ferret has investigated and published stories scrutinising the use of Harrogate taxpayers’ money.
To do this, we have submitted Freedom of Information requests to the borough council to get information or asked direct questions on matters of public interest.
As a taxpayer, it is your right to know what the local authority does with your money, how it is spent and what it is spent on.
What we have found is an inconsistent approach to responding to freedom of information requests, suspicion of the press and members of the public who feel the council has a defensive attitude to requests for information.
On two significant occasions, the council has decided to withhold information where thousands of pounds of public money has been spent - only to later publish it when challenged.
Today, we will focus on two FOI requests from ourselves and two from residents:
- Flaxby Park legal costs – FOI refused on “private information” grounds.
- Jacob Bailey and the Visit Harrogate website - questions not answered.
- Leisure facilities costs–FOI on Turkish Baths refused on “commercial” grounds
- Live streaming costs – FOI refused on “commercial” grounds
On two of these occasions the council refused the FOI and then, inexplicably, posted the information on Twitter.
Jacob Bailey and Visit Harrogate
When the borough council decided to bypass its own procurement rules to hand a contract to revamp the Visit Harrogate website, it posed serious questions of public interest as to whether the contract was value for money.
The decision was taken by the Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Sport, Cllr Stan Lumley in November 2020.
While the council published a public report on what it wanted to do with the website and that it was going to hand the contract to a Suffolk-based company, Jacob Bailey, it also contained information that was confidential.
The public parts of the report did not include any reference to how much the contract cost.
Read more:
- Visit Harrogate website contract awarded without tender
- Investigation: Shocking number of council papers withheld from public
The Stray Ferret asked the borough council what the value of the contract was, while a member of the public submitted a freedom of information request with the same question.
We also asked why the authority had not dealt with the matter sooner and what market research had led it to select the Jacob Bailey Group over local companies.
The council refused to answer our questions and refused the FOI – citing grounds of commercial confidentiality.
Yet, two months later in January, the council did publish the cost - which was £165,000 over four years - on Twitter.
The matter raises questions once again as to why that information was not public in the first place and why it was not given at the point of request - to either journalists or the member of the public.
Flaxby Park legal costs
In October, the borough council appeared at the High Court as part of a judicial review over a decision to choose Green Hammerton over Flaxby for a new settlement.
The authority hired Paul Brown QC, joint head of Landmark Chambers in London.
Despite the costs being paid through public money, the council refused an FOI request from the Stray Ferret to reveal the sum paid to Mr Brown.
It said the information was exempt from disclosure because its lawyers’ legal fees should remain private. We challenged that by requesting an internal review.
Read more:
Harrogate council refuses to reveal High Court legal costs
Harrogate council U-turn reveals Flaxby legal costs
In January the borough council revealed on social media that the legal costs were £57,360. But instead of giving to us, it published it on Twitter first.
We later found that the authority paid Mr Brown on five separate occasions and published his name on its publicly available expenses.
It begs the question why was the information denied to us in the first place when it was already available publicly?
Live streaming costs
One request last year dragged on for six months before the council decided to hand over the information.
In January 2020, the ruling Conservative group, led by leader Cllr Richard Cooper, rejected a proposal to stream meetings live.
At the time, Cllr Cooper said there was “not enough public interest” in the idea and added it would “cost tens of thousands of pounds”.
As a result, Jerry Diccox, a local resident, submitted a freedom of information request asking for the details of the council’s cost analysis of live streaming meetings.
Mr Diccox documented his e-mail exchange with the council on the website WhatDoTheyKnow. It lasted for six months until finally the authority released the information.
Initially, HBC rejected the FOI request due to “commercial confidentiality”. Mr Diccox asked for an internal review but the council's chief solicitor upheld the original decision.
He argued that the cost analysis related to a “potential expenditure of public money”.
After taking his complaint to the Information Commissioner, Mr Diccox finally received his information.
Six months after his initial request, the council said it had reconsidered his request after being advised of the complaint.
The analysis showed indicative cost of live streaming meetings over one year and three years.
It showed that streaming meetings could cost £5,377.20 or £25,185.80 for one year. Meanwhile, three years could range from £5,377.20 to £40,623.80.
Mr Diccox said at the time that the council’s attempts to “hide behind the public interest” exemption was “nothing short of shameful”.
He said:
The council later denied that there was any attempt to avoid accountability.
Turkish Baths
In the midst of the council taking a major decision to set up a new company to run leisure services, the Stray Ferret decided to look at how much each facility cost to run.
As well as setting up an arms-length company, the authority was planning to borrow £26 million to revamp two of its pools.
We sent a Freedom of Information request to the council asking for the running cost of each leisure facility.
The request was answered in part- however the council refused to reveal the costs of the Turkish Baths on “commercial” grounds.
A source who used to work for the council, but did not wish to be named, told the Stray Ferret that there was no reason why that information could not have been handed over.
Read more:
- Council gives final backing to leisure services overhaul
- Harrogate District leisure services cost taxpayers £3.5 million a year
The Turkish Baths is owned and run by the council. It is the public’s right to know how much it costs to run.
To date we still do not know how much it cost the public to run the Turkish Baths. We do not know if it makes a profit or a loss for the taxpayer.
An Inconsistent Approach
The frustration of getting information from the authority is echoed by campaigners.
Alex Smith, a local resident, has submitted FOI requests over section 106 agreements and asked the council to update its transparency data several times over the years.
Under the Transparency Code 2015, the council is required to publish a range of data for the public such as expenses, grants and parking income.
Mr Smith said he found it difficult to get the council to update its information.
He told the Stray Ferret:
Our examples give rise to public accusations that the council is deliberately avoiding scrutiny- that decisions are taken behind closed doors, with the public and press not party to crucial information and that it only publishes that information when it is forced to do so and, in some cases, never.
Our findings show that Harrogate Borough Council has been inconsistent when it comes to providing information to the public and journalists - despite saying it is committed to be open and transparent.
We put our findings to the borough council. A spokeswoman said:
Tomorrow we will be reporting on the political reaction to our investigation of secrecy at Harrogate Borough Council.
0