Investigation: Shocking number of council papers withheld from public

Last updated May 11, 2021

Harrogate council had three times as many restricted council papers as the next highest council.

An investigation by the Stray Ferret into whether Harrogate Borough Council has a culture of secrecy has found the authority has a shocking record of withholding information from the public.

Our findings raise serious questions over how and why the council decides to keep so much information out of the public eye on matters that are of public interest and involve large sums of public money.

The council kept information from local taxpayers on key decisions, such as contracts on the Visit Harrogate tourism website and the dire financial state of the Harrogate Convention Centre.

Our investigation

The Stray Ferret decided to look into the number of papers withheld after noticing a number of key decisions were being made without disclosing full information to the public.

Our research looked at confidential reports known as “pink papers”. This means they are not to be seen by the public or journalists- but are seen by councillors at cabinet and council meetings.

We looked at five similar councils, including Harrogate.

The councils we looked at were of comparable population size, were Conservative-led and all operate on the same cabinet and leader system.

The authorities ranged from population sizes of a high of 140,000 and the lowest was 120,000.

A shocking revelation

The number of papers made exempt at the five Conservative-run councils.

The findings show Harrogate Borough Council had three times more restricted papers than the second highest council and nearly 25 times as many as the lowest.

A total of 222 of Harrogate’s reports were marked “commercially confidential” as a reason for being kept from the public.

By comparison, South Kesteven District Council restricted 79 reports, East Lindsey District Council 48, East Hampshire District Council 11 and Test Valley Council had 9.

In December alone Harrogate withheld information in 46 reports.

While one would accept that each authority varies in population size (the lowest being 120,000, the highest 140,000) and each has different local issues to tackle, the sheer scale of the gap suggests Harrogate has a systemic attitude of withholding information.

It begs the question as to why so many papers were withheld from the public and how the decisions were arrived at, especially on major spends of public money such as the Harrogate Convention Centre.

The Stray Ferret has looked at three examples of where the authority has chosen to exempt information on big investments using taxpayer cash and questions whether it was necessary or appropriate to do so.

Harrogate Convention Centre

In July 2020, the Stray Ferret published a leaked (pink) report into the proposed £46.8 million refurbishment of Harrogate Convention Centre.

It’s the single biggest spend the council has proposed in recent times and yet the report that was used to make the decision included information that was not made available to the public.

The report showed the dire financial state of the centre.

It said the venue, which is owned by the council, lost £710,000 in the 2019/20 financial year.

The report added that the HCC financial performance has “declined significantly since 2008/9”. But this information was withheld from the public and the council later approved the investment.

A source who used to work at the borough council, but did not wish to be named, told the Stray Ferret that there was little reason to keep that information from the public.

They said:

“There’s nothing in that report which would suggest commercial confidentiality. The only thing you can find is projected loss, which is hardly sensitive.”

The council was so upset about the leak that it held an internal investigation to establish who had sent us the document.

Yet we would argue that public has a right to know about the performance of one of the council’s biggest assets, owned by taxpayers, ahead of a huge investment of public money.

Jacob Bailey and Visit Harrogate

Four months later, the council decided to approve a contract to Suffolk-based Jacob Bailey Group to revamp its tourism website Visit Harrogate without open tender.

At the council meeting where the decision was taken to award the contract, two pink papers were presented to the cabinet member responsible, Cllr Stan Lumley.

We can only assume these papers explained why there was no tendering process and the amount Jacob Bailey was going to charge.

It led to a member of the public using the Freedom of Information Act to ask for the cost, which was then declined.

Another person has since complained to the Local Government Ombudsman, asking for information on why the council decided not to openly tender for the contract.

Eventually the information was released. It was £165,000 for the tourism website. Many questions remain about how the decision was made and how that sum represents value for money.

Leisure investment

In June last year, the borough council outlined another of its big publicly funded projects.

It planned to borrow £26 million to fund two capital projects, a refurbishment of the Harrogate Hydro and a new leisure facility at Knaresborough.

In the report, the council outlined what the Hydro and the new centre would need and how it intended to get the money.

However, it also included nine supporting papers – eight of which were withheld from the press and public on “commercial grounds”.

The following November, the council approved a contract for a development manager for the investment.

It appointed Somerset-based Alliance Leisure and decided to do so without competitive tender.

The report came with a restricted paper, once again withheld on commercial grounds.

Such was the lack of information we asked exactly what the fee was for the company and why there was no competitive tender process. We did not receive a response.

It’s another example of a lack of transparency around a contract that leaves unanswered questions about value for money.

Culture of non-disclosure

Our findings suggest at best there is a culture of non-disclosure at the borough council when it comes to making information on key decisions public.

They raise legitimate questions over why the borough council decided to keep such information out of the public eye on matters which involved millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The council says it is committed to openness and transparency, but our research suggests the opposite.

In the authority’s own code of corporate governance, it says it is committed to the principle of “implementing good practices in transparency”.

The council has also released public statements – one as recently as last month – saying it has a commitment to be “an open and transparent council”.

What does it say about the transparency of the council when a £710,000 loss at the convention centre is deemed too sensitive for the public to know?

We put our findings to Harrogate Borough Council. A spokeswoman for the authority said:

“We are an ambitious council with several multi-million pound and major projects underway, including new sport and leisure facilities and investment in Harrogate Convention Centre.

“This is for the benefit of our residents and for the district to be known as the best place to work, live and visit.

“This means, compared to other councils, we probably have more than the average number of commercial contracts being tendered.”

Although the council says it has major projects underway, our research shows the next highest council in our comparison – South Kesteven – also had commercial projects in the past year.

South Kesteven council set up a new leisure company and transferred its assets over to the business. The council was also involved in an investment project at St Martin’s Park in Stamford.

Tomorrow, we will look at the council’s response to Freedom of Information requests and general enquiries from the press and public.

Download the FREE Stray Ferret app here to access the latest news, competitions and offers.