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:

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:

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:

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:

“This whole exercise has been a huge waste of time and effort, and as such I very much hope (but very much doubt) that the council has learnt lessons about attempting to hide information from the public.

“In future, HBC should try to follow its own stated aims of being more open and democratic and should stop trying to behave like a secret state.”

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:

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:

“They will not really come clean and their instinct is to be defensive.”

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:

“In 2020/21 we dealt with 822 requests under the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations of 2004.

“Both make provision for keeping some information, which is commercially sensitive and may prejudice our commercial or contractual interests, exempt from disclosure. The same applies to personal information.

“We apply exemptions only when we need to, and if the legislation permits, but sometimes we take the view that keeping information exempt is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing it.

“This means, in certain circumstances, we may decide there is a good reason for releasing otherwise confidential or commercially sensitive information.

“We pride ourselves on being and open and transparent council.

“We publish all spending over £250, agendas, reports and papers can be found on our website and anyone is welcome to attend one of our various committee and council meetings – most recently virtually – and from this week in person.

“We are committed to explaining how council taxpayers’ money is spent.

“More information is available on our website: https://www.harrogate.gov.uk/data-protection-freedom-information/data-transparency.”

Tomorrow we will be reporting on the political reaction to our investigation of secrecy at Harrogate Borough Council.

Almost 90 arrests in three years as police tackle county lines drug crime

Police have made 88 drug arrests in the Harrogate district in a targeted operation against county lines activity since January 2018.

The figures, revealed after a request under the Freedom of Information Act by the Stray Ferret, show the number of arrests grew as officers sought to reduce drug dealing and protect vulnerable people in the district.

In 2018, there were only seven drug arrests relating to county lines activity in the Harrogate district, but in 2019 this increased to 51. Up to the end of September 2020, the force reported 30 drug arrests relating to county lines activity.

County lines crime sees drug dealers from more urban areas exploit vulnerable people, including children, and force them to deal drugs in smaller towns and cities. It is a serious and growing issue for the police in Harrogate, with a dedicated team convened under Operation Expedite in April 2018 to tackle it.

Chief Inspector Andrew Colbourne of Harrogate and County Command said:

“There are a whole range of complex issues that have intensified over the past few years as the issue of ‘county lines’ has infiltrated our local communities. We work with numerous partner agencies to provide an all-round approach to disrupting county lines and safeguarding vulnerable people.

“We have dedicated teams that target the supply of drugs and work alongside partners to protect vulnerable people on a daily basis. All our staff are committed to the safety of vulnerable people and victims of crime as well as carrying out focused disruption of those intent on causing harm.”

North Yorkshire Police said county lines is not a recorded crime type so the link in the records is down to human interpretation. The figures only include drug arrests, rather than those for other related crimes such as assault.

Read more:

The force said it is proactively working to protect victims of cuckooing, where drug dealers target vulnerable residents and use their home as a base for selling and storing drugs. Victims of cuckooing are often subjected to violence and intimidation.

Children are also common victims of county lines activity and police are also working to safeguard them from grooming by dealers pushing them to help sell and transport drugs. If children try to refuse, police said they can be subject to physical and psychological abused.

Chief Inspector Colbourne added:

“Members of the public can help us by looking beyond the obvious, someone you might associate with antisocial behaviour and troublesome visitors, might just be very scared and exploited. Or, on the surface, a young person might appear to be a trouble-maker, but they could be a scared victim of abuse and be trapped in a criminal world that they can’t escape from.”

The police said the public can offer vital information that results in arrests. To report suspected drug dealing, call the force on 101, or speak anonymously to Crimestoppers by calling 0800 555 111.

Harrogate Borough Council accused of ‘behaving like a secret state’

A local man has accused Harrogate Borough Council of “behaving like a secret state” after winning a six-month Freedom of Information battle.

Jerry Diccox submitted a FoI request in March after council leader Cllr Richard Cooper rejected calls to stream meetings live online.

Mr Cooper said he could not justify spending tens of thousands of pounds on streaming meetings that would be watched by two or three people.

Mr Diccox asked the council to provide evidence substantiating Mr Cooper’s claims. The council said the information was exempt from disclosure because it was commercially sensitive.

Mr Diccox requested an internal review, saying the issue related to public money and therefore the information should be in the public domain. But the council’s chief solicitor upheld the original decision.

‘Nothing short of shameful’

However, the Information Commissioner’s Office ruled in Mr Diccox’s favour when he appealed and, six months after his original request, the information was released.

Writing back to the council, Mr Diccox said the process had been a “huge waste of time”. He added:

“That it took pressure from the ICO and over six months of waiting for Harrogate Borough Council to provide this information, during which time it attempted to hide it behind the “public interest” exemption, is nothing short of shameful.

“It demonstrates either a wilful determination within the council to avoid public accountability, democracy and openness

“In future, the council should try to follow its own aims of being more open and democratic, and stop trying to behave like a secret state.”

Read more:

Harrogate Borough Council denied there was any attempt to avoid accountability:

“The quotes were provided by external suppliers as part of the process to investigate the cost of equipping the council chamber with the hardware necessary to live-stream meetings and software for proceedings to be ‘broadcast’.

“We believed this information to be commercially sensitive and therefore exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the FOI Act. The Information Commissioner disagreed with our judgement, so we have released the information.”

Mr Diccox’s efforts revealed the council received three quotes for streaming its meetings, ranging from just over £5,000 to nearly £48,000:

HBC did not take up any of the options to stream meetings from the council chambers.

Since covid it has, however, held meetings on Microsoft Teams and broadcast them on YouTube. They are then removed after two weeks.

 

Council disputes Civic Centre costs

Harrogate Borough Council says the £11.5m build cost of the Civic Centre is not a true picture of the cost of the project 

Reacting to a Stray Ferret exclusive on Friday, the Council argues the overall cost was lower because of money received in the sale of its other premises. 

Harrogate Borough Council argued that the £11.5m reported as the final build cost by The Stray Ferret did not reflect the overall cost of the new council offices at Knapping Mount.   

The figure of £11.5m for building the Civic Centre was obtained by a Freedom of Information request made by The Stray Ferret. The Stray Ferret asked: What was the final cost to Harrogate Borough Council of building its new Civic Centre at St Luke’s Avenue?

Its FOI response said: 

“Final account negotiations were ongoing between the Council and Harry Fairclough prior to Harry Fairclough entering into administration. The Council’s view of the gross valuation of the final account sum for the building contract is £11,516,200.” 

The council said that the figure it released as part of the FOI may change as it continues to negotiate costs with the construction firm, Harry Fairclough Ltd, which has gone into administration. 

It also said that the £11.5m figure to build its new offices did not take into account the fact that millions of pounds was generated through the sale of its other council department buildings to fund the move—these included the sale of Victoria Park House, Scottsdale House, Springfield House and Crescent Gardens. It also argued that moving staff onto one site would result in savings of £1m a year on overheads. 

The council said the £11m figure was always in the public domain. However, in a leaflet distributed by the ruling Conservative party in 2014 during a consultation about the planned build at Knapping Mount, the £8.7m was reported as a gross figure, with the sale of the offices to be deducted from this: 

Screen shot of Conservative leaflet about the new civic centre costs

Taken from a Conservative leaflet distributed to local households in 2014

The council had refused to confirm the cost in response to previous FOI requests, citing commercial sensitivity. Having now been released, the numbers are still confusing for residents of the district. 

The Stray Ferret requested the information in the FOI as part of a detailed look into the net cost of the move to Knapping Mount, the sale of its former offices and whether or not the council has met its original stated objectives for the whole project.    

A full report of our findings will be published once complete.  

EXCLUSIVE: Final build cost for new Civic Centre revealed

The final build cost for Harrogate’s new civic centre has been revealed as £11,516,200.

It is almost £3m more than the budget announced by Harrogate Borough Council at the outset of the project in 2015.

The figure was revealed to The Stray Ferret after a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Previously, the council had refused to announce the cost on the grounds of “commercial sensitivity”. Contractor Harry Fairclough (Construction) Limited entered administration in February this year.

The council said: “Final account negotiations were ongoing between the Council and Harry Fairclough prior to Harry Fairclough entering into administration.”

In 2015, when the council first began work at the Knapping Mount site, the expected build cost was £8.7m.

Harrogate Borough Council said its intention was to unite all staff on one site, saving £1m per year through efficiencies as a result. It argued its existing offices across five sites were not fit for purpose.

Having first put its historic Crescent Gardens building on the market in July 2015, HBC finally announced it had completed a sale to Impala Estates in January this year for £4m. The company said it intends to refurbish the building as offices.