Who knew what and when re discriminatory admissions policy at Turkish Baths?

The request was partially successful.

Dear Harrogate Borough Council,

It is disappointing (and concerning) that Harrogate Borough Council should continue to be quite so reluctant to provide a comprehensive response in relation to the still unanswered questions relating to the Council’s decision to axe men-only bathing sessions at the town’s Turkish Baths in December 2011 in apparent contravention of its Public Sector Equality responsibilities. Although a once-a-week session has now been reinstated after the Council finally conceded it hadn’t handled the issue as well as it might, it nevertheless still refuses to clarify exactly what mistakes it made.
Since the decision to reintroduce a weekly men-only bathing session with effect from September 7, 2016 was made on the basis of it being reviewed after 12 months, it is crucial that all relevant facts surrounding the original decision should be placed in the public domain so that any future decisions can be taken with this background information in mind. And not on the basis that the original decision was entirely justified as there is now a wealth of evidence to suggest it wasn’t. Even the Council’s Head of Legal & Governance has acknowledged: “With the benefit of hindsight, the process was not perfect and given the chance to go back in time they (senior officers of the Council) would do things differently.”
In response to a previous FOI request from myself, the Head of Legal & Governance declined to make public the legal advice she provided to the Council’s Cabinet member for culture and sport which persuaded him that there were strong legal arguments for reinstating at least one men-only session a week. While it is regrettable that the Council won’t publish this advice, one assumes it nevertheless has a duty under the Freedom of Information Act to at least provide and clarify basic facts. And in that respect I seek answers to the following questions:
1) Please specify on what date any senior Council officer first became aware that the axing of the men-only bathing sessions at Harrogate’s Turkish Baths potentially contravened the Equality Act 2010 and the Council's own equalities policy?

2) The Council’s Head of Legal & Governance has claimed that the legal advice the Council received in December 2011 suggested it would not be discriminatory if men-only sessions were discontinued. She claims this advice was subsequently superseded and that the Council then acted promptly to rectify the decision. Can you confirm the date on which this new legal advice came to light?

3) The Council has stated that the reinstatement of a weekly men-only session “fully meets the requirements of equalities legislation.” This suggests there was a period of time when the Council wasn’t fully meeting its duties and responsibilities. Can you confirm between which dates the Council accepts it contravened its duties under the Equality Act 2010 by providing a service to one gender which it was not making available to the other?

4) In order to keep the public fully informed as to the popularity of the reinstated men-only bathing sessions, can you please provide attendance figures for each of the men-only sessions during the three-month period November 2016-January 2017 inclusive? Can you also provide attendance figures for each of the six, weekly women-only sessions held during that same period?

Yours faithfully,

Peter Lilley

Rich Kemp, Harrogate Borough Council

Dear Mr Lilley

 

Thank you for your email which we received on 13/02/2017. We are treating
this as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000. This means that —

 

o if we need more information about what you want, we will contact you
again as soon as we can; the twenty working days in which to give you
the information will start once we know exactly what you want
o if we do not hold the information, we will, if we can, transfer your
request to an authority who does hold it, and tell you what we have
done (please contact us immediately if you do not want us to do this);
otherwise, we will let you know that we do not hold the information
o if we hold the information and there is no reason to withhold it, we
will send it to you as soon as we can.  If there is likely to be a
delay for any reason, we will let you know
o if we believe that there is a good reason why the information should
not be disclosed, we will let you know as much as we can about how we
reached our decision

 

We will respond to your request promptly, and in any event, within the 20
working day limit as set out in s10 of the Act.

 

Regards

 

Rich Kemp LLB (Hons)

Legal Assistant (Debt & Information Law)

Legal & Governance

Harrogate Borough Council

PO Box 787

Harrogate

HG1 9RW

 

tel: 01423 500600 (ext - 58602)

email:  [1][email address]

[2]www.harrogate.gov.uk

 

 

show quoted sections

Rich Kemp, Harrogate Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Lilley

 

Thank you for your email requesting information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Please find below Harrogate Borough Council’s
response:

 

1.       1 July 2016 (date of Counsel advice)

2.       As above

3.       1 July 2016 to 18 August 2016 (date of Cabinet Member decision)

4.       Please see attached

 

We hope you are happy with our service.  But if you are not satisfied with
the way your request has been handled, please contact -  

 

Freedom of Information Officer, PO Box 787, Harrogate, HG1 9RW

 

or email [1][Harrogate Borough Council request email]

 

The Council has an internal appeal system.  If your complaint is about the
decision which has been made you will usually be entitled to have your
case reviewed by an officer from a department which has not been involved
in the decision previously.   

 

If, after their decision, you are still not happy, you may appeal to-  

 

The Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

Tel: 0303 123 1113

website: [2]https://ico.org.uk/

 

Regards

 

Rich Kemp LLB (Hons)

Legal Assistant (Debt & Information Law)

Legal & Governance

Harrogate Borough Council

PO Box 787

Harrogate

HG1 9RW

 

tel: 01423 500600 (ext - 58602)

email:  [3][email address]

[4]www.harrogate.gov.uk

 

Please note that I am based at Crescent Gardens, HG1 2SG (for hand
deliveries or personal visits)

 

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Kemp
I find it quite insulting that you could even suggest I might be happy with the service you have provided on this occasion. Why would anyone be happy with a council that takes 19 working days to produce such a shamefully inadequate response? Not only is your four-line reply unhelpful, incomplete, misleading and evasive - but in three of your four answers, you actually manage to be factually incorrect as well.
I am therefore taking this opportunity to make a formal request through you for an Internal Review into why my request has been so badly mishandled. I would expect this review to be undertaken by a senior officer completely unconnected with any previous involvement or correspondence on this matter. One would also hope it will lead to suitably amended (and correct) information being placed in the public domain.
My understanding of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is that it was introduced to give members of the public a legal right to information which local authorities might prefer to keep secret. It was also my understanding that local authorities have a legal duty to provide the information requested unless there is a good reason not to (in which case, the local authority would need to explain what those reasons are.) I would also point out that under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act, local authorities (and other bodies) are advised that they have an obligation to be helpful towards those making requests and to handle requests in an efficient and timely way. I therefore regard your curt, half-line responses, providing the minimum amount of information (and for much of that information to be inaccurate) to be wholly unacceptable and unsatisfactory.
I thought it might be helpful if I drew your attention to where I believe the information you have provided is quite simply wrong.
Question 1: I asked on what date any senior Council official first became aware that the axing of the men-only bathing sessions at Harrogate’s Turkish Baths potentially contravened the Equality Act 2010 and the Council’s own equality policy. Your reply was July 1, 2016. This is incorrect. I’m presuming that you consider the Chief Executive of Harrogate Borough Council, Wallace Sampson, to be a senior officer? In which case, I can advise you of a mountain of correspondence with Mr Sampson which clearly shows he was well aware of concerns that the axing of the men-only bathing sessions might be unlawful as far back as the early months of 2012.
Moreover, your own colleague, the Council’s Head of Legal & Governance, Jennifer Norton, who appears to have provided the “Counsel advice” of July 1, 2016 which you referred to, was aware of concerns that the Council might be in breach of equalities legislation on February 29, 2016. This follows a submission I made to the Council’s Engagement Officer on January 6, 2016 in response to a public consultation procedure where the Council invited the public to submit feedback on its proposals to renew its Equality Vision and Objectives policy for the four-year period 2016-2020. I told the Engagement Officer that if the Council was serious about equality, it should start by reviewing and then immediately redressing its admissions policy at the Turkish Baths which I suggested was blatantly discriminatory and had been introduced without proper consultation and a proper review of alternatives.
Also, an Equalities Impact Assessment was only carried out once the decision (to axe the men-only bathing sessions) had already been made. I later learned that the whole of this comment was deleted from the report forwarded to the full council on the advice of Ms Norton who concluded that the comment was “not relevant.” I then engaged in correspondence with Ms Norton on this matter during March 2016; so I’m curious that the Legal Department should now claim that it only became aware that the Council might be in breach of equalities legislation on July 1, 2016.
Question 2: This would appear to be a deliberate misinterpretation of my question. I’m well aware that July 1 2016 was the date the Legal & Governance Department produced advice which led to the Cabinet Member for Culture & Sport deciding that men-only bathing sessions should be reintroduced. But that fails to answer the questions: why did the Council wait until July 2016 before issuing this new advice? Also, in what way did the Equality Act 2010 change between December 2011 when the Council was apparently told that axing all men-only bathing sessions would not be considered discriminatory; and the Legal Department producing advice in July 2016 which – in essence – stated that in order to comply with equalities legislation the Council would need to reintroduce at least one male bathing session a week?
Question 3: Your response appears to contain, at long last, a tacit acceptance by the Council that in the period July 1 2016 to August 18, 2016 it wasn’t “fully meeting the requirements of equalities legislation” and that it was contravening its duties under the Equality Act 2010 by providing a service to one gender which it was not making available to the other. While I welcome this long-sought admission by the Council, I would argue that it’s misleading to suggest that it was only during this relatively short period of time that the Council was failing to fully meet the requirements of equalities legislation. There would now appear to be considerable evidence to suggest that this was the position for a much longer period and it’s important that the Council clarifies exactly how long that period was?
Question 4: It would appear from the figures that you have produced that the weekly men-only bathing session is performing well which is especially pleasing since, despite claims that it would actively promote the return of the men-only sessions, the Council failed to even produce a dedicated press release on the matter; nor have there been any special promotions. The Council gives every impression of not wishing to draw attention to the return of the men-only sessions and, as can be seen from the Council’s response to this FOI request, is still deeply reluctant to properly answers questions in relation to how this completely unjustified discrimination was allowed to continue for so long.
Yours sincerely
Peter Lilley

Rich Kemp, Harrogate Borough Council

Dear Mr Lilley

 

I write to confirm that your request for an internal review was received
on 14/03/2017. The Council will endeavour to complete the review within 20
working days. The review will be carried out by a senior Council Officer
who has not been involved with your original request. You will be informed
of the decision of the review as soon as possible once the review has been
completed. If you remain unsatisfied after the findings of the review you
then have the right to complain to the Information Commissioners Office,
details will be provided in the review response.

 

Regards

 

Rich Kemp LLB (Hons)

Legal Assistant (Debt & Information Law)

Legal & Governance

Harrogate Borough Council

PO Box 787

Harrogate

HG1 9RW

 

tel: 01423 500600 (ext - 58602)

email:  [1][email address]

[2]www.harrogate.gov.uk

 

Please note that I am based at Crescent Gardens, HG1 2SG (for hand
deliveries or personal visits)

 

show quoted sections

Dawn Cornforth,

5 Attachments

 

Dear Mr Lilley

 

Please find attached a copy of a letter sent to you on behalf of Mr Simon
Kent, Director, Harrogate Convention Centre, regarding your request for
information made and processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

A hard copy of this letter will be sent to you by first class post today.

 

Regards.

 

Dawn

 

  Dawn Cornforth

  EPA to Director and Senior Management Team

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D2AA3B.95E1EED0  

Dl: 01423 537443

R:  01423 500500

P: Kings Road, Harrogate, HG1 5LA

[2]www.harrogateconventioncentre.co.uk

[3]http://hicyorkshiremail.co.uk/mvcs2/DDIm...

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email is Scanned by MailMarshal

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
2. http://www.harrogateconventioncentre.co....
3. https://www.facebook.com/Harrogate-Inter...
4. https://twitter.com/HgtConventions?lang=...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/55...

Dear Ms Cornforth
I have today written to Simon Kent, the Director of Harrogate Convention Centre, who undertook the Internal Review into my FOI request.
I told Mr Kent that I consider his review to be disappointing and unsatisfactory on almost every level in that it completely fails to address the core issue, namely the way Harrogate Borough Council’s Legal & Governance Department handled my FOI request of 13.2.17.
I suggested that all his review has succeeded in doing is to raise further questions; and deepen my concerns with respect to Harrogate Council's supposed commitment to its responsibilities under its Constitution to be open, transparent and fully accountable.
Mr Kent failed to even confirm the name of the person who provided the information which formed the Council’s original response to my FOI request, nor (if this was the case) the name of the person who checked the response before it was sent to me on March 9, 2017.
I also suggested that Mr Kent surely owed me an explanation as to why the information contained in the Council’s original response was essentially wrong in all respects; which led to the quite extraordinary “clarification” of the information by the Council’s Head of Legal & Governance.
I pointed out to Mr Kent that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, councils (and other bodies) are expected to adopt a helpful attitude towards those submitting requests. But that I saw no evidence of this in the way the Council had dealt with my request. It took 19 working days to produce what, in essence, was a 28-word response – all of it incorrect. And yet Mr Kent appears to have no critical comments to make in respect of the way the Legal department handled my request. Indeed, he claims to be "satisfied" that the request was handled properly if one takes into account the Council's subsequent clarification. But, as I suggested to Mr Kent, this completely misses the point. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, councils are expected to provide correct information in the first place. Not in the light of a furious protest from the applicant; or after having had second thoughts. Mr Kent offers no explanation as to why the Legal department failed to deal with the matter properly first time round; so I'm unclear as to what useful purpose his Internal Review is supposed to have served.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Lilley

Dear Mr Kemp
I understood that the prime purpose of an Internal Review was that a senior officer of the Council would undertake a comprehensive and impartial investigation into the way a Freedom of Information request was handled by the Council.
As I have previously indicated, in this instance, the Director of the Harrogate Convention Centre, Mr Simon Kent, appears to have completely ignored the way the request was handled, other than to claim he was "satisfied" it had been dealt with correctly. This despite the fact that it took 19 working days to produce what, in essence, was a 28-word response - all of the information incorrect.
I am now told by Mr Kent that he has nothing further to add to his Internal Review. He even refuses to confirm the name of the Council officer who provided the original information.
Perhaps you could clarify for me how you reconcile Mr Kent's response with the Council's clear duty under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to be as helpful as possible to the person making the request? Failing to confirm absolutely basic information does not strike me as being helpful.
It would also appear to be a breach of Harrogate Council's commitment under its Constitution to be "open, transparent and fully accountable."
How is refusing to provide basic information an example of being open, transparent and accountable?
Yours sincerely
Peter Lilley

Rich Kemp, Harrogate Borough Council

Dear Mr Lilley

 

In response to your initial request the Council provided the date when the
legal advice was received, and therefore the date that there was proper
awareness of the situation relating to the men only sessions. Also
provided was the date that Cabinet made the decision to reinstate men only
sessions at the Turkish Baths. Those dates are factually correct as the
date of the advice and the decision.

 

Your request was put forward for an internal review, which was carried out
by a senior officer, in response to that request for review I understand
you were provided with further explanation in context with your request.

 

Public authorities are required, under statute, to provide a response to a
request for information within 20 working days, your request was responded
to within that timescale. There is a process that needs to happen in order
to provide a response, and resource/officer availability often means that
the full 20 working days are required in order to respond. Your internal
review also appears to have been dealt with in a timely manner.

 

I hope the above assists. With reference to my email to you of 3^rd May
(from which you also emailed me on this matter on 28^th April) I reiterate
that if you remain unsatisfied you must take this matter to the ICO.

 

Regards

 

Rich Kemp LLB (Hons)

(Debt & Information Law)

Legal & Governance

Harrogate Borough Council

PO Box 787

Harrogate

HG1 9RW

 

tel: 01423 500600 (ext - 58602)

email:  [1][email address]

[2]www.harrogate.gov.uk

 

Please note that I am based at Crescent Gardens, HG1 2SG (for hand
deliveries or personal visits)

 

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Kemp,
I acknowledge your further correspondence on this matter.
You appear however to have completely ignored the first question I asked in my original FOI request (which you can find at the very top of this exchange of correspondence.) I asked on what date did any senior Council official first became aware that the axing of the men-only bathing sessions at Harrogate’s Turkish Baths potentially contravened the Equality Act 2010 and the Council's own equalities policy? This is therefore a different question from: on what date did the Council receive the "superseded" legal advice which, as you say, was July 1, 2016.
But since we now know that the Council's Head of Legal & Governance instructed a barrister to provide that legal advice on June 27, 2016; it seems reasonable to deduce that she must have been aware of potential concerns then or, presumably, she wouldn’t have felt it necessary to instruct a barrister to provide any advice?

I’m well aware that public authorities are allowed up to 20 working days to produce a response to a Freedom of Information request. However, public authorities are also expected to provide correct information - not information which then needs to be “clarified".

I agree, the Internal Review was handled in a timely manner. However, in this case, the senior officer “handling” the review failed to address the key question as to why the Council should have provided incorrect information when it has a legal duty to provide correct answers.

I trust this clarifies the situation. If not, I'm confident that other FOI requests of mine currently being processed will shed further light on the matter.
Yours sincerely
Peter Lilley