Information Commissioner & Tribunal Decisions course - 28 June 2012

The Campaign for Freedom of Information's next course on 'Information Commissioner & Tribunal Decisions' will be in London on 28 June 2012.

This course, now in its 7th year, deals only with recent decisions and does not repeat material covered in previous courses. It is aimed at experienced FOI practitioners and others with a good working knowledge of the FOI Act and is not intended as an introduction to FOI. Its exact content is dependent on the decisions that have been issued during the period, but typically covers issues such as:

• "fair" and "unfair" disclosures of personal data; 
• the FOI/EIR borderline; 
• the application of specific exemptions including those for breach of confidence and commercial interests; where the public interest line is being drawn; and
• the cost limit, aggregating requests, invalid requests, advice & assistance and other administrative provisions.

The course will be presented by Maurice Frankel, the Campaign's director, who has worked in the field for 28 years.

Significant discounts are available for more than one booking from the same organisation.

Download the booking form here.

Media round up March 2012

Police chiefs hire retired colleagues on £1,100 a day to act as consultants Daily Mail - 26.03.2012
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has come under scrutiny after Freedom of Information requests released information showing that contracts worth hundreds of thousands of pounds were signed with companies run by their former colleagues. The FOI requests, made by the Yorkshire Post, revealed that more than £800,000 was paid in total to ten consultants.

Murder suspects among thousands still at large despite arrest warrants Telegraph - 22.03.2012
Police statistics suggest that more than 30,000 suspects have fled before attempts were made to secure convictions at a court. The figures, released under Freedom of Information laws, disclose that 14 percent of "outstanding arrest warrants" related to offenders accused of violent crimes. The figures, supplied to the BBC, cover cases where a defendant has failed to appear for trial or for a court appearance after being released on bail.

David Cameron's housing gaffe exposed by councils  Property 118 - 20.03.2012
David Cameron's claim that buy to let landlords are reducing the cost of rents in response to the Government's welfare reforms is untrue, according to information from councils. The social housing magazine Inside Housing tested Cameron's claim to the House of Lords that the new welfare policy was forcing landlords to cut rent by sending out Freedom of Information requests to every council in England. The truth is that just 36 councils confirmed that any landlords were cutting rents in return for direct housing benefit payments, and 12 had a total of 65 landlords taking advantage of the offer.

Budget 2012: Non Doms face increased tax levy  CityWire - 20.03.2012
Non-doms living in Britain for 12 years face an increased levy of £50,000, the chancellor has announced. The move is effective 6 April and will likely prove controversial as since the existing £30,000 levy was announced -  by then-chancellor Alistair Darling in 2008 - the number of individuals registered as non-domiciled has fallen. The number of non-doms - persons resident in the UK allowed to keep overseas income outside of Britain’s tax regime - fell by 16% in the last two years, according to data obtained by law firm McGrigors under the Freedom of Information Act.

Waiving the rules to keep the nuclear power programme on course  Spinwatch - 20.03.2012
The energy minister, Charles Hendry, is preparing to waive the rules on admitting skilled foreign workers in order to keep the government's nuclear power programme on track. Hendry made his suggestion at the first meeting of a hitherto secret group called the Programme Management Board. The minutes of the meting last November and subsequent correspondence have been released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) under Freedom of Information laws.

NHS risk register: no decision over publication BBC News - 12.03.2012
The government says it has not decided whether to appeal against a Tribunal ruling to make public a risk assessment of the NHS shakeup in England. Minister Lord Howe said the transition risk register would not be published until the FOI Tribunal explained its ruling but Labour peers said that Parliament could not properly scrutinise the health bill without seeing the register.

999 Service staff cuts  Huffington Post - 11.03.2012
Labour has accused the coalition of overseeing a "shocking" 5,000 cut in police dealing with 999 emergencies. Figures released under Freedom of Information laws suggest the number of "first responder" officers has dropped by 5,261 since the general election. David Cameron has repeatedly insisted that frontline police have not been affected by cuts to budgets.

Primary academies Tottenham Journal - 1.03.2012
Private emails reveal that Haringey Council's chief executive was overruled as the Department for Education pushed forward with its primary academies 'experiment'. The emails - which date from last March to January and were released as part of an Freedom of Information request - show the ongoing tug-of-war over primary schools in Haringey between the DfE and the council.

£4,500 spent on hoax calls by Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service in the past 3 years - Bromsgrove Advertiser - 1.03.2012
The figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests show that the time spent on what the service calls "malicious false alarms" totalled 20hrs 32mins.

Staff axed from quangos to share £2m bonus - Public Service 28/3/2012
Staff working at the soon to be defunct regional development agencies (RDAs) shared a bonus pot of £2.16m, a Freedom of Information request by Conservative MP Jake Berry has revealed. The figures showed the money was shared by 2,026 staff at nine RDAs which will be scrapped by the end of April. The average bonus was said to be £2,000.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran commit "worst ever" Freedom of Information breach - Ardrossan Herald 27.2.2012
NHS Ayrshire and Arran has been severely criticised for withholding more than 50 reports detailing serious incidents at its hospitals and clinics. The health board refused to release the critical incident and adverse event reports - some of which involved the deaths of patients - to its own staff. Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion said there had been "a catalogue of failings" by the board which may have been the most serious breach of FOI laws he had ever dealt with.

Jobseekers forced to clean private homes and offices for nothing - The Guardian 24/2/2012
Jobseekers forced to clean private homes and offices were supplied by a government contractor. The Guardian has discovered through a Freedom of Information request that a major government contractor, Avanta, has compelled jobseekers to work as unpaid cleaners in houses, flats, offices and council premises under the work programme. The programme has received criticism that using unpaid labour to carry out routine tasks amounts to a public subsidy for employers, has resulted in a succession of high street shops pulling out of the scheme this week.

Millions spent on empty court buildings - The Law Gazette 23/2/2012
A Freedom of Information request has revealed that the government is spending £2.5m a year maintaining dozens of redundant courts across England and Wales. The Freedom of Information request shows that 69 former court buildings remain vacant, with no imminent chance of them being sold. Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly announced in December 2010 that 142 courts would close to save money. It is understood that 121 have since shut, most by April 2011.

Councils spent half a billion pounds on CCTV in four years - 24 Dash 22/2/2012
Local authorities in the UK have spent more than £500 million on their CCTV operations in the past four years, according to a report by Big Brother Watch. The report - following a Freedom of Information request - reveals there are now at least 51,600 CCTV cameras controlled by councils, with five of them each operating more than 1,000 cameras.

Asylum seeking children win compensation after being unlawfully detained - Children and young people now 20.2.2012
The Home Office has paid out more than £1million in compensation to 40 asylum seeking children who were unlawfully locked up in adult detention centres. The case, which concluded in 2010, came to light through a Freedom of Information request made by The Guardian. A judicial review was launched in 2005 resulting in the Home Office changing the law and in the formal admission that 40 children had been unlawfully detained, for which the Home Office agreed to pay compensation and legal costs. But the Refugee Council warned that children are still wrongly being held in adult detention centres.

ICO announces announces results of FOI monitoring

No enforcement action will be taken against the Cabinet Office or the Ministry of Defence following an extended period of monitoring, as both departments have improved their FOI response times, the ICO has announced:

Both authorities have now improved their response times with over 85% of information requests being answered within the time limit of 20 working days and are working hard to deal with outstanding requests where responses have been unduly delayed. The ICO will continue to offer support and advice to help both Departments to ensure that outstanding requests are cleared as soon as possible.

It will be interesting to see the Ministry of Justice's statistics when they are published. Both departments were required to sign undertakings committing them to improve their performance in June 2011. The MoJ statistics for the period 1 July to 30 September 2011 show that the Cabinet Office answered only 65% of requests within 20 working days and the Ministry of Defence figure was 79%.

The ICO also announced that 6 of the 18 public authorities monitored between 1 April and 30 June 2011 have been required to sign undertakings. These are the Welsh Government, Kent County Council, Cornwall Council, East Lancashire NHS Trust, Nottingham City Council and North Somerset Council.

Last week the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office, Ian Watmore, was questioned by the Public  Administration Committee about the department's record on FOI. He assured the Committee the delays had been dealt with:

Q114 Alun Cairns: Mr Watmore, how would you describe the transparency record of the Department?
...
Ian Watmore: Because the transparency agenda started with us, we have attempted to be as transparent as we possibly can in as many areas as we can. We have been publishing loads of statistics about what we have achieved, when we have achieved it, what all our people get paid, how many savings we have achieved in the efficiency programme, etc. I do not know if there are any areas that you have in your mind that you wanted to probe.

Q116 Alun Cairns: Yes, I wanted to probe a bit further. Having expressed concerns in August 2010 about the performance of the Cabinet Office in responding to FOI requests, in October 2011 the Information Commissioner announced that it was placing the Cabinet Office under special intensive monitoring arrangements. How do I reconcile that statement with what you have just said?

Ian Watmore: No, I absolutely understand what you are saying. I think what happened, bluntly, was not a lack of transparency. The FOI requests were flooding in from all parts of the system; we had hordes of people arriving; the Department was being restructured; and the management eye went off the ball in terms of ensuring that the FOI requests were answered properly. I think the Information Commissioner rightly held us to account for that. We have put in place a programme to deal with that. It is now dealt with.
...
Q118 Alun Cairns: How do you see, then, the Department acting as a role model to other Departments across Government, bearing in mind you need to take the lead on this, when you are under such special measures?

Ian Watmore: I think there is a difference between, "Are you administratively correct in what you are doing?" and "Are you trying to hide information?" We are definitely not hiding information. We seek to be transparent. We will answer all Freedom of Information requests as required by the law. In this particular case, we got behind on the backlog of FOI requests and we had to move resources to it to deal with it. It was a mistake. We have corrected it. I do not think it will happen again.

Q119 Alun Cairns: I might accept the responses that you have just given me if it was not for standard parliamentary questions going out and the responses coming back saying that you do not hold the information or the information is too costly to collate, which has also been a concern to a number of interested parties and to MPs too. Is it not that that has been used an excuse?

Ian Watmore: That answer, almost certainly, would have been given whether we had done it on time or not. There is a difference between, "Does the FOI request get answered in the allowed time?"-and I accept that the Cabinet Office got behind on that and we have sorted it-and the completely different question of, "In an individual FOI request, do you like the answer that is given?" You will not like some of the answers that are given. We get a lot of requests for a lot of information that would be an unbelievably disproportionate cost to go and collect, at a time when we are already accused, by other parts of the world, of being overly demanding on information from Government Departments.

He was also asked by the chair of the Committee whether parliamentary questions get as equal respect as FOI requests and whether the department refuses to answer more PQs than other departments.

Q127 Chair: I am sure there is not an intention, but there is no legal force to a parliamentary question but there is legal force to an FOI request, so, inevitably, it is easier to fob off a parliamentary question.

Ian Watmore: I would be happy to look into any examples you have. What I am saying to Mr Cairns is not that there is an unwillingness to be open. There is a very strong willingness to be open. The Government has committed to that and we take it. What I think we did lose the focus on was the administration of it. We have corrected that. Then it is a question of having to look at each topic on its merits.
...
Q131 Chair: Can I just press you on this point before we go on? We are advised that you have, in the past, refused information on the grounds of cost, which other Departments have been able to provide. Do you accept that?

Ian Watmore: I do not know. You have to give me the examples. Without an example in front of me, I cannot say.

Full uncorrected transcript of evidence here.
See also Tim Turner's blog post 'The Cabinet Office & FOI, A Retrospective, 2010-2011'

FOI post-legislative scrutiny: Campaign gives evidence

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has submitted written evidence to the Justice Committee's post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act. The submission is divided into three parts. The first describes some areas where the FOI Act and Environmental Information Regulations are not working as well as they should. It suggests a number of improvements such as the introduction of more specific time limits for responding to requests and dealing with internal reviews and the lifting os some absolute exemptions. The second deals with the contracting out of public authority functions to bodies which are not subject to the Act. Recent measures to encourage this process are likely to substantially undermine the public's rights to information. The third responds to suggestions that changes to the right of access may be introduced to protect cabinet papers, to introduce fees for FOI requests or make it easier for public authorities to refuse requests on cost grounds.

The Campaign also gave oral evidence at the Committee's first evidence session yesterday along with WhatDoTheyKnow and Unlock Democracy. You can watch a recording of the session here.

Justice Committee post-legislative scrutiny commences

Committee Room 8
Meeting starts at 10.30am

Post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Witnesses

Campaign for FOI (@campaignFOI), Unlock Democracy (@UnlockDemocracy), and WhatDoTheyKnow (@WhatDoTheyKnow)

Professor Robert Hazell CBE, Director, Jim Amos, Honorary Senior Research Associate, and Ben Worthy, Research Associate, UCL Constitution Unit

You can watch the session live or recorded here.

Current Developments in FOI seminar - Dundee 21 Feb 2012

Speakers:

Professor Alan Page, Dean of the School of Law, Professor of Public Law and Centre Co-Director

Welcome and general introduction from the Chair

Kevin Dunion, Scottish Information Commissioner’s valedictory lecture to the Centre, reflecting on the key themes of his Special Report to the Scottish Parliament

Freedom of Information in Scotland: a position of strength, but scope for improvement?

Panel responses to the presentation. Panel includes: Karen Williams (Grampian Police and ACPOS), Rosalind McInnes (Principal Solicitor, BBC Scotland)

Followed by audience discussion

If you would like to attend please download the booking form by clicking on the pdf below and email to centrefoi@dundee.ac.uk by Friday 17th February 2012.

Alternatively, you can click here to book online.

Ministerial veto used for third time

The Campaign for Freedom of Information expressed regret at the Attorney General's decision today to veto the release of minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions (DSWR). The Information Commissioner had ordered their partial disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (see earlier post). However, the Commissioner agreed that information directly identifying individual ministers should be withheld as should certain passages discussing "the more sensitive areas of policy" and the legal advice referred to in the minutes. The Cabinet Office's appeal to a Tribunal against the decision was due to be heard next month.

The Campaign said: "In December 2009 the Labour government also vetoed an earlier decision of the Information Commissioner ordering disclosure of the same cabinet sub-committee minutes. It too did so shortly before a Tribunal hearing was due to take place. This time round, the Commissioner has made a more limited order, accepting that some parts are still sensitive and should be withheld. Regrettably, both governments have preferred to rely on the veto rather than make their arguments to the Tribunal."

This is the third use of the ministerial veto since the Act came into force. The previous occasions involved the minutes of the cabinet meeting at which the legality of the war in Iraq was discussed, and an earlier decision relating to the same devolution subcommittee minutes.

The Commissioner's decision ordering partial disclosure of the minutes stated that he "has recognised the validity and weight of the argument against disclosure on the grounds of preserving the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility":

His conclusion is that this factor tips the balance in favour of maintenance of the exemptions in relation to some of the information, specifically content that identifies individual Ministers and other content that in the Commissioner’s view covers what could be fairly characterised as the more sensitive areas of policy discussed by the Devolution Committee. In relation to the content identifying individual Ministers and the content recording discussions on sensitive issues, the view of the Commissioner is that the factor relating to collective Cabinet responsibility continues to carry significant weight. The Commissioner would stress that his decision in relation to information identifying Ministers means that only the content specifically identifying any Minister should be redacted...

In relation to the remainder of the content, the Commissioner considers that its disclosure would not be likely to result in harm to the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility, particularly given the passage of time. The Commissioner considers there to be a specific public interest in disclosure in order to inform current and future debate about devolution and a general public interest in the transparency and openness in decision-making.

In his statement of reasons for exercising the veto, the Attorney General says he considers this to be "an exceptional case" in accordance with the Government's policy on use of the veto in section 35(1) cases:

I have considered this case in the light of the Government’s published policy on use of the veto, taking particular account of the following factors which I believe to be relevant:

• The information in this case records considerable discussions on the substance of the Government’s policy on devolution. It is not merely concerned with the process of decisions being taken.
• Devolution was a significant policy at the time, and indeed remains so...
• A number of individuals have comments attributed to them in the minutes, including where they are not in agreement on certain policy issues. Although the Commissioner decided that content identifying individual ministers should be withheld, I do not consider that such an approach significantly alters the public interest considerations in relation to the remainder of the information.
• Of the large number of Ministers who took part in at least one of the DSWR meetings a significant majority remain active in public life: 12 are currently members of the House of Commons and a further 19 are members of the House of Lords;
• Of those former Ministers engaged in the Committee the majority favoured withholding this information. I consider this a particularly relevant consideration given that the information constitutes papers of a previous administration with the consequence that I, as the accountable person, am the only current Minister able to view the documents.

The Attorney General's written ministerial statement is here.
The Information Commissioner's response and decision notices relating to this case are here.