Blog postings
Postings will be fairly quiet for about a further week whilst I take some time off to enjoy the latest addition to my family
Do send me or use the comment box below to readers up to date with anything I may miss
Steve
News, views and updates on the UK Freedom of Information Act, worldwide Freedom of Information and open government. Maintained by Steve Wood, Lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University. As featured on BBC News and the Guardian. www.foia.org.uk. Winner of "best blog" at the 2005 International Information Industry Awards.
Home | Disclosure log index | User guide
Practitioner Guide |Books | Decision notices | FOI Directory
Steve also runs: Open Govt: a journal on FOI NEW ISSUE AUG06!
Blog postings
New decision - ICO rules on mod CASE
New decision notices - first detailed notice on S41
The public interest may override any breach of a duty of confidence, if the greater public interest lies in the disclosure of the information, i.e. if there is an overriding public interest in disclosing the information, the courts will not find that a duty of confidence is owed. The Commissioner must, therefore, consider the public interest in disclosing the information against the public interest in maintaining the duty of confidence, with a view to deciding if any duty exists.
Constitutional Affairs Committee written evidence:
Media update
HoC Constitutional Affairs Committee: Freedom of Information: one year on
Publication schemes
Wolfowitz Stresses "Media and FOI" as Anticorruption Tools
New decision - first major fees case
Media update
Review of publication schemes
Sector | Submissions Accepted From | Final Submission Deadline | Scheme Active |
Central Government | 1st July 2006 | 30th September 2006 | 30th November 2006 |
Local Government | 1st October 2006 | 31st December 2006 | 28th February 2007 |
Police and Prosecuting Bodies | 1st February 2007 | 30th April 2007 | 30th June 2007 |
Health Service | 1st June 2007 | 31st August 2007 | 31st October 2007 |
Education (except for maintained nursery schools), remaining NDPBs and publicly owned companies | 1st October 2007 | 31st December 2007 | 29th February 2008 |
Other public authorities and maintained nursery schools | 1st February 2008 | 30th April 2008 | 30th June 2008 |
Decision notice update
Media update
International media update
Selection secrecy for FOI users group
Information Commissioner's business case to the DCA
Parliamentary roundup
Important new decisions relating to Police sector and DPA
Constitutional Affairs Select Committe
Latest Information Commissioner decisions
Improving transparency of the EU institutions
The European Parliament takes action to ensure transparency and democratic scrutiny of the EU institutions. In two reports adopted Tuesday, MEPs call for the Council to meet in public when it is acting as a legislator, and requests the Commission to revise existing rules and to table new legislation by the end of this year on "the right of access" to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Media update
Information Rights Conference
al-Jazeera memo
Dear Mr Wood,
Further to our earlier correspondence with you, I am writing to advise that the Cabinet Office has not yet completed its response to your internal review request of 23 January. We do envisage, however, providing you with a response by the end of April. We apologise for the delay.
Thank you for your e mail of 14 February. We anticipate providing a response to your internal review of 23 January by Friday 31 March.If we are unable to provide a response by this date, we will let you know
Authorities should set their own target times for dealing with complaints; these should be reasonable, and subject to regular review. Each public authority should publish its target times for determining complaints and information as to how successful it is with meeting those targets.(The Code is non-statutory)
Records management: NHS code of practice
The Records Management: NHS Code of Practice is a guide to the required standards of practice in the management of records for those who work within or under contract to NHS organisations in England. It is based on current legal requirements and professional best practice.
Implementing Freedom of Information in Scotland
Media update
Freedom of Information Statistics
Act Now Information Law newsletter
Latest Tribunal Decision
Substitute Decision Notice
41 The complaint of Mr Markinson was that the Council had not complied with Regulation 8(3) in that it had sought to charge:
(a) £6 for a copy of any planning/building control decision notices (a charge that was increased to £6.50 on 1 April 2005 and then reduced to 50p on 16 June 2005, both dates post-dating the date when Mr Markinson had lodged his complaint with the Commissioner); and
(b) 50p for each piece of all other A4 size copy documents.
42 The Commissioner s decision should stand on the following questions:
(a) The information in question fell to be considered under the Regulations; and
(b) The circumstances were such as to trigger the Commissioners duty to consider the matter and reach a decision.
43 The Tribunal has decided that the Council did not comply with its obligations under Part 2 of the Regulations in that, although the information was available for inspection at the Council s office free of charge, (in accordance with paragraph
8(2)(b) of the Regulations), each of the charges made by the Council for the provision of copies of the information, as set out in paragraph 41(a) and (b) above,
failed to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 8(3), for the reasons set out in paragraphs 33 and 34 above.
44 The actions that the Council is required to take, in the light of that decision, are as follows:
(a) The Council should reassess the charges that it makes for providing copies of environmental information for the purposes of the Regulations.
(b) In making that reassessment the Council should adopt as a guide price the sum of 10p per A4 sheet, as identified in the Good practice guidance on access to and charging for planning information published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and as recommended by the DCA.
(c) The Council should be free to exceed that guide price figure only if it can demonstrate that there is a good reason for it to do so, and in considering whether any such reason exists the Council should:
(i) take due regard of the guidance set out in the Code of Practice on the discharge of the obligations of public authorities under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Guidance to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 , both published by DEFRA, to the effect that any charge should be at a level that does not exceed the cost of producing the copies;
disregard any costs, including staff costs, associated with the maintenance of the information in question or its identification or extraction from storage; and
(iii) disregard any factors beyond the number and size of sheets to be copied, in particular, the real or perceived significance of the content, or the effect that any charging structure may have on the Council s revenue or its staff workload.
(d) If the Council wishes to, and can, justify a higher charging rate, on the basis of the guidance set out above, then it may do so provided that there has been proper study, scrutiny, decision and authorisation for such a charge, and the process for arriving at the higher charge is published and available for scrutiny.
45 We direct that a copy of this decision, incorporating this substituted Decision Notice,be served on the Council and that it complete the process of re-assessment, and publishes details of the resulting charges, by no later than 2 May 2006
Summary: The complainant alleged that the charges for providing copies of a planning application were excessive. The Commissioner notes recent reductions in these charges and accepts that the Council has satisfied itself that its charges do not exceed a reasonable amount in accordance with Part 2, paragraph 8(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The complainant has lodged an appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR r.8 - Complaint Not Upheld
New qualifications in Information Rights
Public Partners
Public Partners has been restructured. I am delighted to be able to give you the link to the new site of P-PACT - Public Partners: Advice, Consultancy and Training which we hope you will bookmark and add to your favourites: www.publicpartners.org
This new site has been designed to provide advice and guidance to everyone involved in Information Governance across the Public Sector. With comprehensive sections on the Law, Best Practice, Enforcement, and with the establishment of a Network across the UK and other up-to-the minute information, we feel it will provide the highest standards of support to all practitioners.
P-PACT also gives you the opportunity to access additional support through our support service, a successor to the Network for Information Professionals. FOI+ gives you access to
Network Mail - on line access to all other members of the subscription service and to the Expert Panel. We will be using this to notify you of round robin requests and of advice given relating to current issues
Benchmarking - providing much needed analysis of the decisions of both the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal to help youput your own decisions in perspective.
Helpline with 24/7 access to advice from our experts
Library services, with a regularly updated and comprehensive selection of presentations, practical scenarios, and articles for you to use.
FOI+ Specialist, Liz Cruse, who will be in regular contact with you.
Members also receive discounts for both bespoke and scheduled training as well as for consultancy.
If you wish to find out more about FOI+ go to http://www.publicpartners.org/join_us.php or contact Liz Cruse on liz.cruse@publicpartners.org or on 0845 450 9449.
Scottish Information Commissioner's newsletter: Spring 2006
Article on Re-use regs
Latest decision
Media roundup
First Freedom of Information Case to Reach Inter-American Court
The Open Society Justice Initiative and four other organizations filed a brief this week with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, seeking to establish that the American Convention on Human Rights guarantees a right of access to information held by public bodies.
The case, Marcel Claude Reyes and Others v. Chile, marks the Inter-American Court's first opportunity in its 27-year history to rule on the right of access to government-held information.
The Justice Initiative, joined by four other groups—ARTICLE 19; Libertad de Información Mexico, Asociación Civil (LIMAC); Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (IPYS) of Peru; and Access Info Europe—filed the "friend of the court" brief in support of Claude Reyes and his two co-applicants. The brief, available on our website at http://justiceinitiative.org/index_files/Claude_v_Chile, surveys access to information laws and jurisprudence and argues that a fundamental right of people to access information held by their governments has been established internationally and is contained in the American Convention on Human Rights.
Through the brief, the five organizations are asking the Court to rule that the Convention guarantees a general right of citizens to information held by public authorities, and that Chile must improve its access to information law so that requests like the one that initiated this case are honored in the future.