Category: Information Rights

The Black Spider Letters – Part I

Yesterday, 26 March 2015, the UK Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision (well, certainly within Information Law circles) in R (on the application of Evans) and another v HM Attorney General. I had intended to deal write just one blog post on this decision, but as I began to write I felt that it deserved to be split up into more than one post; so, there will be four parts. The first part will deal with the background to the case, including dealing with the relevant statutory provisions. The second part will look at the Supreme Court’s decision in respect of section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The third will look at the decision as it relates to Regulation 18(6) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 while the final part will be a more general comment.

On 1 January 2005 the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs) entered into force. In the case of FOIA it provides individuals with a statutory right to receive information held by public bodies unless the information is specifically exempt under one of the statutory exemptions in Part 2 of the Act. The EIRs provide for a statutory right of access to ‘Environmental Information’ held by public bodies, subject to certain exceptions set out in the EIRs. The EIRs implement into UK law the provisions of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (the Directive). These Regulations in turn implement into European Law the provisions of the Aarhus Convention.

In April 2005 Rob Evans, a journalist at the Guardian Newspaper, wrote to a number of Government departments making requests for information. Those requests concerned letters that had passed between the Price of Wales and those departments. In each case the Departments withheld the information. FOIA provides that individuals who are dissatisfied with how their request for information has been handled can complain to the Information Commissioner and this right of complaint is extended to cover requests for information under the EIRs as well. The Information Commissioner issued a series of Decision Notices upholding the decision of each Department to withhold the information.

FOIA provides for a right of appeal, by either party, to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Rob Evans appealed to the Tribunal. The appeals were joined together and transferred to the Upper Tribunal for consideration. On the 18 September 2012, almost 7 and a half years after the requests were made, the Upper Tribunal issued a lengthy judgment (which was accompanied by a number of lengthy annexes, some closed and some open) partially allowing Rob Evans’ appeal.

The judgment by the Upper Tribunal is an example of excellent judicial writing. It set out a clear and cogent argument as to why it was allowing Mr Evans’ appeal to the extent that it did. It is clear that the Tribunal took great time and effort in compiling it. At play here are a number of constitutional conventions; one of which is the convention enabling the heir to the throne to be instructed in the business of Government in preparation for becoming the reigning Monarch. Another important convention is that the Monarch should be politically neutral. The Monarch has a constitutional role as an advisor and confident to the Prime Minister of the day and political neutrality is an important aspect of that constitutional role.

It was well known, even before these protracted proceedings, that The Prince of Wales would write many letters to Government giving his opinion and advocating causes that he held dear to him. The Tribunal drew a distinction between this type of correspondence, to which they referred to as ‘advocacy correspondence’ and the correspondence which related to the Prince’s instruction in Government business in preparation for him becoming King.

The Tribunal decided that the advocacy correspondence ought to be disclosed while that which related to his preparation for kingship was correctly withheld and should not be disclosed under FOIA or the EIRs.

It was open to the Government to appeal this decision, but it chose not to. Section 53 of FOIA and Regulation 18(6) of the EIRs gives the power to an accountable person to, within twenty working days of a decision notice being served, to issue a certificate on the basis that he has on reasonable grounds formed the opinion that, in respect of the request or requests concerned, there was no failure to comply with the relevant disclosure provisions under FOIA and the EIRs.

In this case, as the information in question related to a previous Administration, it was the Attorney General who was the ‘accountable person’. This follows from the convention that only the Attorney General is entitled to see the papers of a previous Administration. As a consequence of this, the Upper Tribunal’s decision ceased to have effect; none of the correspondence would be released under FOIA and the EIRs.

Rob Evans lodged proceedings for Judicial Review of the Attorney General’s decision to issue a Certificate pursuant to section 53 and Regulation 18(6). The Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and he appealed again to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and quashed the certificates, but gave leave to appeal to the Attorney General. The Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the appeal by the Attorney General. As a consequence, the decision of the Upper Tribunal stands and the advocacy correspondence will now be released. The next two posts will look at the Supreme Court’s decision in respect of Section 53 and Regulation 18(6).

The cost and burden of FOI…again

The Chief Constable of Surrey Police has gone on the offensive against Freedom of Information on Twitter this evening (and the Assistant Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police joined in). It follows a predictable pattern where a public authority (and technically the Chief Constable is the public authority – schedule 1 to the FOIA provides that “A chief officer of police of a police force in England or Wales” is a public authority) complains about the cost of FOI and how it impacts upon the delivery of front line services.

It is a well trodden path which has, over the years, generated lots of discussion in information rights circles. One of the frequent things to be picked up in these discussions is that, while public authorities are complaining about the cost and burden of FOI, they rarely mention any of the benefits. Those benefits are around openness, transparency and accountability.

FOI, I can imagine, is probably a right pain in the backside to public authorities sometimes; however, just because it’s a royal pain in the backside doesn’t mean that it is of no value. FOI is about allowing the citizen to set the agenda on the flow of information. No longer is the flow of information dictated by what public authorities are prepared to release. Now, if a member of the public wants to know something, they have the right to be given it if the public authority holds it and there is no good reason for not releasing it.

In times of shrinking budgets, FOI might be seen as an expensive luxury. However, I would argue that in times of shrinking budgets FOI is all the more important. As budgets shrink, public authorities have to take decisions about how they spend their ever shrinking budget. That will often mean cuts to some services (or perhaps withdrawing services altogether). It allows people who are directly affected by those decisions to go to the public authority and obtain the information that forms the basis of those decisions. It can help them to understand why decisions have been taken and more importantly can better enable them to challenge decisions where they are perceived to be the wrong ones.

When Parliament drafted the FOIA, it didn’t do so without having any consideration as to the burden that this new regime would have on public authorities. There are a number of provisions within the FOIA which help to control the burden of FOI.

First, there is section 12 of the Act which sets an appropriate limit on the costs of FOI requests. A public authority is not obliged to comply with a request where the cost of compliance is estimated to excced the appropriate limit. For a police force in England and Wales, the limit is £450 (indeed, it is £450 for all public authorities except Government departments or Scottish Public Authorities, where it is £600). This does only covers certain activities and it is possible for requests to cost more than the appropriate limit in practice and not be capable of being refused under section 12. This will be because the cost is incurred in an activity which cannot be taken into account in any cost calculations for the purposes of determining whether it exceeds the appropriate limit.

Sometimes, these requests will be the ones where the public interest is finely balanced and the authority is having difficulty establishing just where the public interest lies. Should such requests be refused because of this? I’d forcefully argue that they should not. If it was possible to refuse these requests it would actively work against the public interest: the public might not get information which it would be in the public interest for them to have simply because it is going to take a bit of time for the public authority to work out just where the public interest lies. However, sometimes the additional cost will be because there is a large volume of information to consider. While, a request that throws up a large volume of information will often end up breaching the “appropriate limit”, it is sometimes the case that there is a large volume of information held on a particular subject which is actually relatively quick and easy to locate and extract. What takes the time then is the applying of exemptions and the conduct of the public interest test. Section 12 isn’t an option in these requests, because the law doesn’t allow for it to apply. However, this does bring us on to the next provision of the FOIA which is there to prevent the burden from being too great.

Before I look at that, I thought it would worthwhile pointing out that in terms of section 12 the law has provision within it to ensure that it cannot be avoided. Simply breaking down a large request into a number of different requests will still likely engage the cost limit: public authorities can aggregate requests from the same individual received within a period of 60 consecutive working days which seek similar information. So, asking for information on a particular subject over a 10 year period broken down into 5 requests each covering a 2 year period will be aggregated together. All of the requests will be refused if the cost of complying with all of them is estimated to exceed the appropriate limit. This provision goes further than that though; it’s not possible to get four of your mates to help you make 5 requests for the information over a 2 year period either. The law provides that where “different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign” the public authority can again aggregate the cost and refuse all of the requests if they exceed the appropriate limit.

The second provision designed to help public bodies with the burden of FOI requests is section 14, which deals with both repeated and vexatious requests. In terms of repeated requests, if a public authority has complied with a request from someone, they do not have to comply with a request from the same person which is for the same (or substantially similar) information unless a reasonable time has elapsed between the requests.

Vexatious requests are a bit more difficult; however, public authorities have been greatly helped by the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield (although, Mr Dransfield has appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal). It is important to note that it is the request, not the person making it, which is vexatious. However, previous correspondence between the requester and the public authority can be relevant. This provision largely allows public authorities to ignore people trying to use FOI to keep open grievances that have been rumbling on for a long time, especially where they have been the subject of complaints and independent scrutiny. Section 14 also catches those who are making requests simply to annoy the public authority (quite possibly because of a previous complaint). However, it can also be used to deal with requests where there is an unacceptable burden to the authority; described as “grossly oppressive”.

This is a higher burden than would be applicable in section 12, but it is an option that is open to authorities where requests produce large volumes of information with a lot of potentially exempt information – especially where those exemptions are qualified ones where the PI might be difficult to determine. However, the ICO does consider it good practice to go back to the requester before claiming section 14 in these situations – and doing so would probably fall within a public authority’s duty to provide advice and assistance. So, where a request is overly burdensome and section 14 could be claimed instead of section 12, a public authority should probably go back to the requester and try and work with the requester to refine their request. Although requesters are not required to (and public authorities are generally discouraged from asking), trying to establish the motive and purpose of the request can help. Engaging with the requester might save a public authority a lot of time in the long run as it becomes clear that only a tiny proportion of the information that has been uncovered is what the requester is after – the public authority gets to consider a much more refined request and avoids the possibility of an Internal Review and ICO complaint over its application of section 14 (and possibly an adverse finding against it, either in respect of its use of section 14 or its failure to provide advice and assistance).

I note that Surrey Police operates a disclosure log on its website, but that it states it only publishes responses which might have wider interest. Disclosure logs can be a useful tool for public authorities. There is an exemption for information which is already reasonably accessible to the requester. Publishing all responses in a disclosure log on a website might enable public authorities to refuse requests under section 21 of the Act. This is a quick and simple process that shouldn’t take a huge amount of time. Most of the time will be spent ensuring that the request isn’t seeking additional information which is not already reasonably accessible to the requester.

This is where the WhatDoTheyKnow website comes into its own – all information released to requesters on that website ends up in the public domain automatically. Just because it’s not actually published on the authorities own website, doesn’t mean it’s not reasonably accessible to the requester and so section 21 can still be used. One public authority has even worked with WhatDoTheyKnow to utilise the technology behind WhatDoTheyKnow on their own FOI website, undoubtedly reducing the burden of operating a comprehensive disclosure log.

If public authorities notice trends in their requests, it might be worthwhile proactively releasing the information on a regular basis. Then the exemption at section 22 is available to the public authority because it is information which is intended for future publication. This exemption is subject to the Public Interest Test, but there will normally need to be compelling reasons for departing from a set date for publication. Of course, public authorities would need to consider the cost balance here: is it more costly to routinely publish the information than deal with the FOI requests as they come in? The UK provision on information intended for future publication is much more generous that the Scottish provision, where it only applies in cases where the intended publication is no later than 12 weeks following receipt of the request.

We often see complaints from public authorities about requests which are bizarre in nature, but as Jon Baines has demonstrated, those apparently bizarre requests do sometimes have a justification behind them. For the ones that don’t, Tim Turner explains that they can be quickly disposed of.

There are, of course, steps that requesters can take to relieve the burden to public authorities and to that extent I commend Paul Gibbons’ guide to making FOI requests, which includes 10 very good tips for requesters.

A fairly long blog post, so if you have reached this point: thank you and well done!

——
Useful Links:

ICO guidance on section 12
ICO guidance on section 14
ICO guidance on section 21
ICO guidance on section 22

Councillors, Erroneous Benefit Claims, FOI and DPA

The relationship between FOI and Data Protection is one that causes frequent tension. Obtaining personal data on third parties held by public authorities under FOI is, rightly, a difficult task. On Sunday it was reported that Cornwall Council refused to release, in response to a Freedom of Information request, the name of a Councillor who had been advised by the Council that they had “erroneously claimed entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit / Support” while they were a member of the Council, and that the amount involved was less than £5,000. The Council refused to disclose the name of the Councillor on the basis that it was exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (which exempts the release of personal data where its release would be in contravention of the Data Protection Act (DPA)). This resulted in an interesting discussion between a few individuals on twitter relative to whether the Council was correct to withhold the Councillor’s name.

Lynn Wyeth concluded that it came down to the standard Data Protection Officer’s answer of “it depends” – and it really does; there is a whole heap of information missing which would be relevant to whether releasing the Councillor’s name would breach the DPA.

The starting point in respect of this one is establishing whether it is personal data, clearly it is; not only is it personal data, but it falls within the definition of sensitive personal data in section 2 of the DPA. The information concerned here is personal data concerning the alleged commission of an offence by an individual (claiming benefits to which you’re not entitled being a criminal act). This is an important point because the restrictions placed upon the processing of sensitive personal data are a lot more stringent than personal data which is not considered sensitive under the DPA.

The first Data Protection Principal is clear, that personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. It goes on to provide that personal data should not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is applicable; in the case of sensitive personal data it is also necessary to ensure that one of the conditions in Schedule 3 applies as well.

When it comes to releasing personal data under FOI, the condition in schedule 2 that is most often (if not always) applicable is Condition 6(1). This condition provides:

The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

In other words, a person seeking the release of personal data about a third party under FOI must be able to show that he has a legitimate interest and that it is necessary for the personal data to be disclosed in pursuance of that legitimate interest. I would say that it would generally be the case that uncovering wrong-doing by an elected official while holding public office is a legitimate interest. Unless the matter was reported in the newspapers or in other media at the time the accusation was being pursued by the body concerned, it would be necessary for the data controller to release the personal data in order to enable the third party to pursue their legitimate aim (uncovering misconduct by a public official and holding them to account).

However, this is personal data that falls within the scope of sensitive personal data and as such the very fact that condition 6(1) of Schedule 2 to the DPA is likely to be satisfied it is not the case that releasing the personal data would be fair and lawful. There needs to be a condition in schedule 3 that is applicable as well.

In the normal course of things there wouldn’t, in my view, be a condition in schedule 3 which would apply – unless the data subject consented to the disclosure. However, in certain circumstances it may be possible to use the paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 3 which applies where the processing is necessary:

in order to protect the vital interests of another person, in a case where consent by or on behalf of the data subject has been unreasonably withheld.

There are a number of key words here. The first is “necessary”; if there was another way in which the vital interests of another person could be met without the data controller releasing the information then it wouldn’t apply (for example, if there had been a news report revealing the name – but then the FOI request wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place). The next is “vital”; there is not, to my knowledge, any case law on what exactly “vital” means in the DPA – it appears in a number of places within Schedule 3. It could reasonably be argued that uncovering the misappropriation of public funds by an individual elected to public office and holding that individual to account is a “vital” interest of a person other than the data controller (essentially everyone who the data subject is elected to represent). Finally, the data subject’s consent must be unreasonably withheld.

This is where this case becomes particularly complicated. It would seem that no criminal proceedings were ever brought against the councillor in question, and certainly it appears that there has been no conviction. There is a presumption at the very heart of the criminal justice system in each of the legal jurisdictions in the UK: innocent until guilt is established. As there would appear to be no criminal conviction in this case, the Councillor is an innocent member of the public holding elected public office. The fact that there is no conviction, in my view, makes it harder to argue that there are vital interests to be protected.

This isn’t that straightforward though; some weight needs to be given to the fact that this individual was accused of making erroneous claims for benefits while an elected official. Furthermore, it is necessary to give some weight to the fact that some form of procedure was carried out to reclaim overpayments made to the councillor. However, that alone might not be enough to make release of their name under FOI fair and lawful. There are other factors to be considered. For example, if there was a settlement agreement in place which proceeded upon the basis of no admission of liability then that, I suggest, would tend to count against disclosure; especially if this was exactly how an individual who didn’t happen to be an elected member of the council would be dealt with. That leads onto the next issue; was there any preferential treatment given to the Councillor? It would appear not, the Council has said that it was handled in accordance with the normal procedures. Had it not been handled in accordance with normal procedures (e.g. he was given special treatment because he happened to be a councillor) then that might tip the balance in favour of disclosure because it would suggest some level of impropriety over and above the allegation that there was an ‘erroneous claim’.

In essence, these decisions are finely balanced. I’m not going to say whether the Council was right or not to refuse to disclose because I’m not in possession of all of the relevant facts. I don’t know what has gone on behind the scenes here, I don’t know whether the consent of the data subject has been sought let alone withheld unreasonably. The journalist who made the request can make use of their right to request an internal review of the handling of the request and then complain to the Information Commissioner. What I would say though is that simply because an elected official has been accused of something which may or may not amount to a criminal offence is not, in of itself, necessarily a justifiable reason to process personal data by releasing it under the Freedom of Information Act.

FOI at 10

On 1st January 2005 the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 all entered into force. For the first time in the UK people had a right, backed by Statute, to ask for information held by public bodies and to be given that information unless it fell within the ambit of one of the exemptions in the Acts or Exceptions in the Regulations. Those rights were backed-up by independent regulators who had the power to order public bodies to release information where it had been incorrectly withheld by public bodies.

Today, is of course, the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of those rights and it has become so ingrained into our lives that we probably don’t notice it. Every year thousands of stories that we see on TV or in the newspapers or hear about on radio have been the result of information obtained under Freedom of Information; much of that information may well have remained hidden had it not been for the rights enshrined in law to obtain that information.

Freedom of Information has been used to uncover scandals around Parliamentary expenses, both in Westminster and in Holyrood. The late David McLetchie resigned as leader of the Scottish Conservative party following revelations that he had used taxpayers money to pay for taxis used in connection with party, rather than constituency, business. That information was obtained under Freedom of Information. At Westminster some politicians have served prison sentences as details of their expenses claims were revealed with help from FOI (and a leak to the Telegraph).

Over the last 10 years, Freedom of Information has become a powerful tool for local and national campaign groups to obtain information from the State as to how and why decisions have been taken. It has enabled public bodies to be held accountable much more easily and for the public to better understand decisions that have been taken by public bodies.

Of course, FOI has not come without its problems and difficulties. It does add an additional burden to public bodies – but the legislation does have limits to ensure that the burden doesn’t become too big or disproportionate. There are individuals who abuse their rights under FOI. There are a group of individuals who make use of FOI to try and keep open grievances that they have had with the public authority – some of which have been running for many years and been subjected to every form of scrutiny possible. There are also those who make requests about plans for dealing with a Zombie Apocalypse or how many red pens had been bought.

There have also been regular attempts to undermine Freedom of Information by representative bodies. These attempts have often cited ‘bizarre’ FOI requests. Many of these so called ‘bizarre’ requests have a perfectly legitimate basis as explored here by Jon Baines. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, also has some pretty strange ideas as to what Freedom of Information is.

FOI was a hard won right, with organisations such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information spending decades campaigning for access to information rights. As a consequence we have some of the best access to information rights in the world. Our rights are wide-ranging and simple to use whereas in other countries they are restrictive and contain a multitude of technical requirements making them difficult to use while others put the rights out of the reach of ordinary people by requiring fees to be paid in order to exercise those rights. However, while it is probably true to say that our FOI laws are some of the best in the world it is also true to say that they are in need of serious protection. As the way in which public services are delivered has changed, a lot of information has fallen out of the scope of FOI. The regular attacks from bodies representing public authorities also threaten FOI. These are important rights and it is right that on the 10th anniversary of FOI we remember their importance and how easy it would be for a Government to reduce, restrict or remove those rights. As a rule, politicians don’t like FOI – it can be embarrassing for them and leads to a much more informed electorate. A better informed electorate is a good thing, as is removing the Government’s total control over the flow of information.

The House of Commons Select Committee concluded that FOI ‘has been a significant enhancement to our democracy’ in a report following its post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. FOI has changed our democracy for the better, the 10th anniversary is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of how significantly things have changed in the last 10 years as a result of FOI and how valuable it has become.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information fought hard to get FOI onto the statute books and continues to work hard to promote it, campaign for its strengthening and protection; perhaps you would consider donating, even a small amount, to help them with this important work.

Valid FOI requests via Twitter?

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a Decision Notice that the Metropolitan Police failed to comply with section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) which was made to it through Twitter. In November 2012 the ICO issued a one page document setting out its view on whether a valid request can be made via Twitter. In that document the ICO acknowledged that Twitter was not the most effective way to submit a FOI request; however, it went on to say that requests made via Twitter are not necessarily invalid.

The test for whether a request is a valid one or not is to be found in section 8 of the FOIA; it sets out the requirements as to what constitutes a valid request. The Act provides:

(1) In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which—

(a) is in writing,

(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request—

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,

(b) is received in legible form, and

Let us look at each requirement in turn:

The request is in writing

The starting point with statutory interpretation would normally be what is the literal meaning of the word? Here Parliament has given us some assistance in interpreting what is considered to be in writing. This does appear to be one of those ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ provisions and was most probably inserted to take account of E-mail. There is little doubt that when passing the Act Parliament did not think about Facebook or Twitter, indeed when the Act was passed Facebook was barely a thing and Twitter hadn’t been invented. However, as technology changes it is necessary for the law to move with it – whether it is capable of doing so without amendment by Parliament is a different matter!

Is a tweet transmitted by electronic means?

It is certainly sent and received by electronic means, but what does ‘transmitted’ mean? According to the literal rule of statutory interpretation we must look at the ordinary meaning of the word transmitted. Let’s turn to the online Oxford English dictionary and its entry for transmit. Only the first two definitions are relevant here. To transmit something is to “cause (something) to pass on from one person or place to another” or “broadcast or send out (an electrical signal or a radio or television programme).” So, is a tweet transmitted by electronic means? Sending a tweet is certainly causing something (the content of the tweet) to pass from one person (the sender) to the other (the recipient). It might also be said that it is being sent from one place (the sender’s computer) to another (the recipient’s computer). It could be said that sending a tweet is not too dissimilar to sending an E-mail. Is it by electronic means? I think that it is clear that it is, for obvious reasons such as without electronics there wouldn’t be the hardware to enable a tweet to be sent. Is a tweet being broadcast or sent out? The dictionary gives an example of an electronic signal or a radio/television programme. What is a tweet? It is essentially a series of digits which put together displays on the screen as an image – it might be said to be similar to a TV programme. Whether it meets the second definition or not, I do think that it is safe to say it meets the first.

Is it received in a legible form?

Well it’s certainly not going to be illegible because it is typeface rather than handwritten. One might be of the view that this was perhaps to cover a handwritten note sent by fax and so probably isn’t relevant here – I think we can tick this box as well.

Is it capable of being used for subsequent reference?

This is where things get slightly more difficult! The Act doesn’t say who has to be capable of referencing it subsequently. Obviously, the Public Authority will have to be able to reference it subsequently in order to check that it is complying with the request made. Furthermore, the requester has to be able to subsequently reference it should they need to make a complaint to the ICO – the ICO will usually want to see the request and where possible evidence of the request having been sent. However it does not seem to be as straight forward as that.

If I tweet a public authority’s official account, my tweets are not protected and I don’t do anything else then it is possible for both the public authority and I to subsequently reference the tweet. On the face of it, this would clearly meet the requirement. Whether or not they know it is there is probably an irrelevant question in the same way someone missing a request in their E-mail inbox doesn’t matter.

The issue becomes slightly more complicated if I protect my tweets later and the public authority is not following me – then only I can subsequently reference the tweet – or if I delete my tweet altogether. In the first of these two situations (protecting my tweets where the authority is not following me) the tweet is clearly capable of being referenced subsequently, but only by me. Does this meet the requirements of the Act? Well I would suggest that in order to establish that we need to understand why Parliament included it. What situations were Parliament envisaging when they enacted this part of the Act? The explanatory notes do not provide any illumination on that question. I don’t have time to, at this stage, wade through the many lines of debate in Handsard on the Bill in the hope that there is an explanation here. I can’t immediately think of a situation which Parliament would have had in its mind when enacting this section. On that basis I don’t think that really takes us any further forward.

The question that immediately springs to mind is for how long does the request have to be capable of being subsequently referenced by the authority? If I protect my tweets on the 20th working day following sending the request is that different to if I protect them immediately following the sending of the request? After all, by the 20th working day the authority should be in a position to respond, or at least have gathered all of the information in scope and simply be conducting the public interest balancing exercise. I’d suggest there is a difference. Quite where the ‘cut off is’ would most probably be a question of looking at the circumstances in each individual case – not an ideal situation though.

What about if I delete the tweet? That might cause problems when making an application to the Commissioner – although taking a screenshot of the tweet prior to deleting it might cure that. Again is it dependent upon when I delete the tweet – e.g. on the 20th working day or immediately after it was sent?

These are difficult questions and ones that don’t have clear answers. However, in at least one case (the first – where the tweet was and remains public after it is sent and is not at any stage deleted or becomes inaccessible to the public authority by way of an individual’s tweets become protected) a tweet appears to meet all of the requirements set out in section 8(2) of the Act.

However, as mentioned earlier section 8(2) does seem to be more of a ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ subsection – a request can be in writing in other ways and it would appear that this has most probably been included so as to ensure that public authority’s treat requests received by E-mail as being valid requests – it would not appear to be the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter.

At the end of the day, what does ‘in writing’ mean? I don’t think we could realistically argue that a tweet is not ‘in writing’ even if it does not meet all of those tests – after all, a letter sent by mail doesn’t meet the requirements of section 8(2) and nobody would sensibly argue or find that such a request is not ‘in writing’ and so section 8(2) is clearly not the complete definition of what is meant by ‘in writing’ within section 8(1).

The request states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence

Assuming that we have a request made via twitter that meets the definition of being ‘in writing’ the next requirement is that the request must state the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence. If we accept that a public authority’s twitter accounts is an address capable of having correspondence (not necessarily just a FOI request, but any type of correspondence) sent to it, then equally an individual’s twitter account must also be an address for correspondence. If an individual does not need to, for example, include within the body of their E-mail their E-mail address (i.e. it appearing in the ‘From’ field is sufficient) then I don’t see why someone would have to include their own twitter handle in their request – it is there for the authority to see in its mentions.

However, the name issue is more problematic. It is the view of the Commissioner (and I believe that it is the correct one) that the name of the applicant must be their real name – lots of people don’t use their real name (or indeed any of the acceptable forms thereof for the purposes of FOI) in their twitter profile; so there we could have a problem. If it’s not on their profile, then it’s not a valid request – even if we’ve managed to overcome the ‘in writing’ issue.

Describes the information requested

The final requirement is that the request describes the information requested. That has to be in enough detail to enable the authority to identify what is sought. That could be difficult in 140 characters. However with services such as twitlonger it can be done. It could also be possible to send the request over a number of tweets (as was done in the Metropolitan Police case linked to at the outset of this blog post). I don’t see that as being any different to sending it in a number of letters or in a number of separate E-mails. Indeed, when an authority seeks clarification because it is unable to identify what information is being requested it is looking at a request over at least two pieces of separate correspondence, if not more, to create a valid request.

Conclusion

The ICO does not say in its guidance that all requests made via twitter will be valid, only that a request made via Twitter may not necessarily be invalid. I would certainly have to agree: it is possible to make a valid request by twitter. Is it a good idea? I would say that it’s not, and that it is probably best to stick to more conventional methods such as letter or E-mail.

Princes, letters and Freedom of Information

Yesterday the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in the continuing saga that is the bid by Guardian Journalist Rob Evans to obtain the information contained in a variety of letters sent by HRH Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales to a number of departments of Central Government between 1 September 2004 and 1 April 2005.

The saga has been a long one in which the Information Commissioner agreed with the Government. However, the Upper Tribunal disagreed and ordered a number of the letters to be released. The Upper Tribunal found that the letters fell into two categories: those which were about the Prince of Wales preparing to become Monarch and those which were him advocating in respect of causes which were close to him. It was this latter category of letters that the Upper Tribunal found after determining that they were not covered by the constitutional convention which provides that the heir to the throne be educated in Government business in order to prepare him (or her) for becoming King (or Queen) and that correspondence pertaining to that be confidential and not be released.

After the Upper Tribunal issued its decision the Attorney General issued a certificate under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) which sets aside the decision of the Upper Tribunal. Mr Evans judicially reviewed that decision and the Administrative Court upheld the certificate. Mr Evans then appealed to the Court of Appeal which quashed the Attorney General’s certificate.

There are two separate issues to the certificate. The first one that I shall deal with here, is the EU dimension to the case. Some of the information contained within the letters amounts to Environmental Information which falls to be governed by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs). Those Regulations exists to transpose into domestic law a EU Directive on access to Environmental Information which in turn exists to bring into EU law the provisions of the Aarhus Convention. Therefore the principles of EU law apply to the Environmental Information and the domestic law cannot be incompatible with it. In its judgment the Court of Appeal held that the existence of the veto was incompatible with EU law. This effectively means that the veto contained in section 53 of the FOIA cannot be used in respect of information which is environmental in nature (as defined by the Directive and the Regulations).

The Directive which the EIRs transpose into domestic law provide that there should be an independent and impartial tribunal to decide upon whether a public authority has complied with its obligations, and that the decision of this independent and impartial body must be final. The EIRs have, by virtue of the application of the FOIA, an extensive appeals structure which begins with a complaint to the Information Commissioner and subsequent appeal to a specialist tribunal followed thereafter by appeals on points of law potentially all the way to the Supreme Court. While there is no single independent or impartial tribunal whose decision becomes binding, at some stage a decision will be made by an independent or impartial tribunal which is final and binding upon the public authority. However, by virtue of section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act, it can be side-stepped by someone within the Executive (in this case the Attorney General). The Divisional court, in its decision, held that the existence of the right to judicially review the decision to issue a certificate under section 53 of the FOIA. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Master of the Rolls said at paragraph 55:

A judicial review of the certificate of an accountable person is substantively different from a review by a court or other independent body of the acts or omissions of “the public body concerned”. The focus of the two reviews is different.

The Court of the Appeal was of the view that as judicial review was focussed on the act of the person who issued the certificate, rather than on the public authority’s compliance with the EIRs, it was in breach of the requirements of European law; therefore it was unlawful.

The Court of Appeal also considered the Attorney General’s use of the ‘veto’ under section 53 in respect of the information contained in the letters which was covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The Court held that in order for a section under section 53 to be valid, it had to be based on reasonable grounds. The Court of Appeal decided that for the grounds to be reasonable there would have to be something more than simply disagreeing with the decision. The Master of the Rolls gave some examples of what ‘something more’ might mean in paragraph 38 of the Court of Appeal’s decision:

a material change of circumstances since the tribunal decision or that the decision of the tribunal was demonstrably flawed in fact or in law.

Such an interpretation of the law clearly significantly affects the power of ministerial veto and its effectiveness. It is also clearly against the intention of Parliament when it passed the Freedom of Information Act. The veto was placed in the Act by the Labour Government that passed it as a central element of the Act – something to act as backstop to protect central government from inappropriate releases. It was intended to place central Government in the position of being the final arbiter of what central government information is released under FOI. It is a constitutional aberration as described by both the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal, but that is what Parliament determined when it passed the law with section 53 in it.

The Court of Appeal quashed the Attorney General’s certificate which makes the Upper Tribunal’s decision requiring release of certain letters effective again. It held that his certificate was unlawful in terms of all of the information it was intended to cover. This is certainly a key judgment and is very interesting. It engages with some important issues in respect of the ministerial veto, and it is a Court of Appeal decision. However, as much as I agree in principle with the Court of Appeals decision, I think in terms of the legal matters I suspect that it is vulnerable to being overturned, at least in part, on appeal.

I am of the view that the Court of Appeal’s decision should be treated with a bit of caution. In respect of the application of the veto on Environmental Information, the Court of Appeal’s decision appears to be entirely correct. The existence of the veto does not sit well with the requirements of the Directive and is most probably unlawful in terms of European law. However, I suspect that the Court of Appeal has fallen into error in its interpretation of section 53 insofar as it relates to information covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The veto was clearly intended to be used in the way the Attorney General used it when passed by Parliament. It was Parliament’s clear will and it would be inappropriate to read things into the legislation that as so clearly against the will of Parliament.

The Attorney General has been given permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court and it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say. I suspect there will be a great deal of discussion around the meaning of the words ‘reasonable opinion’ in section 53.

Fish, Law and Environmental Information

Are water companies subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIRs)? That was the question that the Court of Justice of the European Union set about answering; last month it issued a decision that (in typical CJEU fashion) answered the question without actually answering the question.

On Thursday 19 December 2013 the Grand Chamber issued its judgment in Fish Legal and Emily Shirley v Information Commissioner, United Water Utilities Plc, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd and Southern Water Services Ltd (Fish Legal); while it doesn’t give a definitive answer to the question at the outset of this blog, it is an important judgment in respect of the question as to just who is subject to the EIRs.

Background

The EIRs (like the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 do in Scotland) implements into the law of Northern Ireland and England and Wales Directive 2003/4/EC, which in turn implements the Aarhus Convention into Community Law. The EIRs set out a framework in which members of the public can ask public authorities for ‘Environmental Information’, and to be provided with that information (subject to certain exceptions). Regulation 2(2) of the EIRs defines what a public authority is. The definition given by the Regulations is:

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), “public authority” means—

(a) government departments;

(b) any other public authority as defined in section 3(1) of the Act,
disregarding for this purpose the exceptions in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Act, but excluding—

(i) any body or office-holder listed in Schedule 1 to the Act only in relation to information of a specified description; or

(ii) any person designated by Order under section 5 of the Act;

(c) any other body or other person, that carries out functions of public administration; or

(d) any other body or other person, that is under the control of a person falling within sub-paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) and—

(i) has public responsibilities relating to the environment;

(ii) exercises functions of a public nature relating to the environment; or

(iii) provides public services relating to the environment.

(3) Except as provided by regulation 12(10) a Scottish public authority is not a “public authority” for the purpose of these Regulations.

(In the EIRs “the Act” refers to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or ‘the FOIA’)

Fish legal is the legal arm of the Angling Trust, and in August 2009 it wrote to two of the water companies concerned asking for information concerning discharges, clean-up operations, and emergency overflow. Emily Shirley wrote to the remaining water company seeking information from them concerning sewerage capacity. The three water companies concerned did eventually provide the information that was requested by the two applicants. However, the matter before the Upper Tribunal was whether the water companies were under a duty to provide the information as public authorities under the EIRs. Unsurprisingly, the three water companies (all private companies) took the view that they are not public authorities within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the EIRs and were thus not under any duty to comply with the EIRs. When the Information Commissioner considered complaints made by the two applicants under Section 50 of the FOIA (as modified by Regulation 18 of the EIRs) he agreed with the water companies and decided that they did not meet the definition of a public authority under the EIRs.

The two parties appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the First Tier Tribunal who eventually dismissed the appeals (following the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Smartsource v Information Commissioner and others), but gave leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal decided to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Court of Justice’s Judgment

On the question of whether water companies are public authorities under the EIRs, the Court of Justice stated at paragraph [55] that it is for the Upper Tribunal to answer this question. A very helpful judicially penned sentence. However, the court of Justice did provide some guidance as to how the Upper Tribunal can reach a decision on this question. It went on to say in paragraph [56]:

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first two questions referred is that, in order to determine whether entities such as the water companies concerned can be classified as legal persons which perform ‘public administrative functions’ under national law, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2003/4, it should be examined whether those entities are vested, under the national law which is applicable to them, with special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between persons governed by private law.

In essence the Tribunal has to look at the powers that the water companies have and determine from there whether the powers they have extend beyond those that would normally extend from the private law.

The Court of Justice then went on to consider the question of control of the water companies. The Directive, and in turn the EIRs, include any other body or person that is under the control of a body or person covered by the EIRs, and provides public services relating to the environment. There was no disagreement between the parties that the water companies provide public services relating to the environment. The only controversial aspect was whether they were under the control of a body or person covered by the EIRs. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 the privatised water companies are subject to regulation by Ofwat and the Secretary of State, both of whom are public authorities for the purposes of the EIRs; however, the question is whether the water companies are under the control of Ofwat and/or the Secretary of State. If they are, then they are public authorities for the purposes of the EIRs.

On the question of control the Court of Justice did not provide a definitive answer; however, it did give some guidance as to how the Upper Tribunal should determine whether the water companies are under the control of Ofwat and/or the Secretary of State. Where a person or body is not able to “determine in a genuinely autonomous manner the way in which it performs the functions in the environmental field which are vested in it, since a public authority covered by Article 2(2)(a) or (b) of the directive is in a position to exert decisive influence on the entity’s action in that field.” [68] So, in essence, if the autonomy that a water company has to decide how it is to carry out its public environmental functions is limited by the power of Ofwat and/or the Secretary of State, it will be under the control of them; and that will have the consequence of making the water company a public authority for the purposes of the EIRs.

The method by which power a public authority has over an entity carrying out public environmental functions is exercised does not matter much. The exercise of power could be as a shareholder; it could be the power to suspend or annul decisions taken by the company, or require prior authorisation before those decisions are taken; or it could the power to remove members of the company’s management (among other things). [70]

What now?

The Court of Justice may not have given a definitive decision as to whether water companies are public authorities; however, it has given an important decision that will enable the Upper Tribunal to answer the question. It also provides important guidance which will apply outside of the question of water companies. It is now up to the Upper Tribunal to make a determination on the water companies front; that decision will turn on two factors: (1) the degree to which the powers water companies have is beyond the scope that would normally be expected under the private law; and (2) the degree of control that Ofwat and the Secretary of State hold over the decision making of the water companies in respect of their public environmental functions.

I won’t venture an opinion on either of those questions; I don’t know enough about the water industry in England and Wales, nor do I care enough to learn, to make a judgment on either of those questions. I’ll happily leave it up to the Upper Tribunal to consider these points and decide upon them.

What about Scotland?

In terms of Scottish Water, the question is already settled. Scottish Water, being a public authority listed in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, is covered by Regulation 2 of the Scottish EIRs.

Your Right to Know: International Right to Know Day 2013

Today (28 September) is International Right to Know Day, it is a day which highlights your right to know and obtain official information.

In the UK the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 give people anywhere in the world the right to be given information held by public authorities in the UK, subject to certain exemptions.

It is possible to request information from the UK and devolved Governments, from the police, local councils, the NHS, the prison authorities, the prosecution authorities, the court services and a whole range of other public bodies. Not only is it possible to request it, but you have the right to be given the information where it is not exempt from disclosure by one of the specified exemptions (or in the case of Environmental Information, exceptions) in the legislative provisions.

Even if an authority states that information is exempt, you have the right to ask them to think again and if they still refuse to give you the information you have the right to ask the relevant Information Commissioner to investigate and decide whether the public authority was right.

The Right to Know is an important right, it helps to hold those who make decisions and spend public money accountable for the decisions that they make and the money that they spend. It can aid the public’s understanding of the decision making process and can also help public authorities to see where they could be doing things better.

However, as it is an important right it must be used properly. Using it to annoy or upset individuals in a public authority, to carry on a personal dispute with a public authority or using it with no real purpose behind receiving the information isn’t helpful. It costs money to process a request and it does take public authority staff away from delivering their core function, which will have an impact on the public authority. Inappropriate use of the Act could lead to important information access rights being lost or reduced and that would be bad for everyone.

Over the years the way in which public services have been delivered is having an impact on the ability of the public to properly hold those responsible for making decisions and spending public money to account. This has resulted in an effective reduction in the information access rights that people have.

Freedom of Information is important. However, Government’s should be a lot more proactive in their release of information. There are many benefits to this, not least if it’s already in the public domain somebody doesn’t have to request it through information access rights.

I’m using International Right to Know day to write to my elected representatives reminding them of the importance of FOI, and to ask them to ensure that they press the Government to extend and protect FOI as well as pressing the Government to be more open and pro-active with information in the first place.

Useful Resources:
UK Information Commissioner – http://www.ico.org.uk
Scottish Information Commissioner – http://www.itspublicknowledge.info
WhatDoTheyKnow – http://www.whatdotheyknow.com
Freedom of Information Act 2000 – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/contents/made
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/13/contents
Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2004/520/contents/made

Transparency in the reporting of FOI responses?

Today I noticed a line in a BBC News report which I see fairly frequently in news reports that have come from FOI requests and it made me think about whether the reporting is fair on the public authorities concerned.

In this instance the Liberal Democrats had requested information from local councils in Scotland concerning racist incidents recoded at schools. The figures used in the report were based on the responses of three-quarters of the local authorities in Scotland. The BBC report included the wording:

“The party submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to local councils and received responses from three-quarters of them.”

I don’t consider such wording to be fair to the quarter of local authorities who, by implication, haven’t responded. It implies that a quarter of local authorities in Scotland have failed to respond, and as such are failing to comply with the law. Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 requires public authorities to respond to requests promptly, and in any even no later than the twentieth working day following receipt. The only exception is where the request (or a similar one) from the same requester has been judged as vexatious and it would be unreasonable for the authority to issue another notice. In such cases the public authority is not obliged to issue a further refusal notice.

Sometimes public authorities fail to comply with section 10(1) for a variety of reasons. However, I find it hard to believe that a quarter of Scotland’s local authorities failed to do so in respect of the same request (although some may have). That leaves us with a number of explanations as to why there are only figures for 3/4 Scottish local authorities in this case.

1) The Lib Dems released the figures before the 20 working days were up. Some public authorities (including some local authorities) are very good at responding in a time frame much quicker than permitted by law (personally the quickest I ever received a full substantive response from a local authority was one working day – and it included the information I’d requested in full). This seems unlikely though.

2) That some of the local authorities refused the request. This could have been for a variety of reasons: they didn’t hold the information requested, it would have exceeded the appropriate limit or it applied one of the exemptions to the information permitted by the Act).

The second reason above seems the most likely and this is very different from the implication given by the BBC in its coverage of the story. There would have been a response because FOISA requires public authorities to issue refusal notices in all the cases described in number 2. The response may not have included any disclosure of information, but that’s not the same as receiving no response.

I said at the outset of this post that this phrase is one that is heard or seen often in the reporting of stories which have originated out of FOI. It begs the question: Is this fair reporting? I would have to say that it would appear not to be; implying authorities are not complying with the law without providing the evidence to back it up isn’t very fair. Who is to blame though? The news outlet making the report or the requestor? In some cases the two will be the same.

So should reporting of the results of FOI requests be more transparent?

Public authority contact details and FOI

This is an FOI decision from the Information Commissioner that I have planned to blog about for some time, but have now only just got round to blogging about it. On 11 March 2013 the ICO issued decision notice FS50468600 which involved the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The content of the decision notice is not all that important until we turn to paragraphs 32-36, which are headed up as “other matters”.

In particular paragraph 35 is of note in which it states that his office experienced difficulty in actually speaking to those who were involved in the request at the DWP’s side of things. It described the DWP’s practice of not providing telephone numbers or contact details within its responses and how this makes it very difficult for the appropriate contact to be located within the organisation. The public authority advised the Commissioner that it did not include these details so as not to breach the privacy of the non-senior staff involved; it described the staff in question as not being in public-facing roles.

In Paragraph 36 of the decision notice the Commissioner states quite clearly that he does not agree with this approach. The decision notice states that “if such staff are responding to requests made under the FOIA then he considers this to be a public-facing role which is unlikely to attract an expectation of privacy” (Paragraph 36).

The DWP are by no means the only public authority which has adopted similar processes in respect of FOI requests. I can remember one time trying to get hold of a central Government department (I can’t remember exactly which one, but I have a feeling it was either the Home Office or a connected public authority) to discuss a response that had been issued by them (something that merely wasn’t very clear and, as it later transpired wasn’t in need of an internal review). However, there was no contact details provided for the individual. I was informed that the FOI team were not public-facing and they wouldn’t speak to members of the public over the telephone.

It was very frustrating and actually resulted in a higher cost to the public authority in my case. There was just one thing that I wasn’t clear about and I’m sure that had I been able to have a quick telephone conversation with the person who issued the decision then there would have been no need for them to conduct an internal review. However, the Authority’s attitude and processes meant my only option to get the clarification was to request an internal review. This will have then required a senior member of staff within the authority to review the entire handling of the request and issue a response to me; far more expensive than 5 minutes on the phone explaining something to the applicant.

Not publishing contact details for those responsible for FOI within the organisation also makes seeking advice and assistance from the public authority almost impossible. My reading of the Act suggests to me that advice and assistance is not only something to be provided in a refusal notice, but something that should be available to prospective applicants. I know that I’ve certainly phoned up a public authority and had a chat with them about a request before making it; as a consequence I have been able to frame my request in a way that has made it a much more efficient process for the public authority (and thereby reducing the cost to the taxpayer). The FOI Officer, knowing the structure of their organisation and how information is generally held, was able to advise as to what information they were likely to hold and how it was likely to be held.

I tend to agree with the commissioner that anyone sending a response out to a FOI request is clearly public-facing; it might be that a particular role was not public facing pre-FOI, but in these post-FOI days anyone could, in theory, be a public-facing member of an authority’s staff. It should be easy for applicants to contact public authorities, not least because the public authority is obliged to provide advice and assistance, but it can just save public authorities money. It can help ensure more focused FOIs that are easier to deal with and can prevent expensive internal review requests (or perhaps even more expensive ICO investigations).

Hopefully the ICO’s criticisms of this approach in this decision notice will feed their way round any other public authorities who still adopt a practice of not giving out contact details for someone able to provide advice and assistance.