Postman Pat…hetic

Pat waves goodbye to common sense

One of the things I like doing with FoI is following in the footsteps of other requesters. I’m not ashamed of pinching somebody else’s good idea.

To that end I’ll read the Decision Notices and Tribunal judgements. When there has been an order to disclose documents and I think they might be interesting I’ll ask for a copy of everything that was disclosed to the original applicant. On occasions it has yielded some great information without me having to be the one who has to prepare all the appeal documents.

However, the Royal Mail are taking a stubbornly unique approach to the Freedom of Information Act in a case where I want data it has already been ordered to disclose.

Way back the Royal Mail was ordered by the Information Commissioner to reveal how much it had paid to management consultants in 04/05, 05/06 and 06/07. The decision notice [here] ruled the information was not covered by S.43 (Commercial Interests).

The case initially went to the Tribunal but appears to have been settled before the case was ruled on by the panel. However, what is not in dispute is that following the intervention of the Commissioner the management consultancy fees were disclosed.

So I thought I’d ask for the figures that had been disclosed and bring the issue right up to date by asking for the 07/08 and 08/09 figures.

Imagine my surprise when the Royal Mail refused to release the information! They claim that it would be too expensive and breaches the £450 limit to amass the data for the two most recent years – despite being able to do it for the three older years. It also claims that the information about those three years, where the information was disclosed to the applicant, cannot now be released to me (is it because I’m a journalist?) because it is exempt under S.43.

This is what they say: “Royal Mail Group holds the total amount spent on strategic management consultants in 2004/5, 2005/6, and 2006/7. Information for these years is held because it has previously been collated by Royal Mail Group.

“As you are aware, this information was previously the subject of an ICO Decision Notice – FS50178376. The information held therefore covers the strategic management consultants as defined in that case.

“Although this information was released to the applicant in case reference FS50178376, we still believe that disclosure of the information at this time would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of Royal Mail Group.”

There was me thinking one of the main limbs of the Freedom of Information Act was that disclosure to one person was disclosure to the world.

Anyhow, you may not be surprised to learn that my appeal to the Information Commissioner is winging its way through the post – recorded delivery.

The refusal of my internal appeal can be seen here [Appeal refusal]. If anybody has any thoughts on this case I’d be pleased to hear them. Is there something I’m missing in my understanding here, or do Royal Mail think they can make the rules up as they go along?

Boris Johnson coy over his EastEnders’ fee

When Boris Johnson appeared in EastEnders I realised the clash of two public authorities was too good an opportunity to miss.

The BBC, forever hiding behind its “artistic and journalistic derogation” has never given out any info on its most famous soap.

Despite the theatrical nature of the new London mayor “BoJo” cannot avail himself of the same get out clause, so I was hoping to use City Hall as my entrance ticket into the murky world of EastEnders.

I basically asked for everything City Hall held on Boris’ appearance on the show and I received (15 days late) a very complete record of e-mails that bounced around between the two organisations.

But what I didn’t get were two e-mails that related to how much the fabulously wealthy Eton-educated Boris got paid for his brief appearance.

The e-mails from the Beeb say that everybody who appears on the show has to be paid and Boris’ team seem happy with that and agree the cash should be donated to charity.

At that point one would think there was nothing controversial about the matter – but City Hall refuse to release the charity or the amount claiming S.43 (commercial interests).

City Hall says in its response: “The two e-mails covered by the request constitute commercially sensitive information.

“The detail and naming of the charity involved in way of receiving the appearance fee for the Mayor’s appearance in EastEnders would be likely to be detrimental to the charity itself as information within the e-mails is not factually correct.”

It goes on: “In this case disclosure of this information would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the reputation of the charity in receipt of funds apportioned from the Mayors appearance fee from appearing on EastEnders due to the inaccuracy of some of the facts contained within the e-mails.

“The degree of prejudice to be suffered is likely to be far-reaching to a third party given in particular it is a charity and less likely to have the resource available to cope with the adverse publicity, therefore having a great impact on their commercial interests.”

What is amazing about this decision is the fact that disclosure appears to have been blocked based on the fact there are errors in the e-mails – which is no excuse for non-disclosure. My understanding is they should be released with adequate commentary explaining what in them is wrong.

Also I wonder what charity he decided his fee should go to? (Any suggestions please mail them in). But why be so coy about where the money was directed to? And surely there is a public interest in knowing where he wanted the fee to go to, considering his cameo in EastEnders only came about by virtue of his public office.

You won’t be surprised to know that I’m in the process of appealing it – and I also hope they refuse again and make an issue out of it.

For those that missed Boris lock horns with Peggy at the bar of the Queen Vic I’ve added the clip from YouTube.

UPDATE: I managed to unearth a story from the e-mails that were sent through.

UPDATE: 4.2.10: My appeal to the GLA was successful. On review they accepted that S.43 was not applicable as here we were talking about a charity and not a commercial organisation. Boris’ fee from the Beeb was £362 and he passed it straight on to Friends of Classics, a charity devoted to keeping Latin and Greek ‘flourishing in our schools’.

High Court saves the BBC

This post has upset me so much that it has taken me a few days to bring myself to write it.

The BBC’s derogation from the Freedom of Information Act which was first weaked by the Commissioner and then put in limbo for the last year now appears to have been settled. And its not good news for those of us who were lobbying for greater transparency at the Beeb.

The judge has effectively stiffened the derogation by saying if the information requested has any link to “arts or journalism” then it falls outside the Act. The previous position that had been adopted, but was was taken to appeal by the BBC was that it depended on what the information “prodominant” purpose had been.

Sadly I have already been contacted by the Information Commissioner’s Office and have been forced to throw in the towel in relation to three of my appeals – how much the BBC spent on accommodation at the Olympics; how much was spent on accommodation at the Open Golf; how much it spent buying the rights to Formula 1. All of those along with dozens of others I suspect have now been cleared off the Commissioner’s desk.

However, I refused to budge on two others. One relates to the BBC’s pension fund and the other relating to a taxi contract the Beeb has with a company was refused on the basis of S.43 (commercial interests) so it would be rich if the Beeb now said it was covered by its derogation.

Two points on the whole sorry saga. Firstly the judge, with all due respect as they say, has clearly misjudged the matter. The derogation is now so wide that it virtually covers everything the broadcaster does – can that have been what the legislators intended?

Secondly as we all hunker down for the huge public service cuts that will follow the forthcoming election is it right that the BBC – one of the deepest pits of taxpayers’ money – should be free from public scrutiny? Especially when the BBC are such enthusiastic users of the Act. I don’t see the storm over BBC costs disappearing any time soon and with a predicted change in Government soon perhaps the tide will swing back against the BBC.

For your amusment, and to illustrate the point that the BBC’s use of its own resources will continue to be  a thorn in its side I have added a clip of Paxman v Boris. You may have seen it but as Boris gets more and more exasperated at Paxman questioning him about his drunken university exploits he responds by asking Paxman how much he gets paid.

I’m optimistic. I don’t think this will be the last post I write about BBC costs. For those of you who want to read the judegment I’ve linked to it [here].

S.43 exemption hits the buffers

A silverlink train

Another attempt by a public body to keep information secret with the use of the S.43 (Commercial Interests) exemption has failed.

The Department for Transport’s (DfT) efforts to withhold the information relating to how much it paid a rail company when its workforce went on strike was rejected by the Information Commissioner.

It was ruled that S.43 was not engaged and so the Commissioner did not even go on to consider the public interest arguments in the case.

The case centred on an industrial dispute by workers on the Silverlink rail franchise in 2007 which ran between London Euston and Northampton.

Officials from the DfT confirmed to the Commissioner that under a section of its agreement with Silverlink it was able to “reimburse or ameliorate net losses of the Franchise Operator arising from industrial action”.

However, it refused to divulge how much this compensation was and the arguments it put up in defence of the use of S.43 remain somewhat of a mystery.

The DfT said that to disclose it arguments for the support of S.43 would be a breach of the exemption in itself. The decision notice said: “The DfT has provided the Commissioner with submissions to support its use of the exemption, but has stated that it believes that these submissions cannot be put into the public domain.”

So the rationale behind the DfT’s use of the exemption is in a confidential annex to the decision notice that we cannot see.

However, the Commissioner gave the arguments – secret or not – short shrift and said the exemption did not apply. Because the exemption didn’t apply he also found the DfT guilty of a breach of procedure in that it should have explained the reasoning behind its application of S.43 to the applicant.

The DfT has now been ordered to provide the applicant with information relating to did the DfT provide funding to Silverlink as compensation when the industrial action took place and if any changes were made with the incoming franchisee to compensate it for any losses caused by industrial action.

The full decision notice can be seen here. [link]

NOTE: For S.43 to be applicable the prejudice to an organisation has to be likely and substantial. Even then the public interest can weigh in favour of disclosure. It means that it practice it is very difficult to shield information using this exemption. The Ministry of Justice lost a similar case [Working on the chain gang], and the Royal Mail has withdrawn its appeal to the Information Tribunal over its attempt to keep secret how much it spends on management consultants.

Nice work if you can get it

Well worth the money.....

When the employees at the Information Commissioner’s office next look up from their in-trays to wonder why the Ministry of Justice so openly underfunds its illegitimate offspring in Cheshire they might want to ponder on modern art.

Because while they gather round the coffee machine looking for small change the people who hold the purse strings in London have just splashed out £118,000 on a modern art sculpture for its HQ.

This work which the artist describes as a “monument to uncertainty and infinite possibility” was just one of four pieces specifically commissioned for the MoJ.

We know how much it cost because the Department of Culture, Media and Sport capitulated in their attempts to keep the prices it pays for artwork secret and now publishes them in an annual report [link] – something it didn’t do before the Freedom of Information Act came in and something they tried to oppose, claiming it should be covered by the S.43 (Commercial Interests) exemption.

I know this because it was I who took the case to the Information Tribunal in relation to an art installation at the National Maritime Museum. It was one of the first Tribunal cases in the country and the cowardly Commissioner was against me claiming the information was covered by S.43.

Fortunately the Tribunal panel could see the immaturity of the Commissioner’s argument and sided with me saying S.43 was not even engaged so they didn’t bother to go on to consider the public interest argument.

The artist whose piece of work was at the centre of that argument in front of the Tribunal was Conrad Shawcross, who is later emerged got paid around £20,000 for his collection of wooden hoops called Continuum, which were described as a “wooden spring like structure…moving through itself in perpetuity”.

Getting back to the MoJ, guess who is the artist behind the curious heap of wood in its coffee room…. yes you’ve guessed it, Conrad Shawcross.

Conrad with his "cheap by comparison" collection of hoops at the National Maritime Museum

What better proof could you have that S.43 didn’t harm the commercial interests of Mr Shawcross. In 2004 he flogs a selection of wood to a publicly-funded museum for £20,000 and then three years later he sells another collection of wooden pieces for £118,000. I would say it is quite clear Mr Shawcross didn’t need the protection of S.43 and the Tribunal were right.

You can find the Information Commissioner’s decision on the case [here] and the Tribunal’s ruling on it [here] . If you’d like to know more about Mr Shawcross click [here] for his art or [here] for his wiki entry.

University fund raising ruled NOT a “commercial activity”

Would you let this man give you £2.5m?

Although my instincts as a journalist mean I am reluctant to side with public authorities when they refuse information requests, a recent decision in relation to Oxford University has made me look at things from the other side of the fence.

The Information Commissioner’s decision notice makes what I consider an incredible assault upon the protection of S.43 (Commercial Interests).

The case relates to a £2.5million donation given to Oxford University by Hong Kong entrepreneur Dr Stanley Ho to set up a new University Lecturership in Chinese History.

A request was made for information from the University’s Donations Acceptance Review Committee (DARC) held on the suitability of the donation from a man otherwise known as “The King of Gambling” and who according to Wikipedia is Bruce Lee’s cousin. [link]

At first the University just gave the applicant standard material on how it considers donations and did not release the specific minutes of the meetings it had when it was considering Dr Ho’s proposed gift.

Eventually the University said the information in question – its internal discussions about the suitability of Dr Ho as a benefactor – were exempt from disclosure as they were subject to S.43 and S.40 (Personal Information).

In relation to S.43 the University claimed to release information would be a deterrent to other potential donors and so had the likelihood of prejudicing its commercial interests.

But, and some might think this surprising, the Information Commissioner said the S.43 exemption was not even relevant to the issue. The decision notice stated that fund raising for the University was NOT a commercial activity and therefore the information could not be protected by the exemption.

Josie Ho, the benefactor's actress daughter

The Commissioner said: “In the Commissioner’s view a commercial interest relates to a person’s ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity, i.e. the purchase and sale of goods and services. The University is, broadly speaking, not a profit making organisation, the provision of higher education as a public service (albeit for a fee) is its underlying motive. Moreover, the services are paid for out of the public purse and supplemented by private donors. In providing higher education, the University’s survival is not dependant on its ability to generate its own funding and therefore the need to be commercially competitive is not a paramount consideration in the sense one would expect of a privately funded organisation.

“The release of the information in this case may or may not affect the University’s ability to raise future funds, but this is not a commercial activity albeit that it may be a financial interest. In view of this the Commissioner does not consider the applicable interests to fall within section 43 and therefore he has concluded that the exemption was incorrectly relied upon by the University to refuse access to the information requested. In light of this conclusion it is not necessary to further consider the nature of the prejudice in this case or the likelihood of it occurring.”

Bruce Lee. Stanley Ho's cousin?

The S.40 arguments were also turned down by the Commissioner. He stated that much of the information was already in the public domain [link] and that Dr Ho could not have had an expectation of privacy when the academic post funded by his donation was to be named after him.

Just like the recent case I blogged about in relation to Dumfries and Galloway Police [What became of the drink-drive policemen...] the Commissioner had to rule if the disclosure of the information was for a “legitimate interest”, was it “necessary” and would it not cause “prejudice” to the rights of the data subject.

Like the policemen case the Information Commissioner ruled that S.40 did not provide protection. Some of the key factors were the panel were assessing Dr Ho mainly on the basis on material in front of it that was already in the public domain.

In summary the Commissioner said: “The Commissioner recognises that the withheld information itself is not in the public domain and that disclosure would reveal exactly what the University considered when vetting the donation. In the Commissioner’s view revealing which aspects of publicly available material the University opted to use would not result in unwarranted prejudice to the donor’s rights and freedoms. Nor does he think that revealing the material that was internally generated by the University rather than obtained from public sources would have this effect. In particular he does not consider such information to be particularly free and frank or to reveal anything that would be detrimental to the donor.”

You can see the full decision notice here [link] and I have also asked for the material the University has been asked to disclose on WhatDoTheyKnow . However, I wouldn’t hold your breath as I imagine there are sure to be a few people prepared to challenge the Commissioner’s somewhat strict interpretation of what is commercial activity.

UPDATE: 16.9.09. Not unexpectedly the University refuse to release the information and state they are lodging an appeal at the Tribunal.

Working on the chain gang…..

Paul enjoys a life in the sunshine rather than the 'hell' of the jail's Information Governance team.

The Ministry of Justice has suffered an embarrassing failure to uphold the S.43 (Commercial Interests) exemption in a dispute over contracts for prison labour.

Although chain gangs may be a thing of the past prisoners in England do have jobs for commercial organisations managed through the jails where they are held.

An attempt by a Freedom of Information requester to find out who these contracts were with and how much they were worth was rebuffed by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on the basis that the data was subject to S.43.

The Information Commissioner was eventually called in to rule on two parallel appeals on the subject, one relating to ten prisons and the other relating to eight jails.

In both cases the Commissioner ruled that S.43 should not have applied to the information and so didn’t even have to go on to consider the public interest test.

He also made critical comments about the amount of time the MoJ took to deal with the internal reviews in both cases – more than 190 working days in one of the cases and more than 250 working days in the other.

On the topic of S.43 the public authority stated in its internal review notice that: “… the likely consequences of the identification of companies holding contracts with prisons will include loss of business, lay-offs of workers, becoming the subjects of campaigns against the use of prison labour and adverse publicity, all of which we feel would prejudice commercial interests, as has happened in other cases.”

It also claimed that in one case the end customers did not know it was prisoners who were the labour force behind the product and if they found out they might cancel the contract.

A whole host of arguments were put forward by the MoJ in an attempt to justify the S.43 exemption. It claimed the prisons could lose money if contracts were cancelled, the contractors would be put at a disadvantage to competitors, and contractors might have to lay off non-prison staff.

However, the Information Commissioner ruled against all these arguments and said the exemption was not even engaged, especially as the information requested was not particularly specific in terms of the actual contract, such as the number of prisoners employed etc.

Although the MoJ did not rely on S.38 (health and safety) the Information Commissioner went on to consider it, in relation to non-prisoner employees of a company using jail labour.

The Commissioner said: “Whilst the Commissioner understands that a contractor has a duty of care to its staff and notes its concerns, he can find no evidence to support its stance that its staff may be put at risk by disclosure of the information requested in this case in particular, or by public knowledge of its involvement with prison labour in general. Although there is information available on-line to suggest that a well known retailer was targeted by parties who were against the association they claimed it had with prison workers, there is nothing to suggest that any harm or damage was done to its staff. There were a number of demonstrations, along with picketing and leafleting, and although it appears that some persons were ‘moved on’ by the police the Commissioner can find nothing to suggest that there was any further action than this.”

A group called Campaign Against Prison Slavery says inmates get paid around 30p an hour and have compiled a list of companies with contracts with jails in England [here] and Scotland [here] .

I have asked the Ministry of Justice to provide me with the details that should now be released and you can see the question [here] on WhatDoTheyKnow.

And the two decision notices can be seen [here] (relating to eight prisons) and [here] (relating to ten jails) .

This request was sent in by journalist Phil Chamberlain (see the comment) who has blogged about this topic [here] where you will find a link to articles on the Guardian as well as his own website devoted to investigating prison labour [link] .

Ministry of Defence: The Information Commissioner has issued a Practice Recommendation [link] critical of the time taken by the MoD to complete an internal review. The MoD seems to have particularly annoyed the Commissioner in that it has taken 40 working days as its target for dealing with internal appeals when this figure is in fact an exceptional allowance – the normal figure being 20 days. However, even using the 40 day limit statistics from the MoD showed 60% of appeals were not dealt with by the expanded timeframe, and in one case a requester had to wait 190 working days for an internal review to be resolved.

Flipping crazy

lunchtime

Who would have thought that the Freedom of Information Act would need to be used to find out how best to cook a burger? But that’s what has happened.

The Information Commissioner has ordered the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to disclose the details of a slide used in a presentation by a US fast food chain (I wonder who this might be?) as to how it cooks its burgers.

All the information centres on an investigation by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) into the issue of cooking burgers safely.

In June 2004 the FSA sought the advice of the ACMSF on the UK’s existing guidance on the safe cooking time and temperature for burgers. This followed a suggestion from the US fast food company to the FSA that this guidance recommended cooking conditions that were more stringent than was necessary. The company believed that this led to overcooking and deterioration in the quality of some of its products.

In September 2004 the ACMSF set up an ad hoc group to review the advice issued by the Chief Medical Officer. Amongst the evidence it considered was a presentation from the US fast food company on the controls it used to ensure the safety of burgers from raw materials through to consumption. It provided data on the effectiveness of the regime in the US which differed from that in the UK.

When the applicant asked for the material considered by the ACMSF and the material submitted to it by the US fast food chain some of it was refused. The FSA claimed the information was exempt from disclosure because it was subject to S.22 (Intended for future publication), S.35(Formulation of Government Policy), S.40 (Personal Information) and S.41 (Information Provided in Confidence).

During the course of the three-year saga, the initial request was made in April 2006, much of the disputed information was passed to the applicant. However, the contents of one slide used during a presentation were still disputed. According to the FSA the slide was subject to S.41 (Information Provided in Confidence) and S.43 (Commercial Interests).

The Information Commissioner could not disclose what was in this slide but he ruled that neither exemption was engaged. On S.43 argument he said the risk of prejudice could not be said to be a “real and significant risk to the company”. Similarly he dismissed the S.41 argument on the same basis that the information was not subject to the exemption as the company would not suffer “detriment” if it were released.

The Commissioner also covered public interest arguments for both exemptions – although not needed as he ruled neither were engaged – and ruled that had the exemptions been engaged then the public interest would still have been in favour of releasing the information.

 He also criticised the FSA for the way it released information in a piecemeal manner and that it should have “taken more care in the initial application of exemptions”. He also said the use of S.22 (Intended for Future Publication) was used incorrectly. Although the documents were disclosed to the applicant before they were published they were not released to a wider audience for two years. He said: “I am concerned that the public authority should make sure that before applying the exemption in future that it ascertains that there is a definite intention to publish the relevant information within a realistic and reasonably short timeframe from the point at which the request has been made.”

A full copy of the decision notice can be found by clicking [here].

I have asked the FSA for the name of the US fast food chain and a copy of the slide. You can see the request, and hopefully the response, by clicking [here].

12th August, 2009: I have been informed that the US fast food chain in question is McDonalds (fancy that!) and the organisation requesting the information was an e-Coli sufferers’ support group called HUSH. You can find out more here [link] .

17th August, 2009: The FSA got back to me on WhatDoTheyKnow [link] to confirm the fast food chain is McDonalds but that they are considering the Information Commissioner’s decision and if they don’t appeal the case they will let me have the slide – but I’ll have to wait until they make their mind up.

Busy autumn ahead for Information Tribunal

A look at the cases in the pipeline for the Information Tribunal shows it is going to be a busy autumn for the court this year.

Hopefully the rulings should put some markers in the sand about what is and is not allowed to be exempted from disclosure under the Act.

The full list of cases has just been updated and can be found [here], but I’ve highlighted a few that I think are potentially the most interesting.

Royal Mail

What is the Post Office's management consultancy bill?

Royal Mail – 10^th/11^th Sept – Here the Information Commissioner ruled the amount spent on management consultants by the Post Office over the last five years should be disclosed despite protestations that the statistics should be covered by S.43 (Commercial Interests). Interesting as I can’t think many FoI officers would agree with the Royal Mail’s position on this one. The Commissioner decision was that the information was not covered by S.43 and didn’t even go on to examine the public interest test IF the exemption had been in play. [FS 50178376]

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)

Protestors at the EDO factory

 

 

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) – 22^nd/23^rd Sept – This could be a lively hearing in that it relates to the export licences granted to a company called EDO MBM Technology Ltd. This Brighton-based Aerospace Engineering Company, has been the subject of a campaign by local pressure groups who alleged that it had supplied Israel with military aircraft components. There have been a number of demonstrations and protests at the firm’s headquarters. This appeal relates to an attempt by an applicant to get hold of the export licences granted to EDO. The Commissioner agreed with BERR’s ruling on the matter that the information was covered by S.41 (Information Provided in Confidence). [FS 50180838]

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Department for Culture, Media and Sport – 9^th/10^th Nov – This relates to internal Government memos on its casino policy, which changed a number of times. Here the Information Commissioner rejected arguments that documents should not be disclosed because the were covered by S.35 (Formulation of Government Policy) and S.43 (Commercial Interests). [FS 50160256]

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

The CAA has responsibility for ensuring air safety in the UK

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – 22^nd/23^rd October – I have written about this case before [Flight of Fancy shot down by ICO] where the CAA is refusing to issue safety reports on a cargo airline. It has claimed a S.31 (law enforcement) exemption but the Information Commissioner kicked that argument into touch saying the CAA had not shown how releasing such documents would prejudice its affairs. [FS 50168527]

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

The student accommodation didn't quite look like the brochure pictures

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) – 16^th November – In this case the HEFCE doesn’t want to disclose the database it holds on the make-up and quality of university buildings. It claims the information is covered by a S.41 (Information Provided in Confidence) exemption, but the Commissioner ruled against the authority. Again I have blogged on this case in the past [Uni database to be opened to public scrutiny] and noted the Commissioner ruled the information was not covered by the exemption as there would be no ‘detriment’ to the universities who supplied it. [FS 50188864]

University of Central Lancashire

A student preparing herself for the Homeopathy practical?

University of Central Lancashire – 3^rd/4^th and 5^th of November – Pack your healing crystals and make sure you sleep on lay lines as this one is all about the ‘science’ of homeopathy. This case was brought by real scientist David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London, who wanted all the papers relating to its homeopathy course. The university refused claiming the info was covered by S.36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of Public Affairs), S41 (Information Provided in Confidence) S.43 (Commercial Interests) and S.21 exemption (available by another means) on the basis that the applicant could pay to enroll on the course and after shelling out almost £10,000 over three years he could view the course documents. The Information Commissioner again rejected the University’s arguments and ordered the documents to be disclosed. The university has refused to back down and will now take its arguments to the druids’ court, sorry I mean the Tribunal. This is an interesting case in that it is at the focus of very public battles between so-called scientists and those that have been dubbed ‘bad-scientists’ in that they hold pseudo scientific beliefs. These arguments are now being hammered out in the libel courts and here at the Information Tribunal, which many would argue is not the proper use of these institutions. Again I have written on this topic before at [Details of “Bad Science” BSc to be revealed]. The Information Commissioner’s decision on the case can be found here [FS 50140374]

Making a meal of a meta-request

Will it be worth the wait to see what's inside?

The saga of the so-called meta-request goes on….and on…. and on.

In January 2007 I asked a question of the Home Office about the way it had been treating my requests as I had evidence that it dealt with mine differently from the general public. This is a breach of its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act in that it should be “applicant blind” when it deals with requests.

My request was refused, I appealed and the appeal was thrown out as the information was deemed to be covered by Section 36 (Prejudice to the effect conduct of public affairs).

I took the case to the Information Commissioner who ruled in my favour and then the Home Office appealed against that decision, linked up with the Ministry of Justice, and took the case to the Information Tribunal.

At the Tribunal the Government tried to argue that meta-requests – the process where somebody asks questions about the way their question has been handled – were in some way an abuse of process.

This argument was rejected by the Tribunal and I sat at home waiting for the 1,250page bundle of documents to arrive in the post.

But that wasn’t the end of the matter and the Government appealed the decision to the High Court where a hearing took place earlier this year.

That decision has now been announced and again it was ruled that meta-requests are NOT an abuse of process and should be dealt with like any other Freedom of Information application.

However, there is one big BUT. The High Court has allowed the Home Office the opportunity to go through the material to see if any other exemptions apply to it. For good measure it is now claimed that although S.36 does not apply to it the Tribunal will have to rule if section 31 (law enforcement), section 35 (formulation of government policy), section 40 (personal information), section 42 (legal professional privilege), and section 43 (commercial interests).

So to summarise, two and a half years after I asked the question the Home Office has now been forced to do what it should have done all along – look at the question and see if it could and should answer it. Because of it’s ineptitude it has wasted hundreds of hours and thousands of pounds, essentially because it thought it shouldn’t have to answer my question.

Here is a link to a question I have asked on WhatDoTheyKnow asking for the figures of legal costs associated with the case both for the Information Commissioner [link] and the Home Office [link].

Here are copies of the decision in this case by the [ICO], the [Tribunal] and the [High Court].