Regulating the FOIA into obscurity?

This is a guest post from the redoubtable John Slater, whose tireless efforts to hold DWP to account are a lesson in how FOI should be used. John has had real success in wrestling information out of a stubborn and secretive system, but the post describes the hurdles in the way of the applicant, and the shameful way in which the ICO makes things worse. It’s not a quick read but there’s a lot to say. I think anyone with an interest in how the benefits system operates, or how healthy the FOI system is at the moment should give it the time it deserves. I’m very grateful to John for writing it and letting me host it.

I suspect that most people reading this have experience of submitting a request for information (“RFI”) under the FOIA and all the frustrations that can come with it. Some people may have complained to the office of the Information Commissioner (“ICO”) while others may have just given up when their RFI was refused. I suspect that a smaller number of people, who had the time, appealed ICO decisions to the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals.

Via my involvement with the FOIA I have been dealing with the ICO for approximately 6 years. My interaction has ranged from normal FOIA complaints through to appeals to the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals.

Setting aside the minor issues one typically experiences with any large organization I have to say that my experience of dealing with the ICO has been very positive. Even when a decision notice (“DN”) went against me I could understand why and how that decision was reached. In respect of appeals to the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals I have nothing but praise for the people involved, even when I was appealing an ICO decision.

However, approximately 18 months ago things started to change for the worse. The time taken to respond to complaints seems to be inexorably increasing and the quality of the case work is deteriorating. I’ll use 3 of my current complaints to illustrate the problems that I and others are experiencing on a regular basis.

Case 1 – Universal Credit Programme Board Information Packs

In July 2017 I asked the DWP for the 3 most recent packs of information that were given to the Universal Credit (“UC”) Programme Board members at each monthly meeting. Given how controversial UC is and the history of the DWP being less than honest about it, this seemed to be a good route to try to find out what the senior people responsible for UC actually know and what they are doing about it.

For those not familiar with programme management terminology the programme board consists of senior people who are accountable and responsible for the UC programme, defining the direction of the programme and establishing frameworks to achieve its objectives. So apart from Neil Couling (senior responsible owner) and the secretary of state they are about as senior as it gets. The membership of the programme board can be found here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/419990/response/1090823/attach/html/2/3044%20IR%20516%20IR%20604%20reply.pdf.html

Unsurprisingly the DWP refused my RFI on 16 August 2017 citing S.36. However it explained that it needed an extension to carry out the public interest test (“PIT”). On 14 September 2017 the DWP did exactly the same thing. This is a tactic that the DWP uses regularly and often issues monthly PIT extensions until the ICO becomes involved.

I complained to the ICO on 14 September 2017. On 22 November a DN was issued giving the DWP 35 calendar days to issue its response. On 3 January 2018 the DWP finally confirmed that it was engaging S.36 and that the public interest did not favour disclosure (I’ve yet to see a public interest test from the DWP that does favour disclosure). I submitted a revised complaint to the ICO on 9 January 2018 challenging S.36 and the public interest decision.

Despite the 5 month delay by the DWP the ICO bizarrely told me that I still had to exhaust the DWP internal review procedure before my complaint could be investigated. I had submitted 4 internal review requests (“IRR”) during the 5 months that the DWP treated the FOIA with such contempt. I know from previous experience that the DWP would use the same PIT ‘trick’ to delay answering my IRR. I explained this to the ICO and asserted that it has the authority to proceed without me having to submit another IRR. On 30 January the ICO accepted my complaint. I know about this from experience but I assume most people would have followed the ICO instruction and been stuck in another loop of 5 months until the DWP was told to issue its response to the IRR.

On 26 April my case was assigned to a case officer, just 3 months short of a year since I submitted my request to the DWP. Despite the DWP clearly citing S.36 the ICO allowed the DWP to get away with numerous delaying tactics and nothing happened for many months. Despite chasing the ICO on a number of occasions there appeared to be no progress. My patience ran out in October 2018 and I complained to the ICO about this and two other cases. On the face of it this appeared to have got things moving.

However, on 18 October 2018 I was told by the ICO that an information notice had been served on the DWP to obtain copies of the information I had requested. The DWP has 30 days to respond to these notices.

Whilst I’m not surprised by this (in fact I even suggested this was the case in my complaint) I struggle to understand how any organisation can investigate a complaint for almost 6 months without having a copy of the requested information. I can only hope that the DN I have been seeking for so long will appear at some point in 2018!

The delay has been so long that I have actually submitted another request for more current programme board packs. At the time of writing the DWP hasn’t provided a response within 20 days so that’s another complaint that I need to send to the ICO!

Case 2 – Aggregation of various RFIs

Between 4 February and 23 April 2018 the DWP aggregated 9 of my requests for information claiming that they were for the “same or similar” information. Well, what it actually said was:

We consider each of the seven requests to be of a similar nature as they all relate to either decision making or performance delivery of disability assessments on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.  In particular, all of the requests would be allocated to the same team for response as it falls within their specialised area. 

Under Section 12 of the FOI Act the Department is not therefore obliged to comply with your request and we will not be processing it further.

This seems to suggest that the DWP believes the requested information is the same or similar because they relate to activities it carries out and the teams that do them. This is a crude attempt to rely on the discredited concept of ‘overarching themes’ that was attempted in Benson v IC and the Governing Body of Buckinghamshire New University (EA20110016).  At [29] the Tribunal stated:

Whilst the Tribunal understood the Commissioner’s analysis the Tribunal felt that it was not compelling and relied on concepts that were not actually within the legislation – e.g. ‘overarching theme’. The Tribunal felt that any consequent uncertainty should, on balance, be resolved in the Appellant’s favour.

On 30 March I submitted a complaint to the ICO. My complaint involves 9 requests and deals with an important area of the FOIA, where there is very little precedent. A reasonable person might conclude that the ICO would be keen to act swiftly. On 27 April 2018 my complaint was assigned to a case officer so things were looking good. It is now coming towards the end of October and I have not had a single piece of correspondence from the ICO.

The requests that have been aggregated cover management information about how the DWP runs large controversial contracts that assess the eligibility for employment support allowance and personal independence payment (“PIP”). A previous RFI uncovered numerous problems with the quality of medical reports being produced for PIP assessments. This might explain why the DWP is so keen not to let me have the current information but not why there has been no progress by the ICO.

Case 3 – Datasets & Type of Data Held for Various Benefits About Claimants

On 26 February 2018 I asked the DWP to disclose the datasets and type of data it holds about various social security benefits. I am not asking for the actual data just the type of data and the “groups” or “sets” of data that it holds.

On 17 April 2018 the DWP refused my request citing S.31 (it eventually confirmed it meant section 31(1)(a))  and  S.24. After a further IRR the DWP reconfirmed its position and I complained to the ICO on 15 July. Some 3 months later on 11 October I was finally told that my case had been assigned to a case officer. Does this now mean I wait for a further 6 months before anything actually happens?

Conclusion

I know the ICO is very busy, partially due to the new Data Protection legislation, but the problems that I and others are experiencing can’t just be explained by “being busy”. Based on my previous experience of dealing with them I also don’t believe it is the fault of the case officers. These problems are due to serious organisational failings within the ICO. There doesn’t seem to be the type of business processes / workflow that one would expect to see in an organisation of this size. The line management oversight of case officers appears to be absent. Based on my own experience it seems to be that the line managers focus solely on protecting case officers while actually making matters worse for them as their workloads probably grow faster than they can cope with.

The ICO should have a small set of metrics about how it is dealing with cases. Surely line managers should be looking at cases where nothing has actually happened for 6 months and do something about it? The idea of management by exception has been around for a long time and yet I’m left with the impression that there are no exceptions set within the ICO and senior management have no impartial way of knowing what is actually going on at the case level.

People might wonder why this matters and that in these times of constrained budgets we should expect cases to take longer. I can’t accept this as one of the key drivers for the FOIA is that we get a chance to hold public authorities to account for their actions. For that to happen we need access to information while it is still relatively current.

It is generally known that there are certain large government departments that have very poor history in respect of FOIA. If someone requests information that these departments suspect will be embarrassing they will deliberately play the system to delay disclosure. From personal experience it’s all far too easy to do:

  1. Ignore the request completely until the ICO tells the department to respond (3+ months).
  2. Use the public interest test with impunity to introduce a 5 to 6 month delay before the requester can complain to the ICO about the exemption cited.
  3. 3 months before a case officer is assigned.
  4. At least 3 to 6 months before a DN is issued.

Total possible delay = 14 to 18 months.

The department can then appeal the DN to the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”), even if there is little chance of success. I’ve had 2 cases recently that have been appealed and then withdrawn just before the FTT hearing was due to take place. This added another 6 month delay let alone the cost to the public purse. If the DWP had actually gone through with the appeals and lost then that delay would probably be closer to 9 to 12 months.

This means that “playing the system” allows disreputable government departments to delay disclosure of embarrassing information by at least 2 years. Any media interest in the information can then be met with the claim that it is now ‘historical’ and things are better now.

A good example of this is the Project Assessment Review Reports (“PARs”) for the Universal Credit programme. I asked the DWP for these in April 2016 (see URL below):

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme_proje#comment-82746

Using the delaying tactics described above and making the ICO issue an information notice to compel the DWP to release the PARs to them, they weren’t disclosed until March 2018. That’s a 2 year delay.

The ICO needs to sort out the internal delays that these government departments seem to be relying on. They also need to make sure there are meaningful consequences for public authorities that “play the system”. Writing strongly worded DNs telling public authorities off for abusing the system is meaningless. The ICO was highly critical of the DWP in its DN for the PARs case. A link to the DN is given below and the criticisms start at [62].

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2014762/fs50640285.pdf

The criticism has had absolutely no impact on the DWP.  It still regularly doesn’t reply in time and still produces “boilerplate” responses that have little bearing on the case in question.

As a result of the new GDPR and Facebook the Information Commissioner regularly seems to be in the media and was recently named as the most influential person in data-driven business in the updated DataIQ 100 list. I hear talk of the Commissioner being able to issue huge fines for data breaches and serving enforcement notices on organisations that are not complying with the FOIA.

The original white paper “your right to know” stated at [1.1]:

Unnecessary secrecy in Government leads to arrogance in government and defective decision-making. The perception of excess secrecy has become a corrosive influence in the decline of public confidence. Moreover, the climate of public opinion has changed; people expect much greater openness and accountability from government than they used to.”

If public authorities continue to be allowed to easily introduce delays of 2 years before disclosure then the regulator of the FOIA is failing in her role.  Before the FOIA we only had the thirty-year rule (now moving to the twenty-year rule) controlling when information was released to the public.

I suggest that we are rapidly approaching the situation where by default we have the “two-year rule” for information government departments do not want released. Unless the Commissioner does something about it that will slowly increase to the “three-year rule” and then the “four-year rule”. From my perspective its time the Commissioner stopped boasting about all the powers she has and started using them.

Bad planning

A couple of weeks ago, the journalist Heather Brooke tweeted the following in respect of myself and another person:

Really, you two are starting to sound a little like trolls. Do I lurk on your feed & make continuous snide remarks? No

She doesn’t quite call me a snide, lurking troll but we’re close. If “innocent face”  is enough to get Lord MacAlpine going, then associating me with trolls (example: Frank Zimmerman, the man who threatened Louise Mensch and her kids ) is surely murky territory. Could I argue that Brooke’s comments tend to lower me in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally? Brooke is the hero of the MPs expenses case, the respected journalist and authority on FOI, the esteemed tutor of the next generation of journalists. I am just a tawdry freelancing consultant. Isn’t it possible that people might well give her comments credence because of her status as a respectable public figure?

So can I sue her for libel?

Of course not, it wasn’t libel. Brooke has a low opinion of me and these weekly mentions on my blog will probably only make it worse, but she is entitled to say I’m a troll. She can say worse things and has every right to. She said it’s a shame I’m not a journalist, so maybe she already has. Brooke expressed a negative opinion about the fact that I fired critical responses to some of her tweets in quick succession. The question of whether I was simply disagreeing with her (my version) or deliberately misunderstanding her point (her version) depends on your perspective – you’re obviously free to see it her way, and given our respective respectability, you probably will. I don’t agree with her accusation, but my objection doesn’t make it libel. She didn’t accuse me of training the BNP, teaching people in how to breach the DPA and get away with it, or bribing officials to get training contracts. I haven’t done these things, and I would sue anyone who said that I did. Free speech protects our legitimate opinions even if they offend other people. However, it shouldn’t allow us to say anything, especially if anything is an unfounded accusation of a crime.

All this is by way of introduction to a doubtless unwelcome and unpopular contribution to the depressing resolution of the libel battle between the redoubtable blogger Jacqui Thompson and Mark James, Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire Council . Doubtless I will be accused of backing Team Goliath for not simply foaming at the mouth in outrage, but I cannot say my reaction is the same as most of the comments I have seen.

Much of the background to the case is like a riposte to my own defences of public sector workers. The idea that councils might fund or back libel actions for their staff in any circumstances is a disgrace. Public money is for public services, and if an officer is libelled and cannot afford to defend their reputation, they must blame our legal system or cruel fate. If Carmarthenshire’s Chief Executive accepted public funds to defend his personal reputation – even though this might have been entirely legal – he should pay the money back, as he can afford his own defence.

Moreover, all senior council officers must have a thick skin. I once dealt with a senior officer who did not want his salary disclosed because of fears his children would be bullied in the playground. He earned more than £100,000 per annum, and he was talking bollocks. Every front-line officer gets abuse from time to time and they just plough on, letting it wash over them. If you are not prepared to be called crap, incompetent, idiotic, stupid, moronic, selfish, or cowardly, whether it’s fair or unfair, you are not fit for management in local (or central) government, the Police, NHS, Fire or the rest of the public sector. Suck it up; it’s part of the job.

The most eye-catching element of the case is still troubling. Public meetings should be public places. Any restriction on filming, recording, tweeting or reporting of proceedings held in public by any person for any reason is an affront to democracy. I would include the courts in this (with necessary protections for witnesses and victims). No part of the UK, and no UK institution no matter how large or small should seek to restrict access to public proceedings, no matter what the circumstances. Any organisation that attempts to restrict coverage of public meetings – whether by professional journalists or by amateur bloggers – must be prevented from doing so. Any amount of blather from Eric Pickles disguises the fact that he has done nothing formal to protect those wanting to film or report council and other similar proceedings.

And finally, calling the police because a person is filming a public meeting and refusing to stop is ridiculous. From a purely tactical perspective in the Carmarthenshire case, it was disastrous. The people who called the police have forever ensured that this case will always be the innocent ‘armchair auditor’ against the overweening, something-to-hide establishment. Mark James won his case, but in the court of public opinion, he and his council will forever be associated with the image of an ordinary taxpayer being led away simply for wanting to report the truth, and they deserve nothing else for their poor judgement in making that image happen.

But free speech is not dead. The arrest of Jacqui Thompson for filming a public meeting is a free speech issue, and I entirely agree with her stand on that. However, this libel case was launched by Thompson and not the council. Ultimately it is about accusations of corruption versus claims of intimidation. If you haven’t read the full judgement and are going off the headlines, you should read it objectively now before you pontificate (I didn’t and I deleted tweets as a result). If you really can’t bear it, this detailed story in the Western Mail (HT: @NewsatTwm on Twitter) is very strong.

The daft arrest isn’t the decisive issue. Thompson sued Mark James, the Chief Executive, because he published a letter accusing her and her family of conducting a campaign of harassment and intimidation against council officers. James counter-sued for comments that Thompson made on her blog about perjury, dishonesty and corruption. If Thompson could justify her allegations of corruption, the comments on her blog and her actions in the Council chamber would be vindicated, and James’ comments about the campaign would probably be libellous. However, without anything concrete to back up the corruption claims, the position is reversed. If Thompson made serious and repeated accusations without evidence, she has libelled James and potentially others. No matter how outrageous the arrest was, it does not prove that anyone is guilty of corruption, or justify statements that cannot be verified. Thompson’s libel action against James is not made one tiny bit stronger by the unfairness of her arrest, and it was not an opportunity for her to be recompensed for the unfairness of that arrest. No amount of capsule sermonising from Nick Cohen changes this.

Even the sympathetic Broken Barnet coverage of the case acknowledged that Thompson “has perhaps made errors of judgement in some of the comments made in some of her posts” . But isn’t it more than that? In 2006, Thompson accused James and a planning officer of corruption and was sued by the latter for libel. She lost, and had to retract her comments and apologise in court – paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment – as well as agreeing to pay £7500 in costs (costs she later argued should be borne by the Council, a suggestion that I think is outrageous). Thompson made no attempt to prove that any of her allegations of corruption were true and defended herself solely on “honest comment”. Every decision and comment I have found on this defence include a variation on this quote: the comment “must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based”. You cannot accuse someone of corruption without something concrete to back it up.

So consider paragraph 299 from the current judgement:

Mrs Thompson did not, when sued by Mr Bowen, attempt to prove that the allegation of corruption she made against him was true. She has never attempted to prove in court that Mr Bowen was corrupt. A defamatory publication for which there is no defence is unlawful. She accepts that she cannot prove that. She accepted during the trial that the HMCS letter bearing the Council’s stamps does not prove that the Council made any payment in respect of Mr Bowen’s libel action, and does not prove that he or Mr James, or anyone else lied or committed perjury.

At this point, I’m out. I can’t support Thompson if this is true. Corruption isn’t just a label you apply to those who you disagree with. Even if the corruption seems painfully obvious to you through experience of beating your head against a brick wall of bureaucratic numbskullery, impenetrable decisions, and people who just seem to have it in for you. Even with all that, corruption is not a loose or metaphorical word. Accusing someone of corruption is accusing them of a crime – taking or accepting bribes, committing acts of misconduct in public office, or perpetrating fraud. This is corruption. Unhappy FOI and Data Protection applicants, bloggers, letter writers and Local Government Ombudsman complainants throw around words like corruption and conspiracy as if all they need to justify their use is a deeply held conviction. Whatever the outcome of Jacqui Thompson’s libel case had been, flinging these words around is an abuse of free speech at best. The outcome of the case shows that the courts agree.

If accused of a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty. Evidence is weighed and sifted, and an objective decision made by a court. Journalists and bloggers can play a vital role in digging up evidence of crimes, in bringing them to public attention, and forcing the hand of the police and the CPS, but ultimately, it is the courts and not the commentators who make the decision of guilt. Without evidence, your strongest conviction is worth nothing and if you cannot keep it to yourself, you risk the wrong end of a libel suit. And now we see what that’s like.

Local newspaper journalism is dying; like most people, I believe that the internet including many enthusiastic bloggers will end up replacing it entirely. But Thompson Vs James must not be misrepresented as a threat to this. In her statement on the case, Thompson said this: “I believe this judgement has dire consequences for others who publicly scrutinise and criticise their local authority, including the press”.  I completely disagree with her. Nobody should feel that this case prevents them from scrutinising, criticising, mocking, or commenting on public affairs in the strongest possible terms. Get out there. Show why the decisions are shoddy, find the links between politicians and dodgy business, seek out the fraudsters, the hucksters and the bigots where they exist and show them for what they are.

But – and it’s a big but – do not accuse someone of criminal activity without something concrete. I don’t want to live in a society where allegations of criminality are made without being substantiated – that’s not free speech, it’s a witch-hunt. Nothing about this case puts the decision-makers and politicians in Carmarthenshire County Council in anything but a dire light, but I’m not paranoid enough to believe that Thompson was stitched up by the Establishment. She made accusations she couldn’t ultimately substantiate – even if they were true, she couldn’t prove it to the satisfaction of a judge. If she appeals and proves her claims to be true, refuting the idea that her campaign was illegitimate, I’ll be in a long queue to congratulate her. But she cannot win her appeal on the basis that the daft arrest was daft, or illiberal, or wrong. It was all of those things, but two wrongs do not make a right.

And if you want to call me an arsehole (guilty), a vile corporate stooge, a council apologist, a scumbag enemy of free speech, a self-hating blogger or even a wannabe journalist (not guilty), the comments section is below.

The Cabinet Office & FOI, A Retrospective, 2010-2011

As you know, FOI is under threat from a disparate coalition of interest groups, all of whom profess strong support for the idea of FOI and transparency in principle, but who object strongly when it applies to them. As I have already blogged, it’s the FOI equivalent of saying ‘I’m not racist but..” With friends like ACPO – who ask in their Justice Committee evidence for an absolute exemption for all investigations data, a charge for every FOI and vast restrictions on the time taken per request – FOI doesn’t need enemies.

However, the real cuckoo in the nest might be closer to the centre, with a more seductive and plausible message that could still plunge a stiletto into FOI’s back. Led by the Coalition’s answer to George Sanders, Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office wears what looks like a bulletproof vest when it comes to openness. Why, they’re the champions of Transparency, the sponsors of Open Data. One could mistake the Cabinet Office for a shining beacon of openness in the murky fog of secretive government. George Francis Maude promises a quantum leap in transparency and goes around the world promoting openness. He must be OK: in some of these photos, he’s rocking that smart jacket / jeans combo that says, I’m here for business, but a party’s definitely not out of the question.

But here’s the problem. Maude’s top-down Transparency (always capital T) is geared towards an open-source, re-use model which is intrinsically positive, but totally separate from the accountability / scrutiny aim of FOI. Transparency agenda is skewed heavily towards a technocentric, app-designing, economic model. It will probably create jobs. This is great and puts the previous government to shame. Public bodies who bleat about the commercial reuse of their data forget that the private sector pays its taxes and funds their activities. But this Transparency has little to do with the kind of transparency that FOI offers. Real (small t) transparency is about letting everyone come in and scrutinise what is going on. FOI should not be mediated, except by sensible harm thresholds like the public interest test and an even-handed regulator. If you see one of those, let me know. Maude is keen to order disclosure, but this is still the exercise of power by the elite. If you want to know something that the Coalition doesn’t want you to know or simply hasn’t thought of, Maude’s Transparency will not help.

Transparency could be used as a Trojan Horse to justify curbs on FOI. You don’t need FOI, we’ll be told, because look at these shiny Transparency jewels we’ve decided to give you. This will be a fiction. The point of FOI is that you get to ask about what you want to know, not what The Nice Man Wants To Tell You

In June 2011, the Cabinet Office signed an undertaking for the Information Commissioner, promising to make improvements to its approach to FOI. So let’s ignore the siren lure of Transparency and look behind it to see how the  openness champions deal with FOI. I have read all of the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notices issued to the Cabinet Office in the past twelve months. It’s a roll call of shame that spits in the face of the fine folk who work on Open Data and Transparency. You can read the highlights at the end of this post, and I encourage you to use the reference numbers to find and read some of the decision notices in full here.

Most of these decision notices cover requests received before that undertaking was signed, but all cover the period of the Coalition, when Maude and others were trumpeting Transparency and Openness like it was going out of fashion. They might claim it’s all change since the undertaking, but these requests are an insight into what the Cabinet Officer were doing while the Ministers were hyping their Transparency agenda. How could this all happen on their watch if their commitment to openness is real?

In 2010-11 (as before), the Cabinet Office routinely extended the time taken to consider the public interest test, and frequently missed its own distended deadlines. Applicants who made entirely legitimate requests were refused because their requests were said to have no serious purpose or value (and the ICO overturned these refusals). On several occasions, the Information Commissioner’s Office was forced to order the Cabinet Office to make a decision, in cases that had been running for many months.

Two issues are particularly damning. There are several cases where the Cabinet Office issued a formal refusal for data that they had not searched for, and which ultimately turned out not to be held. In other words, they’re saying no rather than actually looking for the information. Worse still, in numerous cases, the ICO remarks that the Cabinet Office has advanced inadequate arguments for refusals that they then have to overturn. In some cases, the Cabinet Office fails to respond to the ICO altogether.

The Cabinet Office has a lamentable track record on FOI – this could be explained in part by the outgoing Cabinet Secretary was outspoken in his criticism of the legislation and his belief that it should be restricted. However, the Cabinet Office appear not to have taken the Information Commissioner seriously either, which should be unthinkable. Nevertheless, by not taking formal enforcement action against the Cabinet Office, Chris Graham has gambled that asking them to sign an undertaking to comply with legal obligations will have the effect that dozens of formal decision notices issued since 2005 have not. He may have fettered his discretion on all future FOI enforcement – if he doesn’t enforce against this level of compliance, when will he ever do so? Who could possibly be worse? If he goes after a Parish Council with an enforcement notice, the circle will be complete – like DPA, the big fish swim away while the minnows get netted. But more importantly, if the Coalition try to argue that FOI is safe in their hands, that any changes are just to reflect the austere times we are all in together, that their Transparency is a worthwhile alternative, take a look at this list and decide what you think of that idea. We desperately need a more agile, more entrepreneurial approach to public sector data. But we also need the opportunity to ask awkward questions, and up to now, the Cabinet Office hasn’t even paid lip service to that principle.
  • FS50371317 (02/02/2012): the applicant asks for copies of unpublished photographs taken by named Cabinet Office photographer. Cabinet Office refuse on the basis of Section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The refusal is automatically invalid because the qualified person (who has to be a minister) was not involved. When the ICO investigated, they discovered that no such photographs were held, and S36 had been cited instead of actually searching for the picture.
  • FS50379301 (16/11/11): Applicant asking about minister’s meetings about setting up of statutory register of lobbyist asks for internal review on 8/11/10. The Cabinet Office do not respond until 20/4/11. ICO complains that Cabinet Office ignores repeated refusals to supply data to them so that it can consider complaint, and later remarks that no exceptional circumstances explain the delay in providing an internal review.
  • FS50348732 (03/11/11): In response to FOI requests about the refurbishment of Downing Street, Cabinet Office claims that information will be published in future. They then change the claim to no information held. The Information Commissioner finds that information is indeed held. “The Commissioner is particularly concerned that the response to the Information Notice appeared to contradict the previous response from the public authority that no searches had been necessary, suggesting that no searches had been carried out.”
  • FS50362049 (03/10/2011): Cabinet Office refuses to confirm or deny whether Government discussed the Nestle takeover of Rowntree in 1988 (which the ICO orders them to do).
  • FS50341963 (08/09/2011): The applicant’s asks for meeting records of a committee which hasn’t met, and the Cabinet Office fail to explain this. They use an exemption to refuse information that does not exist. The ICO comments: “The initial refusal notice provided to the complainant by the Cabinet Office was insufficient and unduly briefthe Commissioner would also note his disappointment that the Cabinet Office failed to avail itself of the opportunity, during the Commissioner’s investigation, to voluntarily disclose to the complainant the specified non-exempt information
  • FS50392356 (4/8/2011): The applicant asks about Andy Coulson’s legal fees on 20 December 2010. Request acknowledged, but no response received at the time of the decision notice (i.e. three months after the undertaking). ICO warns the Cabinet Office that the absence of a response would be referred to Enforcement. The Cabinet Office do not respond. The ICO issues a Decision Notice solely to order them to answer the request.
  • FS50366824 (19/07/2011): Applicant makes meta-request for correspondence about a previous request (re: compensation paid by Libya to IRA victims). Cabinet Office claims request lacks serious purpose or value. Internal review requested on 2/1/2011, but no response is received. The Cabinet Office fail to respond to the ICO, and do not provide evidence for why the request represents a serious burden. “The Commissioner is concerned that in this case the internal review has yet to be completed despite the public authority having taken over 160 working days thus far in which to complete the review, despite the publication of his guidance on the matter.”
  • FS50362370 (19/07/2011): Response to internal review was only received after intervention of the ICO. The applicant wants to know the make and model of printers used for comparison purposes in Sir Phillips Green’s study of government efficiency. Cabinet Office does not want to prejudice negotiations with or to identify supplier. This is the same cabinet office that wants all organisations to publish all spending over £500. Did someone say bullshit?
  • FS50347053 (20/06/2011): On the 28 February, 13 May and 23 May 2011 the Commissioner wrote to the public authority asking it to provide a detailed explanation of its refusal of the complainant’s request for information as amended and a copy of the withheld information. ICO ends up ordering Cabinet Office to disclose salaries of those who earn £150,000.
  • FS50368481 (23 May 2011): Requests are submitted on 24/07/10 and (in expanded form) 6 January 2011. There is no response, though the requests were acknowledged. ICO contacted Cabinet Office on 10 Feb 2011 asking for response in 10 days. This does not happen. ICO forced to issue decision notice solely to force Cabinet Office to answer the requests.
  • FS50354351 (21/03/2011): Request about weapons of mass destruction. The Cabinet Office extends public interest deadline twice, and twice fails to respond to an IC request to resolve the case.
  • FS50310716 (8/3/11) Request for Job descriptions for the employees who support the Government Chief Whip, his deputies and assistants and for funding allocations. ICO had to intervene to get an internal review completed.
  • FS50318536 (17/3/2011): Cabinet Office says they hold data but disclosure would prejudice international relations claimed extra 20 days, then went vexatious despite him having made, then said it should have refused to confirm or deny under Section 40. They held no information. “On 13 December 2010 the Commissioner wrote to the Cabinet Office asking it to provide its arguments in support of its application of section 14. Following several telephone calls from the Commissioner seeking the Cabinet Office’s response to his investigation, the public authority provided its response on 2 March 2011.”
  • FS50300732 (15/2/11): Applicant requests “unredacted minutes” and is sent a link to webpage featuring redacted minutes. Applicant asks for internal review in Nov 2009 and ICO has to intervene in May 2010 to force internal review, threatening to issue an information notice if the Cabinet Office does not respond. They take 150 days to respond, and ICO is forced to take them to task.“During the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has encountered considerable delay on account of the Cabinet Office’s reluctance to meet the timescales for response set out in his letters. Furthermore, the Commissioner has been met with resistance in his attempts to understand the Cabinet Office’s reasons for handling the request as it did and for invoking particular exemptions. The delays and resistance were such that the Commissioner was forced to issue an Information Notice in order to obtain details relevant to his investigation