Information Commissioners Office News

The complainant requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about the tax categories of people for whom security is a higher priority. HMRC refused the request citing the exemptions at sections 23 (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 38 (health and safety). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, HMRC additionally cited sections 40 (personal information) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) in relation to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the exemptions at sections 23 and 44 are engaged in relation to some of the withheld information. As the information withheld under section 40 was also withheld under section 44, having found section 44 engaged, the Commissioner has not considered the application of section 40. The Commissioner does not find the exemptions at sections 36 and 38 engaged and therefore orders release of the information withheld only under these exemptions. The Commissioner has also identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay (sections 10(1) and 17(1)).

The complainant requested the answers volunteered by serving judges in 1998 and those subsequently appointed on the issue of Masonic membership. The public authority applied section 40(2) to this information because it explained that processing the data in this way would not accord with the first data protection principle as it would be unfair. It also explained that it believed this information was sensitive personal data and that there were no relevant schedule 3 conditions. The public authority upheld its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has determined that he does not believe that the information constitutes sensitive personal data. He has found that the disclosure of the information would accord with the first data protection principle and would not contravene any other data protection principles. Section 40(2) was therefore incorrectly applied. He has therefore found breaches of section 1(1)(b) and 10(1). He orders all of the relevant information to be disclosed to the complainant within 35 calendar days.

The complainant requested copies of the citations for ten individuals who had been awarded the King’s Medal for Courage in the Cause of Freedom. The Cabinet Office argued that this information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that in the circumstances of this case section 23(1) does provide a basis for withholding the information requested by the complainant.

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) for information it had redacted from pages 9 to 31 of an Assessment Report setting out the findings of a study conducted on the issue of mortality rates in Linezolid treated patients. The MHRA refused to disclose the requested information upon reliance of the exemptions contained at sections 40(2) and 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the MHRA correctly applied the exemption contained at section 41(1) of the Act to withhold the requested information. As the Commissioner found that section 41(1) of the Act was correctly engaged he did not go on to consider the MHRA’s application of section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner does however consider that the MHRA breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b), section 10(1) and section 17(1) in its handling of this request.

The complainant requested the exact salary details for various senior management posts within the North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service (NYFRS) between 2004 and 2009. The council refused to disclose this citing section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It said that the information was the managers’ personal data and processing it would be unfair. However, it did point out that £10,000 salary bands were already published for these posts which it believed represented a reasonable balance of the legitimate public interest in the use of public funds and the individuals’ right to privacy. Following negotiations with the Commissioner, North Yorkshire Council (the council) on behalf of NYFRS agreed to disclose the salary bands of the management posts concerned in increments of £5,000. The Commissioner has decided that the specific information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act.

The complainant made three requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS) between August and December 2007 for various pieces of information supplied to Vale First Responders (VFR) from EMAS; copies of EMAS’s board minutes for July 2007 and September 2007; and finally, he specifically requested the minutes of meetings relating to discussions of Community Responder Schemes (CFR) and a particular incident involving VFR and its subsequent follow-up. Some information was provided to the complainant but after considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the outstanding information requested is not held by EMAS. Furthermore the Commissioner considers that section 10(1) of the Act was breached as EMAS did not comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days of the request.

The complainant made a request for information about an investigation in which the Ministry of Defence (the “public authority”) was involved. The information requested, which was a report written by British Telecom (“BT”) and passed to the public authority, was originally withheld under the exemptions in section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). This was subsequently amended to sections 30 and 41 (information provided in confidence). During the investigation the public authority also ‘reserved the right’ to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) and amended the subsections of section 30 that it was relying on. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30 is engaged, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh that in disclosure in relation to some of the information. He finds that section 41 is not engaged in respect of the remaining information. The complaint is therefore partly upheld.

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the National Audit Office for documents relating to a report it issued into the handling of staff grievances at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The public authority disclosed a quantity of information falling within the scope of the request but refused to disclose additional information by relying on the exemptions section 33(2) (Audit functions), section 36(2)(b)(ii), (Free and frank exchange of views), section 40(2) (Personal information) and section 43(2) (Commercial interests). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that that the exemptions section 33(2), section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 40(2) are all engaged. However the Commissioner found that for some of the information withheld under section 33(2) and all of the information withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii) the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to release this information to the complainant within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice. The Commissioner also found that in its handling of the request the public authority breached section 17(1) and section 17(1)(b) (Refusal of request).

The complainant requested information about traffic restriction orders and road signs on roads around Balcombe. The council provided some information but stated that it did not hold, or could not find other information which he had requested. The complainant asked the council to review its position. The council responded claiming that the information was exempt because of the cost which would entail searching further for information it did not believe it holds. The Commissioner wrote to the council and explained that in his view the information was environmental information and that the requests should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The council agreed with this and reconsidered its position. It then responded indicating that the exception in regulation 12(4)(b) applied as it had already spent in excess of 33 hours responding to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not able to apply regulation 12(4)(b) because it would not be manifestly unreasonable to search further for the requested information in this instance.