Information Commissioners Office News

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (“the Council”) concerning proposals to make certain roles within the Council redundant. The Council initially refused to provide any information citing the exemptions under section 40(2) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). In relation to the latter exemption, it concluded that the public interest favoured withholding the information. During the internal review, the Council provided the information that it had sought to withhold using section 40(2). Once the scope of the request had been clarified, the information withheld under section 43(2) was no longer relevant. The Council identified that it held a number of items of information relating to the request that had either been disclosed or which were already in the public domain. It disclosed this information in a single bundle to the complainant. It then sought to withhold a small amount of information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). It considered that the public interest favoured maintenance of the exemptions. The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) was satisfied that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was engaged in respect of this information but he did not agree that the public interest favoured withholding it. The arguments identified by the qualified person in relation to section 36(2)(c) were found to be relevant and reasonable but in relation to section 36(2)(b)(ii). Having addressed the arguments under section 36(2)(b)(ii), it was not necessary to consider section 36(2)(c) further as no additional arguments were made about how disclosure would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner considers that the Council breached sections 10(1), 1(1)(b) and 17(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the FOIA.

The complainant requested information relating to the way in which Wolverhampton City Council (the “Council”) had investigated a complaint concerning the authority’s decision to withdraw funding from the Race Equality Partnership Wolverhampton. The Council did not respond to this request within the statutory time-limit and the Commissioner finds that, by its failure, the public authority did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The complainant requested an inspection of the accounts of Shotteswell Parish Council (“the Council”) for the years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. Following an unsuccessful attempt to arrange a suitable appointment, the Council wrote to the complainant advising him that it believed the request was vexatious. The Commissioner investigated and decided that the request was not vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). As the Council also raised issues connected to section 11(1)(b) of the FOIA concerning the practicality of allowing an inspection of the accounts, the Commissioner also considered section 11(1)(b) as part of his investigation. The Commissioner decided that in the particular circumstances of this case, inspection of the accounts would not be reasonably practicable and he therefore requires no steps to be taken. The Commissioner found breaches of 17(5) and 17(7)(a).

In July 2009 the House of Commons asked Sir Thomas Legg, a former civil servant, to review the payments that had been made to MPs under the Additional Costs Allowance and to deliver a report detailing his findings. Sir Thomas provided the House of Commons with the final version of his report in early 2010. The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between the Sir Thomas Legg review and a particular MP during the course of this review. The House of Commons explained that although Sir Thomas was acting on behalf of a committee of the House of Commons in conducting the report, he did not hold information on behalf of the committee in question for the purposes of the Act. The House of Commons therefore refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the information requested. Having considered the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner agrees with the House of Commons that it does not hold the requested information.

The complainant requested details of the statutory enactment and clause that permits restraint under a community care order and social services care plan. Lincolnshire County Council (the Council) applied the exemption contained at section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as the requested information is readily available on www.opsi.gov.uk. The Commissioner has concluded that section 21 is not engaged as the Council did not precisely direct the complainant to the information requested. The Commissioner therefore upholds the complaint in this case but does not require the Council to take any further action.

HM Treasury was asked to disclose all documentation generated by its consideration and formulation of Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 (retrospective legislation that sought to end a scheme that the government considered to be a “highly artificial and aggressive tax avoidance scheme”). The public authority relied upon sections 21, 29(1)(a),35(1)(a) and (b), 36 (2) and 42(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner concluded that all the withheld information was exempt either under the provisions of section 35(1) (a) or under the provisions of 36 (2) (b) (i) and that the public interest favoured the maintenance of the exemptions.

The complainant made a number of requests for information about how the public authority had adapted in consequence to a specific set of Competition Appeal Tribunal hearings concerning a competition inquiry about common carriage and bulk supply charges for water. The public authority confirmed that it held some relevant information within the scope of the request, but that it believed it could withhold the information by virtue of section 42(1) [legal professional privilege]. It upheld its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has considered this case in detail. He has decided that the information was not environmental information and was therefore subject to the Act. He has considered each of the items that were withheld by the public authority and has decided that section 42(1) was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs that in its disclosure. He has also found a procedural breach of section 10(1) and section 17(1) as the public authority failed to respond to one of the requests within twenty working days but requires no remedial steps to be taken.

The complainant asked the Cabinet Office for copies of any documents where The Queen approved the wearing of The Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal for those visiting Malaysia during that country’s independence celebrations in August and September 2007. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the information it held citing the exemptions contained at sections 35(1)(a) – formulation and development of government policy; 37(1)(a) – communications with the Royal Family; and 37(1)(b) – information relating to the conferring of an honour or dignity. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office disclosed one piece of correspondence falling within the scope of this request but continued to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner has concluded that this remaining information is exempt from disclosure section 37(1)(a) and furthermore that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the requested information.

The complainant requested information concerning the legal advice taken to direct overpayments at tolls to charitable organisations. The public authority explained the general nature of its advice but refused to disclose its actual advice by virtue of section 42(1) of the Act. It maintained its view at internal review. The Commissioner has considered the case in detail and has determined that the public authority had applied section 42(1) correctly in this case. He did however find a breach of section 10(1) because the public authority failed to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. It also breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. He requires no remedial steps to be taken.