After 2 years, 10 months and 3 ICO decision notices will Wirral Council finally provide a response to a FOI request about councillors?
Last week I received another decision notice from the Information Commissioner’s Office through the post about this freedom of information act request I made to Wirral Council on the 29th March 2013.
Yes it’s now 2016, but this request has already been the subject of decision notice FS50509081 (dated 8th September 2014) (9 pages) and decision notice FS50569254 (dated 29th July 2015) (13 pages).
This decision (decision notice FS50596346) dated the 25th January 2016 is 11 pages long.
Frankly, after two years and ten months of arguing over this request I doubt (although this is just my opinion) that either Wirral Council will want to appeal the decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Although one can never quite tell with Wirral Council.
Out of the remaining four parts to this request, Wirral Council released the minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group meeting of the 19th April 2011 a fortnight before the decision notice is dated.
So the decision notice relates to minutes of a meeting of the Headteachers and Teachers Joint Consultative Committee, minutes of a meeting of the Members’ (Members’ means councillors) Training Steering Group and minutes of a meeting of the Members’ Equipment Steering Group.
All these committees met behind closed doors and had councillors appointed to them.
The information in the minutes of the meetings of the last two groups are about training of councillors, use of electronic equipment, developing the Council of the Future, spending, service delivery models and proposals for improvement and potential change.
Surjit Tour made the decisions that releasing this information would be "prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs". There’s a long bit of the decision notice that goes into ICO’s assessment of the public interest test. ICO disagrees with Surjit Tour with regards to two out of the three sets of minutes requested. ICO’s view is that the public interest test weighs in favour of disclosure of the minutes of the Members’ Training Steering Group and minutes of the meeting of the Members’ Equipment Steering Group.
They do however agree with Surjit Tour over the minutes of the Headteachers’ and Teacher’s Joint Consultative Committee, although I’ll point out I find their arguments over a "chilling effect" over what was said at a meeting three years ago rather strange!
Below I include a copy of the decision notice (above is a summary). Although it states I didn’t submit public interest arguments, I did in a document marked "reasons for appeal" (in fact I have an email from the case officer referring to it). However the reasons for appeal have seemingly either not been read or ignored by the person writing the decision notice.
The result of the decision notice is that Wirral Council (or I) can appeal the decision within 28 days of the decision notice to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) or if the decision is accepted they have to respond by providing the minutes relating to the meetings of the Members’ Training Steering Group and of the Members’ Equipment Steering Group within 35 days.
A copy of the text of the decision notice is below (although there may be some minor formatting changes between this web version and the print version). Edited on 15/2/2016 The decision notice (FS50593646) has now been published on ICO’s website.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Date: 25 January 2016
Public Authority: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Address: Wallasey Town Hall
Complainant: John Brace
134 Boundary Road
Decision (including any steps ordered)
1. The complaint concerns a request for the minutes of three separate committee meetings. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) has refused to release this information. The Council says it is exempt under section 36 of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and that the public interest favours the information being withheld.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) have been correctly applied to the requested information and that the public interest favours withholding some of the information (item 15). However he finds that the public interest favours releasing the remainder of the information.
3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
4. The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
5. The request that is the subject of this notice has been subject to two previous decision notices – FS50509081 and FS50569254. Of relevance to this notice, FS50569254 found that the Council had incorrectly applied section 14(1) (vexatious request) to four parts of the 26 part request. The Commissioner ordered the Council to disclose this information or issue a fresh refusal notice.
Request and response
6. On 29 March 2013, as part of the wider request referred to above, the complainant had written to the Council and requested information in the following terms:
“Please could you provide minutes of the previous meetings of the following committees…
… 15. Headteachers and Teachers JCC
18. Members’ Training Steering Group
19. Members’ Equipment Steering Group
26. Safeguarding Reference Group…”
7. As a result of the Commissioner’s decision in FS50569254, the Council provided the complainant with a new response on 3 September 2015. It said that these four parts were exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest favours withholding the information. It said part 26 of the request was also exempt under section 40 (personal data).
8. Given the history of this request, the Council did not undertake an internal review and the matter was referred to the Commissioner. However, as part of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council did review its response and reconsidered its response with regard to part 26 of the request. It withdrew its reliance on section 36 and section 40 and disclosed this particular information to the complainant on 11 January 2016.
Scope of the case
9. The complainant had contacted the Commissioner on 7 September 2015 to complain about the way the four parts of his original request for information had been handled.
10. The Council has now disclosed part 26 of the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner has therefore focussed his investigation on the Council’s application of the exemption at section 36 to parts 15, 18 and 19 of the request and its public interest arguments.
Reasons for decision