However parts 15, 18, 19 and 26 of the request were refused by Wirral Council again.
All those four parts of the request have been withheld because Wirral Council decides that section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) is engaged. The minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group (part 26) have an additional reason for refusal because of section 40 (personal information).
I of course plan to appeal this latest refusal to ICO again (which probably won’t come as a surprise to anyone). Essentially however the problem I face to do with this request (which may be familiar to those who make FOI requests and have more experience than I do).
Public body decides on a reason to refuse a FOI request initially and at internal review (this stage could take up to 60 days). ICO disagree with the reason and issue a decision notice requiring the public body not to use that reason for refusing that request and to either provide the information or another reason.
So the public body comes up with another reason. That reason is challenged at internal review (again adding another 60 days). That reason is then appealed to ICO who disagree with the reason and ICO issue another decision notice.
The public body picks another reason to refuse the request and eventually it becomes a merry-go-round. The public body clearly really doesn’t want to give up the information, yet ICO is giving the public body a loophole each time a decision notice is issued by giving them a chance to pick another reason.
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
The Information Commissioner’s Office (which I will refer to as ICO) have issued a decision notice about a Freedom of Information Act request made by Nigel Hobro to Wirral Council. The unique number for this decision notice is FS50559883. It’s not yet on ICO’s website but should be in the near future. ED: Updated 04/09/2015 I looked on ICO’s website and it has been published since this article was written and decision notice FS50559883 can be viewed on ICO’s website.
The Freedom of Information Act request is for an “incomplete internal audit investigation report” and was originally made on the 20th August 2014.
The reasons given by both Surjit Tour and Eric Robinson for not supplying the information requested (both times an apology was given for taking too long to reach a decision) were two-fold:
section 36(2)(c) Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
Interestingly the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council that applying section 36(2)(c) was reasonable but disagreed with the public interest test element.
ICO requires Wirral Council to take the action below within 35 calendar days of the date of the decision notice dated the 24th August 2015. This is assuming that Wirral Council do not appeal the decision:
"Disclose the withheld information with redactions made under section 40(2) for the names of individuals within the report"
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Wirral Council take nearly 20 months to respond to a FOI request for SACRE meeting minutes that should only take 20 days
Wirral Council take nearly 20 months to respond to a FOI request for SACRE meeting minutes that should only take 20 days
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
I wanted to write this piece to show how hard it is to get information out of Wirral Council, that is routinely published elsewhere.
On the 29th March 2013, I made this Freedom of Information Act request for the minutes of the previous meeting of Wirral Council’s Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE).
This document on Brent Council’s website on page 14 states “The main meetings of SACRE are public and open to all. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 all SACRE documents are required to be available for public scrutiny.”
Under Wirral Council’s internal rules this committee is not however administered by Legal and Member Services, but instead serviced by officers from the Children and Young People’s Department. It doesn’t for example appear in the list of public meetings on Wirral Council’s website.
So this is what happened when I tried to request the minutes of one meeting of SACRE.
29th March 2013 FOI request made using excellent whatdotheyknow website. 29th April 2013 Wirral Council exceeds 20 day limit for responding to request and is sent a reminder 30th April 2013 Request refused on s. 12(1) cost grounds (require >18.5 hours of work) due to:
“a great deal of Personal Data and Sensitive Data, which would have to be reviewed and redacted were applicable.”
30th April 2013 Internal review of decision of 30th April 2013 requested. It is pointed out to Wirral Council that redacting documents does not count towards the 18.5 hour limit. 30th July 2013 Internal review decision also refuses request, not on s.12(1) cost grounds but on s.14 (vexatious or repeated request) grounds. 14th August 2013 Internal review decision appealed to Information Commissioners Office 8th September 2014 ICO issue decision notice FS50509081
Decision notice states (in relation to this part of the FOI request) Wirral Council breached s.10 and incorrectly applied s.12 and s.16:
s.10 (time for compliance with request) due to failure to respond to FOI request within 20 working days
s.12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) (failed to provide evidence)
s.16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) (breached requirement)
ICO require Wirral Council to take the following steps within 35 calendar days (deadline 13th October 2014) or alternatively appeal the decision notice within 28 days of the 8th September 2014:
Issue a response to the complainant’s request that does not rely upon section 12(1) of the FOIA or regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Provide advice and assistance to the complainant about which of the requested information is held by the council, and therefore falls under the terms of the FOIA or EIR.
So the minutes supplied (this is an extract of the first three agenda items) look like this (I’ve added annotations in italics with an asterisk):
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION HELD ON 7 FEBRUARY 2013
Present:
Names Redacted
* Groups A to D are as follows (who makes up SACRE is determined by s.390 of the Education Act 1996:
Group A “a group of persons to represent such Christian denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area;”
Group B “except in the case of an area in Wales, a group of persons to represent the Church of England;”
Group C “a group of persons to represent such associations representing teachers as, in the opinion of the authority, ought to be represented, having regard to the circumstances of the area;”
Group D “a group of persons to represent the authority.” (see below)
Councillor W Clements
Group D
Councillor W Smith
Group D
Councillor P Kearney
Group D
Councillor B Mooney
Group D
In Attendance: Names redacted
Name redacted in the Chair
1. WELCOME
Name redacted formally welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the first item on the agenda – the Election of a Wirral SACRE Chair for the year 2013/14. .
2. ELECTION OF POSTS
Name redacted was proposed by Councillor Clements and seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.
Name redacted nominated Name redacted for the post of Vice Chair and this was seconded by Name redacted. By a unanimous show of hands Name redacted was duly elected to the post of Vice Chair.
3. SACRE Business Matters
Apologies for absence were received from Names redacted, Councillor T Smith, Name redacted.
So advice anyone, should I request an internal review of the decision to redact the names? As these are public meetings, how are the public or press supposed to find out when they meet? If I requested further SACRE meeting minutes do you think they’d take 20 months (rather than the 20 days required under FOI) to supply them?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
