Author: Robin Hopkins

Wheat and chaff: advice to ministers on answering parliamentary questions

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Some years ago, the government commissioned the Tasker Report into the conduct of senior managers in the prison service, which had given rise to extensive and adverse publicity. A number of parliamentary questions were asked about the report. As is the usual practice, civil servants prepared advice for use by the prisons minister, Maria Eagle, in responding to those questions.  Kikugawa v IC and MOJ (EA/2011/0267) involved a request for copies of those advice notes. The MOJ refused to disclose them, relying on s. 36(2)(b) FOIA (prejudice to the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views), the prerequisite for which is the issuing of a ‘reasonable opinion’ by the ‘qualified person’ (here, the minister) as to the likelihood of those prejudices.

The Tribunal found the exemption to be engaged. Points to note as regards the ‘reasonableness’ of the opinion this, which points towards a margin of discretion:

“The opinion must be her opinion so she cannot simply sign a submission without reading it, though nobody suggests that she did so. Deciding to approve a submission by flipping a coin (an example given by the ICO) does not fail the test because the opinion adopted is unreasonable but because the minister formed no opinion at all. The same principle would apply, though perhaps less vividly, where the minister received a submission advocating this opinion which offered no reason, however slight, to form it. Nobody can truly form an opinion where he or she is deprived of any shred of information on the issues involved. Provided the opinion is formed by the minister, however, it may be debatable how far the Tribunal is entitled to inquire into the mental processes adopted. A degree of caution may be appropriate when approaching the supposed requirement for a “reasonable opinion reasonably formed”.

The requester said the opinion had been biased. The Tribunal disagreed:

“The test is reasonableness, not the apparent objectivity of the QP. If the QP has formed an untenable opinion because of a conflict of interest, then the opinion does not satisfy s.36(2), not because it is the opinion of a biased QP but because it is unreasonable. In fact, the complaint that it is the minister concerned with the PQs whose opinion is sought is unrealistic since it is she who is by far the best placed to form a judgement on the matter. Equally, it is hard to see how officials who had no involvement whatever with the PQs or the background facts could provide an informed submission.”

The requester alleged that the submissions to the minister had been “bogus”, false or “deliberately misleading”. Although the Tribunal noted colourfully that “it is inevitable that, in the stream of advice and comment passed to ministers in the process of answering hundreds of PQs there will be chaff as well as wheat”, it did not find the requester’s allegations to be well founded.

Finally, this was one of those (increasingly rare, it seems) cases where the Tribunal saw force in the ‘chilling effect’ argument:

“The Tribunal is frequently pressed by government departments with claims as to the “chilling effect” on frank communication of disclosure of internal discussions and reports. The Tribunal is not always impressed by them. Here, though, we are dealing with a vital and sensitive interface between minister and civil servant. This is an area of government where the need for confidentiality is clear because the points that need to be made to a minister may be based on evidence of varying strength and may involve strong criticism of the questioner or another member or third party. The official offering advice may be understandably reluctant to make them public, whilst properly concerned that they should be before the minister. It is for the minister to decide what should be used, what rejected, what is too tenuous to be relied upon.”

For all these reasons, the Tribunal firmly rejected the appeal.

Robin Hopkins

FOUR NEW LOCAL AUTHORITY DECISIONS BY THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

The bulk of the First-Tier Tribunal’s most recent decisions under both FOIA and the EIR have concerned local authorities. Adequate searches, deleted emails and hard drives and listed building consent feature prominently. Here are some notable points from four of the decisions.

Deleted email account: Tribunal finds against Council

Councillor Jeremy Clyne v IC and London Borough of Lambeth (EA/2011/0190) merits close attention from local authority information officers. Southern Rail carried out work at its Streatham cleaning depot without planning permission. The Council considered taking enforcement action, and instructed a consultancy to report on this option. The requester asked for all reports and communications about the consultant’s draft report. The Council provided some information, but the requester was dissatisfied. He maintained, as requesters often do, that it was ‘incredible’ that further information did not exist. The Council insisted that it had not deleted any relevant information. This was enough to satisfy the Commissioner – but not the Tribunal.

One issue went in the Council’s favour: the Tribunal agreed that information held by its external solicitors was not held on its behalf in the circumstances. Otherwise, the key issues went against the Council.

First, the Tribunal disapproved of the Council’s approach to the wide request for information:

“Lambeth argued that in light of the broad scope of the request it had been reasonable to limit its searches to the planning department which was most likely to hold information. The Tribunal disagrees.  It is not for the public authority unilaterally to redraw the ambit of the request; if the scope is too wide to enable a proper search to be carried out, efforts should be made to refine the request.”

The Council further argued that “the breadth of the request meant that it was too difficult to ensure that every loose end was tied up. They argued that Mr Clyne should resubmit targeted individual requests to follow up these loose ends”. Again, the Tribunal disagreed.

Secondly, as to the adequacy of search and whether, on the balance of probabilities further information was held, the Tribunal applied the established approach from Bromley v IC and Environment Agency (EA/2006/0072) [2011] 1 Info LR 1273. A number of further documents were discovered only after the Commissioner’s decision; the Council had used incorrect or inadequate search terms; important communications about the consultant’s report appear to have gone unanswered (which seemed unlikely) and there was no paper trail accounting for the substantial changes between the draft and final versions of the report. The Tribunal noted that:

“Such a fundamental change as happened between the October 2007 and February 2008 versions of the report in [the requester’s] experience could only happen upon instruction and

not spontaneously. Consequently there ought therefore to be a paper trail.  Planning and legal departments are in different buildings, therefore more likely to communicate by email rather than “pop their head around the corner”. The practice of the Council and their preferred method of communication is by email… The Tribunal has not received an explanation that satisfies it that no recorded information was generated, nor an adequate explanation as to why if generated it has not been retained.”

This led to the third important feature of the decision: following Keiller, the Tribunal ordered the Council to restore the email account of the planning officer who was the focus of the requested information (his account had been expunged some time after the complaint to the Commissioner), to search that account and then to provide the requested information or issue a refusal notice.

Deleted hard drive: Tribunal finds for Council

The requester in Gilbert v IC and Northumberland County Council (EA/2012/0274) was a public transport campaigner seeking records about the 681 bus service (and the Council’s alleged ‘decimation’ of bus services). The Council provided some information, and again the Commissioner was satisfied.

As with Clyne, there were some difficulties with the Council’s case before the Tribunal. The Appellant provided four items he possessed which fell within the scope of his request, including correspondence between the Council and his MP. He argued that: “the Council has withheld or destroyed correspondence which confirms the depth of opposition to its highly unpopular bus cuts.” Further, the Council’s former Head of Transport, to whom the MP had written, had left the Council in March 2011 and his hard drive was wiped on his departure (which was after the handling of the request). The Tribunal observed that:

“the Council’s systems for locating information appear not to have functioned well in this case, as illustrated by the initial failure to identify relevant correspondence with an MP. Wiping the hard disc of a departed senior member of staff, without first checking that it did not contain information which might not be available elsewhere is a practice which might merit review.”

However – again by application of Bromley – the Tribunal was satisfied that on balance the Council had done enough and that no further information was likely to be held. This was largely down to the quality of the searches carried out by the relevant officer in response to the request:

“He circulated a communication to all members of the integrated transport unit  ‘who are either known to be involved in the discussions relating to service 681 or may have been party to documents or other forms of relevant evidence during this period’.  Further he made a search of the Council’s CRM using a range of search terms relating to the bus, the

operator and the route.”

In the Tribunal’s view, that was an adequate search, and the appeal was dismissed.

Statutory nuisance and listed buildings are not ‘private’ interests

In Kuschnir v IC and Shropshire Council (EA/2011/0273), the requester’s (listed) property suffered from damp attributable to a problem at the (listed) bicycle shop next door, Hawk Cycles. The Council deemed this a statutory nuisance and ordered Hawk Cycles to undertake remedial works. Hawk Cycles provided the Council was a schedule of works. The requester sought a copy of that schedule. His request was refused, based on regulation 12(5)(f) EIR (adverse effect on the interests of the person providing the information).

The Tribunal found that the exception was not engaged. It did find there to be sufficient adverse interest to engage the exception, although it saw “no evidence that the disclosure of the information would have made litigation against Hawk Cycles more likely, and if any claim was started by Mr Kuschnir, it is abundantly clear that he would have been entitled to disclosure of the information in the context of the litigation.  In our view the potential litigation context therefore adds little to the debate.”

Another requirement for the engagement of regulation 12(5)(f) is, however, that the provider of the information “was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority”. This was the stumbling block for the Council: the Tribunal construed section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 – which empowers councils to take “such other steps as may be necessary” for requiring the abatement of a statutory nuisance – as meaning that the Council could have compelled Hawk Cycles to provide it with the schedule of remedial works.

The Tribunal went on to find that even if the exception was engaged, the Commissioner and the Council had got the public interest balance wrong. The public interest in disclosure was not great, but the Commissioner had been wrong to find it to be of a private nature. This was in part because the case involved statutory nuisance. The Tribunal added that “it is also relevant we think that Mr Kuschnir’s property was a listed building and one that the Council itself features on guided walks of Shrewsbury.”

The Commissioner had also wrongly characterised the public interest in maintaining the exception. It could not be said that disclosure would undermine the voluntary provision of information to the Council in circumstances Hawk Cycles “where were clearly under threat of an abatement notice requiring them to execute works to prevent a recurrence of the nuisance if they did not co-operate with the Council”.

The requester was therefore entitled to a copy of the schedule.

PDF sufficient

The requester in Forster v IC and Westminster City Council (EA/2011/0235) wanted to park his motorbike in Westminster. He asked for “a list of motorcycle parking bays (the addresses where they are located) so that I can plan trips into town.” The Council refused the request, relying on section 21 FOIA (information accessible by other means). It provided a link to the website which contained about 100 pages of images of a list – in a pdf file – of the names of all the streets in the City of Westminster on which motorcycle bays are located. The requester complained that the information was not “accessible” because it did not allow him to search, re-order or edit the data in the list for his own purposes without having to type the data into another file. He argued that the Commissioner has confused accessibility to a document which contains information, with accessibility to the information contained in a document. The Tribunal found, however, that those arguments were premised on the assumption that the Council held the list in the form that he wanted – but it did not; it had outsourced its IT, and the pdf was all it held. It could therefore rely on section 21.

Robin Hopkins

LANDFILL OPERATOR’S INFORMATION NEITHER CONFIDENTIAL NOR COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

First-Tier Tribunal caselaw this past week has focused on the intersection between the common law of confidence and statutory rights of access to information. Moss v IC & Home Office (EA/2011/0081) (see Anya’s post here), the Tribunal analysed section 41(2) of FOIA (information provided in confidence). Shortly thereafter, the Tribunal handed down its decision in Rory Jones (on behalf of Swansea Friends of the Earth) v IC, The Environment Agency and SI Green Ltd (EA/2011/0156). This concerned the slightly different provision under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. Regulation 12(5)(e) EIR provides that “a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect… the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest”.

When a landfill operator such as SI Green (UK) Ltd (“Green”) obtains a permit from the Environment Agency (EA”) to operate a waste landfill, financial provision is made for covering the costs of something going wrong. Most commonly, this is done by means of a bond. In the event that any of the events specified by the bond occur, the amount secured by the bond is paid directly to the EA which can then use the funds to put matters right.

In this case, the appellant requested information relating to financial guarantee arrangements put in place by Green pursuant to its EA permit for operating a waste landfill site at Cwmrhydycierw Quarry near Swansea. The EA provided a redacted version of two documents, a performance agreement and the associated bond. It relied on regulation 12(5)(e) EIR in redacting information concerned with the amount of the bonded sum Green is required to secure for each year of operation of the landfill and going forward through a period of 60 years after operations terminate. It contended that this was commercially sensitive confidential information.

The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant that regulation 12(5)(e) was not engaged, because the redacted information was not subject to confidentiality provided by law. First, it was not provided by legislation. The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 enable landfill operators to apply for any information they provide to the EA to be excluded from the public register on the grounds that it is commercially confidential. In this case, Green had made such an application for different information to that redacted here.

Secondly, the information was not subject to common law confidentiality either. As in the Moss case, the Tribunal stuck to the 3-limb test laid down in Coco v AN Clark. In this case, the respondents’ case came unstuck on the second limb, which requires that the information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. In this respect, the Tribunal applied regulation 12(5)(e) in a very similar way to s. 41(2) of FOIA. It held that “that element [the second Coco limb] implies the communication of the information by one party to the other. The evidence in the present case, however, is that the information came into existence through a process of negotiation between the parties”. It added that “we recognise that section 41 refers more explicitly to information being “obtained” by the public authority from any other person. That is not the language of regulation 12(5)(e). However, we consider that the same element is imported by the incorporation of the common law test of breach of confidence into regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.”

As the exception was not engaged, the public interest test was not necessary. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that even if the exception had been engaged, the public interest favoured disclosure. The respondents’ cases were based largely on the assumption that the redacted information would reveal useful information about Green’s operating costs in relation to the landfill site in question. The Tribunal found that the evidence before it fell “far short” of supporting that assertion. On the other hand, the public interest in disclosure was made out: “the purpose of the bond is to provide the public with protection should things go seriously wrong. Disclosing the information would allow the public to understand the level of protection that is being provided to them and for them to feel confident that the provision is sufficient to deal with potential difficulties.”

Robin Hopkins

CHILLING EFFECT, SAFE SPACE AND THE NHS RISK REGISTERS

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

In a recent post, Panopticon brought you, hot-off-the-press, the Tribunal’s decision in the much-publicised case of Department of Health v IC, Healey and Cecil (EA/2011/0286 & EA/2011/0287). Somewhat less hot-off-the-press are my observations. This is a very important decision, both for its engagement with the legislative process and for its analysis of the public interest with respect to section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy) – particularly the “chilling effect” argument. At the outset, it is important to be clear about what was being requested and when.

Risk registers in general

The DOH prepared two “risk registers” documenting the risks associated with implementing the “far-reaching and highly controversial” NHS reforms under what was then the Health and Social Care Bill. The Tribunal heard that risk registers are used widely across government for project planning. They provide snapshots (rather than detailed discussions) combining the probability of and outcomes from any given risk associated with the proposed reform; risks are then classified in red, amber or green terms. According to Lord Gus O’Donnell, who gave evidence in support of the DOH’s case, risk registers are the most important tool used across government to formulate and develop policy for risk management in advising ministers. John Healey MP, one of the requesters in this case, said that he was a minister for ten years and was never shown such a register.

The requests and these particular registers

On 29 November 2010, Mr Healey requested a copy of the “Transition Risk Register” (TRR). This, the Tribunal found, was largely concerned with operational matters; it aimed to identify implementation risks. By this stage, the government had already published its White Paper on the reforms. Crucially, the Tribunal’s finding was that the broad policy decision had been taken by the time of the White Paper. The subsequent consultation was largely directed at how best to implement the White Paper. In response to that consultation, the government adhered to the vast majority of its plans, and set about implementing them early where possible.

On 28 February 2011, the second requester, Nicholas Cecil, asked for a copy of the Strategic Risk Register (“SRR”). This was concerned with potential policy decisions for ministers. By that time, the Bill had been laid before Parliament. Parliament’s reaction meant that, in a number of respects, ministers were called upon to rethink policy decisions surrounding the NHS reforms.

Both requests were refused. The IC ordered that they be disclosed. The Tribunal upheld the IC’s decision on the TRR, but allowed the DOH’s appeal on the SRR.

The approach to section 35(1)(a) of FOIA

Before the Tribunal, it was accepted that this exemption was engaged with respect to both registers. The Tribunal considered that the need for a safe space for policy-making was not linear. Its analysis is worth quoting in detail:

“We are prepared to accept that there is no straight line between formulation and development and delivery and implementation. We consider that during the progress of a government introducing a new policy that the need for a safe space will change during the course of a Bill. For example while policy is being formulated at a time of intensive consultation during the initial period when policy is formed and finalised the need for a safe space will be at its highest. Once the policy is announced this need will diminish but while the policy is being debated in Parliament it may be necessary for the government to further develop the policy, and even undertake further public consultation, before the Bill reflects the government’s final position on the new policy as it receives the Royal Assent. Therefore there may be a need to, in effect, dip in and out of the safe space during this passage of time so government can continue to consider its options. There may also come a time in the life of an Act of Parliament when the policy is reconsidered and a safe space is again needed. Such a need for policy review and development may arise from implementation issues which in themselves require Ministers to make decisions giving rise to policy formulation and development. We therefore understand why the UCL report describes the process as a “continuous circle” certainly until a Bill receives the Royal Assent. However the need for safe spaces during this process depends on the facts and circumstances in each case. Critically the strength of the public interest for maintaining the exemption depends on the public interest balance at the time the safe space is being required.

We would also observe that where a Bill is a Framework Bill we can understand that even after it receives the Royal Assent there will be a need for safe spaces for policy formulation as secondary legislation is developed. We note in this case that the Bill, although suggested by DOH to be a Framework Bill, is prescriptive of economic regulation, and cannot be described purely in framework terms.”

Public interest factors in favour of maintaining the exemption: safe space and chilling effect

One of the DOH’s witnesses contended that the registers allowed a safe space for officials to “think the unthinkable”, but the Tribunal found it difficult to see how the registers – particularly the TRR – could be described in that way: “the TRR identifies the sorts of risks one would expect to see in such a register from a competent Department”. Nonetheless, the Tribunal accepted the strong public interest in there being a safe space for policy formulation.

The main argument concerned the chilling effect, which Lord O’Donnell addressed in his evidence. The Tribunal considered that there was no actual evidence of the chilling effect following other instances of comparable disclosures (e.g. following OGC v IC (EA/2006/2068 & 80), or following a 2008 disclosure of a risk register concerning a third runway at Heathrow). Similarly, a 2010 report from UCL’s Constitution Unit concluded there to be little evidence for the chilling effect.

Overall, the Tribunal cautioned against treating qualified exemptions as absolute ones. It said:

“We would observe that the DOH’s position expressed in evidence is tantamount to saying that there should be an absolute exemption for risk registers at the stages the registers were requested in this case. Parliament has not so provided. S.35 (and s.36) are qualified exemptions subject to a public interest test, which means that there is no absolute guarantee that information will not be disclosed, however strong the public interest in maintaining the exemption.”

Factors in favour of disclosure

The DOH’s witnesses sought to play down the significance of the NHS reforms in comparison to other important reforms implemented by government. Mr Healey, however, argued that they were exceptional. The Tribunal agreed with him.

It also noted that the Conservatives’ manifesto for the 2010 election had promised an end to top-down NHS reorganisation, but that its NHS White Paper then appeared to propose exactly such a reorganisation. It was not preceded by a Green Paper. It was clear to the Tribunal that the White Paper was published in a hurry and to much public concern. Given the scale and controversial nature of the reforms, transparency of decision-making was very important.

The Tribunal found the public interest balance to be very difficult in this case. Judging the matters at the time of the DOH’s refusal notices, the Tribunal concluded that the balance favoured disclosure of the TRR but not the SRR – due to the differences in the nature of the registers and the timing of the requests (see above).

Section 40(2) of FOIA and civil servants’ names

Finally, the Tribunal also considered the DOH’s reliance on section 40(2) to redact the names of a number of civil servants on the grounds of their being insufficiently senior for disclosure to be fair. The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the majority of these names. In so doing, it focused on the substance of what each individual did with respect to this particular information – rather than on their Civil Service grades.

Robin Hopkins

EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION: NEW APPGER DECISION ON SS. 23, 27, NCND AND OTHERS

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

I blogged yesterday (see below) on APPGER’s litigation in the US courts concerning information about security bodies and their role in extraordinary rendition. The UK’s First-Tier Tribunal has today promulgated its decision on a separate set of requests made by APPGER to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The decision deals primarily with sections 23, 27, 35, 42 and the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provisions under sections 23(5) and 24(2) of FOIA.

One of my fellow Panopticonners will post some commentary on the case shortly. In the mean time, here is the hot-off-the-press decision:

20120412_APPGER_decision

SECURITY BODIES, PRIVATE EMAILS – PARALLELS BETWEEN THE UK & US

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Today was one of striking parallels between the USA and the UK in terms of litigation concerned with access to information.

APPGER and security bodies

First, one of The Independent‘s main stories this morning concerned a case brought in the US by the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition (APPGER). Readers will recall that in the UK, APPGER was partially successful before the Upper Tribunal last year; the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal in a second case (the hearing of which concluded in February 2012) is awaited.

In the US, APPGER requested information on extraordinary rendition from the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice , the Department of State, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Those requests were largely refused. APPGER appealed to the Courts. The US District Court, District of Columbia, upheld the Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss APPGER’s appeals. Its judgment is available here.

Prior to 2002, the exemptions under FOIA in the US turned on the nature of the requested information, not the identity of the requester. In 2002, however, Congress amended FOIA to include a “foreign government entity exemption”, which provides that no agency that is a member of the “intelligence community” shall make any record available to “(i) any government entity, other than a State, territory, commonwealth, or district of the United States, or any subdivision thereof; or (ii) a representative of a government entity described in clause (i).”

The Court held that APPGER fell within this exemption. It construed the terms “government entity” and “representative” according to their “plain meaning” and not according to UK law. On this basis, it found (contrary to APPGER’s arguments) that the UK Parliament is a “government entity”: it is the “primary organ tasked with the expression of sovereign political authority and its enactment into law” and is integral to the government of the UK. APPGER was held to be a “subdivision” of Parliament, and its chair, Andrew Tyrie MP (who has never been a government minister) was held to be a “representative” for the purposes of part (ii) of the exemption.

APPGER had also argued that its members had made their requests in their capacities as individuals rather than public officials. The Court rejected this argument in striking terms:

“It would be particularly inappropriate for the court to adopt the plaintiffs’ suggestion because their proposed exception would, without doubt, swallow the rule. The defendants describe the portentous consequences of the plaintiffs’ argument if drawn to its logical extreme: recently deceased North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, despite his status as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, would have been able to file a FOIA request as long as he claimed to do so in his “individual capacity.”… It is not necessary to follow the defendants’ parade of horribles to its furthest reaches, however. Instead, the court observes that a statute susceptible of either of two opposed interpretations must be read in the manner which effectuates rather than frustrates the major purpose of the legislative draftsmen…. If the court is to give any meaning to the foreign government entity exception, this provision cannot turn on such evanescent factors as the subjective intent of the individual who files the claim. To do so would essentially allow a system of voluntary compliance — which is to say, no compliance at all. Accordingly, the court rejects the contention that the plaintiffs may evade the foreign government entity exception by filing in their “individual capacity.”

The Kim Jong Il point aside, the above passage is notable for its contrasts with axioms of FOIA in the UK: in the US, FOIA is motive blind, but no longer applicant blind.

Private email accounts

In the second of today’s US cases (thanks to the BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum for alerting me to this one), the San Antonio Express-News made a request under the Texas Public Information Act for emails concerned with public business sent to and from the private email account of the Bexar County Commissioner, Tommy Adkisson. Rather like the UK’s Information Commissioner in his Department for Education decision, the Texas Attorney General took the view that these emails should be disclosed. A District Judge in Austin has dismissed Mr Adkisson’s case and upheld the Attorney General’s position (though an appeal seems likely). Time will tell whether the UK Tribunal takes a similar view of the Department for Education’s appeal concerning private email accounts.

Robin Hopkins