A roundup of recent stories about FOI in Ireland
Craigavon Borough Council have a code of conduct requiring staff to declare any familial relationships with other staff. But since it does not monitor this, it is unable to provide information as to how many familial relationships there are between staff.
According to the Irish Times, an FOI request in the Republic has revealed a that a report sent to the Minister for Arts on the proposed merger between the National Library and the National archives - expected to save a million Euro - would “seriously undermine” the ability of the “already very strained” bodies to deliver on their statutory obligations.
The Freedom of Information Act is often used by press officers as a 'delaying tactic', the Society of Editors Conference in Belfast has been told. At the organization's annual conference, the editor of the Belfast Telegraph claimed that it is now more
difficult to access information that should be in the public domain:
“we are in a pretty shutdown society,” he said.“For information that can be given easily, we actually face delay. Information is actually harder and harder to get hold of.”
A weblog about Freedom of Information in Ireland, as well as broader Data Protection and data use issues.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Ordinary People
One person who has started using Freedom of Information legislation in Northern Ireland to get answers to some issues which concern him is Simon Whittaker, an IT security consultant.
As a regular public transport user, he says, "I see things which aggravate me about the way our publicly funded transport network is run". Observing the difficulties of the Code4Pizza.com project in trying to digitise and publicise timetable information for Translink, which runs the province's public transport network, he formed the opinion that "Translink was quite a closed shop and wasn't really interested in sharing information which it holds". (Note: this may change with the requirements to publish datasets in the Protection of Freedom legislation)
Concerned about security of data in the company's mLink application, which allows users to buy tickets on their mobile phone, he wrote about this in his blog, since it appeared that credit / debit card data was being sent unencrypted. He felt it showed very little thought had been paid to the security of users' data. This now seems to have been resolved.
In March, he wrote to them using What Do They Know.com, asking for details of their internal and external communications relating to security issues. They refused, citing commercial interests (Section 43). I would not expect all this information to be disclosed, since it might (a) reveal commercial secrets of a software supplier, and (b) might reveal a security gap which could be exploited by criminals (this would involve a different exemption). However, knowing that they have taken the issue seriously and have made positive efforts to respond is clearly in the public interest and they really should have provided some of what he requested, with appropriate redactions. He did not pursue it at the time because of other priorities.
On 21 September, he wrote once again through What Do They Know, asking for details of the cost of providing wifi services on the Network. This time he got the information he was looking for: it showed a total setup cost of over £700,000 and annual running costs of a quarter of a million pounds, with the majority going to fitting out the train system; new trains will include wifi as standard. This was picked up within a couple of weeks by a BBC report.
A further enquiry at the beginning of November asked for details of the research which had taken place to assess the likely availability and speed of the service, and to see the Service Level Agreement which had been entered into with the contract. The first part of his question received an answer, but the latter was withheld, once again using the Section 43 exemption. He has asked them to look again at this.
I believe he has good grounds for an appeal, to the Information Commissioner if necessary, though he is hoping to avoid this. "I'm also aware that this costs public money to do and would not undertake this lightly," he told me. Section 43 allows for information to be withheld if its release would damage the commercial interests of the public authority or an outside body. But there needs to be evidence that real harm would occur; examples would be disclosure of sensitive price information or trade secrets. A service level agreement, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of thing FOI is designed for - it allows the public to know that services offer value for money by ensuring that suppliers are penalised for not keeping their commitments. I can't see how a reputable company (or public authority) could suffer commercial losses through the disclosure of such information.
Simon's case is a good example of how FOI is changing the way we do things: as an everyday service user with specialist knowledge, he is exactly the kind of person who can add value to the work of public authorities by asking pertinent questions. Translink's responses have been prompt and helpful but show a wariness of disclosing information on their commercial transactions: not only should this be public data, it ought to help their work to have the public aware and able to comment on how this relationship is managed.
It's also a good example of how the Republic has fallen behind on the use of FOI: in the south, Simon would by now have forked out €45 for the information, with much bigger costs should he have to go to the Information Commissioner for help. "It was interesting," he says, "that it took me as an individual to ask these questions as opposed to them being asked by any reporters or audit offices". With reports that the Northern Ireland Executive wants to be allowed to charge for requests, this is an important point and one Simon feels strongly about: "In my view this makes a nonsense of the FOI act by ensuring that only the wealthy, companies and journalists have access to the information which makes our country run."
As a regular public transport user, he says, "I see things which aggravate me about the way our publicly funded transport network is run". Observing the difficulties of the Code4Pizza.com project in trying to digitise and publicise timetable information for Translink, which runs the province's public transport network, he formed the opinion that "Translink was quite a closed shop and wasn't really interested in sharing information which it holds". (Note: this may change with the requirements to publish datasets in the Protection of Freedom legislation)
Concerned about security of data in the company's mLink application, which allows users to buy tickets on their mobile phone, he wrote about this in his blog, since it appeared that credit / debit card data was being sent unencrypted. He felt it showed very little thought had been paid to the security of users' data. This now seems to have been resolved.
In March, he wrote to them using What Do They Know.com, asking for details of their internal and external communications relating to security issues. They refused, citing commercial interests (Section 43). I would not expect all this information to be disclosed, since it might (a) reveal commercial secrets of a software supplier, and (b) might reveal a security gap which could be exploited by criminals (this would involve a different exemption). However, knowing that they have taken the issue seriously and have made positive efforts to respond is clearly in the public interest and they really should have provided some of what he requested, with appropriate redactions. He did not pursue it at the time because of other priorities.
On 21 September, he wrote once again through What Do They Know, asking for details of the cost of providing wifi services on the Network. This time he got the information he was looking for: it showed a total setup cost of over £700,000 and annual running costs of a quarter of a million pounds, with the majority going to fitting out the train system; new trains will include wifi as standard. This was picked up within a couple of weeks by a BBC report.
A further enquiry at the beginning of November asked for details of the research which had taken place to assess the likely availability and speed of the service, and to see the Service Level Agreement which had been entered into with the contract. The first part of his question received an answer, but the latter was withheld, once again using the Section 43 exemption. He has asked them to look again at this.
I believe he has good grounds for an appeal, to the Information Commissioner if necessary, though he is hoping to avoid this. "I'm also aware that this costs public money to do and would not undertake this lightly," he told me. Section 43 allows for information to be withheld if its release would damage the commercial interests of the public authority or an outside body. But there needs to be evidence that real harm would occur; examples would be disclosure of sensitive price information or trade secrets. A service level agreement, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of thing FOI is designed for - it allows the public to know that services offer value for money by ensuring that suppliers are penalised for not keeping their commitments. I can't see how a reputable company (or public authority) could suffer commercial losses through the disclosure of such information.
Simon's case is a good example of how FOI is changing the way we do things: as an everyday service user with specialist knowledge, he is exactly the kind of person who can add value to the work of public authorities by asking pertinent questions. Translink's responses have been prompt and helpful but show a wariness of disclosing information on their commercial transactions: not only should this be public data, it ought to help their work to have the public aware and able to comment on how this relationship is managed.
It's also a good example of how the Republic has fallen behind on the use of FOI: in the south, Simon would by now have forked out €45 for the information, with much bigger costs should he have to go to the Information Commissioner for help. "It was interesting," he says, "that it took me as an individual to ask these questions as opposed to them being asked by any reporters or audit offices". With reports that the Northern Ireland Executive wants to be allowed to charge for requests, this is an important point and one Simon feels strongly about: "In my view this makes a nonsense of the FOI act by ensuring that only the wealthy, companies and journalists have access to the information which makes our country run."
Monday, 26 November 2012
On the records
Two recent cases in the Republic about Freedom of Information and the Abuse of power
A Stroke Too Far?
In the Republic, Minister of Health James Reilly is in trouble - and Freedom of Information has a major part to play.
In July this year, working with Minister of State for Primary Care (a junior ministry) Róisín Shortall, the Department of Health produced a list of 20 primary care sites for development, a list weighted in favour of particularly deprived areas of the country. On 16 July, it was announced that this list, approved by the Minister of Health, was to be published; by now there were 33 potential locations on the list. When the list was published, it had grown to 35. There were two significant additions: Swords and Balbriggan, neither particularly deprived - and both in the Minister's constituency.
After it was disclosed that these locations had been added to the list after it was passed to Reilly's department, Minister of State Shortall - a member of the Labour party, minority partners in the governing coalition - said she found this 'difficult to understand'. Despite support from Labour rank and file, she was not supported and she resigned both the ministry and the Labour whip.
The accusation was made that this was 'stroke politics' - the kind of devious backroom deal that had been typical of Irish politics in the past - especially when it turned out that the site for the proposed Balbriggan centre was owned by a property developer linked to Reilly and his Fine Gael party. The Minister, who had had the list in his possession for a week before publication, explained that the selection of the sites was a complex operation: 'a logistic, logarithmic progression. There is nothing simple about it'.
But emails released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the two sites in question were added to the list in just two hours, shortly before the list was published.
The opposition has demanded his resignation. In a country that cared about such things, he would have resigned already. But as a close associate of the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, and as deputy leader of the majority coalition partner, it's unlikely he will go.
'Stroke' politics may be alive and well in Ireland, but at least things which used to be carried out in private have now been exposed publicly. Let's hope the voters take this into account at the next election.
Off the record
Another medical-related story in the Republic: in the continuing saga of Savita Halappanavar's death, her husband has obtained copies of her medical records. A major part of the story was her repeated requests for a termination of her pregnancy, which was refused. But the records, eventually disclosed to her husband's lawyer, make not mention of this. They refer to her requests for a cup of tea and toast, and a blanket - but the termination requests do not appear to have been recorded.
This point led to a fascinating and troubling discussion on the MagicMum website. Commentators repeatedly described the medical records of their pregnancy and delivery as plain wrong: "There were lots of things missing off my notes", "Each time I was in hospital I would cry in agony during the night and request pain relief. Each morning was noted "patient slept well", "My notes were very different from the reality", "totally not true", "a work of fiction masquerading as medical notes", "My notes said I refused to push. I bloody did not."
One contributor pointed out that, in an understaffed wards, mistakes were inevitable: "When notes are being written , there are three things , what the patient thinks happened , what the staff member thinks happened and what actually happened . All of which are different ."
But others pointed out situations where facts seemed to be suppressed or distorted for a reason, especially when touching on the controversial subject of abortion:
Worryingly, while some contributors had been given easy access to their records, others found it difficult:
Practice note: the access regime for personal data in the Republic is the opposite of that in Northern Ireland. In the south, personal data is provided for free by public authorities but other requests require a fee paid; in the north, FOI requests are free but Subject Access Requests for personal data require a charge (not always levied).
A Stroke Too Far?
In the Republic, Minister of Health James Reilly is in trouble - and Freedom of Information has a major part to play.
In July this year, working with Minister of State for Primary Care (a junior ministry) Róisín Shortall, the Department of Health produced a list of 20 primary care sites for development, a list weighted in favour of particularly deprived areas of the country. On 16 July, it was announced that this list, approved by the Minister of Health, was to be published; by now there were 33 potential locations on the list. When the list was published, it had grown to 35. There were two significant additions: Swords and Balbriggan, neither particularly deprived - and both in the Minister's constituency.
After it was disclosed that these locations had been added to the list after it was passed to Reilly's department, Minister of State Shortall - a member of the Labour party, minority partners in the governing coalition - said she found this 'difficult to understand'. Despite support from Labour rank and file, she was not supported and she resigned both the ministry and the Labour whip.
The accusation was made that this was 'stroke politics' - the kind of devious backroom deal that had been typical of Irish politics in the past - especially when it turned out that the site for the proposed Balbriggan centre was owned by a property developer linked to Reilly and his Fine Gael party. The Minister, who had had the list in his possession for a week before publication, explained that the selection of the sites was a complex operation: 'a logistic, logarithmic progression. There is nothing simple about it'.
But emails released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the two sites in question were added to the list in just two hours, shortly before the list was published.
The opposition has demanded his resignation. In a country that cared about such things, he would have resigned already. But as a close associate of the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, and as deputy leader of the majority coalition partner, it's unlikely he will go.
'Stroke' politics may be alive and well in Ireland, but at least things which used to be carried out in private have now been exposed publicly. Let's hope the voters take this into account at the next election.
Off the record
Another medical-related story in the Republic: in the continuing saga of Savita Halappanavar's death, her husband has obtained copies of her medical records. A major part of the story was her repeated requests for a termination of her pregnancy, which was refused. But the records, eventually disclosed to her husband's lawyer, make not mention of this. They refer to her requests for a cup of tea and toast, and a blanket - but the termination requests do not appear to have been recorded.
This point led to a fascinating and troubling discussion on the MagicMum website. Commentators repeatedly described the medical records of their pregnancy and delivery as plain wrong: "There were lots of things missing off my notes", "Each time I was in hospital I would cry in agony during the night and request pain relief. Each morning was noted "patient slept well", "My notes were very different from the reality", "totally not true", "a work of fiction masquerading as medical notes", "My notes said I refused to push. I bloody did not."
One contributor pointed out that, in an understaffed wards, mistakes were inevitable: "When notes are being written , there are three things , what the patient thinks happened , what the staff member thinks happened and what actually happened . All of which are different ."
But others pointed out situations where facts seemed to be suppressed or distorted for a reason, especially when touching on the controversial subject of abortion:
"I've had an abortion previously and told the Coombe [Hospital] so. The midwife insisted on recording it as a 'confidential' pregnancy, saying that that was how they record them all, despite the fact that I told her 3 times I didn't mind it being recorded as an abortion."
"I went to two different hospitals over 5 pregnancies. The first of those 5 pregnancies resulted in a termination. That hospital put it down as an abortion on the following pregnancy. I changed hospital and on the next three pregnancies they recorded it as a miscarriage along with my other miscarriages. I told them at each booking in appointment that it was an abortion and they listed them all as miscarriages at 14, 13 and 10 weeks."
Worryingly, while some contributors had been given easy access to their records, others found it difficult:
"I asked to see them once and the nurse told me I wasn't allowed see them. She went off to check with someone and came back to say I definitely wasn't allowed see them."
"I applied under data protection and was told that as I had a private consultant, the notes were not mine but his property."This is a really good example of the importance of Freedom of Information legislation available to ordinary people. One way of ensuring that accurate records are kept is to encourage people to check their own records. Falsifying information or playing down uncomfortable realities is an abuse of power - and one that can only be answered by ensuring that everyone has the right to tell their side of the story. It should not take a tragedy like that of Savita Halappanavar to get this message across.
"After my first was born, I wrote a complaint in my notes under the delivery records - when I requested my notes a year later, the page was photocopied and my complaint was cropped."
"I browed through and mixed with my notes were the notes of a totally different patient."
Practice note: the access regime for personal data in the Republic is the opposite of that in Northern Ireland. In the south, personal data is provided for free by public authorities but other requests require a fee paid; in the north, FOI requests are free but Subject Access Requests for personal data require a charge (not always levied).
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
The Global Reach of Ireland's FOI
Because the Republic of Ireland's FOI law just applies within the state, it's easy to forget that it has much wider implications in this globalised world. Here's an example.
An article on the Croation website Help Net Security reports on the conflict between Facebook - an American multinational - and the data protection laws of the European Union. Facebook has complained that the threat of big penalties for breaches of data protection rules will discourage big companies - such as, well, themselves - from investing in Europe.
The article quotes an Austrian-based website called Europe Versus Facebook, which has obtained documents showing Facebook's lobbying activities, through a Freedom of Information request - to Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner.
It shows Facebook arguing against European Data Protection Commissioners cooperating; against 'privacy by default' settings, against the 'right to be forgotten', strong data breach notifications, heavy fines for breaches, and in favour of easier transmission of data outside the EU.
The document includes a briefing for the Minister of Justice and Equality, prepared for a meeting with representatives of Facebook, which notes that 'we must also seek to ensure that the interests and jobs created by stakeholders operating in Ireland are protected'.
Facebook has its European headquarters in Dublin, and is planning a major extension in the city.
An article on the Croation website Help Net Security reports on the conflict between Facebook - an American multinational - and the data protection laws of the European Union. Facebook has complained that the threat of big penalties for breaches of data protection rules will discourage big companies - such as, well, themselves - from investing in Europe.
The article quotes an Austrian-based website called Europe Versus Facebook, which has obtained documents showing Facebook's lobbying activities, through a Freedom of Information request - to Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner.
It shows Facebook arguing against European Data Protection Commissioners cooperating; against 'privacy by default' settings, against the 'right to be forgotten', strong data breach notifications, heavy fines for breaches, and in favour of easier transmission of data outside the EU.
The document includes a briefing for the Minister of Justice and Equality, prepared for a meeting with representatives of Facebook, which notes that 'we must also seek to ensure that the interests and jobs created by stakeholders operating in Ireland are protected'.
Facebook has its European headquarters in Dublin, and is planning a major extension in the city.
Sunday, 18 November 2012
A Big Doggy Mess
Back to the continuing sad story of Lennox the dog. It turns out to be a big mess.
Lennox was a sort-of-but-not-quite pit bull, seized by Belfast City Council as a dangerous dog and eventually put down despite worldwide protests and two court hearings. The council had complaints from all over the world, including 214,687 signatures on an online petition. Even the First Minister intervened - but to no avail.
The Council's official position is here.
The website of the Save Lennox campaign is here.
Say nothing
The Freedom of Information Act was one way in which those interested attempted to get involved. The Council faced a flood of letters, emails, and Freedom of Information requests. There are at least 50 on the issue on the What Do They Know website alone. Just between July and August this year, 152 requests were received.
It looks like the Council were completely unprepared for the storm of protest and concern that met what was a fairly routine activity. They say that the dog was violent and unpredictable, that their staff were threatened, and one councillor received a death threat. As a former local government officer, I'm sympathetic to their plight. But their FOI response is not a good example of how to respond.
To judge by the What Do They Know requests, their main approach seems to have followed the well-known Northern Irish slogan: 'Whatever you say, say nothing'. Many were left long unanswered. Of the July and August requests, about 80% received no response; the 32 which did get an answer were told their request was 'vexatious' - a very unsatisfactory interpretation of the vexatiousness provision. Between June 2010 and July this year, there were no vexatious requests; in the month of August, there were 60.
The Council responds - eventually
On 14 November, the Council eventually got around to sending out responses, in what appears to have beena mass mailing, due no doubt to the sheer volume involved. Here are five examples of their responses which show a very varied pattern of approaches:
On 14 July 2012, Stephanie Lowe from the USA asked for a series of documents about the council's decisions. This response came on 11 October and did not answer the questions but referred to the Council's official statement on its website.
On 22 July 2012, Patricia Sarko asked for 'complete' documentation, including details about the dog wardens. Receiving no reply, she wrote back on 21 August and 1 November. She got one of the 14 November replies, a very detailed response which refused to provide the information, saying it did not hold some and had decided not to provide the rest. This was on the basis that:
(a) disclosure about relations with vets and kennels would 'damage the Council’s credibility and reputation with the providers of these services' - no section of the act is cited, but presumably the claim is that this would prejudice the Council's commercial interests (Section 43) by making such companies reluctant to trade with them;
(b) that some information was exempt because it was held for the purposes of a criminal investigation (Section 30) not specified, but presumably under the Dangerous Dogs Act) - even after applying the public interest test, by which some exemptions can be overruled;
(c) details of the dog wardens were exempt as personal data (Section 40) - information identifying individuals, which they would not reasonably expect to be disclosed;
(d) communications with lawyers were exempt as covered by legal privilege (Section 42);
On the whole, this is a good and thorough response, however belated. I'm not convinced all the correspondence needed to be withheld - some could have been provided with names redacted to protect individuals and companies. Nor is the criminal investigation exemption entirely convincing - the public interest is strong (there is an argument that the Dangerous Dogs Act was ill-thought out and rushed through for political reasons). And although personal data of dog wardens should certainly be withheld, experience about their qualifications and experience could be provided without identifying anyone (and some was already disclosed in 2010). In the interests of transparency, the public should get more information than this - and it should help to clarify the issue.
On 19 July 2012, Tracie Green wrote: 'hi i would like the daily mirror newspaper to give me the name of the kennels that lennox the dog was being held'. The Council replied on 26 July that 'we do not hold any information within the scope of your request' since they are not the Daily Mirror. This was completely unhelpful - it is both a clear request for specific information, which the Council does hold. A certain amount of common sense would have been appropriate here. Ms Green had already asked for 'all the files' on the case on 14 July, and having no response by 7 September she asked for an internal review - which she was entitled to, and should have got. There was no response. A request by her on 26 July for the location of the kennel was also ignored, and again on 7 September she asked for a review. She finally got a response on 14 November to the last question, which ignored her review request and cited the 'credibility and reputation' point. She responded the next day, again asking for a review; I am following this to see if she gets one.
On 14 July 2012 Diane Shaw asked the council 18 questions on the issue (including 'why do you call yourself human beings?'). She received one of the 14 November replies: a general answer, assurances the dog was cared for, and a reference to the official statement on the website.
On 14 July 2012 Annette Pappas asked for 'documents, court transcripts including recorded phone calls and emails concerning Lennox prior to his seizure including and beyond the date of his death, and means of death (method and by whom) and how he was disposed of and when??.records before during and after the case and where and by whom he was disposed of'.
Having received no response by 12 September, she asked for a review. Again, her answer came on 14 November. her review request was ignored and she was told the information was being withheld under Section 30 (the criminal investigation exemption) and, as regards the names of those involved, the 'credibility and reputation' point. There was no mention of the public interest test.
A poor response
From experience, I sympathise with Belfast City Council. But all in all, this is a poor response from them. The huge number of enquiries - 152 requests is more than many FOI officers have to deal with in a whole year - and the climate of suspicion and threats of violence certainly made it a difficult situation for any public authority to handle. An unprecedented situation naturally puts pressure on staff. But most of these enquiries were around a very small number of facts and issues.
It is completely unacceptible, both from a compliance and public relations point of view, to ignore requests completely. Even a simple 'we are coping with an unprecedented level of enquiries and we are working our way through them' response would at least allay public suspicion. Silence only feeds conspiracy theories.
Every requester should get an equal level of response. There appear to be different degrees of detail in these letters - the American requester got much less than others - and some requesters seem to get a less thorough reply.
Finally, there is a legitimate public interest in the handling of situations such as these. Information about how decisions are made, what factors are taken into account, and - possibly - what external organizations are involved, are all matters the public has a right to know. Full and early disclosure, within appropriate limits, is generally the best policy.
Otherwise, you end up with a situation like this: a big pile of doggy mess.
Lennox was a sort-of-but-not-quite pit bull, seized by Belfast City Council as a dangerous dog and eventually put down despite worldwide protests and two court hearings. The council had complaints from all over the world, including 214,687 signatures on an online petition. Even the First Minister intervened - but to no avail.
The Council's official position is here.
The website of the Save Lennox campaign is here.
Say nothing
The Freedom of Information Act was one way in which those interested attempted to get involved. The Council faced a flood of letters, emails, and Freedom of Information requests. There are at least 50 on the issue on the What Do They Know website alone. Just between July and August this year, 152 requests were received.
It looks like the Council were completely unprepared for the storm of protest and concern that met what was a fairly routine activity. They say that the dog was violent and unpredictable, that their staff were threatened, and one councillor received a death threat. As a former local government officer, I'm sympathetic to their plight. But their FOI response is not a good example of how to respond.
To judge by the What Do They Know requests, their main approach seems to have followed the well-known Northern Irish slogan: 'Whatever you say, say nothing'. Many were left long unanswered. Of the July and August requests, about 80% received no response; the 32 which did get an answer were told their request was 'vexatious' - a very unsatisfactory interpretation of the vexatiousness provision. Between June 2010 and July this year, there were no vexatious requests; in the month of August, there were 60.
The Council responds - eventually
On 14 November, the Council eventually got around to sending out responses, in what appears to have beena mass mailing, due no doubt to the sheer volume involved. Here are five examples of their responses which show a very varied pattern of approaches:
On 14 July 2012, Stephanie Lowe from the USA asked for a series of documents about the council's decisions. This response came on 11 October and did not answer the questions but referred to the Council's official statement on its website.
On 22 July 2012, Patricia Sarko asked for 'complete' documentation, including details about the dog wardens. Receiving no reply, she wrote back on 21 August and 1 November. She got one of the 14 November replies, a very detailed response which refused to provide the information, saying it did not hold some and had decided not to provide the rest. This was on the basis that:
(a) disclosure about relations with vets and kennels would 'damage the Council’s credibility and reputation with the providers of these services' - no section of the act is cited, but presumably the claim is that this would prejudice the Council's commercial interests (Section 43) by making such companies reluctant to trade with them;
(b) that some information was exempt because it was held for the purposes of a criminal investigation (Section 30) not specified, but presumably under the Dangerous Dogs Act) - even after applying the public interest test, by which some exemptions can be overruled;
(c) details of the dog wardens were exempt as personal data (Section 40) - information identifying individuals, which they would not reasonably expect to be disclosed;
(d) communications with lawyers were exempt as covered by legal privilege (Section 42);
On the whole, this is a good and thorough response, however belated. I'm not convinced all the correspondence needed to be withheld - some could have been provided with names redacted to protect individuals and companies. Nor is the criminal investigation exemption entirely convincing - the public interest is strong (there is an argument that the Dangerous Dogs Act was ill-thought out and rushed through for political reasons). And although personal data of dog wardens should certainly be withheld, experience about their qualifications and experience could be provided without identifying anyone (and some was already disclosed in 2010). In the interests of transparency, the public should get more information than this - and it should help to clarify the issue.
On 19 July 2012, Tracie Green wrote: 'hi i would like the daily mirror newspaper to give me the name of the kennels that lennox the dog was being held'. The Council replied on 26 July that 'we do not hold any information within the scope of your request' since they are not the Daily Mirror. This was completely unhelpful - it is both a clear request for specific information, which the Council does hold. A certain amount of common sense would have been appropriate here. Ms Green had already asked for 'all the files' on the case on 14 July, and having no response by 7 September she asked for an internal review - which she was entitled to, and should have got. There was no response. A request by her on 26 July for the location of the kennel was also ignored, and again on 7 September she asked for a review. She finally got a response on 14 November to the last question, which ignored her review request and cited the 'credibility and reputation' point. She responded the next day, again asking for a review; I am following this to see if she gets one.
On 14 July 2012 Diane Shaw asked the council 18 questions on the issue (including 'why do you call yourself human beings?'). She received one of the 14 November replies: a general answer, assurances the dog was cared for, and a reference to the official statement on the website.
On 14 July 2012 Annette Pappas asked for 'documents, court transcripts including recorded phone calls and emails concerning Lennox prior to his seizure including and beyond the date of his death, and means of death (method and by whom) and how he was disposed of and when??.records before during and after the case and where and by whom he was disposed of'.
Having received no response by 12 September, she asked for a review. Again, her answer came on 14 November. her review request was ignored and she was told the information was being withheld under Section 30 (the criminal investigation exemption) and, as regards the names of those involved, the 'credibility and reputation' point. There was no mention of the public interest test.
A poor response
From experience, I sympathise with Belfast City Council. But all in all, this is a poor response from them. The huge number of enquiries - 152 requests is more than many FOI officers have to deal with in a whole year - and the climate of suspicion and threats of violence certainly made it a difficult situation for any public authority to handle. An unprecedented situation naturally puts pressure on staff. But most of these enquiries were around a very small number of facts and issues.
It is completely unacceptible, both from a compliance and public relations point of view, to ignore requests completely. Even a simple 'we are coping with an unprecedented level of enquiries and we are working our way through them' response would at least allay public suspicion. Silence only feeds conspiracy theories.
Every requester should get an equal level of response. There appear to be different degrees of detail in these letters - the American requester got much less than others - and some requesters seem to get a less thorough reply.
Finally, there is a legitimate public interest in the handling of situations such as these. Information about how decisions are made, what factors are taken into account, and - possibly - what external organizations are involved, are all matters the public has a right to know. Full and early disclosure, within appropriate limits, is generally the best policy.
Otherwise, you end up with a situation like this: a big pile of doggy mess.
Vegans, Vikings and Golf Buggies
From What Do They Know, we now know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland provides kosher, halal, vegetarian and vegan meals to prisoners in its custody:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/catering_for_detainees_5#incoming-332242Catering for detainees
Down District Council believes its Viking re-enactment plan is a commercial secret. A requester was not convinced. But the Information Commissioner, and the First Tier Tribunal, reckon it is: 'there may be potential competitors who may propose to develop other Viking attractions and sites across the UK and the Republic of Ireland.'
Strictly for the car spotters: Armagh District Council outsources the maintenance of its vehicle fleet, which includes a Mercedes (but it's a bin lorry) and four E-Z Go golf buggies.
Good Practice
When it comes to good practice in Freedom of Information, the Scottish Information Commissioner's office an excellent model. Even the website name 'itspublicknowledge.info' rather than the dull 'ico.gov.uk' from south of the border suggests a more proactive, public-focused approach.
A good example is the Commissioner's weekly roundup of decisions, which includes key messages such as 'conduct adequate searches at the first time of asking':
Decisions Round-up: 12 to 16 November 2012
It's always important to remember Freedom of Information is not about bureaucracy - it's about explaining.
A good example is the Commissioner's weekly roundup of decisions, which includes key messages such as 'conduct adequate searches at the first time of asking':
Decisions Round-up: 12 to 16 November 2012
It's always important to remember Freedom of Information is not about bureaucracy - it's about explaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)