Network Rail is one of 100 companies which have been brought within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act by the previous government.
Interestingly it is not only from 1 Sept 2014 on which date the company was made a “public body” in terms of FOI that requests can be made. The FOI Order which was made in February will act retrospectively which means that requests can be made for information from the start of Network Rail's operation on 28 October 2002.
via Freedom of Information (a pdp publication) Volume 11 Issue 4 (March-April 2015)
Showing posts with label Freedom-of-Information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom-of-Information. Show all posts
Wednesday, 10 June 2015
Monday, 9 January 2012
None of our business? Private emails, FOI and lawful interception
an article by Jonathan Baines, Information Governance Office in the Legal and Democratic Services Team at Buckinghamshire County Council, examines the issues surrounding FOI and lawful interception published in Freedom of Information Volume 8 Issue 2 (November/December 2011).
And at that point I come to a thundering full stop. There is no abstract to this article. The two introductory paragraphs could be taken to constitute one (see below) although they aren’t really. This journal is not listed on DeepDyve nor does there appear to be any way of accessing a single article without subscribing to the whole journal for a minimum of a year.
This policy is, to my mind in this day and age, short sighted but then I'm not the publisher trying to make money!
Introductory paragraphs
There was much discussion in the media recently about reports that the Information Commissioner was to investigate the education secretary, Michael Gove, and his close advisers at the Department for Education (the Department). The Department has since denied any impropriety, and has stated that private email was being used to conduct party political rather than government business.
These stories provoke some interesting questions. Firstly, to what extent can information contained in “private emails” be caught by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)? Secondly, to what extent might a deliberate attempt to evade FOIA in this alleged manner be unlawful? Thirdly, to what extent can an employers, or a government department, scrutinise its employees’, or an elected person’s email accounts (especially if those accounts are webmail accounts)?
Interesting!!
And at that point I come to a thundering full stop. There is no abstract to this article. The two introductory paragraphs could be taken to constitute one (see below) although they aren’t really. This journal is not listed on DeepDyve nor does there appear to be any way of accessing a single article without subscribing to the whole journal for a minimum of a year.
This policy is, to my mind in this day and age, short sighted but then I'm not the publisher trying to make money!
Introductory paragraphs
There was much discussion in the media recently about reports that the Information Commissioner was to investigate the education secretary, Michael Gove, and his close advisers at the Department for Education (the Department). The Department has since denied any impropriety, and has stated that private email was being used to conduct party political rather than government business.
These stories provoke some interesting questions. Firstly, to what extent can information contained in “private emails” be caught by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)? Secondly, to what extent might a deliberate attempt to evade FOIA in this alleged manner be unlawful? Thirdly, to what extent can an employers, or a government department, scrutinise its employees’, or an elected person’s email accounts (especially if those accounts are webmail accounts)?
Interesting!!
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Council could “clearly improve” detail recorded
The Freedom of Information Act is not the easiest of Acts to find one’s way around but the Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer at the London Borough of Haringey is, surely, not a person who would have difficulty understanding the requirements.
The Information Commissioner backed the local authority’s to withhold a case review into the death of Peter Connelly (formerly known as Baby P) but was critical of the way it had handled the information request.
Without going into too much detail the criticism hinges on the reasons why the qualified person objectively and reasonably arrived at the decision to withhold information. These reasons were not recorded at the time and the Commissioner’s investigation had to rely on opinion put forward by the Council – which might have been different from that which the expert relied on at the time.
If you’re involved in any way with the FOIA then you may it useful to get the Commissioner’s guidance “section 36 – what should be recorded” (December 2009), which is available on the ICO’s website http://www.ico.gov.uk/
This case may also serve as a timely reminder that where a decision is reached it is important to record not only what the decision was but the arguments via which the decision was reached.
And this, of course, does not apply only in respect of Freedom of Information or Data Protection Acts, or the Environmental Information Regulations but also in any decision-making process in which we are involved with a third party.
Thanks to Freedom of Information from PDP Journals which I have just been reading in the British Library
The Information Commissioner backed the local authority’s to withhold a case review into the death of Peter Connelly (formerly known as Baby P) but was critical of the way it had handled the information request.
Without going into too much detail the criticism hinges on the reasons why the qualified person objectively and reasonably arrived at the decision to withhold information. These reasons were not recorded at the time and the Commissioner’s investigation had to rely on opinion put forward by the Council – which might have been different from that which the expert relied on at the time.
If you’re involved in any way with the FOIA then you may it useful to get the Commissioner’s guidance “section 36 – what should be recorded” (December 2009), which is available on the ICO’s website http://www.ico.gov.uk/
This case may also serve as a timely reminder that where a decision is reached it is important to record not only what the decision was but the arguments via which the decision was reached.
And this, of course, does not apply only in respect of Freedom of Information or Data Protection Acts, or the Environmental Information Regulations but also in any decision-making process in which we are involved with a third party.
Thanks to Freedom of Information from PDP Journals which I have just been reading in the British Library
Thursday, 26 November 2009
MPs expenses
I make no apology for bringing up this subject yet again as it highlights an issue that some people working in or, more importantly, on behalf of a public authority may have not been aware or may have failed to remember.
The article “Freedom of Information update” by Ibrahim Hasan in Bulletin: Records Management Society (Number 150 (July 2009)) looks at the decisions reached by the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal during March and April this year.
Take care my friends, please.
The rest of the article is of a more technical nature and aimed at managers of information who will, hopefully, be members of the Records Management Society and will get their own copy of Bulletin and won’t have to wait for to get catalogued and into the British Library lending scheme.
Don’t get me wrong – I am grateful, very grateful, that the British Library collects all these journals and makes them available to readers like me. I’m even more grateful that not only can I sit in the Reading Room with laptop plugged in so I don’t have to hand write and then transpose when I get home but that I can type straight into a blog post and send it “up the wire” and all for free.
The article “Freedom of Information update” by Ibrahim Hasan in Bulletin: Records Management Society (Number 150 (July 2009)) looks at the decisions reached by the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal during March and April this year.
Obviously top of the list is the fallout from the disclosure of MPs’ expenses by the Daily Telegraph. It’s worth remembering that we have Freedom of Information to thank for the knowledge that, while the rest of us were getting to grips with the credit crunch, MPs were using our money to buy such essentials as hanging baskets, bath plugs, designer rugs and mock-Tudor beams.Readers of this blog and of ADSET’s Members’ Update publication are, of course, aware that this is a load of twaddle (to put it politely). The Act covers public bodies and those working on their behalf e.g. delivering a careers service.
On 11 May The Times wrote that “a Labour plot to suppress the future release of MPs’ expenses has been uncovered ....” Senior Labour figures were reported as saying that the future privatisation of the House of Commons Fees Office, which processes expense claims, would mean that the information would no longer be held by the Commons and so not subject to the FoI régime.
Take care my friends, please.
The rest of the article is of a more technical nature and aimed at managers of information who will, hopefully, be members of the Records Management Society and will get their own copy of Bulletin and won’t have to wait for to get catalogued and into the British Library lending scheme.
Don’t get me wrong – I am grateful, very grateful, that the British Library collects all these journals and makes them available to readers like me. I’m even more grateful that not only can I sit in the Reading Room with laptop plugged in so I don’t have to hand write and then transpose when I get home but that I can type straight into a blog post and send it “up the wire” and all for free.
Saturday, 8 August 2009
Companies to stay outside Freedom of Information régime
via OUT-LAW News
Companies that carry out functions of a public nature will not have to handle Freedom of Information requests, the Ministry of Justice announced yesterday. Proposals to extend the régime to the private sector will not progress at this time.
Read the full article
Hazel’s comment:
Does anyone know where this decision leaves providers of careers guidance services to young people in England? It seems to me, but I’m no expert, that some services will be fully covered by the FoIA (those directly provided by local authorities), some may be brought under the umbrella in the future (services contracted to a private company) and some may never have to consider providing information under this law (charities).
Companies that carry out functions of a public nature will not have to handle Freedom of Information requests, the Ministry of Justice announced yesterday. Proposals to extend the régime to the private sector will not progress at this time.
Read the full article
Hazel’s comment:
Does anyone know where this decision leaves providers of careers guidance services to young people in England? It seems to me, but I’m no expert, that some services will be fully covered by the FoIA (those directly provided by local authorities), some may be brought under the umbrella in the future (services contracted to a private company) and some may never have to consider providing information under this law (charities).
Sunday, 14 September 2008
Information can sometimes be destroyed after being requested under FOI
via OUT-LAW News on 2 September
Public authorities can destroy information after a Freedom of Information request for it has been made, the privacy regulator has said.
BUT ...
See: The guidance (PDF 4pp)
Hazel's comment:
That is a VERY BIG BUT up there as what the Information Commissioner said is that it is not an offence to destroy information which might have been used in answering a request that an authority has received IF, and only if, that material was scheduled to be destroyed under a scheduled management of records procedure.
It would, however, be better to keep the information.
Public authorities can destroy information after a Freedom of Information request for it has been made, the privacy regulator has said.
BUT ...
See: The guidance (PDF 4pp)
Hazel's comment:
That is a VERY BIG BUT up there as what the Information Commissioner said is that it is not an offence to destroy information which might have been used in answering a request that an authority has received IF, and only if, that material was scheduled to be destroyed under a scheduled management of records procedure.
It would, however, be better to keep the information.
Saturday, 17 May 2008
The Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2008
Hazel's comment:
comes at the beginning!
What follows is a copy of the Statutory Instrument which brings several organisations into the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. I presume that the organisations concerned know that they are now subject to this but do the plebs that might want to take advantage of this by putting a question to any of the bodies listed? [see the list at the end].
I've included all the blurb so that you can see how awkward it is sometimes to find out what is going on.
The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4(1) and (6) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000(1), makes the following Order:
Citation and commencement
1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2008.
(2) This Order shall come into force on 2nd June 2008.
Additional public authorities
2. The bodies listed in the Schedule to this Order shall be added to Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, at the appropriate place in each case.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of State
Michael Wills
Minister of State
Ministry of Justice
8th May 2008
Article 2
SCHEDULE
The Big Lottery Fund
The Consumer Council for Water
The Legal Deposit Advisory Panel
The Olympic Lottery Distributor
The TB Advisory Group
The UK Commission for Employment and Skills
comes at the beginning!
What follows is a copy of the Statutory Instrument which brings several organisations into the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. I presume that the organisations concerned know that they are now subject to this but do the plebs that might want to take advantage of this by putting a question to any of the bodies listed? [see the list at the end].
I've included all the blurb so that you can see how awkward it is sometimes to find out what is going on.
The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4(1) and (6) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000(1), makes the following Order:
Citation and commencement
1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2008.
(2) This Order shall come into force on 2nd June 2008.
Additional public authorities
2. The bodies listed in the Schedule to this Order shall be added to Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, at the appropriate place in each case.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of State
Michael Wills
Minister of State
Ministry of Justice
8th May 2008
Article 2
SCHEDULE
The Big Lottery Fund
The Consumer Council for Water
The Legal Deposit Advisory Panel
The Olympic Lottery Distributor
The TB Advisory Group
The UK Commission for Employment and Skills
Thursday, 10 April 2008
ICO criticises health body for FOI failures
via UK Freedom of Information Blog by Katherine Gundersen on 27 March
The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has strongly criticised Hounslow Primary Care Trust (PCT) for failing to meet its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). The PCT failed to respond adequately to FOI requests, refused to provide all the relevant documents to the requester, missed several key deadlines for responding to both the requester and the Information Commissioner, and has committed numerous breaches of the Act.
Full press release
See also: PCT threatened with court over fight for information Health Service Journal
Watchdog hits out at NHS trust Financial Times
Hazel's comment:
Basically there's not much to say here, is there? Yet another public sector organisation has "got it wrong".
The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has strongly criticised Hounslow Primary Care Trust (PCT) for failing to meet its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). The PCT failed to respond adequately to FOI requests, refused to provide all the relevant documents to the requester, missed several key deadlines for responding to both the requester and the Information Commissioner, and has committed numerous breaches of the Act.
Full press release
See also: PCT threatened with court over fight for information Health Service Journal
Watchdog hits out at NHS trust Financial Times
Hazel's comment:
Basically there's not much to say here, is there? Yet another public sector organisation has "got it wrong".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
