Decisions Round-up:
16 to 20 June 2014
We published eight decisions this week – here are the details:
Key messages:
- If you narrow your request at review, we can’t look at the wider request
In Decision 124/2014, the requester
made a wide ranging request but, when later requesting a review, narrowed it to
cover two specific reports. Because of
this, we couldn’t go back and look at the way the authority had dealt with his
wider request.
- Financial
information about live contracts is more likely to be exempt than if a contract
has ended
Decision 125/2014 involved a request for financial information about a live
contract. The fact that parts of the
contract are still live – and that the range of contractors who can potentially
do the work is small – mean that disclosure is more likely to cause substantial
prejudice.
- Transferring
requests: follow the Section 60 Code!
Decision 126/2014 considered a request which an authority transferred to
another authority to deal with. The Scottish
Ministers’ Section 60 Code contains useful guidance on transferring requests: although requests can be
transferred under the EIRs, they can’t be transferred under the FOI Act. If an authority doesn’t hold information,
they should issue a notice under section 17 of the Act rather than transfer the
request. The Code highlights that it is
good practice to provide the requester with the contact details of the
authority which does hold the information.
- Consulting
with relevant third parties can help you decide if information should be
disclosed
In Decision 128/2014, the Scottish
Ministers consulted with third parties about whether information relating to
those parties should be disclosed. The
Commissioner found these submissions very useful in coming to a decision. The Section 60 Code (highlighted above),
contains useful guidance on third party consultation.
Decisions issued:
- Decision 121/2014 John WH McLean and the Scottish Parliamentary Body (SPCB)
This decision considers
the failure by the SPCB to respond to Mr McLean’s request for review. In this case, the SPCB failed to recognise
that correspondence from Mr McLean was a valid request for review.
- Decision 122/2014 Lynne Bauld and East Dunbartonshire Council
Another decision where a
public authority failed to respond to a request for review. This time, although the Council realised that
Mrs Bauld had sought a review, it failed to respond within the 20 working days
allowed by the FOI Act.
- Decision 123/2014
Andrew Picken and the Scottish Ministers
This involves a failure by
the Ministers to respond Mr Picken’s request or subsequent request for review.
- Decision 124/2014 Iain Lawrie and Aberdeenshire Council
At the time Mr Lawrie made his request, the Council was
carrying out a restructuring review of the North East Scotland Biological
Records Centre. Mr Lawrie initially asked
for a range of information, but narrowed this in his request for review to
reports prepared by named members of staff.
The Council withheld the information on the basis that disclosure would
inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of
views; and that the personal data contained in the reports was exempt from
disclosure. We agreed that most of the
information was exempt, but ordered the Council to disclose the non-exempt information. We also noted that the Council had failed to
apply any exemptions to some of the information withheld from Mr Lawrie –
again, we ordered the Council to disclose that information.
- Decision 125/2014 Clow Group Ltd and Transport Scotland
Clow Group asked Transport
Scotland for information about payments made relating to work on the Erskine
Bridge. Transport Scotland withheld the
information, arguing that disclosure would prejudice substantially its own
commercial interests, as well as those of third parties. We agreed: parts of the contract remained
live and the potential pool of tenderers was limited.
- Decision 126/2014
David J Ostler and Police Scotland
Mr Ostler
asked Police Scotland for information about cadet pension schemes. The Police passed Mr Ostler’s request on to
the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. Mr
Ostler asked the Police to carry out a review, but they did not respond within
the timescales allowed by the FOI Act.
- Decision 127/2014 Mr X and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC)
Mr X asked PIRC for
information in one of PIRC’s files. The
PIRC disclosed Mr X’s personal data to him under the ,
but withheld the remaining information on the basis that disclosure would inhibit
substantially the free and frank provision of advice. Other information was withheld because it was
third party personal data. We were
satisfied that the PIRC was entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining
information.
- Decision 128/2014
Protect Wild Scotland and the Scottish Ministers
This involved a request under the EIRs for information from
the Scottish Fish Farms Annual Production Survey 2012. The Ministers applied the exception in
regulation 10(5)(f) of the EIRs, arguing that the companies were under no
obligation to give the information to the Ministers, and disclosure of commercially
sensitive information would cause detriment to individual fish-farming
companies and to Scottish aquaculture as a whole. We agreed.
Back to Top