Effect of NHS reforms on FOI rights

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has written to the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, expressing concern that the public's rights to information about the NHS are likely to be "increasingly constricted" by the reforms in the Health and Social Care Bill.

Under the reforms, NHS services will be provided either by NHS bodies or by independent providers under contract. The NHS bodies which commission services will themselves be subject to the FOI Act though the independent providers will not. However, the providers will be contractually required to provide information to the commissioning bodies to help them answer FOI requests.

The standard NHS contract already contains a clause requiring providers to do this. But according to the Campaign, the clause appears to apply only to the specific information which the contract itself requires a provider to hold or report on. While numerous items of information are specified – for example, about the quality of the service, treatment times, complaints, MRSA infections and other matters - it does not cover the full range of information that would be available under FOI from an NHS body itself.

In the letter, the Campaign calls on the government to extend the disclosure provision so that FOI rights in relation to independent providers’ NHS work is as wide as that of NHS bodies themselves. The Campaign director Maurice Frankel says:

“Suppose there is concern about the use of potentially contaminated medical supplies by hospitals. For an NHS hospital, the FOI Act could be used to obtain details of stocks of the product, the number of doses administered, the numbers of affected patients, the quality control measures in place, correspondence with suppliers, minutes of meetings at which the problem was discussed and information showing what measures were considered, what action was taken, how promptly and with what results.

This level of information would clearly not be available in relation to independent providers treating NHS patients. This would represent a major loss of existing information rights."

Read the letter here.

FOI amendments pressed during Localism Bill

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has been working on amendments to the Localism Bill tabled by Lord Wills, the former Labour FOI minister. The amendments sought to:

1) Require local authority executives and their committees to meet in public, unless regulations specify otherwise. The Localism Bill amends the arrangements for local authority governance, allowing councils to return to the committee system should they choose to do so. For authorities which operate executive arrangements, the Bill allows for new regulations to be made governing the circumstances in which meetings and documents must be open to the public (Clause 11 of the Localism Bill gives effect to Schedule 2 which inserts a new Part 1A into the Local Government Act 2000, and the proposed section 9GA(4) of that new part provides for these regulations to be made). But if the regulations are not made before the new arrangements come into force, the Bill would leave it to executives themselves to decide which of their meetings will be open to the public and which will be held in private (Sections 9G(1) and (2) of the new part 1A). They would be free to hold all their meetings in private, should they choose to do so. The amendment sought to reverse this position, so that in the absence of regulations, all meetings of the executive or its committees would have to be in public.

2) Ensure that future contracts entered into by local authorities would include a ‘freedom of information’ provision. This would stipulate that all information about the performance of the contract which is held by the contractor would be deemed to be held 'on behalf of' the authority for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations. The ‘Community Right to Challenge’ in Chapter 3 of the Localism Bill envisages that a growing proportion of local authorities’ functions will be carried out for it by other bodies. The intention of the amendment is that the public’s rights to information should be the same, whether a particular task is carried out in-house or contracted out.

3) Bring companies that are 50% or more owned by local authorities within the scope of the FOI Act. At present the FOI Act applies to companies that are wholly owned by a single public authority. The Protection of Freedoms Bill would extend that definition to cover a company which is wholly owned by more than one public authority. However, a company which jointly owned by a public authority and some other body, perhaps a private company, is not subject to the FOI Act at all, even where the public authority is the dominant shareholder. The amendment would bring such companies within the Act’s scope.

4) Require local authorities to publish annual statistics on their compliance with the FOI Act.

5) Bring the Housing Ombudsman within the scope of the FOI Act. At present, complaints about social housing matters are dealt with by two different ombudsmen. Complaints about housing associations go to the Housing Ombudsman; complaints about local authority housing go to the Local Government Ombudsman. The Localism Bill proposes that in future a unified complaints system should apply, with both types of complaint going to the Housing Ombudsman.

This transfer of functions, may be accompanied by a strengthening of the Housing Ombudsman’s enforcement powers. The Bill allows the Secretary of State by Order to give the Housing Ombudsman the power to make determinations which have the force of a court order (New paragraph 7C, which would be added to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996 by clause 158 of the Localism Bill). Surprisingly, the Housing Ombudsman is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Localism Bill contains no provision to bring the Ombudsman under the Act, despite the fact that the Housing Ombudsman is to take over important responsibilities from the Local Government Ombudsman, who is subject to the FOI Act. The amendment would redress this anomaly.

The amendments were debated during the second day of the Bill’s committee stage on Thursday 23 June 2011. Responding to the debate, the minister Baroness Hanham gave a reassurance that the Government would make it clear there is a presumption of openess regarding meetings of local authority executives. But she did not support any of the other amendments.

I cannot say anything more than that we are very much in favour of open access to meetings of local authorities, but we recognise that there are occasions when confidential information has to be discussed – for example, information on contracts and members of staff. Meetings have to be closed sometimes, but we will make it clear that there has to be a presumption in favour of openness… 

We do not believe that it is necessary to extend the Freedom of Information Act to those bodies at present with information about contracts with public authorities, which can be requested from them. A local authority can be quizzed about any contract that it has and we are proactively publishing contractual information online.

Amendment 133C would introduce a statutory requirement for the publication of an annual report by every local authority, including the smallest parish councils receiving very low volumes of freedom of information requests. We do not think that this is a burden that should be borne...

Finally, on extending the Freedom of Information Act to cover the Housing Ombudsman, it is worth noting that we are planning to extend the Act to a considerable number of new bodies through legislation and we intend to keep those under review. While I do not say “in”, I do not say “out” at the present time.

In reply, Lord Wills pressed the minister to consider the amendments again in more detail.

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which she engaged with these amendments. However, her response was not quite as welcoming instinctively as I would have hoped, so I ask her to scrutinise the amendments in more detail and perhaps to consult the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I do not say that because I discount any possible burdens put on local authorities or contractors or businesses. As someone who ran a small business in the past, I am deeply conscious of the need to avoid putting burdens on small businesses. These amendments were framed not to place a disproportionate burden on anyone. Perhaps on closer scrutiny that will become apparent.

I am willing to accept any suggestions for amendments and I am sure that the Government would be able to improve the drafting. The key point that I ask the Minister to take away is that, if the Government do not engage with the issues behind these amendments…that will mean, potentially, over time, a significant diminution of transparency in the operation of local authorities and those whom they contract to provide services for them. That is very serious for those who believe in freedom of information. It is in breach of a fundamental tenet of the coalition agreement, which is why I hope that this Government will take it seriously.

Read the full debate on the amendments here (begins Col 1433).

See also:
Localism Bill Explanatory Notes [HL Bill 71] ) (pdf)
Second Marshalled List of Amendments as at 21 June. Lord Wills' amendments were 52A, 133A, 133B, 133C and 181A.

Public Accounts Committee says Network Rail should be subject to FOI Act

A report by the Public Accounts Committee 'Office of Rail Regulation: Regulationg Network Rail's efficiency' published today, calls for the Department for Transport and Office of Rail Regulation to ensure that Network Rail is made subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The report states:

The internal operations of Network Rail are not transparent. We are concerned about Network Rail’s use of ‘compromise agreements’ with departing employees, and that a review by the Regulator has been required to investigate the delayed disclosure by Network Rail of an issue regarding level crossing safety. We are concerned that Network Rail was not able to tell us the total value of compromise agreements it had entered into. The Department and the Regulator should ensure that Network Rail is subject to the same transparency requirements as public bodies, with full application of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

It also says:

Pursuing the issue of transparency, we noted press reports of an internal Railtrack memorandum from 2001 regarding safety at the Elsenham level crossing, an issue which had not been made public until 2006. The matter is currently the subject of review by the Regulator, who will judge whether it was material to the public interest and was withheld deliberately. Network Rail is not currently subject to Freedom of Information legislation, but told us that it would not object to being included within the scope of the Act in future.

Does this mean Network Rail has had a change of heart? David Higgins, who took over as Chief Executive of Network Rail in February 2010, told the Committee he would have no objection to members of the public being able to make FOI requests adding that he had "been used to FOI in the last two jobs I have had".

Before the election both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promised Network Rail would be covered by FOI.  In April 2010, the Conservatives published 'Big ideas to give Britain real change in politics', which stated:

A Conservative government will increase the range of publically funded bodies that are subject to scrutiny using Section 5 orders under the Freedom of Information Act. These bodies will include:

• Network Rail

• Northern Rock;

• The Carbon Trust;

• The Energy Saving Trust;

• NHS Confederation (in relation to activities in receipt of public funds);

• Local Government Association; and

• Traffic Penalty Tribunals

Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act enables Secretaries of State to designate organisations that appear to exercise functions of a public nature to scrutiny under the legislation. We will extend the Freedom of Information Act to these organisations within weeks of the General Election.

But an announcement in January 2011 that the Government would extend the FOI Act to additional bodies did not include Network Rail, a decision which the Campaign for Freedom of Information expressed disappointment about.

See also:
We need a regulator with teeth to force efficiencies at Network Rail, says MPs - The Times, 12 July 2011 (subscription)
Network Rail chief in push for openness - FT, 27 Feb 2011

Evidence to Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee

The Information Commissioner and Campaign for Freedom of Information gave oral evidence to the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee on 24 March 2011. You can watch a recording of the evidence session here.

A note submitted to the Committee setting out the Campaign's views on the Bill is available here. The Information Commissioner's written evidence to the Committee is here.

Campaign welcomes FOI changes in Protection of Freedoms Bill but calls for them to be extended

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has welcomed the changes to the Freedom of Information Act set out in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, published today.

Requiring public authorities to publish data sets proactively, under the ‘publication schemes’ that all authorities are required to have under the Act, was a positive step, the Campaign said. It was also helpful that when applying for datasets applicants would be entitled to specify that they be released in a reusable electronic format. The Campaign said that should prevent authorities deliberately turning a spreadsheet into a pdf, before releasing it, to stop requesters running their own analyses of the spreadsheet itself.

However, the Campaign said the Act’s provisions on the form in which information should be released needed further improvements, to allow requesters to specify that they wanted photocopies of original documents. At present, requesters can only express preference between obtaining information in hard copy or electronic form or inspecting records but are not entitled to specify that they want photocopies of actual correspondence or documents.

The new Bill also seeks to prevent authorities invoking copyright to prevent requesters republishing datasets released under the Act, where the authority is the copyright holder. The Campaign said this was a positive step which should be extended beyond datasets. Authorities frequently insist that requesters apply to them for a copyright license to reproduce information about the authorities’ own policies and performance. It said this was an unnecessary restriction which obstructs the use of information which has no commercial value to the authorities themselves.

The Campaign also welcomed the decision to bring companies that are jointly owned by several public authorities under the Act.

Campaign's response to Government's plans to extend the FOI Act

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has welcomed the coalition government’s announcement (see earlier post here) that it proposed:

• to extend the FOI Act to a range of regulatory, representative and other bodies 
• to implement the last government’s measures to release old government records after 20 years instead of 30 years
• apply the Act to companies that are jointly owned by more than one public authority.

The Campaign said these were valuable improvements to the FOI regime.

However it pointed out that before the election both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had promised that Network Rail would be covered and that the Conservatives’ had also promised to cover Northern Rock. Neither body is being covered. Many other individual bodies, including electoral registration officers and returning officers should also be added, the Campaign said.

It also called for companies providing contracted out functions to be brought under the Act, particularly those relating to health, social services, education and criminal justice and for the Act to be extended to housing associations. The Campaign pointed out that the Scottish Government was proposing to extend the Scottish FOI Act to contractors who build or maintain schools, hospitals and roads (where the contract value is above certain thresholds), to private bodies running prisons or providing prison escort services to contractors running local authority sports or leisure centres and to the Glasgow Housing Association.

The Campaign said it was also unhappy at the decision to implement a more restrictive exemption for senior members of the Royal Family. At present, communications with the Royal Family are exempt, but potentially disclosable on public interest grounds. In future the public interest test will be removed for communications with the monarch and the next two in line to the throne. The Campaign said that where Prince Charles was seeking to actively intervene in policy decisions, his input would be withheld in all circumstances, even if it had played the decisive role.

Finally, the Campaign suggested the proposal to allow the Information Commissioner to serve for only a single 5 year term was a potentially double-edged sword. Limiting appointment to a single term only meant that the Commissioner could not be tempted to comply with the government’s wishes in order to be reappointed. But appointing a new Commissioner every 5 years could be potentially disruptive, as a new Commissioner needed at least a year to master the brief, and the Campaign suggested the Commissioner’s term of appointment should be extended to 6 or 7 years.

Full press release here.

Government plans to extend the FOI Act

The Ministry of Justice has announced plans to extend the scope of the FOI Act. The plans include:

increasing the number of organisations to which FOI requests can be made, bringing in bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Services Ombudsman, and higher education admissions body UCAS; and also all companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities

consulting on bringing a range of further bodies which are believed to perform functions of a public nature under the FOI umbrella, including Examination Boards, Harbour Authorities, the Local Government Association and the NHS Confederation

making most public records available at The National Archives and other places of deposit ten years sooner, when they are 20 years old; the package will also reduce the time some types of information - including court records, ministerial correspondence and policy formulation - can be withheld, to 20 years instead of 30

undertaking post legislative scrutiny, to see how well the Act is working in practice and whether there are further changes to be made.

The full press release is here and response issued by the Information Commissioner's Office here. Further comment to follow later today.

Royal Family and FOI - the state of play

The Daily Mail has reported that there is a dispute within the coalition government over the extent to which the Royal Family are subject to the Freedom of Information Act:

The Queen is at the centre of a Government row over proposed moves that would give the public sweeping rights to demand secret information.

The Liberal Democrats have been incensed by Conservatives’ attempts to restrict a new ‘right to data’ law so that it excludes the Royal Family.

The new open access law, which was secured by the Lib Dems as part of the Coalition agreement, would extend the freedom of information rules, which have unearthed scandals such as last year’s furore over MPs’ expenses.

But after lobbying from Buckingham Palace – which is worried that it would lead to a rash of fresh revelations – the Justice Ministry has proposed a blanket ban on the release of details about the Royals.

At present, the Royal Family itself is not covered by the FOI Act. Where government departments and other public authorities hold communications with Royal Family, that information is subject to the Act and potentially disclosable.

Section 37(1)(a) of the Act provides an exemption for communications with Her Majesty, other members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household, but the exemption is currently a qualified one subject to the Act's public interest test.

The Information Commissioner has issued a series of decisions involving requests for correspondence or lists of correspondence with the Prince of Wales.  In each case to date, the Commissioner has supported the government department’s decision not to release the information, finding that the balance of public interest favoured confidentiality (see, for example, Department for Business Innovation and Skills FS50080233) These decisions were based not only on the Royal Family exemption (s.37(1)(a)) but also on the exemptions for personal data (s 40) and breach of confidence (s 41).

However, the Commissioner has ordered information about the cost of maintaining the Royal palaces to be disclosed on public interest grounds (see FS50154684). The Department for Culture, Media and Sport appealed this decision to the Information Tribunal, though it has now disclosed the information.  

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010, amended Section 37 of the FOI Act to create a new absolute exemption for communications with the monarch, heir to the throne and second in line. The effect of the amendments will be:

• to exempt information relating to communications with the monarch, the heir to the throne and the second in line to the throne (i) till 5 years after the individual’s death, or (ii) for 20 years, whichever is later.

• that this exemption would no longer be subject to the Act’s public interest test, so there would be no possibility of disclosure on public interest grounds during the specified time limit.

• that communications with other members of the Royal Family would also be protected until 5 years after the individual’s death or for 20 years, but in these cases the public interest test would still apply.

These amendments, together with those to reduce the 30 year rule to 20 years, also contained in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, require a statutory instrument to be brought into effect. The Daily Mail report suggests the government are now considering whether to implement the changes. Implementing the changes to the exemption for Royal communications would, however, breach the coalition government's commitment to extending the scope of the FOI Act (see earlier post here).

Meanwhile, a Guardian appeal to the Tribunal against a decision by the Commissioner upholding the withholding of Prince Charles' letters to ministers was adjourned until the new year for reasons the Tribunal panel could "not go into". And the Commissioner recently referred to the unimplemented changes to Section 37 in a decision where he upheld the Ministry of Justice's refusal to release representations made by the Queen or Royal Household regarding the FOI Act itself:

These changes will, when brought into force, result in communications with the Sovereign, the Heir to the Throne and the second in line to the Throne becoming absolutely exempt from disclosure under the Act....

In the circumstances of this case the Commissioner recognises that there is significant interest in, and debate surrounding, the proposed changes to the Act, which are likely to have a direct bearing on the future release of communications with the Royal Family and the Royal Household.

Interestingly, the MoJ did confirm that it held information relevant to the request. However, the Commissioner found the balance of public interest favoured withholding the information:

The Commissioner accepts that the information consists of communications which fall within the heart of government, being correspondence from or on behalf of The Queen to the public authority. Accordingly, he again concludes that it would not be in the public interest for the operation of the established convention of confidentiality to be undermined. Furthermore, he accepts that disclosure of the information covered could undermine The Queens’ political neutrality and, as noted above, he accepts that it is inherent in the exemption contained at section 37(1)(a) that it is in the public interest for the political neutrality of all members of the Royal Family to be preserved. However, the Commissioner would like to clarify here that he is not suggesting that this exemption is, effectively, ‘absolute’ and that there may be cases where the public interest balance would be different if there was an equally weighty public interest in disclosure.

The effect of the recent amendments of course would be to prevent such disclosure on public interest grounds taking place.

See also:
Explanatory Notes to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act here.

Coalition programme for government on FOI and government transparency

'The Coalition: our programme for government' document published this morning (20 May 2010) promises to introduce a Freedom Bill and repeats the commitment to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act made in the earlier Coalition Agreement and by the both parties.

A Freedom Bill was promised in the Lib Dem manifesto. A draft Freedom Bill published by the Lib Dems last year contained a number of proposals to strengthen the FOI Act such as removing the ministerial veto. See http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/17-strengthening-freedom-of-information/

The Coalition document also contains the 'right to data' and the proactive publication proposals from the Conservative manifesto. The relevant extracts of the document are:

3. CIVIL LIBERTIES
We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.

• We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.
• We will introduce a Freedom Bill.
• We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.
• We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
• We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
• We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• We will restore rights to non-violent protest.
• We will review libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• We will further regulate CCTV.
• We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• We will introduce a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
• We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

...

16. GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. We also recognise that this will help to deliver better value for money in public spending, and help us achieve our aim of cutting the record deficit. Setting government data free will bring significant economic benefits by enabling businesses and non-profit organisations to build innovative applications and websites.

• We will require public bodies to publish online the job titles of every member of staff and the salaries and expenses of senior officials paid more than the lowest salary permissible in Pay Band 1 of the Senior Civil Service pay scale, and organograms that include all positions in those bodies.
• We will require anyone paid more than the Prime Minister in the centrally funded public sector to have their salary signed off by the Treasury.
• We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.
• We will also pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.
• We will strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments.
• We will introduce new protections for whistleblowers in the public sector.
• We will take steps to open up government procurement and reduce costs; and we will publish government ICT contracts online.
• We will create a level playing field for opensource software and will enable large ICT projects to be split into smaller components.
• We will require full, online disclosure of all central government spending and contracts over £25,000.
• We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public, and then published on a regular basis.
• We will require all councils to publish meeting minutes and local service and performance data.
• We will require all councils to publish items of spending above £500, and to publish contracts and tender documents in full.
• We will ensure that all data published by public bodies is published in an open and standardised format, so that it can be used easily and with minimal cost by third parties.