How to get data released in electronic form

A lot of people who make FOI requests like to get the data in electronic form and I include myself in that.

Often public authorities are reluctant to provide the information in electronic form perhaps because they would rather it was not republished or perhaps because it is a bit more work (in the short-term). Requesters often quote section 11 of the Act:

"Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely—...the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,...the public authority shall so far as reasonably practicable give effect to that preference."

These leaves open the possibility of the public authority arguing that it is not reasonably practicable.

I actually think that it is better to only provide an email address and refuse to provide a postal address. You may need to remind the public authority that you have submitted a valid request for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and that they have a duty under Section 1 to supply you with the information requested. This leaves them with no real option but to reply electronically.

Martin Rosenbaum wrote recently published Devolution tensions exposed on the BBC Open Secrets blog:

"I asked the Scotland Office for this material after the commissioner's judgment was announced. They only agreed to send me hard copies, but someone else has managed to get them to post electronic versions at the FOI site What Do They Know."

The link was to a response from the Scotland Office I had received where I had simply refused to provide a postal address.

a right royal tax break

If you look at this response to a Freedom of Information Act request about the tax status of the Royal Family you can see that some of the information has been redacted...


but the authority that responded to the request made a mistake, so when you highlight the paragraph you can read the text they didn't want you to know about:



You can click on either of these pictures to see a larger image. You can also read the original document - to read the redacted text just highlight the relevant paragraphs with your mouse.

The hidden text exposes the fact that Prince Charles was secretly lobbying to get the rules changed so he could pay less tax.












Hidden text

The hidden text is in red below:

"The suggested amendments are two-fold – one a matter of mechanics to do with Self Assessment and one of substance to do with expenditure met by HRH The Prince of Wales on official engagements carried out by Their Royal Highnesses The Princes William and Harry. Sir Michael Peat, The Prince of Wales’ Principal Private Secretary, has written to Dave Hartnett asking HMRC to consider amending the MOU to recognise this expenditure."

[MOU stands for 'Memorandum of Understanding' - which sets out the basis on which the Queen and Prince Charles pay tax.]

"But, as Sir Michael’s letter sets out, the Princes will increasingly incur expenditure when undertaking engagements on behalf of The Queen."

"The question of official expenditure by The Princes is not a big issue now, given their other duties. But from next year, it is expected that HRH The Prince William will spend a significant part of his time on official engagements and we need to put the necessary provisions in place in anticipation of that."

One Expensive Post Office

I am normally strongly against Post Office closures as I think the closure of a Post Office can contribute to the isolation of communities and of individuals. We all have to recognise though that providing a Post Office costs money and the money has to come from somewhere.

I have recently obtained figures from the Royal Mail Group about the cost of running the Court Post Office at Buckingham Palace. The cost is paid for by Grants-in-Aid from Government Departments i.e. the tax payer.

The total cost for the year 2008-2009 was over £560,000. The postage cost was just under £255,000 while staffing costs exceeded £260,000, the remainder consisted of administration, travel and equipment costs. At a time when the public sector is looking to make savings and get the best value for the tax payer, it is amazing that the Court Post Office is still open. The postage cost would be similar whether or not the branch remained open but other costs would be drastically reduced. I estimate that the closure of the Royal Post Office could save the tax payer in the region of £260,000 to £300,000 a year.

Let' put that saving into context, it would cost £180,000 to keep around 10 rural branches open at a cost of £18,000 per branch. Think of the difference that would make to those communities.

---

notes
In March 2008, Pat McFadden said "the average cost to Post Office Ltd of post offices that are scheduled for closure is £18,000 per branch per year. If one is saved, therefore, the Post Office must find that saving somewhere else."[1]

Pat McFadden was at the time the Minister of State for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs.[2]

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to support a change to the law to make Local Safeguarding Children Boards subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000."

Sign this petition on the Prime Minister's website

Safeguarding children is one of the most important functions that local and central government performs. It is vital that they get it right and we will only know they are getting it right if there is transparency.

The core membership of Local Safeguarding Children Boards is set out in the Children Act 2004, and includes Local Authorities, health bodies, the police and others.

Police forces, local authorities, state schools and NHS trusts are already subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 but Local Safeguarding Children Boards are not subject to the Act. The law needs to be changed Boards are subject to the Act. The Government can very easily add public bodies to the Freedom of Information Act using powers it already has under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.

Transparency and accountability will improve the quality of care and protection that children receive

ICO will look into Duchy EIR case again

A while ago now I appealed to the ICO and made the case that the Duchy of Lancaster is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations.

The ICO essentially said that the Duchy was a private estate and not a public authority but I asked them to look again and to their credit they did and the case has been re-opened:

"I am grateful for the arguments submitted and the issue has been the cause of much debate. In short, I have decided to re-open the case and complete a more thorough examination of the facts presented. This does not necessarily represent a change of outcome, but simply an opportunity to re-evaluate the issue as a whole, as I felt that a simple case review on my part would not have done the matter justice."

I have also found out that the Duchy of Lancaster itself is not registered but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is listed (see http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch.asp?reg=4146633). It would appear that a Government Minister is the data controller for all of the Duchy of Lancaster's activities. It would be impossible to act as data controller for all the personal data of tenants without also controlling at least some 'environmental information' about land and buildings. This adds weight to my case that Duchy data is data held by a public authority.

Electoral Register Data - FOI request

I searched the public register of Data Controllers to see which Electoral Registration Officers were
registered for London Boroughs. Using various combinations of search terms including searches by place names I found that for 27 London Boroughs the Electoral Registration Officer had registered
(separately) as a Data Controller. I could not find any evidence that the Electoral Registration Officers for Bexley, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth, Southwark were registered as Data
Controllers. Perhaps the ICO shed some light on this.


Request: Electoral Registration Officers

does the disclaimer help?

"I am pleased to enclose the following information, which I believe satisfies your request:

15 of our front line enquiry staff hold a professional qualification in
Librarianship or Information Science

You may reuse all or part of his information free of charge in any
format or medium. You must reuse it accurately and not in a misleading
context"

Essex County Council

How could I reuse this inaccurately? I suppose I could say that 20 of their inquiry staff hold a professional qualification in Librarianship or Information Science but then I would not really be using the information at all.

My message to public authorities is stop and think before you use a disclaimer.