11.03.06 Look
out for updates on this subject
Parliament has been ordered to disclose a breakdown
of travel expenses for each of the UK's 646 MPs.
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, has ruled that the house
of commons must meet requests for the details made under the freedom of information
act (FOIA).
The commons was asked in January last year to supply a breakdown of
expenses by each MP for travel by car, rail, and air for the past three years.
It refused to disclose the details, citing the exemption under FOIA
for personal information whose release would breach the data protection act.
The commons also told the commissioner, who regulates FOIA in the UK,
that it gave MPs notice in a letter in 2002 of the information that it would,
and has, made public on its own initiative. This included the overall level
of annual travel expenses for each MP.
It argued that it would be “unfair” on MPs to disclose
more than was set out in its letter of 2002, such as a breakdown of travel
expenses.
But in one of the most significant “decision not-ices”
made by the commissioner on complaints about how public bodies have responded
to FOIA requests, the regulator has ruled that the commons “incorrectly
withheld the requested information.”
“The commissioner is of the view that the inform-ation requested
relates to individuals acting in an official as opposed to a private capacity.”
“Disclosure of this additional information would not impinge
on the personal privacy to which individual MPs are entitled in their private
lives.”
“The commissioner is minded that the information sought is personal
data relating to MPs carrying out parliamentary business for which they are
receiving an official allowance.
“In addition, the commissioner notes that the in-formation sought
in this case only differs from that already released into the public domain
by dividing total figures for annual transport expenses into figures for three
separate categories of transport.”
Disclosure would therefore “not be unfair”, he says. “The
requested information is personal inform-ation which can be disclosed without
contravening any of the principles of the data protection act 1998.”
The commissioner also makes clear in his dec-ision that the motive
behind a FOIA request is irrelevant.
The commons had told the commissioner that it believed had struck the
right balance on the level of disclosure it had set in its letter to MPs in
2002. MPs should not have to produce evidence of specific prejudice resulting
from further disclosure, it argued, in order to counterweight the legitimate
interest of the requestor.
It would be unfair to require MPs to produce such evidence when “the
requestor needs only to establish that his legitimate interest is a general
one in the spending of public funds and not anything specific to him.”
The commons said that it needed to know why the requestor wanted the
information and what was to be done with it.
But the decision notice says: “It is the view of the commissioner
that the act takes no account of the purposes for which information might
be sought and how it might be used.”
He says that, under deadlines set by FOIA, the commons must release
the information to the two requestors by April 5.
However, the commons is determined to maintain secrecy surrounding
the travel expenses, saying that it will appeal to the information tribunal.
This would stop the release of the material pending the outcome of any appeal.
FOIA
Centre commentary
Public bodies are all too ready to use the data protection act to avoid
disclosing “personal information” under FOIA.
Under section 40 (2) of FOIA, information whose disclosure would breach
the data protection act is specifically exempted from release. However, public
bodies often fail to appreciate, perhaps deliberately, that disclosing personal
information does not necessarily mean a breach of the data protection act.
The information commissioner has, not for the first time, made this
distinction clear. He has already ruled, in a decision notice in January on
the department for education and skills, that the standard Whitehall practice
of, for example, redacting names from minutes of committee meetings that identify
who made specific contributions, citing the data protection act, is wrong.
And in this case, he finds that disclosing personal information in
the form of a breakdown of MPs' travel expenses is not a breach of the data
protection act.
This ruling is important to those who regard free-dom
of information as a force for good. It will give heart to FOIA specialists
in Britain, who have hitherto shared a profound sense of disappointment in
the performance of the office of the information commissioner so far. First,
and most importantly, it is proving far too slow to adjudicate on complaints.
Indeed, even these adjudications on the commons result from FOIA requests
made more than a year ago. Second, it has focussed on procedural matters and
seemed more willing to adjudicate on local authorities, rather than making
substantive findings that might upset powerful public bodies such as central
government departments.
But the decision on MPs' travel expenses is important for three reasons.
First, it is a strong finding on an often misinter-preted exemption.
Second, the regulator is beginning to show poss-ible signs of courage
by making this strong finding in relation to a national public body. In making
this decision, he may even upset some MPs, although they should herald this
fresh breath of openness.
Third, it reinforces a fundamental belief that we at the FOIA Centre
hold, that a requestor’s motive in seeking specific information is irrelevant
to the issue as to whether the public interest is best served in its being
withheld rather than disclosed. Under FOIA, as the commissioner has found,
the requestor merely needs to establish that the balance should be in favour
of disclosure if it is, in a general sense, in the public interest: any interest
that is specific to the requestor is irrelevant.
Nonetheless, parliament still wants to maintain secrecy, and is appealing
the decision. MPs no doubt need no reminding that David McLetchie stood down
as Tory leader in Scotland’s parliament after disclosures forced by
FOIA showed that he spent £11,500 on taxis, including many trips from
Holyrood to the Edinburgh legal firm where he was working.
So, we await the release of MPs' travel expenses by the commons with
great interest.
Comment on this article
Headlines
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||