New FOI guidance for universities

The Information Commissioner has issued new guidance for universities on FOI compliance.

The guidance has been put together following recommendations made in the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on the disclosure of data about climate change involving the University of East Anglia. It aims to increase academics’ and researchers’ understanding of freedom of information legislation and to help practitioners to comply with their legal obligations.

The full press release is here, and the guidance here.

I have no time to read this now, so if commenters can take a look that would be good. The tone seems very much on helping universities to obey the law rather than a change in the guidance.

Comments

[breath of fresh]

Opps, these Gmail accounts are open to FOIA

Information held on personal, non-work email accounts (eg Hotmail; Yahoo; Gmail) can still be subject to disclosure under the legislation. You will need to consider the principles above, (with reference to the more detailed guidance) to establish whether the information is held for the purposes of the legislation. Generally, if the information held on a personal email account is related to public authority business, it is likely to be held on behalf of the public authority in accordance with s3(2)(b) of FOIA.

[Mac]

Guidance excerpt

3.5 Impact of disclosure on international relations

Existing guidance

Section 27: international relations

HEIs work at a local, national and international level with a range of partners; some carry out functions which relate directly to, or have the potential to affect, the international relations of the UK. Section 27 of FOIA provides an exemption to disclosure of information that would or would be likely to prejudice UK interests. As the ICO guidance on Section 27 explains in more detail, the exemption does not necessarily focus on the scale or importance of the issue or on the subject or type of the information, but on whether UK interests abroad, or the international relations of the UK would be prejudiced through the disclosure of the information relating to the issue. It is important to note that the prejudice must be to the interests of the UK itself rather than simply to the public authority which holds the information, or limited to a part of the UK, or a sector or group in the UK.

Under the EIR, regulation 12(5)(a) provides an exception to disclosure of information to the extent its disclosure would adversely affect international relations, defence, national security or public safety.

Case example – would disclosure of the information have an adverse affect on international relations?
University of East Anglia - ICO decision notice FER0280033

This decision notice illustrates the importance of putting forward arguments for non-disclosure that are relevant to the purpose of exception cited. In this case the University of East Anglia had refused a request for a digital version of a weather dataset under regulation 6 (form and format); regulation 12(5)(a) (adverse affect on international relations); 12(5)(c) (adverse affect on intellectual property rights and 12(5)(f) adverse affect on interests of the information provider). Ultimately the Commissioner ruled that none of the exceptions were engaged.

In relation to regulation 12(5)(a), the Commissioner accepted that UEA is one of the UK’s leading research establishments in relation to the area of climate change and works closely with other UK research establishments on this area, including the Met Office which is part of the Ministry of Defence. He accepted that it would be possible to mount a case that any actions taken by UEA in relation to its research on climate change could reflect on other UK establishments involved in climate change research. This could have an affect on the UK’s national interests and international agreements and negotiations. The Commissioner accepted the potential link between the disclosure of the withheld information and the impact on international relations.

In considering whether disclosure of the withheld information would adversely affect international relations, the Commissioner considered if the relationship between UEA and foreign national meteorological services to such an extent that the UK climate research community would be seen as no longer being able to assure that research data would be kept confidential where this was appropriate. While a significant amount of the requested data was already in the public domain, the university failed to sufficiently explain the sensitivity of the information that was not in the public domain. The university presented detailed evidence about the context in which datasets are supplied and exchanged and how disclosure would impact on the university relationship with foreign research partners, but many of the arguments put forward about the impact on international relations were speculative and there was not enough evidence to support the likelihood of an adverse affect occurring. An impact on the relationship between the university and its international research partners was not enough to engage the exception – ultimately, the university did not demonstrate how disclosure would result in an adverse affect in the context of international relations.

[breath of fresh]

And recent refusal by UAE due to Neil Wallis's old comapny objecting.

The ICO expects public authorities to consult with affected third parties, in line with the Part IV of the section 45 Code of Practice; however, while the views of third parties are important, they will not be automatically accepted so as to mean that commercial companies involved with public authorities can veto the FOI process.

[breath of fresh]

And Sterling University would be in bother south of the border.

Anonymising personal data
Considering whether personal information can be anonymised for the purposes of disclosure under the legislation might be relevant when requests are made for research datasets that include personal data.
Truly anonymised data is not personal data and there is no need to consider the application of any DPA principles when considering whether or not to disclose truly anonymised data. The test of whether the information is truly anonymised is whether any member of the public can identify individuals by combining the ‘anonymised’ data with information or knowledge already available. Whether this ‘cross-referencing’ is possible is a question of fact based on the circumstances of the specific case.

[Frosty]

must be popular "The server at www.ico.gov.uk is taking too long to respond."

[Jonathan Bagley]

2.50 pm Maintenance work - no access.

[John Whitman]

Note: does it seem to anyone else that WUWT has not responding to comments for ~4 hrs as of now?

John

[TheBigYinJames]

We've all been 'got at' by Big Windmill.

[KnR]

Not sure is will make any real difference , UEA does not seem to read the current regulation preferring instead to put its effort into finding reasons to ignore them. So any guidance is unlikely to make much difference to the amount and thickness of smoke screens they throw up.

[Mac]

KnR

You could be right. Either UEA know full well their legal responsibilities under the FOIA and even now are involved in attempts to avoid those responsibilities, or they are ignorant of their legal responsibilities and are submitting incompetent arguements for non-disclosure. One thing we do know is the UEA-CRU broke the law and it was only a technicality that prevented prosecution.

[stopcpdotcom]

Reply to FOI made to UEA:

"This FOI request refers to the professional legal advice received
by the UEA reference the Climategate scandal."

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/climategate_professional_legal_a#incoming-213216

Not a lot there, I'm afraid.

[Peter Crawford]

The information Commissioner's Office site is not available....for a good while now. Note Capitals, note apostrophe. There is a person who controls information. Officially