My continued FOI adventure with the UK Cabinet Office
(this is a continuation of the previous part)
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has not come back to me yet regarding the original freedom of information (FOI) request. Admittedly that was not fully unexpected given the usual timelines they work with (on average 6 months), although I would not have minded being an exception. In the meantime I did get an update on the meta-FOI request, which this blog post will be about.
Quick recap what this is about: on 1 May 2024 the UK Cabinet Office published an interestingly-worded Call for Input. I wanted to know how that came to be and why it was published in its current form, so I sent a FOI request for that on the same day. After several delays I got a response that rejects the request because it would, all factors considered, be against the public’s interest for this information to be released. I disagree. When I received that refusal I did two things: requested an internal review, and sent out a second - meta - FOI request for all the information about the handling of that first FOI request.
After the deadline of 20 working days I got a letter with an extension, because they would have to do a public interest test. That was unsurprising, I already expected there to be another 20 working days added.
After that 20 working days I received… another extension letter? This is not really allowed, and also kind of surprising since the content is identical with the first (except for the date). Alas, let’s wait another 20 working days.
Another 20 working days pass and I receive… yet another extension letter with identical contents. This is getting a bit silly.
At this point I am too impatient to create a quartet of extension letters and I contact the ICO. They reply back to me that this is not how it is supposed to go and only one extension is allowed (I know), that they have contacted the UK Cabinet Office, and to write back to the ICO if the Cabinet Office does not reply within 10 working days.
The good news is that I won’t need to wait that long as I do get a response. They state that they hold the information (obviously), but that some things were redacted based on Section 36 and Section 40.
The Section 40 redactions were not unexpected as they are about personal information, and frankly fair as the names of the people are not really relevant.
The Section 36 redactions were after receiving the extension letters to be expected, it’s about the good functioning of government, and the free and frank discussion among civil servants and ministers. Let’s see how they applied them…
I think it’s fair to say that no black marker was spared. All information bar meta-data, “Hi”, and “Many thanks” was redacted. Apparently all other information might do harm if the public gets to read it. I find that very peculiar.
I decided to ask for an internal review:
I accept the redactions based on section 40. However, I challenge the weights given to the individual components in the public interest test that have resulted in nearly all content being redacted under section 36. I believe insufficient weight is given to the inherent interest of the public in seeing how the Cabinet Office handles an FOI request and executes the public interest test. I further believe too much weight is given to the impact releasing the discussions about FOI would have on free and frank discussions. Those handling FOI requests should absolutely be aware of the fact that what is said might and likely will become public.
Which again starts the waiting game…