Information request for all information held about PHSOthefacts
Thank you for your email of 14 December 2014 in which you requested information held by the PHSO about PHSOthefacts. Please find attached the material relevant to your request that I am able to release to you. Information that was released in response to a previous, similar request can be found on this website: www.whatdotheyknow.com.
To further explain, I have interpreted your request to be for information held by the PHSO where PHSOthefacts is the subject, or at least related in some way to the subject.
However, some information falling within the scope of your request relates to other individuals and complaints lodged with the PHSO, while other information relates to the names and contact details of non-senior executive staff of the PHSO. As this constitutes personal data, I am unable to release this information in accordance with section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
There are also four documents which contain the request or provision of legal advice. As these documents are protected from disclosure by the principle of legal professional privilege, they are exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The public interest in maintaining the principle of legal professional privilege outweighs the general public interest in disclosure, therefore I am unable to release this information to you.
Finally, some of the material is exempt in line with section 36. It is the opinion of Mick Martin, the qualified person under section 36(5)(o)(iii) of the FOIA, that material subject to your request would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation (section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)) or would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36(2)(c)). I have concluded that both of these subsections apply to some of the material you have requested.
In considering whether this information should be released I have weighed up the following public interest factors favouring disclosure:
There is a public interest in the transparency and openness of public authorities. This enables the public to hold them to account for the decisions they take and how they spend public money. Here this translates in the public being able to see that our private messages and deeds match our public promises.
More specifically in this instance, there is a public interest in the methods and approaches used by public authorities. The desire for our customers to engage in debate about our service and how that is shaped.
There is a minor argument that there is a public interest in organisations being able to view all publicly held data about them.
In addition, I have considered the following public interest factors in favour of maintaining the section 36 exemption:
There is a strong public interest in protecting the safe space for discussion of live and sensitive issues between staff providing advice to senior staff as well as between senior staff exchanging views in deliberative manner. There is a strong public interest in protecting that space for ideas to be fully developed without fear or favour.
There is another strong public interest in maintaining an environment that encourages the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views for a deliberative purpose. There is a strong public interest in reducing the possibility of a ‘chilling effect’ which would dampen the quality of the decision- and policy-making processes of public authorities.
Finally there is a strong public interest in allowing major projects to be developed and implemented without undue influence or scrutiny. While the sensitivity of these issues will reduce over time, the risk of premature interference in the implementation of major projects is very real and contrary to the public interest in good public administration.
Overall, the factors favouring disclosure do not outweigh the factors favouring maintaining the section 36 exemptions. We place particular weight on the general principles of protecting the ‘safe space’ for staff to explore ideas and deliver advice and opinion, and maintaining an environment for staff to provide free and frank advice and exchange views. We also recognise that the remaining arguments in favour of disclosure are narrowed by the fact that much of the final versions of information the subject of this request have already been released publicly, or will be in the future. In addition, the public interest in promoting good public administration would be severely damaged by the disclosure of this information. Finally, we place less weight on the public interest in an organisation having a right to view all information held about itself by a public authority. This right is not recognised by either the Freedom of Information Act or the Data Protection Act and should not be considered to carry any significant weight in these circumstances.
I hope you find this information helpful.
FOI/DP Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman