Agenda item

Notice of Motion given by Councillor Martin Smith

That this Council:-

 

(a)       notes that in 2016 nearly one in three requests to this Council for information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act were refused either in part or as a whole;

 

(b)       notes this was a 35% increase in the refusal rate compared to 2014/15;

 

(c)        notes that Sheffield, unlike some other core cities, does not publish data on FOI or Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) request refusal rates;

 

(d)       believes that failure to publish an unredacted copy of the Amey contract or any documentation for the Guodong deal has contributed to a lack of trust in this Administration;

 

(e)       agrees that it is right to withhold personal information, but withholding information on issues that are strategically important for the future of our city should not be done on a routine basis; and

 

(f)        requests the Leader of the Council to carry out a review of the relevant policies and procedures and publish the outcome and recommendations of that review within the next three months, and immediately request the Chief Executive to publish FOI request refusal rates on a monthly basis.

 

Minutes:

 

Freedom of Information Requests

 

 

16.1

It was formally moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, and formally seconded by Councillor Adam Hanrahan, that this Council:-

 

 

 

(a)       notes that in 2016 nearly one in three requests to this Council for information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act were refused either in part or as a whole;

 

(b)       notes this was a 35% increase in the refusal rate compared to 2014/15;

 

(c)        notes that Sheffield, unlike some other core cities, does not publish data on FOI or Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) request refusal rates;

 

(d)       believes that failure to publish an unredacted copy of the Amey contract or any documentation for the Guodong deal has contributed to a lack of trust in this Administration;

 

(e)       agrees that it is right to withhold personal information, but withholding information on issues that are strategically important for the future of our city should not be done on a routine basis; and

 

(f)        requests the Leader of the Council to carry out a review of the relevant policies and procedures and publish the outcome and recommendations of that review within the next three months, and immediately request the Chief Executive to publish FOI request refusal rates on a monthly basis.

 

 

16.2

Whereupon, it was formally moved by Councillor Olivia Blake, and formally seconded by Councillor Jack Scott, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

 

 

 

(a)       notes that under 30% (less than one third) of FOIs received in 2016 were refused in part or full and that consideration should be given to the fact that a partial refusal can mean only a very small element of a large request is refused; for example, all other information under a request may be provided but where one question is exempted (refused) due to the information being available already in the public domain, such as the Sheffield City Council website, then this would count as a partial refusal;

 

(b)       notes that the above can be construed as a problem of how refusals in FOIs are legally classified, as signposting to relevant information should in no way count as a refusal to grant information when the avenue for finding this information is made easily accessible (Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act);

 

(c)        further notes that the exemptions from disclosure which were most used during 2016 were Section 21, where information is accessible by other means (i.e. via the Council website) and Section 40, where the request was for, or included, information considered personal data which would have been refused or redacted in the response provided to protect the Data Protection Act rights of those individuals;

 

(d)       contends that the Liberal Democrats public claims that there has been a 35% increase in the refusal rate in the last year, is completely inaccurate and that, in actuality, less FOIs were refused in 2016 than the year before it - the Council refused fully or partially 574 requests in response to the 1862 requests received in 2015 (just under 31%), whereas in 2016 the Council refused 558 of 1903 requests, which equates to just over 29% of requests received; and clearly this denotes a decrease in the overall numbers and percentage of requests refused, and nothing like the 35% increase quoted by the Liberal Democrats;

 

(e)       notes that the Council publishes information on its FOI compliance online and there is no requirement to publish any information on FOI compliance or the use of exemptions, and as a result, the Authority has focused on providing details of its timeliness in response to FOI requests in accordance with the Act (20 working days); and in addition, this Administration is unaware of any other core cities publishing information to this level and would welcome details of those councils that do publish, so we can benchmark our transparency on the handling of FOIs;

 

(f)        further notes that the Council cannot provide an unredacted copy of the Amey contract as in any commercial agreement there may be information within it which is legitimately commercially sensitive, including costing structures and the unique offer provided by the supplier during the tender process; however, in terms of the Amey contract, the Council is currently completing a full review of the contract to ensure that as open a version of the contract can be made as public as possible; this is a complex process and requires the review of the extensive contract by the Council and Amey, but once this review is complete a new version of the redacted contract will be made publically available;

 

(g)       is unaware of any individual FOI requests for specific details of the “Guodong deal” and notes that the Council has published information through its website and press releases on the discussions with the Guodong Group;

 

(h)       notes that, in addition, from an FOI perspective, the Council has mainly received requests focused on correspondence with the Guodong Group rather than specific details of the “deal” and, again, the Council may consider where appropriate the commercial sensitivity of information where disclosure would harm the commercial position of the Guodong Group, the Council or any other third party;

 

(i)         confirms that every request will be assessed and reviewed in accordance with the Act but there are specific requests which might result in a similar refusal; for example, the Council will for certain exemptions apply the public interest test in the application both for and against an exemption, in accordance with the law and statutory guidance; and

 

(j)         notes that the current process is transparent and in full accordance with the law and best practice with other local authorities; moreover the Council does not have the ability to rewrite statute and legal precedent in the handling of Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations requests and, therefore, believes no further review is merited and that providing refusal rates regularly to the public as statistics in this case do not provide the full details.

 

 

16.3

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

 

 

16.4

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

 

(a)       notes that under 30% (less than one third) of FOIs received in 2016 were refused in part or full and that consideration should be given to the fact that a partial refusal can mean only a very small element of a large request is refused; for example, all other information under a request may be provided but where one question is exempted (refused) due to the information being available already in the public domain, such as the Sheffield City Council website, then this would count as a partial refusal;

 

(b)       notes that the above can be construed as a problem of how refusals in FOIs are legally classified, as signposting to relevant information should in no way count as a refusal to grant information when the avenue for finding this information is made easily accessible (Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act);

 

(c)        further notes that the exemptions from disclosure which were most used during 2016 were Section 21, where information is accessible by other means (i.e. via the Council website) and Section 40, where the request was for, or included, information considered personal data which would have been refused or redacted in the response provided to protect the Data Protection Act rights of those individuals;

 

(d)       contends that the Liberal Democrats public claims that there has been a 35% increase in the refusal rate in the last year, is completely inaccurate and that, in actuality, less FOIs were refused in 2016 than the year before it - the Council refused fully or partially 574 requests in response to the 1862 requests received in 2015 (just under 31%), whereas in 2016 the Council refused 558 of 1903 requests, which equates to just over 29% of requests received; and clearly this denotes a decrease in the overall numbers and percentage of requests refused, and nothing like the 35% increase quoted by the Liberal Democrats;

 

(e)       notes that the Council publishes information on its FOI compliance online and there is no requirement to publish any information on FOI compliance or the use of exemptions, and as a result, the Authority has focused on providing details of its timeliness in response to FOI requests in accordance with the Act (20 working days); and in addition, this Administration is unaware of any other core cities publishing information to this level and would welcome details of those councils that do publish, so we can benchmark our transparency on the handling of FOIs;

 

(f)        further notes that the Council cannot provide an unredacted copy of the Amey contract as in any commercial agreement there may be information within it which is legitimately commercially sensitive, including costing structures and the unique offer provided by the supplier during the tender process; however, in terms of the Amey contract, the Council is currently completing a full review of the contract to ensure that as open a version of the contract can be made as public as possible; this is a complex process and requires the review of the extensive contract by the Council and Amey, but once this review is complete a new version of the redacted contract will be made publically available;

 

(g)       is unaware of any individual FOI requests for specific details of the “Guodong deal” and notes that the Council has published information through its website and press releases on the discussions with the Guodong Group;

 

(h)       notes that, in addition, from an FOI perspective, the Council has mainly received requests focused on correspondence with the Guodong Group rather than specific details of the “deal” and, again, the Council may consider where appropriate the commercial sensitivity of information where disclosure would harm the commercial position of the Guodong Group, the Council or any other third party;

 

(i)         confirms that every request will be assessed and reviewed in accordance with the Act but there are specific requests which might result in a similar refusal; for example, the Council will for certain exemptions apply the public interest test in the application both for and against an exemption, in accordance with the law and statutory guidance; and

 

(j)         notes that the current process is transparent and in full accordance with the law and best practice with other local authorities; moreover the Council does not have the ability to rewrite statute and legal precedent in the handling of Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations requests and, therefore, believes no further review is merited and that providing refusal rates regularly to the public as statistics in this case do not provide the full details.