Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Victory’ for Welwyn Hatfield Times in FOI battle
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15405		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  captain cab [ Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Victory’ for Welwyn Hatfield Times in FOI battle
Victory’ for Welwyn Hatfield Times in Freedom of Information battle

WELWYN Hatfield Council was wrong to claim the law prevented it from supplying the WHT with details of meetings held behind closed doors, according to the Information Commissioner.

This newspaper reported the council after it refused to give basic information about why taxi drivers were being brought before councillors to have their licences reviewed, granted or refused.

The victory was a hollow one, though, as the council is STILL able to keep the information secret.

The WHT had never asked for personal information about the drivers, but simply WHY they had been put in front of the panel of five councillors.

The council’s Hackney Carriage officer is given powers to issue licences, so the mere fact individuals are being called in, we believe, is in the public interest.

The council had refused to supply the information under section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act, as by doing so they would be breaching the Local Government Act.

The Information Commissioner originally agreed with the WHT this was not the case, and urged the council to release the information.

Senior case officer Brian Payne told the WHT: “The way they have interpreted it is not right at all. It looks to me that they should be releasing the information.

“They made a mistake using section 44 and they’ve taken some time to agree to that.

“They are trying to use section 40 now, but it’s a bit late and this is a breach under the act.”

The council did go back to the IC asking for section 40 to be applied and was successful.

The final judgement read: “The Commissioner’s decision is the information is exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. He has looked carefully at the case and is satisfied that with knowledge of the contraventions or offences involved it would be a relatively simple matter to identify the individuals concerned.”

No penalty was imposed for breaching the act.

WHT editor Terry Mitchinson said our position remained as it was, adding: “We have never sought personal information about who the driver is and still believe it is in the public interest to know why drivers who have been allowed to ferry people around Welwyn Hatfield have been brought before councillors.”


http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/


Dear Ms Kiernan 11 November 2010

Freedom of Information Act (the Act) – Welwyn & Hatfield Council

Case Reference: FS50311251

Thank you for your email of 21 October 2010.

I write to inform you that the Information Commissioner’s investigation into the above complaint has now been completed. We have examined the information that was withheld by Welwyn & Hatfield Council and I have outlined the Commissioner’s findings below.

The information that you requested was withheld by the council under section 44 of the Act on the grounds that section 100(C)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 applied.

We advised the council that section 100(C)(2) LGA 1972 does not prohibit disclosure of information and that schedule 12A LGA only lists information that is exempt from the requirements of part VA of the LGA 1972 and not that which is exempt under any other regime. We advised the council that nothing in part VA LGA actually prohibits the disclosure of information, it only provides that such information is not subject to the part VA requirement to disclose. Therefore section 44 of the FOIA cannot apply.

The council reconsidered its position and sought reliance on the exemption at section 40 of the Act in order to withhold the information instead. It submitted that the individuals concerned would be identifiable if the information that has been requested was disclosed.

The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. He has looked carefully at the case and is satisfied that with knowledge of the contraventions or offences involved it would be a relatively simple matter to identify the individuals concerned. The first principle of the Data Protection Act requires that personal data is processed fairly and lawfully. To disclose the information in this instance would be unfair to the individuals concerned and would therefore contravene that principle.

With reference to the point you made about cases that may have been heard in open court and having therefore entered the public domain the Commissioner’s position is as follows.

Whilst convictions may be made in open court it does not mean that details of these should continue to be given out ad infinitum to anyone who requests these. This is because society has an important public policy of rehabilitation, the principles of which led to the creation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. In this context it would be unfair under the first principle of the Data Protection Act for an organisation to just keep releasing the details whenever it may be asked to do so.

I appreciate that the Commissioner’s decision in respect of his investigation may not entirely be the information that you hoped to receive but I trust it will be of assistance.

We have informed the council that owing to its failure to specify the s40 exemption in its refusal notice and not explaining to the applicant why the exemption applied the council has breached s17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.

The full text of the exemption and breach is set out at the end of this letter.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Brian Payne Senior Case Officer
Author:  Stationtone [ Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not sure if this has any relevance, it is an article by the chief Constable of Strathclyde police

chief Constable Stephen House said: “We are turning up to licence hearings only to find they are being held in private. This is wrong. If someone wants to ask for a licence to run a company that provides a service to the public, then they should not be doing so behind closed doors.

“Let’s open up the process and make sure the public have the confidence of knowing licences are only going to people that deserve them.”

Leading licensing lawyers have told The Herald that article six of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that such hearings should be held in public, over-rides the Scottish legislation that allows for some exemptions within licensing committees, including personal and financial information. Of the 12 councils in the Strathclyde force area, only Glasgow, East and West Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute hold their hearings in public.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/