Department of Work and Pensions v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 334 (GRC)
Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner & Anor
9 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 822 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
The government appealed decisions ordering them to release information about Universal Credit. The court said some information should stay secret, but most should be made public because the public has a right to know how their money is being spent, and Universal Credit affects millions of people.
Key Facts
- •The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) appealed three Information Commissioner decision notices related to Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) requests by John Slater, John Pring, and Owen Stevens concerning Universal Credit (UC) programme information.
- •The appeals centered on the interpretation of s.22 FOIA (information intended for future publication) and the public interest balancing test under s.35(1)(a) and s.36 FOIA.
- •DWP's publication strategy aimed to release Universal Credit Programme Board (UCPB) papers after two years.
- •The requests involved various UCPB papers, some of which contained redactions under different FOIA sections.
- •The Information Commissioner ordered disclosure of most information, but DWP appealed, arguing the Commissioner misapplied the public interest test and section 22 FOIA.
Legal Principles
Section 22 FOIA exemption applies only if information is held with a view to its publication at the time of the request, with a settled intention to publish the specific requested information.
Case law interpretations of s.22 FOIA; Information Commissioner's guidance
Section 35(1)(a) FOIA exempts information relating to the formulation or development of government policy; public interest test applies.
FOIA 2000
Section 36 FOIA exempts information whose disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs; public interest test applies.
FOIA 2000
In applying the public interest test, separate public interests in maintaining different exemptions cannot be aggregated; public interest is considered as it stood at the time of the public authority’s original decision.
Montague v Information Commissioner and Department of International Trade [2022] UKUT 104 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal EA/2022/0328 (Slater) allowed in part; DN1 substituted.
S.22 FOIA not engaged; DWP's publication strategy too vague to show a settled intention to publish at time of request. Public interest test under s.35(1)(a) and s.36 favoured disclosure for most information; minor corrections made to DN1.
Appeals EA/2023/0034 (Pring) and EA/2023/0036 (Stevens) dismissed.
Same reasoning as Slater appeal; public interest favored disclosure.