Mark Watts v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 647 (GRC)
His Majesty’s Treasury v The Information Commissioner & Anor
15 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 902 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
A charity wanted government information about how funding decisions for social care affect different groups of people. The government said releasing this information would harm their policymaking. The court decided the public's right to know is more important, especially given the charity’s purpose of helping people get the social care they need. So, the government has to release the information.
Key Facts
- •His Majesty's Treasury (HMT) and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) appealed against the Information Commissioner's decisions to disclose information requested by Access to Social Care (ASC).
- •The requests sought information relating to the departments' discharge of their duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 when determining government funding for local authorities under the Care Act 2014.
- •The Information Commissioner found that information was exempt under s.35(1)(a) FOIA but that the public interest favored disclosure.
- •The appeals focused on whether the public interest in disclosing spending figures and other information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
- •The appeals involved considering the 'chilling effect' on policymaking, the public sector equality duty (PSED), and the scope of the information requests.
- •The Tribunal considered additional documents disclosed late in the process and addressed arguments about the scope of the requests.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) - general duty to disclose information subject to exemptions.
FOIA s.1(1)
FOIA s.35(1)(a) exemption for information relating to the formulation or development of government policy.
FOIA s.35(1)(a)
Qualified exemptions under FOIA require a public interest balancing test.
FOIA s.2(2)(b)
There is no presumption in favour of disclosure when a qualified exemption is engaged.
Department of Health v Information Commissioner and Lewis [2017] EWCA Civ 374 at [46]
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under s.149 Equality Act 2010 is a procedural duty, not requiring a particular outcome.
R(Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020] 1 WLR 5037 at [181]
FOIA s.35(2) excludes statistical information from the scope of s.35(1)(a) once a policy decision is taken.
FOIA s.35(2)
FOIA s.35(4) emphasizes the public interest in disclosing factual information used in decision-making.
FOIA s.35(4)
Outcomes
Appeals allowed.
The Tribunal found that the public interest in disclosing the requested information, particularly given the nature of ASC's work, outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Tribunal found no errors of law in the Commissioner's decision.
Substituted Decision Notice requiring disclosure of specified information.
The Tribunal concluded that the information fell within the scope of the requests and that the public interest favored disclosure, despite arguments regarding chilling effect and collective responsibility.
Similar Cases
Department of Work and Pensions v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 334 (GRC)
The Department of Health and Social Care v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 261 (GRC)
Article 39 v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 733 (GRC)
Jenna Corderoy v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 105 (GRC)