[open-government] Fwd: [ORG-law] UK foia reach on private government subcontractors

Tue Nov 16 15:16:34 UTC 2010

Dear Javier and all,

In my experience the definitions I've seen in many lawes varies from
juridisction from jurisdiction. The new Uruguayan law defines public
authority in a very broad sense, incorporating State Owned Enterprises and
Crown entities. Nevertheless an interpretation doubt arised with private
companies where the Government has shares. In Chile, these companies are
included as well.

Following the debate in the Uk this post may be useful about some recent
problems in the implementation of open data in local councils (particulary
with information "on behalf" of a public body or privatizacion of data)
*
http://countculture.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/the-local-spending-spikes-cavell-issue-some-progres/
*
**
Kind regards,

Fabrizio.
2010/11/16 Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org>

>
>
> -Response form our legal working group about UK:
>
> The FOI doesn't have a functional definition of a public authority.
> Public authorities are those defined as such in the act or subordinate
> legislation. There are many anomalies - for example a wholly owned
> subsidiary of a public authority is also subject to the act (by
> section 6) but a subsidiary of more than one public authority is not
> (so many local government consortia fall outside).
>
> Information held "on behalf of" a public body is also subject to the
> act, which does extend the reach somewhat, but that phrase has caused
> a lot of argument.
>
> There are some silly exceptions because of the way the act works, for
> example the House of Commons Commission claims not to be a public
> body:
>
> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/crowned_portcullis_2#incoming-80758
>
> The House of Commons itself ceases to exist when Parliament is
> dissolved for a general election, so this produced some peculiar (and
> frustrating) results at the last election.
>
> I have certainly been pushing for changes and extensions here.
> Something simple, such as any corporation with more public authority
> members than not ought to be a public authority (to get in all those
> local authority consortia etc). There are plenty more.
>
> The team at What Do They Know (team at whatdotheyknow.com) might be very
> helpful if you asked them nicely about it. I suspect its something My
> Society in general is very interested in.
>
> ---------------
>
> On 16 November 2010 11:53, Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
> > Dear friends
> > is there anything like this in UK FOIA ?
> > The government has announced plans to amend FOIA towards "right to data",
> it
> > may be an opportunity to put forward other amendments to extend who is
> > covered by it.
> > best, Javier
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Katleen Janssen <Katleen.Janssen at law.kuleuven.be>
> > Date: 2010/11/15
> > Subject: Re: [open-government] Defining Open Government Data?
> > To: Tony Kennick <tony at technophobia.com>, "
> open-government at lists.okfn.org"
> > <open-government at lists.okfn.org>
> >
> >
> > The ‘privatization of data’ through outsourcing can be a concern, but
> there
> > are some examples where the definition of ‘public authority’ subject to
> the
> > FOI legislation should be broad enough to cover these types of
> outsourcing
> > deals.
> >
> >
> >
> > For instance, the Belgian legislation includes bodies that have been
> > entrusted by a ‘real’ public body with a service performed in the public
> > interest. The European directive on environmental information should
> > probably also be broad enough to cover these situations.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the UK definition not broad enough to cover this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > katleen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> > [mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Tony
> Kennick
> > Sent: maandag 15 november 2010 13:01
> > To: open-government at lists.okfn.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: [open-government] Defining Open Government Data?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/11/15 Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org>
> >
> > One of the key improvements to this area would be to extend the FoI
> > obligations to private companies doing public works.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any such extension would need careful drafting so it couldn't be used by
> > competitors to dig out data from parts of any such company.
> >
> >
> >
> >  The amount of "public data" could almost disappear in cases such as
> Suffolk
> > council in UK, which plan to outsource every single
> > service http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398678. Even the remaining info
> on
> > contracting would likely be denied on commercial confidentiality grounds.
> >
> >
> >
> > The governments plans for data to be opened up so the public can directly
> > assess the performance of local authorities only makes sense if it
> doesn't
> > matter whether the council provides services directly or by contracting
> > out. Whole swathes of data publishing will need to be set out in
> contracts
> > as a required as part of the service delivery.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tony Kennick
> >
> > Technophobia Limited.
> >
> > The Workstation
> >
> > 15 Paternoster Row
> >
> > SHEFFIELD
> >
> > England
> >
> > S1 2BX
> >
> > Phone: +44 (0)114 2212123  Fax: +44 (0)114 2212124
> >
> > Email: tony at technophobia.co.uk
> >
> > WWW: http://www.technophobia.com
> >
> > Twitter: @WeTechnoPhobia
> >
> > Registered in England and Wales Company No. 3063669
> >
> > VAT registration No. 598 7858 42
> >
> > ISO 9001:2000 Accredited Company No. 21227
> >
> > ISO 14001:2004 Accredited Company No. E997
> >
> > ISO 27001:2005 (BS7799) Accredited Company No. IS 508906
> >
> > Investor in People Certified No. 101507
> >
> >
> >
> > The contents of this email are confidential to the addressee and are
> >
> > intended solely for the recipients use. If you  are not the addressee,
> you
> >
> > have received this email in error. Any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or
> >
> > action taken  in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the author personally
> and
> >
> > not TechnoPhobia Limited who do not  accept responsibility for the
> contents
> >
> > of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> > All email communications, in and out of TechnoPhobia, are recorded for
> >
> > monitoring purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-government mailing list
> > open-government at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ORG-law mailing list
> > ORG-law at lists.openrightsgroup.org
> > http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-law
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Francis Davey
>
> _______________________________________________
> ORG-law mailing list
> ORG-law at lists.openrightsgroup.org
> http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-law
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing list
> open-government at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>
>

-- 
Fabrizio Scrollini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101116/d51ebb2f/attachment-0001.html>