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

Tue Nov 16 16:05:51 UTC 2010

Yes, I know it is a radical example and also a very unique one. I disagree
that it is a different matter tough, South Africa just defined the extension
broadly, regardless the fact that the private bodies hold or not public
information. I think it falls in the scope of this discussion, it is just
more radical though. (and I am unsure about the implementation)

Best,
F.

, but I am not sure if it is a different matter. A

On 16 November 2010 15:52, <toby at law-democracy.org> wrote:

>
> Actually, this is a bit different. The South African law, uniquely,
> applies even to the purely private functions of private bodies where the
> information is needed for the exercise or protection  of a right.
>
> That goes well beyond what we are discussing here, which is application of
> the law to private bodies operating with public funds or otherwise
> exercising public functions.
>
> Toby
>
> > Actually, there is already one law as far as I am concerned that does
> this
> > in South Africa. Unsure about
> > implementation. Hope it helps.
> >  Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act 2 of 2000)
> > Part 3: Access to Records of Private Bodies
> > Chapter 1: Right Of Access
> > 50. Right of access to records of private bodies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1)        A requester <javascript:void(0);> must be given access to any
> > record <javascript:void(0);> of a private body if--
> >
> > a)        that record is required for the exercise or protection of any
> > rights;
> >
> > b)        that person <javascript:void(0);> complies with the procedural
> > requirements in this Act <javascript:void(0);> relating to a request for
> > access <javascript:void(0);> to that record; and
> >
> > c)         access to that record is not refused in terms of any ground
> for
> > refusal contemplated in Chapter
> > 4<http://www.acts.co.za/prom_of_access_to_info/62_interpretation.htm>of
> > this Part.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2)        In addition to the requirements referred to in subsection (1),
> > when a public body, referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)(i) of the
> > definition
> > of "public body <javascript:void(0);>" in section
> > 1<http://www.acts.co.za/prom_of_access_to_info/1_definitions.htm>,
> > requests access to a record of a private body <javascript:void(0);> for
> > the
> > exercise or protection of any rights, other than its rights, it must be
> > acting in the public interest.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3)        A request contemplated in subsection (1) includes a request for
> > access to a record containing personal information
> > <javascript:void(0);>about the requester or the person on whose behalf
>  > the request is made.
> >
> >
> > On 16 November 2010 15:18, <toby at law-democracy.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I believe there were reforms on the way (probably by way of regulation
> >> but
> >> perhaps by amendments to the legislation) to substantially extend the
> >> reach of the law to private bodies undertaking public functions, but I
> >> am
> >> not sure exactly where they are. Ditto for Scotland.
> >>
> >> Toby
> >>
> >> > -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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> Toby Mendel
> >>
> >> Centre for Law and Democracy
> >> toby at law-democracy.org
> >> Tel:  +1 902 431-3688
> >> Fax: +1 902 431-3689
> >> www.law-democracy.org
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> open-government mailing list
> >> open-government at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fabrizio Scrollini
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Toby Mendel
>
> Centre for Law and Democracy
> toby at law-democracy.org
> Tel:  +1 902 431-3688
> Fax: +1 902 431-3689
> www.law-democracy.org
>
>

-- 
Fabrizio Scrollini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101116/80416b9d/attachment-0001.html>