[open-government] Fwd: [ORG-law] UK foia reach on private government subcontractors
Fabrizio Scrollini
fabrizio.scrollini at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 16:21:50 UTC 2010
A quick follow up, Polish law seems to have a specific clause on this,
unfortunately I do not speak polish :)
http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/288334
On 16 November 2010 16:05, Fabrizio Scrollini
<fabrizio.scrollini at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
>
--
Fabrizio Scrollini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101116/eb56f132/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the open-government
mailing list