Microsoft Word - Internal Review 2009017

Freedom of Information Internal Review Decision

Internal Reviewer  Hugh Saxby, Head of Governance & Public Affairs, BBC Global News

Reference
IR2009017 – review of RFI20090726

Date:
17 July 2009

Original Request:   The original request received by the BBC was as follows:

“Please publish a comma separated value export of the database table(s) pertaining all
BBC expense claims for the 2008/2009 financial year. To the extent of complying with
both the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and other legislation, the table(s) may be
redacted only for the explicit purpose of complying with the law.”
BBC’s decision
The BBC did not provide all the information requested because it asserted that part
of it was not covered by the Act, and to extract that part of the information which
was covered would take more than two-and-a-half days. The request was therefore
refused under section 12 of the Act.

The full text of the response is included as Appendix 1 at the end of this document.

Issues on review:  The requester’s argument
The requester called for the reviewer to examine two key aspects of the BBC’s
response:

1.  That the response was late.
2.  That the response did not provide the information requested.
The requester also alleged that the BBC’s estimate of the time taken to deal with
his request was not in line with the Information Commissioner’s guidelines which
will be covered under (2).
A copy of the requester’s request for internal review is provided as appendix 2, and
sets out in detail the requester’s points in relation to his request for an internal
review.

1. Timing of the
The sequence of events was as follows:
response
The original request was received on 12 May.

Section 10 of the Act states that a public authority must comply with section 1(1)

promptly, and in any event not later than the twentieth working day after receipt.
Section 1(1) is the requirement to inform the requester whether the information is
held, and if so communicate it to him (unless an exemption applies). The BBC’s
response was due therefore no later than 10 June 2009.

Although it was apparent by the deadline of 10 June 2009 that the request would be

refused by the BBC under the fees regulations, the BBC decided to delay sending its
response until some information being prepared for a similar purpose about
expenses was available, so that, in turn, this information could be provided to the
requester.

The BBC sent an apology to the requester on 10 June, explaining that it hoped to
send the response by 12 June, and would update the requester further if this was
not possible.

At the same time as considering this request, the BBC was in the process of
preparing a detailed public disclosure of the salaries and expenses of its senior staff.
Unbeknown to the requester, the circumstances were that the original request was
one of a group of similar requests for information about expenses that had been
made to the BBC at about the same time.

It was in this context that a further apology was sent on 19 June, explaining that the
BBC aimed to send the response by 26 June at the latest. The response was sent on
25 June.

The ICO guidance on time for compliance is as follows:
10. What happens if a public authority does not respond within the
time limit?
Failure to respond within the time limit would be a breach of the Act. The
Information Commissioner has a general duty under s47 of the Act to
promote good practice. Should he become aware of a consistent failure to
respond to requests within the time limit, he may issue an Enforcement
Notice.

As a matter of courtesy, the BBC’s Information Policy Compliance unit did provide
progress updates to the requester on an expected response date. I also
acknowledge the BBC’s reasons for considering a late response. However the fact
remains that, in the circumstances of the original request, the BBC did not respond
within the time limit laid down by the Act and had therefore breached the Act.

2. Provision of the  Was the requested information in scope of the Act?
information
requested
Most of what the BBC does in the UK and around the world is publicly funded. This

is why the BBC, as an organisation, is in scope of the Act. However information
which is held by the BBC for purposes of “journalism, art or literature” is not
covered by the Act, by virtue of the BBC’s listing under Schedule 1 of the Act. The
BBC explained this in its response that not all of the information requested was
covered by the Act.
The reviewer therefore agrees with the BBC’s position that expenditure which is
directly linked to programme-making is not covered by the Act. This applies
regardless of whether the expenditure was made directly from the BBC’s financial
central systems, or the cost was originally met by BBC members of staff, and then
reclaimed via the expenses system.
The principle that information relating to “journalism, art or literature” lies outside
the scope of the Act is significant for the BBC because, without this derogation, the
BBC’s ability to fulfil the public purposes laid out in the Royal Charter would be
impaired, and explains why Parliament decided to include it in the Act.

With regard the circumstances of this particular request, the consequence is that
the BBC is required to separate information directly linked to programme-making
from information not directly linked to programme-making.

Definition of expenses
In his request for an internal review, the requester asserts that the BBC’s definition
of expenses is “counterintuitive”, indicating that he considers expenditure met via
the BBC’s central booking systems should also be defined as expenses.
It’s good practice for publicly funded organisations like the BBC to centralise
procurement. It ensures that the BBC’s collective purchasing power is maximised
and that value for money is delivered from all its suppliers. BBC staff with the
appropriate spending authority are able to purchase a range of goods and services
in order to fulfil the requirements of their roles. Individual purchasing transactions
take place via a centrally run pan-BBC computer network within a policy framework
where staff are subject to a range of controls. This way of working means that
centralised purchasing on behalf of the BBC is at the keenest economic price yet
individual transactions are able to be efficient and effective.
Combined with a range of other financial controls, this way of working operates
strongly in public interest providing value for money and other advantages. An
alternative, whereby members of BBC staff purchased everything they needed such
as supplies, transport, resources and services out of their own pockets and then
claimed back the money later would be uneconomic, inefficient and inherently risky
way to spend public funds.
Within this overall context, there remain some circumstances where staff pay for
things on behalf of the BBC out of their own pocket and claim these expenses back
afterwards. The BBC has disclosed information about expenses for a number of
years under FOI, and has always defined expenses as those costs met by members
of staff and then reclaimed. This definition has not been queried before, and appears
to be the plain English interpretation accepted by most people of the word
expenses. Information about centrally booked items has previously been separately
requested and disclosed.
In conclusion, the reviewer does not agree with the requester’s rationale for
broadening the widely accepted definition of “expenses”. I also do not agree with
the requester’s assertion that the BBC’s definition of expenses is “counterintuitive”.
I want to reassure you that purchasing by BBC staff on behalf of the BBC takes
place in a sound internal control environment. The process operates in the public
interest by ensuring that public funds are economically and efficiently spent in the
furtherance of the BBC’s public purposes and the interests of its stakeholders. For
more information on how the BBC spends its money and for independent auditor’s
opinion, please refer to the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts – to be published
later this month on bbc.co.uk.

Was the BBC’s estimate of the time taken to deal with his request in line with the
Information Commissioner’s guidelines?
The requester cites the ICO guidance on redacting and extracting information, at
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_
application/redactingandextractinginformation.pdf
This distinguishes between extracting information (i.e. retrieving relevant

information) and redacting information (i.e. editing or blanking out information
which is considered to be exempt). The requester argues that the BBC has
incorrectly taken into consideration the time to redact the requested information
when applying the fees regulations to his request.
The BBC argues that its estimate of the time taken to deal with the request
excludes the time taken to redact. Instead it reflects the considerable amount of
time that would be required to extract the relevant information, which includes the
time required to separate out the information which is covered by the Act
(information about expenses not related to programme-making) from that which is
not covered by the Act (information about expenses which is related to
programme-making). In other words extracting, sorting and separating time was in
the estimate but redacting time was not.
Because Schedule 1 derogations apply to only a very small number of public
authorities, no specific guidance exists on the application of section 12 in this way.
However, the requester’s assertion regarding section 12 would apply in this way if
the BBC were asked to extract one particular type of information from a large
database containing that type of information, but also many other types.
I agree with the requester that in circumstances where the information could be
extracted by simple manipulation of the database fields, then it is unlikely that it
would take more than two-and-a-half days, and therefore the request ought not be
refused under section 12.
However, if the extraction could only be done manually, and the database related to
all staff in the BBC which employs thousands of people, it is very likely that, as in
this case, it would take more than two-and-a-half days.
I am satisfied that it is the latter and therefore the BBC’s estimate of the time taken
to deal with the request was reasonable, and I agree with the BBC’s decision to
refuse the request on these grounds.

Other points raised The original request asked for detailed expenses records for all the BBC’s 22,000+
by the requester
employees. Instead, the BBC provided the website address where the expenses

details of 50 of its senior managers had been published recently.

With regard to the BBC’s response, the question arises whether any further scope

existed for the BBC to work with the requester to narrow down the request so
that it could respond within the Act’s fees regulations. For example would it be
possible to provide expenses details for a cross section of staff? i.e. more than 50
senior staff.
I have concluded that in such circumstances the request would still have been
properly refused because the time taken to process the request would very likely
be more than two-and-a-half days. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
manual intervention would be required to extract, sort and separate the
information. In addition, some information relating to “talent” is classed as personal
data and would not be disclosed as it would be unfair and a breach of section 40(2).
(as noted in the original reply (RFI20090726 – see appendix 1). Time would be
required to separate this information from the rest.

Conclusion
The request was one of a group of requests made to the BBC at about the same

time asking for expenses information.  The BBC’s response to the specific request
under review was beyond the time limit laid down by the Act. Therefore the BBC

had breached the Act.
Purchasing of goods and services by BBC staff using centralised procurement and
purchasing systems is good practice and an effective way to conduct corporate
business. It is normal for centrally transacted purchasing not to be defined as
employee “expenses”. I do not therefore agree with the requester’s assertion that
the BBC’s definition of expenses is “counterintuitive”.
When considering the request, the BBC would be required to separate expense
claim information held for the purposes of “journalism, art or literature” from that
which was not. I agree with the BBC’s original response that the time taken to
extract, sort and separate information would exceed two-and-a-half days.
I have determined that there is no simple or quick way to manipulate expenses data
in order to separate information linked directly to programme-making from
information not directly linked to programme-making. The database holding the
requested information was created to meet the financial needs of the BBC and does
not require this type of function.

Appendix 1 – Final Response provided to original request – RFI20090695

Freedom of Information Act request – RFI20090695

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”)
received on 12 May 2009 seeking:

“a comma separated value export of the database table(s) pertaining all BBC expense claims for the
2008/2009 financial year.”

Under section 1(1) of the Act, I can confirm that the BBC does hold the information you have
requested. As the BBC employs in excess of 22,000 people, an export of the entire database would
run into hundreds of thousands of entries. We would need to go through the report to remove any
information which is not covered by the Act – i.e. information the BBC holds for the purpose of
“journalism, art or literature” (see Schedule I, Part VI of the Act).

Therefore, I estimate that to deal with your request would take more than two and a half days;
under section 12 of the Act, we are allowed to refuse to handle the request if it would exceed the
appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been set by the Regulations (SI 2004/3244) as being £450
(equivalent to two and a half days work, at an hourly rate of £25).

However, in response to a different Freedom of Information request (RFI20090644), we have
released the expenses of the top 50 earners in the BBC for the 2008/09 financial year. I am attaching
a copy of this information, which I hope you will find helpful.

Selection of the top 50

In identifying the top 50, the BBC has followed recent decisions of the Information Commissioner
(including some relating to BBC personnel). The top 50 staff are those who meet the two-part test
applied by the ICO in the BBC decisions: namely whether the individuals have significant
responsibility for the expenditure of public funds and/or the creation of public policy. This includes
such persons as those on the Executive Board of the BBC, with the remainder at the level of
Controller, Head of Department or Director.

Individuals engaged by the BBC as talent have not been included in this list. This is also in line with a
recent decision notice of the ICO where the Commissioner decided that unlike senior BBC
employees, such as those listed in the appendix, the roles undertaken by “talent” did not relate to
the performance of a public function involving the spending of public money and/or the taking of
influential policy decisions. Consequently, individuals in those cases had a reasonable expectation
that their personal data would not be disclosed and it would be unfair and a breach of section 40(2)
of the Act to do so. We have therefore excluded any talent information from this list.

Information about Expenses

For the purposes of this FOI request, please note that “expenses” are those costs incurred
personally by BBC staff and subsequently re-claimed through the BBC’s expenses system in
accordance with the staff expenses policy. It is important to note that the BBC also operates a
central booking system for arranging travel and transport for staff, including accommodation, flights,
and taxis. This system involves using a small number of preferred suppliers in order to help
maximize value for money to the BBC. Where bookings are made using this system all costs are
settled directly by the BBC, without staff being required to incur any expenses individually. These
costs are not therefore re-claimed by way of expenses.

You should be aware the BBC does not give any employee an “expense account”. Only costs that
fall within the BBC’s expenses policy can be reclaimed and all are checked and authorised by a more
senior figure or a member of the BBC Finance community.

From time to time senior managers are asked to personally meet the costs of items that the BBC
does not regard as personal expenses. These could include, for example, the payment of a facility fee
for a location, or paying a venue at the end of a departmental meeting or away-day off BBC
premises. This is usually necessary where immediate payment is required and the BBC accounts
system cannot be used. In many of these circumstances, BBC policy is for the most senior member
of staff to settle the account, and the most convenient way of the BBC recompensing the manager
for this expenditure is through the expenses system. For clarification, the differentiation on
this point is made as follows: if the member of staff was present at an event and signed off as the
most senior person present then it is shown in the column entitled "Incurred by myself". When the
member of staff did not attend an event, but was signing off the expenditure as authorised
by themselves, for example a departmental away-day at which they were not present, then these
would be put into a second column entitled "Incurred by Department".

The BBC is a global organisation and senior leaders across all major organisations inevitably incur
some expenses. Whilst expenses are common across all major organisations, the BBC has a
rigorous expenses policy and we are careful to ensure value for money.

As well as the information contained in this release under the Freedom of Information Act, you may
be interested to know that the BBC is committed to a programme of increasing transparency and
accountability, particularly in relation to how it spends public money. We recently announced that
the salaries and detailed expenses of the members of the BBC Direction Group would be regularly
published from the autumn of this year, in line with the policy adopted by the BBC Trust. Further,
from today, the 25th of June, the BBC will be publishing detailed expenses of the Executive Board for
the past five financial years. The BBC is actively exploring how this might be significantly extended to
give the public further detailed information, including greater disclosure of senior executives’ pay and
expenses, and more detailed information on how the BBC spends the licence fee, including areas
such as total talent costs, taxis, flights etc. We will be announcing how we intend to do this in the
near future.

Information published today on bbc.co.uk

The BBC has received a large number of requests from journalists and members of the public for
expenses information and we recognise the significant public interest in this area. For this reason, we
have decided to make an exception from our standard processes and immediately publish the
information contained in this and other expenses related enquiries on the BBC FOI website, so that
information released is available to all.

Appeal rights

You may request an internal review of our decision that your request exceeds the appropriate limit.
You can either email [BBC request email] or write to BBC Information Policy & Compliance, Room 2252,
BBC White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TS. If you are not satisfied with the result of the
internal review you then have the right to seek a further review from the Information Commissioner.
Please see http://www.ico.gov.uk or contact the Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House,
Water lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625 545700 for details.

[The disclosure document, expenses for the top 50 earning BBC staff, is not attached here, but can be
accessed online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/publication_scheme/classes/disclosure_logs/finance.shtml ]

Appendix 2 – Request for internal review

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am surprised, disapointed and dissatisfied and hence writing torequest an internal review of
British Broadcasting Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Expenses'. I trust that now you have
taken time to comply with the FOI act 2000 earlier than 29th June.   that you will find it appropriate
that you conduct an internal review into this matter in preperation for the pending ICO review. I am
complaining for the following reasons:

I requested information - I have not recieved a proper response.

I received information - It was not within 20 working days.

I recieved an estimate of the expense of dealing with the request and the estimate was not in line
with the guidlines on such matters.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/redact
ingandextractinginformation.pdf

The information was not what I requested - I requested “a comma separated value export of the
database table(s) pertaining all BBC expense claims for the 2008/2009 financial year.” this is NOT by
any stretch of the imagination what I have recieved which is a redacted aggregation of the highest
50 paid BBC executives representing maybe 1% of the information requested for 0.22% of bbc
employees. I requested information on ALL 22,000 BBC employees, I expected/invited them to
redact infomation which tied any expenses to schedule 1 part 4 i.e. “journalism, art or literature"
and to redact information "relating to personal information" as per the data protection act" and
would like to point out that at no time did I request information pertaining to what the BBC
routinely alledges is "talent" or request only information which pertains to the top 50 renumerated
employees nor did I request any information relating to employees in a personally idendifiable
manner, for this reason I cannot understand why the BBC thinks centrally booked
transport/accomadation should have been redacted from the disclosure since centrally booked
transport/accomadation does by definition not relate to “journalism, art or literature" nor
"talent". I find it quite funny that the BBC has chosen to define expenses in such a narrow and
counterintuative manner. I would have though that to book a Taxi/plane/hovercraft to go from A to
B is an expense no matter how it is ultimatly paid for, and the manner in     which the expense is
financed be that via an “expense account” a "more senior figure or a member of the BBC Finance
community" or simply a "self verified statment" I truthfully care not the manner in which the expense
was financed (because at the root of all these claims the financier is always the license/tax payer)
simply the size and nature of the claim, along with any orther information you are willing to release. I
requested only the expenses not
necessarily the "Claimant" or even the "Title" and the information related only to the expenses
which the vast majority of BBC employees inccur (who may or may not be personally identifiable) in
their day to day business. I did not in any way or at any time      request that the data be grouped or
aggregated in any way, and certainly not such as for the purposes of catergorisation into"hospitality"
"Milage" "travel" or "facility fees" the BBC seems to have either completly misunderstood my request
or altered and misinterperated it for its own goals. I expressly and explicitly did not request any
information pertaining to "talent" or
     “journalism, art or literature” and hence I am quite taken aback that the BBC seem to have used
this as grounds to dismiss my request. I am well aware of the BBC expenses policy, the freedom of
information act and also the data protection act, hence why I requested ALL expense claims and
not just those of a handful ofpersonally identifiable senior managment which meet the two part test.

in order to provide a fair and balanced picture of where expenses are actually inccured and for what
purposes I request all the expenses not just those which are personaly identifiable. as per the ICO

(http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/redac
tingandextractinginformation.pdf) the BBC is incorrect in its assertation that releasing this
information would take more than two and a half days work, since the redaction is not covered by
section 12 because "A public authority is not permitted to take into account any time likely to be
spent: in considering exemptions that may apply to the information requested; and in redacting
exempt material". In any case a trival alteration to the extraction procedure (an alteration in your
SQL statment) could at a keystroke remove the information in the "Claimant" or "Title" columns and
also assuming you have a table containning a list of everyone you claim is "talent" the personally
identifiable nature of this information could easily be redacted and simply refered to as a "TALENT"
expense, it is false and disingenuous to present a case that this could not have been done in the
generous quantity of working day you have had to comply with this request.

I am interested that the BBC is committed to a program of increasing transparency, but when this
request has been met by such opacity. I frankly dont care what the BBC direction group has incured
in expenses in total terms I imagine it is mostly inconsequential I want the 21,950 (99.7%) other
employee expenses itemised row by row which were illicitly redacted from my request. I do not see
how (RFI20090644) has any bearing on my request since its scope and depth is so limited.