Ian Drummond LLB
Executive Director - Corporate Services
Glasgow City Council
City Chambers
George Square
Glasgow G2 1DU
Phone 0141 287 4521
Fax No 0141 287 3627
Our Ref: IAD/dmd/foir/2443831/cassidy7
Your Ref:
7 September 2009
M/- J Cassidy
E:mail to: [FOI #12177 email]
Dear M/- Cassidy
REQUEST FOR REVIEW UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (THE “ACT”)
I refer to your request for a formal review of your request of 19 May 2009.
Your Request
You requested the following information:-
“(1) Any information you hold, including e:mails and attachments, reports, briefings, memos, notes of meetings etc. With regards the “Fir Court Project” as mentioned in the on-line letter:
“If you are in agreement with this proposal, we could also look at the evaluation of the “Fir Court Project” which you agreed to refund for a further 6 months.”
HTTP:/www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/9570/response/26398/attach/13/22%20april%2008%20Updated%20letter%20to%20Brian%20Kinney.doc
Any information you hold that discusses the UKAB UASC reform proposal to disperse Children from English local authorities to Glasgow, specific to whether the children, would remain entitled to England and Wales Children(s) Act and subsequent Children (Leaving Care) Act support? As no other such provision, to the best of my knowledge appears to exist in Scottish child care law. These duties apply to Children upon arrival in the UK (England and Wales specifically) and therefore I am unaware of any reason why these duties and post 18 year old duties would cease by mere dint of the Children being dispersed to Scotland. LAC13(2003) Guidance in these duties is set out in and are also mentioned in detail in the so called Hillingdon Judgment, which concerns that authorities unlawful practices.”
The Decision
A decision letter by Robert Gibson, Senior Officer, Rights and Enquiries Section, Social Work Services was sent to you on 8 June 2009.
This letter stated that in relation to (1) above that the Fir Court Project is run by the Mungo Foundation commissioned by Glasgow City Council and it would not be possible to raise all the information held by the Council by reason of personal details held and the possible tender exercise which would be required under European Procurement Law if the Project were to be extended. Mr Gibson also stated it would be helpful to us to supply the information you require if you could outline the particular areas which you would like information on. In relation to (2) above Mr Gibson advised that/…
2
that general discussion about the UASC Reform Programme never reached this level of detail. Glasgow City Council therefore cannot comment on which legislation would be used. Before Glasgow City Council would accommodate and support UASC dispersed from England and Wales authorities, the matter would be considered and a report would be prepared and go to the appropriate Council Committee. Any such report would then become a public document.
Supplementary Correspondence
On 11 June 2009 you responded to Mr Gibson with the following.
“With regards the information you provided about the “Fir Court Project”, would it not be possible to extract the information you hold, as suggested in my original e:mail?
If you consider that exemptions exist on the “Fir Court Project” requests, please advise what they are and whether any Public Interest Test applies.
If you are not minded to disclose any “Fir Court Project” information, can you please provide a summary of the information you do hold.
I understand that this e:mail did not receive a response as Mr Gibson was absent from the office due to ill-health. I apologise for the oversight in this matter and understand that Mr Gibson has now written to you separately on this matter.
The Review
You sought a review of the response to your request on 10 August 2009.
The Review Decision
I have now carried out a review of Mr Gibson's letter as set out above. In relation to your request for information and request for review, I confirm that the Council holds some of the information you requested. However, on inspecting our records and the information we hold, it would appear that the information we hold would cost the Council more than the upper limit allowed by Section 12(a) of the Act and the Fees Regulations made under the Act (this limit is currently £600.00).
I would advise that there is a wide range of information held by Social Work Services regarding the “Fir Court Project” (now known as the “Campus Service”). The Project has been in existence since 2004 and it is estimated that Social Work Services hold in excess of one hundred and forty files (140) with reference to the Project over the 5 year period. Not all of the files are live files and accordingly some of this number will have been archived.
These files are located in various sites across the Council's Social Work Services offices and the content will cover policy files, commissioning files, financial files and service user files. Given the nature of the information contained in the files it is anticipated some of the information will be personal data relating to service users. The information would be exempt from release by way of a request under Section 1 of the Act because of the exemption contained in Section 38(1)(b) of the Act.
The files, both live and archived, would require to be located, retrieved and prepared for release.
As Mr Gibson set out in his letter consideration would also be required to be given to any tendering exercise which the Council would require to commence, this would require to be carried out under the requirements of the procurement legislation contained in the European Procurement Directives and incorporated into Scots Law by way of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006.
There are also inherent difficulties in searching for e:mail messages which may not have been printed and placed on file or not specifically referenced by officers in terms of dates sent, sender and recipient. The cost of searching manual and electronic files and retrieving archive materials to ascertain if reference has been to the Projects (or Campus Services) would, be more than the upper limit allowed by the regulations made under Fees Regulations made under the Act.
3
As the Council are aware of the duties incumbent on public authorities in terms of the Act and by way of providing advice and assistance I enclose a Campus Service Review Report drafted September 2008 comprising 154 pages and which was prepared by Social Work Services Commissioning Team. I trust this report will be of assistance to you in your request for information.
The Council acknowledge the significant public interest in openness and transparency and recognises that any request under Section 1 of the Act is potentially in the public interest. The Council would still be obliged to release the information in response to your request unless the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information should the costs under the Fees Regulation not apply. With regard to the potential competitive tendering exercise the Council believe there is a significant public interest whereby the Council should be able to conduct genuinely competitive tendering exercises where none of the companies who would wish to submit their tender would have advance knowledge of the prices their competitors would quote and so all tenderers tender at the most sustainable competitive level.
Appeal of the Review Decision
If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to make an application within 6 months of receipt of this letter for a decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, KY16 9DS.
Yours faithfully
IAN DRUMMOND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - CORPORATE SERVICES
Enc.
Glasgow - Proud Host City of the 2014 Commonwealth Games