Dear Crown Commercial Service,

As you know we have been requesting data on the MISO Returns provided by suppliers to your organisation for over two years and we’ve had only a small amount of success. We now understand that this data is held in a single database and is easy for your team to access, so we are making a wider request for the data held in the database.

Under the FOI Act, I am requesting the following:

Item 1
Database details
Please provide the following information about the MISO Returns database. Please note this is not a request for data held in the database, rather it is a request to find out about the table structure of the database. We would be happy to receive a DDL statement if this is easier for you to provide.
1. The database software in use (e.g. PostgreSQL v10.0.1)
2. A list of tables in the database
3. A list of fields in each of the returns tables, including the field types used

Item 2
Database metadata
Please provide the following information about the data stored in the database.
1. The total number of returns in the database.
2. The date of the earliest return in the database
3. A list of all of the framework contracts that you have accepted returns for

Item 3
Details of returns
Please provide the following information for every return in a csv file. Please note, we require up-to-date data for the point at which that you respond to our request, so if this takes a year for you to respond, then you’ll need to provide the most recent data available in the database including data published after the date of this request:
1. The unique identifier used to for each return
2. Name of the framework
3. The unique identifier for the framework (if held)
4. Name of the supplier
5. The unique identifier used for each supplier
6. The Companies House number of each supplier (if held)
7. Name of the buyer
8. The unique identifier used for each buyer (if held)
9. Date of transaction (Month and Year)
10. Value of transaction

You have already provided data openly for the Digital Marketplace tenders (https://digitalmarketplace.blog.gov.uk/s...) and to us in response to previous requests, so I am hopeful that you can provide the output requested without resorting to unnecessary delays.

You will know that under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act that you have a duty to provide us with assistance in achieving a satisfactory outcome to our request (https://ico.org.uk/media/1624140/duty-to...).

If your response to item 3 is complex or requires further clarification, I would welcome a timely response to items 1 and 2, as this data would allow us to improve the precision of our request regarding item 3. Once we have information about the database, we’d be more than happy to construct the SQL query required to extract the data for you.

Given our previous experience of requesting this data, it seems likely that you will initially refuse our request. So, for the benefit of the ICO, who might well be required to adjudicate on this request, let me outline our position and summarise your previous objections to providing this data, so that we can be absolutely clear about how far we’ve already come and hopefully avoid the need to rehearse previous arguments:

1. We are NOT requesting any information on supplier pricing.
2. We are NOT requesting any information about the way a supplier conducts their business with Government, including anything that might be deemed proprietary.
3. We are NOT requesting any information that might not be ordinarily released by transparency rules covering the public sector.
4. We ARE requesting similar information to the data that is voluntarily made public by the Digital Marketplace frameworks.
5. We ARE requesting information that you have previously supplied to us in a piecemeal fashion, when we have made specific small requests.

Previously, you have argued that the following reasons override the public interest in releasing data on spending with suppliers:

1.That the data we are requesting is commercial in confidence, but with the very specific and narrow data that we require, much of which will already be in the public domain, it is hard to argue that knowing whether or not one body spent money with a supplier is actually a breach of confidentiality.
2. That it would take you a disproportionately long time to gather the data, when in fact we know that the data is held in a single, central database, which is easy to access.
3. That our requests might damage the interests of suppliers. We can show that suppliers have not suffered losses as a result of transparency and would welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to you and the ICO on this matter.
4. That our requests may damage the interests of customers of the Crown Commercial Service. It is hard to argue that more intelligence about the performance of suppliers on frameworks would damage customers. The principle of information asymmetry has shows that increasing the information available to suppliers improves market efficiency and would appear to be relevant here.
5. That our requests might damage the interests of the Crown Commercial Service, because additional transparency might dissuade suppliers from bidding for Crown Commercial Service Contracts. It is worth reiterating that we are not asking for pricing data, and the principle of releasing information about a framework does not necessarily cause harm to Crown Commercial Service. The Crown Commercial Service exists to provide savings to the public sector, and we would argue that exposing your work to a small level of scrutiny might actually secure more savings for the public sector. It is also worth mentioning that our analysis may also show where suppliers have been failing to pay fees due to Crown Commercial Service and therefore the release of this data could provide a financial benefit to Crown Commercial Service.
6. That you are required to seek permission from every buyer and supplier named before publication. However, you do not do this for Digital Marketplace suppliers and buyers. There is a very clear set of requirements for public bodies to publish details of their contracts and spending, establishing a clear precedent for transparency over secrecy in this matter.

As you have already responded to provide data to use on a number of smaller requests, but rejected larger, broader requests, I can only assume that your objections are based on the amount of data we are requesting, and its subsequent usefulness, rather than the nature of the data released.

You will be aware of the Prime Minister’s recent letter regarding transparency, which clearly states the need for spending and contracting transparency: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....

I believe that this shows that there is a clear public interest in releasing spending and contracting data and that successive Prime Ministers believe this to be the case. Recent events regarding Carillion have only heightened the interest in public contracts. Whilst we recognise that there is a chance that some of the data may be embarrassing for the Crown Commercial Service, this is not a sufficient reason for blocking the release of that data.

We recognise that some data may be difficult for you to release and we are willing to accept that some public records cannot be released, but that in the main, this data should be openly available. We would welcome an open discussion with Crown Commercial Service and the ICO about the data requested and what you are able to release to us. Furthermore, we are very happy to work with your team and the ICO to show evidence that demonstrates that transparency does not damage customers or suppliers, and to allay any fears regarding the release of this data.

It would be extremely wasteful for this request to end up in Tribunal, but we are willing to pursue this request that far.

I await your response within 20 working days.

Yours Faithfully,

Ian Makgill

Dear Crown Commercial Service,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Commercial Service's handling of my FOI request 'MISO returns - Database details, database metadata and details of returns'.

On 10 July 2018, I sent an FOI request for database details, database metadata and details of returns on MISO returns.

On 7 August 2018, you partially fulfilled my request, citing that the request was vexatious because the effort required to meet the request would be grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on its time and resources in order to validate all information in scope.

However, you will know that under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act that you have a duty to provide us with assistance in achieving a satisfactory outcome to our request, (https://ico.org.uk/media/1624140/duty-to...). For this reason, I would like to request an Internal Review of the initial response to my Freedom of Information request.

I am aware that the Cabinet Office will not normally accept an application for internal review if it is received more than two months after the date that the reply was issued, and I have sent a new FOI request if this is the case, however I am hoping you will still be able to accept my request for an internal review.

Yours faithfully,

Spend Network