Dear Northern Ireland Policing Board,

Could I please be provided with a copy of the paper that was presented to the Resources Committee by The Director Of Police Injury Benefits Ms Aislinn McGuckin on the 16th December 2021. As referred to at 6.6 of the minutes of the meeting.

Could I please be provided with a copy of the Consultation document as referred to in the minutes.

Also any other documents generated by this consultation to include but not limited to the document that contains the views of the Resources Committee as referenced by Ms McGuckin in the penultimate paragraph of the minutes.

Yours faithfully,

14202

Dear Northern Ireland Policing Board,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Northern Ireland Policing Board's handling of my FOI request 'Resources Committee Paper on the NIAO report 2020'.

Thank you for your unexpected, but welcome response.

I would like to request an internal review of your response for the following reasons.

I will firstly address the issues applicable to the first Document requested.

[a ] Could I please be provided with a copy of the paper that was presented to the Resources Committee by The Director Of Police Injury Benefits on the 16th December 2021. As referred to at 6.6 of the minutes of the meeting.

This document is described by its author Ms Aislinn McGuckin as a :
Progress report on the implementation of recommendations within Northern Ireland Audit Office report entitled “Injury on duty schemes for officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service”

And its purpose was:

For Members to note the progress made by key stakeholders since the publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report entitled “Injury on duty schemes for officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service”

And the only action requested of the Resources Committee on foot of this paper was to NOTE is contents.

This was of a routine document being used for a routine purpose and not a document that would contain the type of information that would cause the prejudice envisaged by its full release.

The report on which the paper refers too was published in full including its recommendations in March 2020 one year and 10 months prior to the meeting in which it was being discussed.

At the time of my request for this paper, the report from the NIAO had been in the public domain for almost 5 years and the paper itself 3 years.

Considering the content of the “paper" that has not been redacted, one can only conclude that the redacted content refers to the actual progress the Board has made on the implementation of its recommendations ie the Boards progress or otherwise on the saving of public money.

This type of information is always of interest to the public and essential in maintaining confidence in public bodies such as the NIPB.

The exemptions relied upon.

In denying assess to this document you have relied on elements of Sec 36 and in your response you have recorded it as follows:

• Section 36 Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs.
The specific sub sections being relied on are Section 36 (2) (b) (i) and (ii), and Section 36

(2) (c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 36 (2) (b) states:

Information to which this section applies is exempt information if in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person disclosure of the information under this Act –

Would, or would be likely to inhibit –

(i) The free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii) The free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.

Section 36 (2) (c) states:

Information to which this section applies is exempt information if in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person disclosure of the information under this Act –

‘would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.’

The information, within the scope of your request, has been shown to the ‘Qualified Person’ who for the Board is the Chief Executive. The ‘Qualified Person’s’ opinion is that the exemptions at Section 36 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) and Section 36 (2) (c) are engaged.

As this exemption is a qualified exemption the Board has gone on to carry out a public interest test to decide whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Having conducted the public interest test it is felt that the public interest in engaging the exemption to withhold the information does outweigh the arguments towards disclosure at this point in time. A copy of the public interest test is attached at Annex A.

I suggest that in these circumstances this exemption has not been lawfully engaged for the following reasons.

[a] In Sec 36 [2] [b] [i] and [ii] the Qualified persons opinion does not distinguish between Would or Would Likely to inhibit etc.

[b] In Sec 36 [2] [c] The Qualified Persons Opinion does not distinguish between Would other wise prejudice or Would be Likely otherwise to prejudice .

[c] I believe this to be a “blanket ruling” because the Qualified Person did not consider the individual circumstances of my request instead they relied upon a generic public interest test that has been used multiple times in support of engaging elements of Sec 36 for a range of previously requested documents.

Evidence of this is contained within your own files and on “ What do they Know”.

[d] That the qualified persons opinion in these circumstances is not reasonable.

[e] That the opinion of the qualified person may have been delegated to another and was not the reasonable opinion of the C.E.O. of the NIPB.

[f] It is not clear that the prejudice envisaged by engaging Sec 36 [2][c] is different from the prejudice envisaged by Sec 36 [2] [b] [i] and [ii].

[d] This is not a “live” issue. The relevant discussions etc have taken place prior to the publication of the consultation several months ago.

I would therefor respectfully request that the NIPB consider the issues I have raised and release this paper un redacted as originaly requested.

My third request for information was as follows:

Also any other documents generated by this consultation to include but not limited to the document that contains the views of the Resources Committee as referenced by the Director Of Police Pension and Injury Benefits in the penultimate paragraph of the minutes.

As referred to in the minutes of the meeting on the 16th December 2021 the above document contains the views of the Resources Committee on the Consultation.

The Consultation is now complete and published on the DOJ website [your link at request 2 refers].

It is there for difficult to imagine any circumstance or reason why the views of a public body such as the Policing Board can not be made public on a consultation that has already been published.

To deny access to this document is not open, transparent and shrouded in secrecy.

Again I suggest that in these circumstances this exemption has not been lawfully engaged for the following reasons.

[a] In Sec 36 [2] [b] [i] and [ii] the Qualified persons opinion does not distinguish between Would or Would Likely to inhibit etc.

[b] In Sec 36 [2] [c] The Qualified Persons Opinion does not distinguish between Would other wise prejudice or Would be Likely otherwise to prejudice .

[c] It is not clear that the prejudice envisaged by engaging Sec 36 [2][c] is different from the prejudice envisaged by Sec 36 [2] [b] [i] and [ii].

[d] I believe this to be a “blanket ruling” because the Qualified Person did not consider the individual circumstances of my request instead they relied upon a generic public interest test that has been used multiple times in support of engaging elements of Sec 36 for a range of previously requested documents.

Evidence of this is contained within your own files and on “ What do they Know”.

I would therefor respectfully request that the NIPB consider the issues I have raised and release this document/s as originally requested.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Yours faithfully,

14202