TfL Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report of 19 July 2012

The request was partially successful.

Dear Transport for London,

On 19 July 2012, the Remuneration Committee of the Board of Transport for London presented a "Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report" prepared in conjunction with the firm Towers Watson. This document can be found on the TfL website at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/c...

Please provide me with any TfL meeting minutes, email discussions, management directives, Terms of Reference, Budget, letters of instruction, and payments connected with the formulation, preparation and execution of this report for the Remuneration Committee.

Yours faithfully,

Tom Kearney

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Kearney

 

TfL Ref:  FOI-0547-1314

 

Thank you for your email received on 28 July 2013 asking for information
about the Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report.

 

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

 

A response will be provided to you by 29 July 2013.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Graham Hurt

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team | Transport for London

Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Kearney

 

TfL Ref:  FOI-0547-1314

 

Thank you for your email received on 28 June 2013 asking for information
relating to the Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection
Report.

 

Your request is being considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and TfL’s information access policy. 
I can confirm we do hold the information you require.

 

However, in accordance with Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act,
I am writing to let you know that we are still considering whether a
qualified exemption applies to the requested information and have not yet
reached a conclusion. The exemptions under consideration are s36
(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and s43 (prejudice
to commercial interests). It is estimated that a decision will be reached
by 27 August 2013 and I will write again to inform you of that decision.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached
information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Graham Hurt

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team | Transport for London

Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

TfL Ref: FOI-0547-1314

Your letter notifying me that TfL was delaying a response to my request stated that you would have a response by 27 August 2013. It is now 28 August 2013.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Kearney

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Kearney

 

TfL Ref:          IRV-052-1314

 

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received by
Transport for London (TfL) on 28 August 2013.

 

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act due to the
delay in providing you with a response.  

 

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance
with TfL’s Internal Review Procedure, which is available via the following
URL:

 

[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/f...

 

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 25 September
2013. However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will
contact you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as
possible.

 

In the meantime, we are continuing to work on your request and will
provide you with a response as soon as possible.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Graham Hurt

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team | Transport for London

Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

[2][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I did not ask for an Internal Review. I simply asked you where was the answer you promised to provide me by 27 August 2013.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Kearney

Dear Transport for London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'TfL Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report of 19 July 2012'. TfL's response to my request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, TfL should have responded by now.

The details of my request are as follows:

On 19 July 2012, the Remuneration Committee of the Board of
Transport for London presented a "Chief Officer Benchmarking and
Peer Group Selection Report" prepared in conjunction with the firm
Towers Watson. This document can be found on the TfL website.

Please provide me with:

(1) any TfL meeting minutes, email discussions,
management directives,
(2) Terms of Reference, Budget, letters of
instruction, and payments connected with the formulation,
preparation and execution of this report for the Remuneration
Committee.

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

Yours faithfully,

Tom Kearney

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Kearney

 

TfL Ref: FOI-0547-1314

 

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 28 June
asking for information relating to the Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer
Group Selection Report. I apologise for our delay in providing this
response.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and our information access policy.  I
can confirm that we do hold the information you require. Please see the
attached documents. Papers relating to the 2012 meetings of the
Remuneration committee, including the agenda, are published at
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tf...

 

In accordance with the FOI Act, TfL is not obliged to supply some personal
data as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to
information under section 40(2) of the FOI Act.

 

In this instance the exemption has been applied as disclosure of this
personal data would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, specifically
the first principle of the DPA which requires all processing of personal
data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal
information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed
and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions of Schedule 2 of the Data
Protection Act which would make the processing ‘lawful’.

 

This exemption to the right of access to information is an absolute
exemption and not subject to an assessment of whether the public interest
favours use of the exemption.

 

Some information contained in the attached documents that does not relate
to the Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report has also
been redacted as it falls outside the scope of your request.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Simon Guild

Information Access Manager

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Transport for London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'TfL Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report of 19 July 2012'.

On 28 June, I made the following request:

On 19 July 2012, the Remuneration Committee of the Board of
Transport for London presented a "Chief Officer Benchmarking and
Peer Group Selection Report" prepared in conjunction with the firm
Towers Watson. This document can be found on the TfL website at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/c...

Please provide me with any TfL meeting minutes, email discussions,
management directives, Terms of Reference, Budget, letters of
instruction, and payments connected with the formulation,
preparation and execution of this report for the Remuneration
Committee.

In your letter of 26 July, you stated you couldn't answer my question until you reviewed my request as follows:

"However, in accordance with Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act, I am writing to let you know that we are still considering whether a
qualified exemption applies to the requested information and have not yet
reached a conclusion.The exemptions under consideration are s36
(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and s43 (prejudice
to commercial interests)"

Your promised me a response by 27 August.

After receiving no response from you on 27 August, I requested an internal review.

After more delays in contravention of the FOIA, on 3 November 2013 I requested *another* internal review to explain your delay. On 18 November you responded that you refused my original request because:

"In accordance with the FOI Act, TfL is not obliged to supply some personal
data as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to
information under section 40(2) of the FOI Act.

In this instance the exemption has been applied as disclosure of this
personal data would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, specifically
the first principle of the DPA which requires all processing of personal
data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal
information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act which would make the processing ‘lawful’."

Seeing that s40(2) was never raised as an issue before *in any previous correspondence* and that you never provided any response to your raising of s36 and s43 as issues for the delay, I can only assume that you not answering my question in direct contravention of the FOIA.

Please reconsider your rejection of my original request and provide me with a detailed explanation for the reasons for the delays and contradictory responses associated with your processing of my request.

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

Yours faithfully,

Tom Kearney

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Kearney

 

Request for internal review

 

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received by
Transport for London (TfL) on 2 December 2013.

 

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance
with our Internal Review Procedure, which is available via the following
URL:

 

[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/f...

 

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 3 January
2014. However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will
contact you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as
possible.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Graham Hurt

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team | Transport for London

Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

[2][TfL request email]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

Ref: IRV-080-1314

Date 29 January 2014

Dear Mr Kearney

Subject: Outcome of internal review

The internal review of Transport for London’s (TfL) response to your request for Information held in connection with the 2013 Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report has been completed. The review was carried out by an independent Review Panel (‘the Panel’) including individuals who were not involved in the handling of your request.

On 28 June 2013 you requested information held in connection with the 2013 Chief Officer Benchmarking and Peer Group Selection Report. On 26 July you were advised that TfL was extending the time limit in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This allows a public authority to extend the 20 working day time limit up to a ‘reasonable time’ to determine whether or not the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining an exemption. A target date of 27 August was given for provision of a response. This target was exceeded by a considerable amount of time and the response was not provided to you until 18 November 2013.

The Panel has identified four aspects of the handling of your request that need to be reviewed. These are compliance with s10 in relation to the time taken to respond, the consideration of s36 and s43 exemptions, the adequacy of the refusal notice issued on 18 November and finally, whether further information should be provided.

Timeliness of the response
Section 10(3) of the FOI Act allows extension of the 20 working day time limit by a reasonable time to consider the public interest in applying an exemption. You were advised that the time limit was to be extended for this purpose within the original 20 working day limit. The FOI Act does not define how long a ‘reasonable time” may be, but we advised you that we intended to reply by 27 August. We clearly exceeded this date by a considerable margin and in doing so we consider that we were in breach of Section 10 of the Act.

Consideration of the S36 and S43 exemptions
When we wrote to you on 26 July 2013 we advised that we were considering whether the public interest lay in withholding the requested information on the grounds that disclosure would be likely to be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs and would be likely to cause prejudice to commercial interests.

Section 36 provides an exemption if disclosure would or would be likely to:
(a) prejudice collective responsibility or the equivalent in Wales and Northern Ireland;
(b) inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views; or
(c) otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

It was considered that disclosure of the report, emails and meeting minutes might prejudice the free and frank exchange of views in future. However, it was subsequently decided that even if such prejudice were caused, the public interest lay in disclosure of the information as TfL has already published a significant amount of information about remuneration of its senior officials. No information was withheld or redacted using Section 36 of the FOI Act.

Section 43(2) provides an exemption if disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it). Some information which identified the breakdown of costs by Towers Watson was contained in the contract extension agreement. It was decided that the public interest lay in disclosure of the total sum charged for the work, but the breakdown of that sum on page 8 of the .pdf should be redacted because of the likelihood of prejudice to Towers Watson’s and TfL’s commercial interests.

Towers Watson operate in a competitive market place and disclosure of this information would be likely to disadvantage them when bidding for future work. It is important to bear in mind that disclosures under FOI are considered to be made to the general public, and not just to the requester. Therefore, we consider that the disclosure of the detailed breakdown of Towers Watson’s charges would put them at a competitive disadvantage in future, as their detailed costs would be made available to their competitors, whereas they would not be able to access the same data for other businesses.

We also consider that it is likely that in future TfL will not be offered discounts by contractors if they think it likely that such incentives would be publicised to their other clients, and that the disclosure of this information would be likely to discourage firms from providing us with the same level of detail, if TfL is unable to withhold commercially sensitive information. This would be likely to impede TfL’s ability to hire the best firms or obtain best value for money. Therefore these figures were withheld under s43(2).

Section 43 is a qualified exemption, so we must also consider the balance of the public interest. We recognise that there is a general public interest in openness and particularly in ensuring that public authorities obtain best value for money. However, we consider that we have already satisfied this interest by placing a considerable amount of information in the public domain, including the total sum paid for the work. We consider that it would not be in the public interest to risk prejudicing the commercial interest of either party and that this would risk opening TfL to avoidable legal action. As mentioned, we consider that the disclosure of the detailed costs would be likely to discourage firms either from working with TfL, or from providing us with detailed costs and/or discounts. Taking these factors into account, the review has concluded that the public interest favours upholding the use of the s43 exemption for this very limited data.

Adequacy of the refusal notice
The response provided to you on 18 November included the documents we were disclosing as well as a link to papers published on the TfL website. Whilst it explained that some personal data was withheld in accordance with S40(2) of the FOI Act, it could have gone further and explained that this data consisted of signatures, 3rd party email addresses and personal telephone numbers.

The refusal notice was inadequate because it did not explain the information withheld from page 8 of the contract extension agreement .pdf under Section 43(2), which is explained in the section above. This information should have been included and we apologise that through oversight it was not.

The refusal notice also explained that some collateral information contained in the supplied documents that did not relate to your request had also been redacted. As this information was not covered by your request there is no requirement to link its redaction to any exemption.

The review has noted your concerns that s40 was not mentioned at the time that TfL applied the extension for considering the public interest, but considers that this does not indicate any deliberate intention not to comply with your request. Section 40 is an absolute exemption, so the consideration of the public interest does not apply, but it must be considered in any situation where personal data may be placed into the public domain. We regret that the response was provided to you late and therefore in breach of the requirements of section 10, but this is not a reason to release personal data into the public domain where doing so would breach the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Review of redactions
The Panel has reviewed the redactions made and finds that with the exception of the pricing information on page 8 of the contract redaction agreement .pdf and the aforementioned redactions of personal data, all information held by TfL that falls under your request has been disclosed to you.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this internal review, you can refer the matter to the independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act at the following address.

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

A complaint form is available on the ICO’s website (www.ico.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely

Simon Guild
Information Access Manager

show quoted sections