Factor 8 wins Department of Health FOI Ruling on Compensation
The Information Commissioners Office has ruled that the department of health and social care (DHSC) must disclose information requested by Factor 8 that it has been witholding.
The information requested relates to e-mail correspondence held by William Vineall (Director of NHS Quality, Safety and Investigations) during the period 10th August 2022 - 31st August 2022 that relates to Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payments.
William Vineall gave evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, alongside Matt Hancock in 2021.
William Vineall
DHSC attempted to withhold the information on four separate grounds:
"Legal professional privilege" - the ICO has allowed DHSC to withold some information on these grounds.
"Government policy" - the ICO has ruled DHSC must disclose most of the information it was withholding on these grounds.
"Relations within the UK" - the ICO has ruled DHSC cannot withold the information in this way.
"Law enforcement" - the ICO has ruled DHSC cannot withold the information in this way.
After detailed consideration of the information request, in relation to the "Government Policy" exemption, the ICO said:
"Whilst the remaining information is more focused on the design and mechanics of the policy rather than on weighing options, the Commissioner does consider that it would shed some light on how those decisions are made and implemented. He is therefore of the view that the balance of the public interest should favour disclosure of most of the information."
In addressing and refuting DHSC's claims that disclosure could lead to fraud, the ICO said inter-alia:
"The public authority did not specify, in its response to the complainant, what crime(s) it considered would be more likely to occur if the information were disclosed. It later explained to the Commissioner that it was concerned that disclosure would increase the risk of fraud.
The Commissioner has considered whether disclosure of the withheld information itself would encourage fraud or make it more difficult to prevent fraud. He is of the view that it would not.
The references to fraud and fraud prevention within the withheld information are high-level and generic. The mere mention of the words “fraud” or “counter-fraud” within emails does not, of itself, make fraud more likely or less preventable. The Commissioner is not persuaded that there is sufficient detail within the majority of the correspondence that would make it easier for any person to commit fraud or harder to identify those who are attempting to do so. Nor does the withheld information indicate any counter-measures likely to be included in the final compensation scheme."
In addressing and refuting DHSC's claims that disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice relations between two or more administrations in the UK, the ICO said inter-alia:
"Having reviewed the public authority’s arguments, the Commissioner does not consider that disclosure of this information would prejudice the UK Government’s relations with any of the devolved institutions. In his view, the public authority’s arguments do not draw a direct enough causal link between disclosure and the claimed prejudice to engage the exemption."
DHSC must now disclose the previously withheld material within one month. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOI Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
