FOI 78

Written evidence from the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust Security markings: None 1. Purpose To update the Deputy Director of Informatics of the issues associated with the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) 2000. 2. Executive Summary The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen NHS Trust agree that the FoIA, on the whole, works effectively with processes implemented to support the Act. The Act does promote openness, accountability and transparency but this is at a high cost to the Trust. The Act is abused by requests submitted by individuals/organisations wishing to have a competitive advantage in business; Students requesting information which they would ordinarily have researched themselves, and the press looking for information to create storylines. 3. Background The Justice Select Committee has launched a call for written evidence for its scrutiny review of the Information Act 2000. The Committee invites evidence on (although respondents are welcome to address additional issues):

Does the Freedom of Information Act work effectively? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Freedom of Information Act? Is the Freedom of Information Act operating in the way that it was intended to?

The Trust would like to contribute to this evidence and has the following comments with this regard:

Does the Freedom of Information Act work effectively?

On the whole the Act works effectively due to the processes put in place by the Trust. The registration and management of each request is known throughout the team, but there continues to be constant pressure on Trust staff due to the tight timescales involved in the act, and the pressures of other day-to-day business. The Trust has seen a year on year increase of requests since 2007 and indeed it is anticipated that there will be an estimated 23% increase for this financial year alone. In addition, the questions raised in many of the requests are numerous and are often quite difficult to locate the answers. There was no additional resource to fund the extra work and although charges can be levied, the Trust has never done so.
M:\LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\Freedom of Information\EVIDENCEWRITTEN\Memoranda\FOI 78- Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen NHS Trust.doc -1-

The Trust has received 271 requests from 1 April 2011 to 31 December 2011 that contain 1,812 separate points to address. Requests are received via the FoI Email account that is linked to the publication scheme or by letter. There are some requests received elsewhere in the Trust that have been redirected to the FOI team, for example where a request for information may form part of a Complaint. The FoIA requests to the Trust since 2005 have increased considerably. The chart below shows number of requests made to the Trust between 2005 to April - December 2011
300 250 250 226 270 271

st

st

FOI 78

200

182

150 106 100 81

50

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The chart below shows points raised 2005 and April to December 2011
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 397 638 493 1295 1274 1802 1812

M:\LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\Freedom of Information\EVIDENCEWRITTEN\Memoranda\FOI 78- Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen NHS Trust.doc -2-

FOI 78
The request themselves come from all types of people/organisations, including from members of public (105), Journalist/Media (44), Private companies (56) and Government officials/MPs (6) to name a few. Types of requestors from April to December 2011
120 105 100

80 56 60 44 40 18 20 2 0 CB GO HP HG JM MP MS PT PC PA SL SU 6 13 1 1 1 7 17

Key:

CB Charitable Body GO Government Official/MP HP Health Professional HG Help Group JM Journalist/Media MP Member of the Public MS Member of Staff PT Patient PC Private Company PA Public Authority SL Solicitor SU Student/Education

Between 1st April 2011 and 31st December 2011 we have received 3 requests for reviews under the Freedom of Information Act placing a further burden on resources. All of the decisions have been upheld.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Freedom of Information Act?

M:\LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\Freedom of Information\EVIDENCEWRITTEN\Memoranda\FOI 78- Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen NHS Trust.doc -3-

FOI 78
Strengths Supports openness, accountability and transparency Weaknesses No resource is available as no charges are made. Exemption used if a large request over 18hrs worth of effort. Time period of 20 days is often unrealistic. Overlap between FoI and Data Protection Act is not always understood by the requestor. The impact on services around the Trust can be significant as some departments are constantly required to submit information. Difficult to plan what can be published as similar requests are often not quite the same as published material. One request can involve multiple departments around the Trust because it contains multiple questions within.

Is the Freedom of Information Act operating in the way that it was intended to?

In the opinion of this Trust, the Act does not operate in the way it was intended to. We believe the Act is misused, illustrated by the following examples: Requests made by companies in order to receive information which would give then a competitive advantage. Completing research work on behalf of the requestor. Identify staff details in order to market them for specific products. Used by Journalists (sometimes using non-press email accounts) to gather information, just in case they can create a storyline. Used by staff to answer issues that should ordinarily be addressed within the staff/management role, so negating the openness culture it was written for.

4. Other issues to raise The Act has been misused when some of the requests are clearly very obscure or resource intensive. For instance: Request received for details of any information about ghosts around the Trust buildings. Request received for details of how many feng shui consultants were employed by the Trust or any staff who had had feng shui training. More frequent requests are very labour intensive and have involved many different departments and specialties involving in some instances up to 15 different staff members. Some requestors put in requests every month around different subjects therefore avoiding the vexatious status. Many requests are sent to numerous NHS organisations (round robin) and the issues raised and work completed is therefore multiplied across this part of the public sector.

M:\LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\Freedom of Information\EVIDENCEWRITTEN\Memoranda\FOI 78- Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen NHS Trust.doc -4-

FOI 78
The Trust looks forward to the outcome of the review. February 2012

M:\LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY\Freedom of Information\EVIDENCEWRITTEN\Memoranda\FOI 78- Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen NHS Trust.doc -5-