(General Regulatory Chamber)
Information Rights
B e f o r e :
JUDGE FOSS
MEMBER PEPPERELL
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (2) JOHN PRING |
Respondents |
____________________
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Decision: The appeal is Allowed.
Substituted Decision Notice:
Organisation: Department of Work and Pensions
Complainant: Mr John Pring
The Substitute Decision – IC-283014-Y6R7
1. For the reasons set out below the Department of Work and Pensions was entitled to rely on section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold the information requested by the complainant on 27 November 2023.
2. The Department of Work and Pensions is not required to take any steps.
Background to the appeal
"For each of the last four calendar years (including 2023 to date) please tell me:
1) How many internal process reviews (IPRs) were completed.
2) How many completed IPRs involved the death of a claimant
3) How many completed IPRs (whether involving the death of a claimant or not) included recommendations relating to universal credit.
4) How many completed IPRs involving the death of a claimant included recommendations relating to universal credit.
For each year, please send me all the IPR recommendations that were made relating to universal credit, noting for each one whether it related to the death of a claimant."
Abbreviations used in this decision
"FOIA" means the Freedom of Information Act 2000
"IPR" means Internal Process Review
"the last paragraph" means the final paragraph of the Second Respondent's request to the Appellant dated 27 November 2023, which reads "For each year, please send me all the IPR recommendations that were made relating to universal credit, noting for each one whether it related to the death of a claimant."
Procedural matters relating to the determination of this appeal
The Appeal
The First Respondent's response
The Appellant's Reply
The legal framework
"Information intended for future publication.
Information is exempt information if—
(a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not),
b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at the time when the request for information was made, and
(c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a)."
The issues
Discussion and conclusions
Whether there was an intention to publish the information and whether the information was already held with a view to publication at the date of the request
Whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to withhold the information from disclosure until the intended date of publication.
"22. A public authority must consider whether it is reasonable, in all the circumstances, to withhold information until the date of publication.
23. There is some overlap between the factors to consider when deciding what is reasonable, and those which are relevant to the application of the public interest test. However, before applying the public interest test, a public authority must first determine whether or not it is reasonable, in all the circumstances, to withhold the information.
24. When doing so, a public authority should first consider whether or not it is:
25. A public authority may also wish to give thought to whether:
26. The closer to the date of publication, the more reasonable it is likely to be for the public authority to withhold the information until publication has taken place."
"The reason I was so insistent on DWP releasing the recommendations on universal credit made by the IPRs was because information relating to its safeguarding flaws has continued to emerge over the last three years. I believe it is critical that the public, politicians, disabled people's organisations, and welfare rights organisations are aware of the recommendations that have been made internally to improve the universal credit process following suicides and other deaths of claimants. This is so they can hold the department to account over whether those recommendations have been implemented. The lives of claimants are at risk and DVP shows no sign of accepting that the system needs through reform so that safety is its number one priority".
Does the public interest favour maintaining the exemption or disclosing the information?
Signed Judge Harris
Date: 11 June 2025