For the the third in our series of discovery workshops, we invited people working with FOI in public authorities to discuss how a network might support them — and we had more than 50 attendees joining us from a range of organisations and specialities. 

Discussion was lively and informative, with many expressing a thirst for community and knowledge-sharing in their roles.

We began with a group brainstorming session to discuss the challenges and obstacles people were facing in their work with FOI. 

From this, we pulled out the four major groupings below, so that smaller breakout groups could discuss what attempts had been made previously to mitigate these challenges, how effective these had been, and what an FOI Network could do to help.

Volume/complexity of requests

The increasing volume of FOI requests being received (a challenge which overlaps with that of the lack of resources, below) came up as a common issue, especially in conjunction with the increasing use of AI to generate requests. 

Here, there are two concerns: that AI is leading to more complex (if not necessarily more effective) requests; and that there is potential for a deliberate, malicious use of AI-generated FOI requests that might overwhelm an authority without their necessarily being aware of it. 

AI-generated/assisted requests are hard to formally recognise (although many are developing a ‘gut feeling’ around them), but also not inherently illegitimate. The group discussed tactics such as asking for clarification or ID, to flush out potentially inauthentic requests if suspected. A participant from the ICO also shared their recent AI guidance.

What could an FOI Network contribute here? Convening people was seen as useful in helping to understand patterns and themes between authorities, and shared approaches. This might take the form of directly organised networking activity, or supporting and promoting the informal networks that already exist. 

Building centralised resources might also help in creating tools for assessing thresholds of vexatiousness, while also providing better assistance to requesters on what good and bad degrees of complexity looks like in an FOI request. 

Locating information

Finding the information that is being requested is at the very heart of what an FOI officer does  — and can present a sizable challenge, especially where data is not collected or stored consistently. 

Discussion touched on issues around record keeping, proactive publication, resource and support from colleagues in sourcing/collecting  information: while the officer is the entry point for requests for information, they most likely hold little of it themselves. 

The amount of resource, support and priority is given to record keeping and FOI across the organisation affects how effective an officer can be. 

Information can only be easily accessed if it is stored well: some participants talked about requests for data that is not currently centrally held, but which requesters argue should be, leading to antagonistic interactions, despite the Information Officer not being to blame. 

Participants talked both about resourcing conflicts where other priorities were legitimately higher (eg “The information holders are clinical staff (NHS) and trying to get them to answer FOI requests when they are busy with patients is not reasonable”); but also situations where requests not taken seriously by senior teams, or other departments were slow to engage with them. 

As such, a key challenge for information officers is navigating both the formal and relational structures of their organisation, and a key challenge for an FOI Network is finding ways to support this role in developing a culture of transparency and good record keeping practice.

Part of this fits with our theory that good FOI statistics are an important factor in empowering information officers — because this visibility would make FOI performance between organisations more salient, and so a greater concern for senior decision-makers. 

Lack of resources

This group discussed the lack of resources, staffing and slashed funding — including elsewhere in the organisation, where diminished budgets can remove the institutional knowledge and capacity to effectively find information.

This was another area where there was great enthusiasm for better connections between officers across organisations, especially for the small, isolated teams. This would allow all to benefit from the knowledge of a wider group. 

For a longer-term fix to the lack of resources, a united network could lobby to central government. This isn’t just about “more money”, but the effective production of centralised resources that would help everyone (eg software, tools and licences). 

It was noted that redaction was a problem that was significantly time consuming, and available redaction tools (like Adobe Pro) were expensive and had limited licences. 

Proactive publication was also identified as a resourcing issue: in repeated requests for hot topics; but also in that publishing information can lead to more requests asking for specifics. 

From our point of view running WhatDoTheyKnow, this should still mean a greater public benefit from the information provided (people who wouldn’t ask for it have access to it), but does caution against an easy “publish more, request numbers decrease” approach — which does not align with the experience of practitioners. 

Working with requesters

This group discussed complaints resulting from a requester not knowing how to navigate the FOI system or complaints processes, and thoughts on more effective communication. A lack of requester awareness that the FOI route is not the same as the complaint route was identified, as well as public confusion between FOI and data subject rights. 

There is recognition that the requester doesn’t always know what information is available, which can lead to complex initial requests. But there was also a reported increase in adversarial/angry complaints, with a perception from request-makers that information was being denied when in didn’t exist. Where people are making requests across multiple authorities, getting refusals from some but not from others, can lead to this impression, while actually just reflecting differences in what data is collected. 

Better information and signposting about how to make a good FOI request was considered helpful, but within limits. Improved web forms can be helpful, but are not the only route in. At the same time, from a volume and overload point of view, a concern that greater awareness of the act might lead to more requests. This makes it important to define what we’re after as a network that can reconcile both a civil society “it’s good if more people are aware of and use their rights” with the practicalities of make that right real, which includes understanding of capacity.

In general, a lot of the potential in this area is around helping those making, and those answering requests to understand each other, or at least understanding more about how things work behind the scenes. 

 —

Finally, there was a more general discussion about forms a network can take, including the difficulty of convening both requesters and practitioners. Creating spaces for authority-side practitioners to talk helps with the smooth functioning of the FOI Act; these spaces would be more hesitant if always shared with civil society groups (and vice versa). 

We want to find ways to bridge these groups, while recognising that both individually can be constructive.  We need a set of layered discussions about how to make FOI work in practice, that can manage both communities of practice, also bridging both sides — recognising where common frustrations and collective goals can be served through better communication and coordination. This is inherently going to be complex, but will be so worthwhile to explore. 

—

Illustration: Alghozy

We continue with exploratory work that will help shape what the FOI Network will become, and how it will best serve specific types of those who use Freedom Of Information. Last week, in our second workshop of three, we convened journalists and specialist users to help us understand what the barriers are to their use of FOI, and how the Network will be best positioned to help.

More than 20 people joined us, from a range of organisations and specialities. 

A group brainstorming session surfaced the challenges and obstacles that attendees face when using FOI in their work. From these, we pulled out four priority themes; then we further discussed how best to mitigate these challenges; and what an FOI network could do to help.

Themes and conclusions

Passive pushback

The phrase “passive pushback” describes a culture within authorities not of active hostility, but in which FOI requests are not processed promptly, and where transparency is neither celebrated nor prioritised. 

Participants talked about different kinds of delays and obstructions, and strategies they’d attempted to get around this, including formal approaches such as referring to relevant ICO decision notices, or working with lawyers so correspondence included their letterhead. 

Could an FOI Network support, incentivise or celebrate a culture of openness and compliance within authorities? The group discussed the importance of both carrots and sticks (or shame and envy), rewarding and highlighting good practice; and potentially putting out comparative FOI statistics to make performance more visible and easy to benchmark. 

Active pushback

Active pushback covers more explicitly obstructive behaviour, including the use of rules and processes to slow down the progress of a request (for example, the use of public interest exemptions which may later be reconsidered and overturned), and coordination between authorities (where the intention is rarely to ensure everyone is being correctly open, but more likely to be working against the spirit of the ‘applicant blind’ principle that is written into the FOI Act). 

Participants shared the methods they’d attempted in the face of such stonewalling, including complaints to the ICO, “meta requests” asking authorities about their coordination mechanisms, and naming and shaming authorities for obstruction. 

As a network, we can provide peer support and resources around such tactics, and useful responses. 

But there is also an important advocacy angle, where building evidence and lobbying to change ICO/OSIC enforcement strategies can be an important collective rather than individual counter to obstructive approaches. 

A State of FOI report could cover both the positive “culture of openness” stories, but also dig more into patterns in obstructive responses. 

Writing/managing good requests

One important issue that came up in conversation was that it is a skill to write and manage FOI requests well — one that takes time to learn. It requires both an understanding of when legal approaches are helpful, but also a sense of what is possible through Freedom of Information (where a focus on specific information that already exists is required). 

Building this expertise can be a problem if FOI skills are not already well embedded in your organisation, and you are starting effectively from scratch. 

Here, community and training would be helpful. As a newcomer takes time to build up accumulated wisdom, peer support and mentor programmes could be helpful in walking through concrete examples of where FOI can and can’t be helpful. 

Going beyond that, we discussed the concept of training products and services that could help support increasing specialist use. These might include a custom newsletter featuring FOI tricks and tips, not aimed at first time users, but for journalists and specialists. The network already includes several organisations and individuals who could provide such training and expertise — and a willing audience. Here, the value of the network would be in joining people up, rather than trying to do everything itself.

The role of technology was also discussed. It can help with the challenge of managing requests  — one peron mentioned (unprompted!) WhatDoTheyKnow Pro as helpful for tracking and extracting data. 

Some are using AI to help them refine their requests, and we discussed the potential ways we could make AI assistance lean more towards “sharper, easier to process” requests, and away from the problems, already observed, of for example where AI hallucinates ICO notices and inserts them into correspondence. Here a network could help disseminate a ‘skill’ to bring more specialist knowledge towards shaping the AI’s actions; and a network that was also inclusive of FOI practitioners could help refine that from both sides. 

Understanding/using appeal processes

The final challenges we discussed were around understanding and using the appeal processes that are built in to the FOI system, noting that there’s a strong difference between Scottish FOI and the rest of the UK: legal appeals to OSIC are rare (and only possible on points of law). 

We again talked about the value of peer support; as well as building collections in response to common pushbacks. It was acknowledged, though, that taking things to tribunal is hard, and that one can be outgunned by the representation of the public authorities. 

Here it’s important that network activity is not just support for individuals, but lobbying and campaigning for improvements to the overall appeal system. 

This might be through pressing for improved data and information such as ICO timescales, and the tribunal returning to publishing current and upcoming cases; but also through lobbying for greater funding for regulators to be able to run an effective and timely system of appeal. 

Takeaways

Thanks to all who took part in the conversation, which has helped shape our understanding of what is useful activity to support journalists and specialist users.

Practical peer support for those in smaller organisations might be especially important — but dealing properly with the issues raised also involves wider campaigning activity around making sure the overall system is functional to be able to engage with. 

 —

In our third workshop, we move to a focus on those working in public authorities, where we want to explore more of these questions around supporting a culture of openness, and also our common interest in improving the quality and clarity of requests. If you are an Information Officer or practitioner, please do join.

 —

Image: GuerillaBuzz

Liz Vango-Smith is Sustainability and Climate Change Officer at Hart District Council, where she manages the climate change programme, helping to meet their carbon reduction targets both internally, and across the district. She recently took the time to speak to us about the part that the Council Climate Action Scorecards play in her work.

Liz explained how the Scorecards are part of a wider push toward staff engagement in climate action, right across the council: “We’ve been integrating climate messaging into team briefings, running service area climate workshops, and offering carbon literacy training.

“And the Scorecards have also informed discussions at the Officers’ Working Group, a cross-council meeting with representatives from across the different service areas, including procurement, estate management, planning, waste services, street care and grounds maintenance, as well as community engagement and the natural environment.

“The combination of all of these things has helped more officers recognise they have direct roles in supporting delivery of our climate action plan.”

So where, specifically, have the Scorecards helped? “We’ve used them to highlight areas where we could improve our scores, and to focus climate action where it may not be a current focus. The published scores help provide a little more weighting to encouraging collaborative action with colleagues, as they create a level of accountability across the whole organisation to play their part.

“Of course, we already monitor and report climate action, but the specific details in the scoring have helped us identify additional ways in which we can measure progress.”

Liz says that the Scorecards have helped them focus on messaging, as well: “They’re a helpful tool to provide confidence to stakeholders that we’re making meaningful progress in taking climate action — and we’ve also used them to help improve the way we inform the public about our progress, as it highlighted that perhaps we don’t always promote some of the good work we do.

“So we’ve now included reference to the Scorecards on the council’s website, to show the public we are improving our scores and to encourage them to find out more.”
Finally, there’s one other big, positive change where the Scorecards played a part:

“They brought the conversation back to our energy supply, and we realised we still didn’t have a 100% renewable tariff. We took action and now we do. Not only that, but a ‘deep green’ tariff that directly supports new, sustainable generation.”

Many thanks to Liz for sharing the impacts that the Scorecards have had on Hart Council and beyond. The Scorecards are a joint project between Climate Emergency UK and mySociety.

—

Image: Mr Ignavy (CC by/sa-2.0)

Have you visited sewagemap.co.uk? If you care about your local rivers, lakes and seas, you might want to take a look at this very graphic display of where sewage is being discharged across England.

If you’re wondering which sense of ‘graphic’ we mean, well, it’s both: first, it’s easy to see the information at a glance. And second, if there’s an active discharge right now, you’ll see an unapologetic poo emoji hovering above your postcode, alongside a brown river to show how the sewage will spread.

So this is a very useful site that makes it easy to understand the current picture around sewage discharges in your area. But if you’re hoping to understand how the situation is changing, you’re out of luck. You can’t see historic data, and that’s because — with the exception of Thames Water — the water companies don’t make it publicly available.

Infuriating, right? Good! Because, thanks to incorporation of our WriteToThem service into the site’s workflow, you can email your MP and let them know why you think this data is important.

And it’s working — we became aware of the site because of the number of messages it refers through to WriteToThem. Curious to know more, we spoke to Alex Lipp, one of the site’s two creators, to find out how it had come about, and what it has achieved.

“It’s kind of a pet project,” Alex explains. “One day I was was playing around and I noticed there was live sewage data being published by water companies. 

“Now, the data itself might be quite dull, but I realised that if you could make the link between sewage stats and the rivers that people know and love, they would be more likely to take an interest. 

“I work in fresh water science so I could handle the technical side of things; and Johnny, a friend from uni, works in geodata visualisation: he did the design. The set-up isn’t exactly high-tech: it’s literally running off my old laptop, plugged into an Ethernet port at work. 

“But it works — it performs well in search engines, and it had 350,000 views last year. We just want to present what would normally be very boring environmental data in a way that engages and makes sense to regular people. Existing sites only showed the points of discharge. It just seemed really obvious to me that what people wanted was information about impacted rivers, which was not included in the other visualisations at all. So I added it in!”

And that historic data would be useful too, right, so people could see whether things were improving or declining?

“Yes! Perhaps surprisingly, Thames Water are much better than other providers, when it comes to data transparency. They published data before all the others, and they have a live API you can query. 

“The other water companies make it difficult to query historical data – you generally have to send them an EIR request, because the law technically only requires them to share live data. It’s an oversight of the 2021 Environment Act that water companies aren’t required to publish historical data. So we note on the site where a company doesn’t make it available, and that’s the prompt for people to email their MP and explain why it’s needed.”

Why does the site only cover England? “The Environment Act doesn’t apply to Scotland or Wales – so that’s even more complicated. In Scotland and Wales, water companies are nationalised. They voluntarily publish similar data, but aren’t required to, and it’s in a different format.”

And so – with the site encouraging users to email their MPs, what makes for an effective message? Alex reckons it’s two things:

“Personal stories, and local stories. Just at a fundamental level it feels wrong for sewage to be going into rivers”. So, if you can explain what it means to you — maybe you’d like to take your kids swimming in that river, or you remember it being a clean place to play when you were a kid yourself? “Yes. It’s actually an issue most people can agree on, and there’s strong cross-party support.

“And I think this is a mutable thing that could be fixed…well, lets see if that’s true!”

What impacts has Alex seen so far? “We have a lot of users, and I get a lot of contact from members of the public — anglers, swimmers, campaign groups — who use the data we present and our visualisations to help gauge whether the rivers are safe. 

“I’m also fairly confident (but can’t directly prove) that MPs are using the site to get data for discussions that have taken place in Parliament, and are recorded in Hansard. And, most recently, the press team for the recent Dirty Business documentary used the site to get information for their campaign. 

“So, we have in general had a distributed impact via widespread use. I confidently think we have contributed to the wider discussion, applying pressure to fix the issue of sewage spills.”

We very much hope so! If you agree that data is the key to understanding the sewage spills issue, and being able to do something about it, head over to sewagemap.co.uk, check out your own postcode and then drop a line to your MP (you’ll find the link in the ‘discharge history’ tab when you click on an icon) to let them know.

The FOI Network is an informal coalition of civil society organisations, journalists and academics with an interest in Freedom of Information, convened by mySociety and State of the Future. Last week, we held our first meet-up, in the shape of an online workshop, to discuss and prioritise the ways in which we might strengthen and defend the right to information in the UK. With potential threats rumbling on the horizon, it was a timely conversation.

Attendees came from a range of organisations and specialities. We had a group brainstorming session to identify firstly, opportunities to strengthen or expand FOI; and secondly, key threats and challenges.

From these, we pulled out four themes, which we discussed from the angle of which activities would bring the most impact for the effort expended.

Thematic groupings

The four topics discussed were:

• The expansion of FOI to currently uncovered bodies/sectors
• AI as an opportunity and challenge, and proactive / better publication
• Practical difficulties/support for FOI within public bodies
• The government’s opposition/lukewarm attitude towards existing/greater transparency

FOI expansion

As  FOI’s reach is expanded, so is its utility to new groups, who would benefit from the Act in different ways. This is an approach that can benefit communities who have historically had low levels of power.

Expanding the FOI Act to new authorities would make possible new avenues of research and enquiry, providing access to useful data where it is not currently available. This includes important areas such as housing; or private contractors to government, where the case for increased transparency is easy to make.

We’re fortunate that we can look to Scotland, where Registered Social Landlords are subject to FOI requests, as an example: there is already a good evidence base for successful expansion. Equally, good arguments for expansion could be made by showing the types of essential questions that cannot currently be answered under the regime as it stands.

AI as opportunity and challenge, and proactive / better publication

In this area, the group decided that there are no highly effective actions that would also be easy to implement. Instead, we would be looking at a range of sensible small interventions around better guidance, training research, and more intensive technical work around proactive disclosure and unlocking the benefits of public data.

There is a wider problem around AI potentially overwhelming appeal mechanisms (for more on this, see the two Information Commissioners’ talks at FOI Fest). There is more to explore here, around triage methods, AI and increased volumes of both requests and appeals.

Practical difficulties/support for FOI within public bodies 

An effective FOI system requires information officers to be well-resourced and supported within their organisation.

Here, potential actions ranged from campaigns for better stats around FOI (making FOI more visible to decision-makers, as in Scotland); sharing and promoting the success stories of FOI to show the value of the work; better networking/surveys of the profession; campaigning for statutory FOI officers; and technical support on document management/search technologies. 

There was also some discussion around organisations where responding to requests pulls officers away from other work, affecting the prevailing attitudes towards FOI. The concept of statutory officers would have some bearing on this.

We will develop this segment in a further workshop, to which practitioners themselves will be invited. 

Government opposed to/has a lukewarm attitude towards transparency

A key concern is how we improve FOI, when some of the mood music coming out of government is in favour of greater restrictions. But at the same time, “government” is a wide term: while there will be some institutional reluctance to transparency, there will also be some pockets where it aligns with other stated objectives. 

We need a clearer map and understanding of these factions. We may need to be both defensive, pushing back against threats to transparency, while also building diverse institutional support. One benefit of an FOI network is that different parts of the coalition can do both at once.

From this follows a need for positive, public advocacy for the benefits of transparency, as well as a clear narrative of how it fits into wider government agendas around the redress of historic injustice, anti-corruption, value for money and so forth.

So that’s the summary of our discussion. We’ll keep you posted with progress reports from the FOI Network.

The next meet-up is about how the Network can support journalists and specialist users of FOI: if that’s of interest, sign up here.

—

Image: Mark Fletcher-Brown

Last Thursday, a diverse set of people with a common interest came together at Birkbeck College in London for FOI Fest — a one day conference examining the successes, challenges and future of the Freedom of Information Act. We heard from a wide range of perspectives: those who use FOI, those who process requests, those who research the workings and effects of the Act, and those who oversee its application.

We couldn’t have wished for a better day: there was so much to discuss, with relevant and timely presentations, and real engagement in the room. As this was a kick-off event for the incipient FOI Network, the enthusiasm was gratifying; and there seems to be consensus that this should be considered the inaugural FOI Fest, rather than a standalone event.

We heard from both FOI regulators, listened to expert discussion, learned from an excellent set of skills sessions where experts shared insights on how to use FOI well; and enjoyed a set of short lightning talks where users explained how they had brought change through FOI. We’ve added links to each video presentation so you can watch any that are of interest.

Gavin Freeguard, longtime mySociety associate and FOI expert, was our host and co-organiser, kicking off proceedings by pointing out that the introduction of the FOI Act represented a “fundamental and vital change in the relationship between the public and government”. Our rights under FOI have survived two decades, and in the process an ecosystem of activists, researchers, campaigners, journalists and commissioners has arisen.

Information Commissioner John Edwards couldn’t be with us in person, but did send a video address, talking frankly about how the body is equally as stretched as they know many authorities are too — partly thanks to the increased use of AI. This was a theme that would recur through the day, from different authorities, although, as John was keen to point out, more FOI requests means more people accessing their right to information, and that, in itself, is a real positive.

Warren Seddon, Director of FOI and Transparency at the Information Commissioner’s Office, provided our first keynote, picking up on the theme of the increase in requests needing their oversight (they’re on track to receive more than 10,000 FOI complaints this year alone). AI-generated requests tend to be longer, contain inaccuracies and are less easy to understand. However, there was good news too: the ICO are exploring setting up an external monitoring system for public authorities outside of central government; Warren told us to watch this space.

Warren Seddon

Next, investigative journalist Jenna Corderoy, CEO of the Campaign for FOI Maurice Frankel, and Transparency International’s Rose Whiffen joined Warren for a panel discussion to interrogate the question “What has 21 years of FOI changed?“. 

Maurice began with the observation that the ICO’s powers are not strongly enough applied, resulting in many authorities experiencing no penalties for bad faith or late responses, albeit he’s detected some improvement since John Edwards took post. 

Jenna pointed out that times have changed since the introduction of FOI, but the Act hasn’t kept up, as can be seen for example by the government’s use of WhatsApp for messages that can be deleted and therefore cannot be publicly released. There’s an attitude issue, too: many authorities still see FOI as burdensome or even malign, when really we should all be supportive of this essential mechanism for transparency, allowing the vital uncovering of corruption and wrongdoing. 

Rose asserted that FOI has shifted public expectations, and built momentum for better government transparency, “rebalancing the information asymmetry which is where corruption thrives” and “shifting the risk calculation around corruption”.

Warren added that the things politicians were afraid of when the Act was first introduced have, for the most part, not been realised; and that it’s a great thing that any one of us can find out information from our local school, hospital or council.

Andreas Pavlou, Eleanor Shaikh, Isaac Beevor and Alex Parsons

In the next session, we enjoyed three ‘lightning talks’ – five minute presentations. Eleanor Shaikh, whose work you can read about in more detail in our blog post, used her slot to explain how the Act had given her the tools to uncover fundamental aspects of the UK Post Office Horizon scandal, many of which made front page headlines. She stressed the importance of taking your time to avoid being labelled ‘vexatious’, spacing requests out.

Isaac Beevor, from our Scorecards partners Climate Emergency UK, explained their use of FOI requests to obtain standardised datasets around councils’ road expansion plans, EPC ratings in social housing, energy procurement and more, as detailed in this blog post. He included a shoutout for WhatDoTheyKnow Pro and its Projects functionality, which meant they could share the work across a team of volunteers.

In the Q&A, an audience member expressed how very inspiring these two examples were, showing how one person can use FOI to bring real change.

Finally, Andreas Pavlou, Lead at the Open Government Partnership Independent Reporting Mechanism, brought the good news of positive advances in Access to Information in countries such as the Netherlands and Brazil, banging the drum for one of our favourite watchwords, collaboration.

George Greenwood

Before breaking for lunch, we enjoyed three skills sessions.

George Greenwood, Investigations Reporter at the Times, shared ten tips from his long experience of using FOI, which you can see for yourself on our Bluesky thread.

Lucas Amin of Democracy For Sale shared his experience of using EIR (Environmental Information Regulation) to uncover big stories: he’s also shared these at one of our ATI Network online events, so you can rewatch that here if you’re interested. 

And Ben Worthy, senior lecturer in Politics at Birkbeck College, explained his research project which used FOI to dig more deeply into how FOI works, experimenting to see whether formal requests were more likely to get a response (they are).

David Hamilton

After lunch, we complemented the morning’s keynote with another, this time from David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, who echoed his ICO counterpart’s observations about the rise in complaints — partly because of AI and partly because public recognition of FOI is “higher than it’s ever been” (partly due to the recent high profile inquiry into the First Minister). “If you see the rights, you’re happy to use the rights”, he said, noting that the Scottish Information Commissioner is on the front page of a newspaper on average every three days at the moment, and that transparency was going to be a massive issue in Scotland’s forthcoming May election.

David also ran through the FOI Reform Bill currently going through Scottish Parliament, noting the differences between this and the FOI Act (which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus UK-wide public authorities that are based in Scotland).

For our second panel of the day, asking “What next for FOI?“, David was joined by Director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland Carole Ewart, Ben Worthy, and mySociety’s Alex Parsons and Louise Crow.

David Hamilton, Louise Crow, Carole Ewart, Ben Worthy and Alex Parsons

Louise began by reminding us that not every user of WhatDoTheyKnow is making a Freedom of Information request: in fact, each response is viewed on average 160 times, massively multiplying the benefit of the information contained within it. The publication of responses also means that authorities don’t have to deal with the same requests multiple times, as the information is free for all to see. She then highlighted the importance of FOI adapting to the current rise of AI systems, and the necessity of record-keeping so that transparency about how they work is not allowed to become opaque.

Ben shared his research on the use of AI in requests, observing that in the last year the number of authorities indicating that they are receiving requests composed by AI has risen from 30 to 70%. 

Carole was frank about the blocks to reform, saying that the attitudes towards FOI needed to change so that it was no longer seen as adversarial or aggressive — but she welcomed the changes on the horizon for Scotland.

Then, in our second skills session, Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for FOI shared tips for success with FOI requests, not least around keeping them within cost limits; and Martin Rosenbaum, author of Freedom of Information: A Practical Guidebook and for many years BBC News’ FOI expert, explained the importance both of persistence and of wording your requests carefully. Finally, mySociety’s own Julia Cushion and Gareth Rees explained what we’ve been doing on WhatDoTheyKnow and Alaveteli recently, from our beginners’ guide to FOI, to this page showcasing what FOI has done around the world. 

There was just time for three more lightning talks: reshowing this video from Gabriel Geiger, Investigative Reporter at Lighthouse Reports, on their award-winning Suspicion Machines investigation that showed how machine learning algorithms were disproportionately targeting individuals based on ethnicity and gender; followed by talks from Alex Homer, Senior Journalist at the BBC Shared Data Unit who shared a live investigation around the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and Carole Ewart, Director, Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland spoke about their work aiding NGOs in the use of FOI.

Finally Louise Crow wrapped up the day, and before we knew it, it was time to repair to the pub to carry on conversations in a more informal setting. An all-round success – and, we hope, the start of a very useful new network that we’ll be progressing over the next few weeks. Please fill in this form if you have an interest in being part of it.

Thanks to all our speakers, and to everyone who came and helped make the day a success. We’re also grateful to JRRT for supporting this exploration of the network, and eCase for additional sponsorship. Special thanks to Ben Worthy and Birkbeck for providing the excellent venue for the conference, and to Gavin Freeguard for compering the day, and all his work bringing the network together.

Gareth Rees, Julia Cushion, Martin Rosenbaum, Maurice Frankel and Gavin Freeguard

In July 2024, we published our AI Framework, a first attempt at setting guidelines on how we utilise AI in our work at mySociety. The basic principles running through that framework can be summed up as “Use AI responsibly, and only when, all things considered, it is the best tool for the job”.

That position will serve us, and any organisation, for life — but, with such a fast-moving field and such speedy integration across so many of our areas of work, the consideration of  ‘all things’ must happen at regular intervals. It’s important that we keep checking in, to ensure that the framework is still providing timely and relevant guidance that reflects the current circumstances.

With this in mind, we’ve implemented a three-pronged approach:

• The AI Framework itself: this basic set of principles and questions is designed to act as a resource that staff members can keep referring back to if in doubt — and is a living document which we regularly update to reflect these fast-moving times.
• Our AI register: an internal spreadsheet, where staff are required to note new uses of AI, so that we have an up to date picture of how it is being deployed in areas across the organisation. This has already collected diverse use cases, from generating the transcripts of our podcasts with third party AI-based tools, to our own experiments with LLMs, like detecting inappropriate use of WhatDoTheyKnow. Where we think there are learnings for others to benefit from, we’ve written up these use cases here on our blog.
• A regular ‘Generative AI and Machine Learning’ meeting: this gives us the opportunity to discuss entries on the register, ask questions and consider any issues that have arisen.

So, with all this analysis going on, what are the changes we’ve seen since the first iteration of the framework? As you might imagine, they’re far-reaching, both in our own practices and in the wider world.

In our development: There’s been increasing experimentation and use of coding agent tools from our developers, always with an eye to whether these are producing valid outputs that genuinely save time, or solve problems that other tools couldn’t.

Some of the datasets we create now rely on LLM processes, where flexibility in interpreting and transforming language helps us create and combine data in ways not possible through other methods. These include the collection of data on APPGs; and our WriteToThem Insights work. 

We’ve experimented with some AI-based problem-solving on our websites and infrastructure: for example, screening for personal immigration requests that have mistakenly been submitted on WhatDoTheyKnow (a longstanding issue); and we are in the early stages of exploring machine learning approaches to help us understand potential ways of handling any abusive messages sent through WriteToThem. 

As for the external landscape: increasingly, we’re seeing funding opportunities that centre around the responsible deployment of AI for the good of democracy or transparency; and in our international community, via our Communities of Practice and TICTeC, we’re hearing of both more and more innovative application of AI to civic tech tools; and ways of monitoring its use by the state.

—

Image: Steve Johnson

Submitting evidence to Parliamentary inquiries is one of the ways in which we can have an effect on the way things work in this country.

As you may recall, we recently contributed to the Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on Freedom of Information reform, and now we’ve submitted written evidence to the UK Procedure Committee’s inquiry on Written Questions.

This time, we’re making the case for more alignment between FOI requests and Parliament’s Written Questions system. Written Questions are a mechanism by which MPs and Lords can hold Ministers to account, in much the same way that the public can request information from government authorities through FOI.

We have recommended that a rejected parliamentary question should be retrospectively converted to an FOI request to allow making an appeal; and that given the influence of FOI in Parliament (both by parliamentarians, and in how they use FOI requests made by others), government statistics on FOI effectiveness should be scrutinised alongside Written Question statistics.

Finally, reflecting one of the findings in our WhoFundsThem work, we think that when a Member submits a Written Question and declares an interest, they should be required to say what that interest is.

For much more detail on each of these points, you can see our submission on the Parliament website.

WhatDoTheyKnow Pro, our Freedom of Information service for users such as journalists, researchers and campaigners, now comes with Projects bundled in at no extra cost. That means that, as well as sending batch requests more easily, you can also bring in colleagues or volunteers to help you refine and analyse the data you receive in response.

How WhatDoTheyKnow Pro can help you

WhatDoTheyKnow Pro is a useful tool for those sending the same FOI request to multiple authorities: what we call ‘batch requesting’. Often, when embarking on an investigation, or gathering data for research or to inform a campaign, it’s helpful to gather data from many sources to create a full picture.

For example, in this recent blog post, Zarino described how he used Pro to ask every local authority in the UK how many safeguarding referrals they had received from schools that they manage. Climate Emergency UK have also used Pro to good effect, gathering data about councils’ climate action that wasn’t otherwise publicly available.

WhatDoTheyKnow Pro helps with two of the more difficult elements of bulk requesting:

• finding/compiling a list of all the relevant authorities’ email addresses; and
• keeping track of which authorities have responded, and which need following up.

What Projects adds

Now, the inclusion of Projects eases another big challenge of bulk requesting: sorting through the masses of responses to pull out the information you need.

Even when you frame your request to ask for data in a certain format, as permitted by the FOI Act, experience suggests that you’ll rarely receive responses that fit neatly into a spreadsheet for your instant analysis.

As Zarino noted in his follow-up post on requesting safeguarding data, much depends on how the authority are storing the information at their end: “We think, in reality, very few of the authorities held this data in a format structured enough to count as a ‘dataset’, but a few did send over their data in spreadsheet format, which was nice to see! Others, however, sent us tables in Word documents, in PDFs, SharePoint links, even ASCII-art tables in raw email text.”

These days, AI might be helpful with some data-refining tasks; but as we discovered with our WhoFundsThem project recently, sometimes humans are the best bet for combing through responses and pulling out the parts you need, in the format you need. Climate Emergency also took the time to train large cohorts of volunteers to ensure the assessments they were pulling out of their FOI responses for the Council Climate Action Scorecards were fair and accurate. Both projects made good use of WhatDoTheyKnow Pro and Projects.

What can Projects do for you? 

If you have one or more associate working with you, or if you can assemble a team of willing volunteers, you can share the work of going through the FOI responses as they come in. Projects makes collaboration easy. 

You can use Projects to give your team an online interface where you describe the aims of your investigation, and set out the questions you need answers to. Your helpers will then go through each response in turn and identify the parts you need, putting them into your standardised format. At the end, all their inputs are pulled into a nice, tidy spreadsheet that allows you to do the analysis you need.

Contributors don’t need a Pro membership themselves, so there’s no extra cost to you, and the only extra effort required is in setting out what data it is that you need to pull out from the responses — something it’s useful to have straight anyway!

No team to help you? Projects can also be used solo, and still helps you keep track of the information you’re pulling out — helpful if there are lots of data points.

Subscribe to WhatDoTheyKnow Pro (with Projects included), or see the Help page for more detail.

 —

Image: Kylie Haulk

As we’ve seen in our recent case studies, the Council Climate Action Scorecards — a joint project between Climate Emergency UK (CE UK) and mySociety — rely on the power and energy of volunteers. 

Most volunteers get their start when they help to mark councils’ climate action for the Scorecards; and then some, it seems, get the bug and go on to become even more deeply engaged.

These keen folk are known as Ambassadors. We’ve heard from Lucy, who told us that working with the Scorecards had given her a deeper appreciation of the hard work councils have to do; and Mat, who’s used the Scorecards to communicate with both the public and his own council. Now let’s meet Helen John, a very active campaigner based in Sutton.

Helen did, indeed, begin as a marker, helping to score councils’ action over the summer of 2024: her work fed into the 2025 Scorecards. Then, in November 2024, she joined CE UK’s Local Climate Academy, a six-week training course in which CE UK train participants in how to use the Scorecards to win further support for climate action. 

Helen has taken that advice and run with it, which is a win for climate; also, because Helen is happy to share her experiences, it’s a win for anyone who might want to do more but doesn’t know where to begin.  

For example, shortly after the new results were published, Helen submitted a public question at Sutton council’s Local Committee meeting, asking: 

“What is Sutton Council going to take away from the launch of the 2025 Council Climate Action Scorecards, and what actions are going to be taken to make sure climate action is reprioritised across the whole of the council?”

And you could do the same! Here is Helen’s advice on how to get started:

“Get on your local council’s mailing list, so you’ll be notified when meetings are happening. Usually you can sign up via a page on their website called “Local Democracy”, or similar, and then you should also find a section called something like “Have your say at meetings”.

“This is a right for every resident of every council — anyone can ask a question at a committee meeting (usually one main question, and then a follow-up). Generally, between the notification of the meeting and the deadline for submitting a question, which you have to give in advance, you’ll have around 48 hours. 

“They’ll locate the right person to answer your question, which can take a little time; I find they tend to give you an initial response 24 hours before the meeting. This gives you the time to prepare your follow-up question.” 

And if the response is not as enthusiastic as you might like it to be, or fails to commit to any activity? Helen sees the wider picture: 

“You need to continue to ask as many questions as possible to the council. If you’re a member of a campaign group, you can take it in turns. It shows that there is an interest, and a continued scrutiny of the council’s action.”

Sutton council’s reply stated that it “recognises that there’s still more work to do”, and, as Helen sees it, that created an opportunity. She has been working with Sutton’s sustainability team, holding a workshop on how to improve their Scorecards results; and has given a presentation to the Environment and Sustainable Transport committee, as well as a wider group of councillors.

We have the feeling this is just the beginning — because, as made clear by Helen’s nuanced view of how climate work fits into the council’s other priorities, communication doesn’t need to take place solely with the staff who have a climate remit.

“When they surveyed Sutton residents about their priorities, health provision came out top. But let’s not forget that decarbonisation is also something that has a positive impact on health across the board — I’m really keen to push that more holistic way of seeing things.”

Thank you so much to Helen for the ideas, not to mention the practical advice on using the Scorecards to push for better climate action at the local level. We hope that it gives our readers the inspiration to do something similar.

—

Image: Ian Simpson