ICO orders Cabinet Office to disclose names of 24 workers earning £150k+

The Information Commissioner has ordered the Cabinet Office to reveal the names of 24 public sector workers who earn more than £150,000, saying that disclosure “goes with the territory”.

In its response to a request for information, the Cabinet Office had refused to publish the details on the basis that the individuals had not consented to the information being released.

The complainant requested their names and the reasons they had given for refusing consent from the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office relied on sections 40(2) (personal data) and 41 (breach of confidence) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to refuse the request.

Following a complaint, the Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has decided that the withheld names were not exempt from disclosure but that the reasons were by virtue of section 40(2).

The Cabinet Office had argued that, for various reasons, the 24 individuals “had a reasonable and legitimate expectation” that their names were not to be released and so to disclose the information would be unfair.

But in his decision notice the Commissioner said releasing the names would, on balance, be fair.

His position was that the data subject’s non-expression of consent to the information release was not solely determinative as to whether the release would be fair or not. The non-expression of consent was one factor to be weighed against those factors which focused on the public interest in releasing the information.

“Those who receive some of the highest salaries in the public sector should expect certain information on their public or work life to be made public, including detail of their remuneration,” the decision notice said. “If it was the expectation of these senior public officials that their names would not be released, it would not be a reasonable one. It should also be noted the information disclosed will not reveal an exact salary paid.”

The Commissioner pointed that public policy had been clearly articulated in terms of greater transparency for public transparency – including salary information – for many years, and there was a widespread expectation that those earning over £150,000 in the public sector would be named as earning over that amount.

The Commissioner suggested that there was a strong legitimate public interest in the public knowing where its money was spent, how public sector salaries compared with those in other areas, and how money was distributed between different levels of staff. “This is facilitated by the public knowing which individuals (in this case the ‘non-consenters’) draw a relatively high salary from the public purse.”

The Commissioner also concluded that disclosure of the information would be lawful, and in particular said he was satisfied that disclosure would meet the three-part test contained in the 6th condition of schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act. Disclosure would not cause unwarranted interference to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects, he said.

On the issue of disclosing the reasons given by the 24 individuals, the Commissioner said: “It is reasonable that the data subjects, when giving the reasons for not consenting, believed that these reasons were not for consumption by the public.

“The information…. appears to the Commissioner to have been generated in circumstances of trust and circumspection between the employer and employee. Disclosing the information would be a greater intrusion into the privacy of the data subjects.”

The Commissioner said he considered that the public interest in disclosing the information in relation to reasons was legitimate but much less strong than the names.

Commenting on his ruling in a statement, Graham said: “If you are earning over £150,000 working for a body that is funded by the public purse then there is now a legitimate expectation that your name and salary details will be disclosed.

“Being open and transparent is an integral part of being accountable to the taxpayer and, like it or not, this level of disclosure goes with the territory.”

The Cabinet Office has 35 calendar days from the date of the decision notice to make the disclosures, unless it serves an appeal.

The ICO’s decision notice can be read here.

Philip Hoult