Breach of the Ministerial Code /T3 route from Wrexham to Aberystwyth / Lack of connectivity T1/T2 Carmarthen to Bangor route in Aberystwyth

Ein cyf/Our ref ATISN 11754 Dr J McTighe john.mct@btinternet.com Dear Dr McTighe Request for Information – ATISN 11754 I wrote to you on 27 November regarding your request for information. You asked: 1. On what date(s) in 2014 was routing the T3 from Wrexham to Aberystwyth discussed as stated in the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport’s letter reference KS/03829/17. 2. The name/job title of the Welsh Government official(s) who were involved in discussions regarding routing the T3 from Wrexham to Aberystwyth. 3. The name/job title/organisation of the officials from external organisations to the Welsh Government (Local Authorities and Bus Service Providers) who were involved in discussions regarding routing the T3 from Wrexham to Aberystwyth. 4. The conclusions that resulted from discussions regarding routing the T3 from Wrexham to Aberystwyth and the reason that, as stated in the Cabinet Secretary’s letter reference KS/03829/17, “a decision was taken to not pursue this option”. 5. The name/job title/organisation of the officials in those partner organisations who were informed of the conclusions and decision to not pursue routing the T3 from Wrexham to Aberystwyth. I confirm we hold some information captured by your request. For your first question, I can advise that we discussed the feasibility of altering the route of the TrawsCymru T3 bus service on several occasions in 2014 with local authorities, leading up to the tendering of the service by Gwynedd Council in November 2014. The only recorded minute we hold on T3 routing decisions relates to a meeting held on 21 January 2014. We do not hold on record all of the dates in 2014 on which routing the T3 from Wrexham to Aberystwyth was discussed. Officials and local authorities are in regular and frequent discussions, both via telephone and at meetings, on a number of matters, some of which will have included discussions regarding the particular service you are 20 December 2017 enquiring about. By their very nature, not all of those discussions are minuted nor are the dates of those discussions recorded. I can advise, however, that the discussions will have occurred before Cyngor Gwynedd went out to tender for the T2 and T3 services. For your second, third and fifth requests, I am content to release the job titles and organisations of the key individuals who will have been involved in the discussions or informed of the conclusions you have described. These include the TrawsCymru Network Manager and the Deputy Director of Network Management at the Welsh Government, and Public Transport Co-ordinating Officers from Cyngor Gwynedd, Ceredigion County Council, Denbighshire County Council, Powys County Council and Wrexham County Borough Council BC. I have concluded that some of the information you have requested for your second, third and fifth questions, is exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, personal data. The attached Annex provides further detail regarding the withholding of this information. The information we hold on record for your fourth request is given below: It was agreed that the specification of the service would include the following:-  Journey every two hours (Weekdays and Saturday daytimes) between Wrexham and Barmouth;  Evening frequency to remain unchanged;  Sunday frequency to remain unchanged;  Route of service to remain unchanged;  Service to connect with the T2 service at Dolgellau;  Reduced fares for young people aged 16-18; and  Requirement for operator to provide a single double deck vehicle on known days / periods of peak demand. If you are dissatisfied with the Welsh Government’s handling of your request, you can ask for an internal review within 40 working days of the date of this response. Requests for an internal review should be addressed to the Welsh Government’s Freedom of Information Officer at: Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ or FreedomOfInformationOfficer@gov.wales. Please remember to quote the ATISN reference number above. You also have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. However, please note that the Commissioner will not normally investigate a complaint until it has been through our own internal review process. Yours sincerely David Hall TrawsCymru Manager Annex A Section 40 – Personal Data Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act sets out an exemption from the right to know if the information requested is personal information protected by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Personal data is defined in Section 1(1) of the DPA as: “personal data” means data which relates to a living individual who can be identified from those data; or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller”. I have concluded that, in this instance, the withheld information amounts to third party personal data. Under Section 40(2) of the FOI Act, personal data is exempt from release if disclosure would breach one of the data protection principles. I consider the principle being most relevant in this instance as being the first. The first data protection principle states: Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless – (a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and (b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met. I consider that the withheld information in relation to individual names falls within the description of personal data as defined by the DPA and that its disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. The first data protection principle has two components: 1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and 2. Personal data shall not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in DPA schedule 2 is met Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (Personal information (section 40 and regulation 13) v 1.4) states: If disclosure would not be fair, then the information is exempt from disclosure. This approach was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Deborah Clark v the Information Commissioner and East Hertfordshire District Council where it was held: “The first data protection principle entails a consideration of whether it would be fair to disclose the personal data in all the circumstances. The Commissioner determined that it would not be fair to disclose the requested information and thus the first data protection principle would be breached. There was no need in the present case therefore to consider whether any other Schedule 2 condition or conditions could be met because even if such conditions could be established, it would still not be possible to disclose the personal data without breaching the DPA” (paragraph 63). Our analysis of the ICO’s key considerations in assessing ‘fairness’, as set out in the Guidance, are presented below. The withheld information amounts to the personal data of civil servants who do not have public facing roles and would not expect their names to be released in this context. There are set procedures in place for members of the public to contact both the Welsh Government and local authorities using generic contact mechanisms. Having such systems in place means members of the public do not make direct contact with officials and avoids those officials dealing with potentially unnecessary and disruptive correspondence. In this context, the civil servants were liaising with each other as part of their normal course of business. In doing so, there would be no expectation that their personal details would at any time be placed in the public domain. The Welsh Government does not believe there is any legitimate interest in the public or the requestor having access to this information, and we do not see any legitimate reason why the names of the officials need to be placed in the public domain. Because of that, it is believed release of this information would be unfair and so breach the first data protection principle. Despite withholding information of individual officer details, it remains clear which organisation was involved in the discussions you have described, which is the primary factor. For that reason, I believe the information should be withheld under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is an absolute exemption and not subject to the public interest tests.