Private email accounts are covered by information law

Michael Gove Michael Gove has come under pressure over emails

Public officials can't escape the reach of the Freedom of Information Act by using private e-mail accounts for messages they would rather keep secret.

That's the clear implication of new guidance issued today by the Information Commissioner, Chris Graham, who says the law has been "somewhat misunderstood" in the past.

His statement may irritate some of those who already find FOI a source of aggravation, but I think it is unlikely however to result in much additional disclosure, since information could still be held back for other reasons.


The commissioner's intervention stems from the fuss in September over revelations in the Financial Times about the use of private e-mail by the Education Secretary Michael Gove and his advisers. The Department for Education denied this was an attempt to pre-empt the possibility of FOI requests.

But it was followed by stories about civil servants using text messaging with the aim of evading FOI, and reports of "panic" in Whitehall at the prospect of such tactics being stopped.

Mr Graham's verdict today is not remotely surprising. Information is covered by FOI if it is held by the public authority or by someone else on behalf of the authority - although it's not covered if held on behalf of another person.

Tablets of stone

So messages for purposes of official business are covered, even if sent via someone's personal Hotmail. But material that is truly personal or purely party political rather than the business of the authority is excluded, whether or not processed through the official email system.

In other words the mode of communication makes no difference. It doesn't matter whether your words are scribbled on removable sticky notes or chiselled into tablets of stone; it's equally irrelevant whether your thoughts are conveyed by text message or carrier pigeon.

The law seems pretty clear, as indeed was pointed out by various FOI specialists at the time of the Gove row. Yet the Education Department has claimed there was contrary guidance from the Cabinet Office, according to the Financial Times. However, this advice is apparently "not written down".

Chris Graham Chris Graham's new guidance may irritate those who dislike FOI

The BBC has made an FOI application to the Cabinet Office for any relevant guidance it has issued, but over two months later this has still not been answered.

'Private space'

Doubtless all this will now result in numerous FOI requests for the texts and Gmail messages of ministers and officials. But don't expect to be reading them soon.

The ICO advice simply confirms that they are subject to FOI in principle. Yet, just like any other document, they could still come under one of the exemptions in the FOI Act, such as policy formulation or the free and frank exchange of views.

So public authorities could refuse to release them if they reckon disclosure would be against the public interest. I think it is safe to predict that this is what public authorities will generally decide.

They could be overruled on appeal to the ICO, but I also expect that in practice the commissioner may demand a high threshold for the public interest before ordering disclosure, given the likely nature of most of the material and the commissioner's precedents on preserving a "private space" for discussions.

So the ominous forecasts of "fear" in Whitehall over "everything" being disclosable are hardly justified.


This issue has arisen in other countries, such as the US where some states have particularly far-reaching FOI regulations.

Many of Sarah Palin's private emails may have been published (she used her Yahoo account for Alaska state business). And there have also been a number of court cases resulting in text messages being released, such as a notorious collection of exchanges between the former Mayor of Detroit and his chief of staff.

In the UK now there remains the important question how thorough public authorities will be in checking private email accounts and text messages in response to FOI applications.

As one FOI officer argues, it will come down to "conscience and professionalism". He says "in practice, whether you provide emails to answer an FOI is still, largely, a matter of conscience". We may see how much people's consciences are tested in the light of the new guidance.

The ICO is clearly aware of the possibility of abuse. I was very interested to see that Mr Graham is now recommending that where private email is used for public authority business, "an authority email address must be copied in to ensure the completeness of the authority's records".


Now if public authorities really do ensure their staff comply with that, it will surely have an impact on what is put in some of those emails.

And not only in government departments like the Department for Education. I am aware for example of academics who use personal email for university business, as much to seek to escape the Data Protection Act (under which individuals can apply for the personal information held about them) as FOI.

So don't expect much more information to be released publicly as a result of Mr Graham's clarification of the law. But the dislike which some public sector staff feel towards the inconvenient requirements of the Freedom of Information Act will surely increase.

Still, there's always waving flags to create semaphore signals. That would get round FOI, because there's no lasting record.

Martin Rosenbaum Article written by Martin Rosenbaum Martin Rosenbaum Freedom of information specialist

10 things we found out because of Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act came in 10 years ago. It's led to the unearthing of a trove of facts.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 22.

    Politicians work for us. What they do on our time we have a right to see.

  • rate this

    Comment number 21.

    The attempt to circumvent the normal paper-trails that exist should be stamped down on hard. We have had enough of quiet dealing behind closed doors, especially from a privileged group (politicians and civil servants), who have not been found to be whiter than white when a whiff of the stench of corruption has been investigated. They need to realise that they serve us, not the other way round!

  • rate this

    Comment number 20.

    A simple approach is to ensure that a NOP rule applies for sensitive comments. (Nothing on Paper) . Thats what Golf courses are for!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 19.

    It appears there is little trust in the high ranks of the public sector. If we have MP's willing to discuss secure information within their own private email, then they are not responsible enough to be in that position. Anyone found guilty of disclosing secret information should be sacked on the spot, after all they have signed a security contract prior to starting.

  • rate this

    Comment number 18.

    If people in government who deal with the every day running of the country such as education, transport, housing, economy etc, have things to say that they feel should not be revealed they should not be in power.


Comments 5 of 22



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.