Ofcom has refused my FOI request (submitted in a tweet!) for an unredacted copy of the Postcode Address File consultation document, citing exemptions under Sections 43 and 44 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 43 exempts information from disclosure if it would prejudice commercial interests, and Section 44 enables Ofcom to rely on the general restriction on disclosure of information set out in Section 56 of the Postal Services Act 2011.
This refusal is unfortunate but not a surprise. I have no reason to suppose Ofcom has misinterpreted FOIA. The redactions in the consultation document were undoubtably made at the request of Royal Mail, which currently controls the Postcode Address File (PAF).
However it is difficult to understand how the Ofcom consultation process can be credible, without public disclosure of the PAF cost stack figures that have been redacted from the ‘non-confidential’ version of the consultation document.
As noted in the consultation document, the Open Data User Group (ODUG) has recently published a paper arguing for open data release of PAF as part of an Open National Address Dataset. ODUG is firming up an economic case for this proposal, for submission to the Data Strategy Board.
The arguments for open data release of PAF are not new; unlocking national address data has long been a central objective of the UK open data movement. However ODUG is also calling for a change in ownership of PAF, to safeguard the dataset against the Government’s privatisation plans for Royal Mail.
At the moment Royal Mail has an effective monopoly over creation of key elements of the national address dataset. The PAF cost stack figures are particular to those unique arrangements and it is unlikely that their disclosure would significantly benefit any Royal Mail competitor.
The redactions in the Ofcom consultation document therefore seem designed only to create a barrier for anyone trying either to build an economic case for open data release of PAF or to otherwise properly scrutinise the proposals that Ofcom have in mind for the future of PAF.