Support changing the legislation when creating a request

[garethrees]

Alaveteli is a platform for requesting information from authorities. By default we use the "FOI" legislation to do so, but for a long time we've also supported EIR requests. More recently we've wanted to handle legislation-specific details (https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/issues/672) and have been prompted to think about improving our support for multi-jurisdiction installs (https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli/issues/6125).

We already dynamically handle the request's legislation when we send the request to the authority, and when we present it on-site.

A specific blocker for Ireland is that a citizen must specify the legislation used – either FOI or EIR at the point of making a request.

At the moment, the only way for a request to get created under a different legislation is when making a request to a body tagged eir_only. This switches InfoRequest#law_used to eir. We also show a pretty strong warning about only asking for environmental information.

This feature will enable users to select the legislation at the point of creating a request. This should intentionally appear as a bit of an obscure and technical option, as most cases are covered by the default use of FOI. We don't want to add complexity for normal use.

Somewhere on the new request page, we should show the default legislation for the authority, with an affordance that allows the user to change it.

We should give a bit more consideration to the phrasing here. Maybe plain old "Legislation:" is okay, or maybe we should say something like "Requesting information under:"?

Once clicked, the full set of legislations should be available to select from.

We should show both the acronym and the full law name, and a short snippet of text explaining why you might want to use that legislation. We should emphasise that FOI is probably the one you want.

For the explanatory snippet I was imagining around a paragraph or less, and if we really need to say more we either link to a help page or unfold a details element, but I haven’t actually thought about the specifics. I’m pretty confident we can solve that during construction though.

For EIR-only bodies, we should of course default the legislation to EIR, and we'll want to preserve the current behaviour of showing the big warning. We could either remove the legislation picker, or perhaps keep it but disable FOI as an option (rather than removing it) to make it clear that the authority does not accept FOI requests.

The legislation chooser with its explanatory snippet and the EIR-only warning are completely independent pieces, since they’ll be displayed in slightly different contexts. The EIR-only message is more of a warning that maybe displayed in addition to the legislation chooser. I expect there’s a better way to do all of this, but we are where we are.

---

Why unfold + radio buttons? I did consider that the easier option here is to just dump the available legislations in a select box and let the user choose. I think that will result in added complexity for users unfamiliar with the nuances of access to information laws, and that confusion will translate into increased drop outs and increased user support.

I'm happy to consider other options for the UI, but I think it's important that:

• Choosing an alternative legislation is quite deliberate so that users don't feel like they have to understand which to use
• We have the ability to show additional notes next to each legislation to give them some explanation

---

We'll also need to mirror this behaviour on the Pro request page, and the batch creation page. We do not need to store the legislation with an DraftInfoRequestBatch.

From a technical point of view, we'll need to make sure the given legislation persists when previewing the request, and when we need to send the user through a PostRedirect.

[RichardTaylor]

Consider also having the option not to refer to any legislation, eg. when writing to a body which is not subject to public access to information legislation. (Those tagged foi_no on WDTK).

As a user I would have at times liked the option to prevent any reference to FOI in the subject-line or footer of the request, when not wanting my request just to be considered under FOI - but perhaps under any applicable law/procedure, including "business as usual" .. or if seeking to use a less common access to information law - such as those relating to access to material relating to the courts and court cases.

I might select a "no legislation" / "don't mention FOI" option if, for example, requesting a record of an inquest when I'd be relying on the Chief Coroner's guidance rather than any legislation.

[garethrees]

Consider also having the option not to refer to any legislation

At the moment Alaveteli requires a legislation be present, so this would be quite an increase in scope and not something we'd do as part of this issue. Probably worth articulating in a new issue though, as it might be more possible after this is complete.

[handelaar]

(For information of readers: It's not only that in Ireland the requester must specify which law is being applied. It's also that the authority is not obligated in any way to pass on miscategorised requests, nor -- even if the EIR and FOI officers are the same person -- to not just bin any request which fails that test, nor even to advise the requester that the thing just refused on a technicality was obviously valid under the other law.)

[RichardTaylor]

It's not only that in Ireland the requester must specify which law is being applied. It's also that the authority is not obligated in any way to pass on miscategorised requests, nor -- even if the EIR and FOI officers are the same person

That's terrible law!

One question to ask when developing and running Alaveteli services is if to change them to follow the law.. or if to design and run them assuming the law is as it should be.

Would a public bank of lots of perfectly good requests rejected on a technicality be a great lobbying tool for a change in the law - or would it just lead to lots of unsatisfied users - with a poor impression of FOI and the service?

[handelaar]

It's not just terrible, it is deliberately hostile, and that is a feature for the people who wrote it, not a bug.

We only just got up-front fees per request (partially) repealed and the party that gutted the Act in 2003 is now back in office. We're having this discussion primarily because there will be no further movement in a positive direction for at least one more general election under any circumstances.

IMO where a couple of changes can mostly negate the problem at our end, it makes very little sense to require the statutory end to change instead. And there are plenty jurisdictions that are at least as obstructive as Ireland.

[RichardTaylor]

WhatDoTheyKnow user correspondence:

When writing a request is it possible to edit the header so it is clear the request is made under EIR, not FOI? The tool appears to hard code that it is an FOI request.

I support the implied feature request, which I think is what is proposed by this issue.

[mdeuk]

WhatDoTheyKnow user correspondence:

When writing a request is it possible to edit the header so it is clear the request is made under EIR, not FOI? The tool appears to hard code that it is an FOI request.

I support the implied feature request, which I think is what is proposed by this issue.

+1, I'd support this - provided the UI was as easy as a "What's your request about" style interface.

We need to be careful about not introducing too much complexity.

In the UK it is generally ok, both under FoIA and FoISA to make a request which is then reclassified by the public body as actually being covered under EIR / EI(S)R , so this perhaps isn't a massive feature for us, but I can see the merit behind it, and can see why it'd help others.

Perhaps a workaround could be a checkbox which enables an 'advanced' mode that gives the user the ability to choose which legislation applies, based on a hardcoded list, which could then enable the request to be correctly identified in the backend system.

[handelaar]

Perhaps a workaround could be a checkbox which enables an 'advanced' mode that gives the user the ability to choose which legislation applies, based on a hardcoded list, which could then enable the request to be correctly identified in the backend system.

Strong disagree: it's not valuable for the UK and it'd be actively user-hostile elsewhere (to the point of rendering it pointless); config switch to enable or disable the UI on a per-install basis makes far more sense imo

(Reminder: it's not just Ireland, and it's not just FOI-vs-Aarhus either since plenty non-UK bodies are subject to both state and federal RTI laws in different ways.)

[RichardTaylor]

We should also let admins at least, and perhaps requesters and classification game players, change the legislation / "law used" any time.

Ideally we'd be able to search by "law used" too - perhaps an automatically set tag matching "law used" would enable searching and the addition of tag based notes.

[WilliamWDTK]

We've had a case where a authority was confused by how to treat a request, when the requester explicitly mentioned EIR in the body, but had apparently (from the perspective of the authority) referred to Freedom of Information in the subject. It would therefore be helpful if the user could have selected the regime they wished to use. One could also envision a mini-quiz where the requester answers questions about their request to determine it.

[HelenWDTK]

This issue has been automatically closed due to a lack of discussion or resolution for over 12 months. Should we decide to revisit this issue in the future, it can be reopened.