I should add to the post below that in some cases Downing Street did decide it was not against the public interest to reveal messages of congratulations sent by Tony Blair to newly elected or re-elected world leaders.
They sent the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú copies of about 50 such letters, which varied in warmth and formality, and included ones addressed to the following:
• George W Bush in 2000 (but not one from 2004)
It's International Right to Know Day today - and if you want to know how far freedom of information exists throughout the world, then you should look at written by Dave Banisar.
Given the , I wonder if the new Swedish prime minister has received a letter of congratulations from Tony Blair. And if so, how will we ever know?
Here you can read a copy of the congratulations letter Blair sent to the previous Swedish PM, the Social Democrat Goran Persson.
However, this letter is a secret document. Please do not read it if in doing so you feel you may cause damage to Britain's relations with Sweden.
It is secret according to Downing St, who refused to reveal it to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in response to an FOI request because to do so would apparently damage international relations.
But it is not secret in the view of the Swedish government. If you had asked the Swedish prime minister's office for a copy, they would have given you one too.
Regular readers of this blog will know that I possess a collection of items of correspondence between Blair and Persson (including Tony Blair's views on Sven Goran Ericsson) which require secrecy in the view of Downing St but merit disclosure in the view of the Swedes.
However this congratulations letter is the one such item which has featured in an appeal from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to the Information Commissioner.
And bizarrely the Information Commissioner's Office turned down our appeal, deciding that it was against the public interest to let you read it.
Since freedom of information is only part of my work, I feel that from time to time I should keep plugging my other activity.
I have just finished producing a Radio 4 documentary about the views and values of Gordon Brown. What Does Gordon Really Think?, presented by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's political editor Nick Robinson, is broadcast tomorrow morning at 11.00.
If you're reading this after it went out, you should be able to use the link above to listen to it.
The point I made below about success in internal reviews is well illustrated by about possible NHS use of allegedly stolen body parts from the US, which has been making waves today.
At first the turned down Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú FOI requests on the subject, but after the journalists involved argued that the public interest favoured disclosure, the MHRA backed down.
I hope you like the changes to the design of this blog. They include more prominent linking to recent investigations the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has done using freedom of information to obtain documents.
These reports also figure on our , which shows how the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has been using FOI since it came into force.
You'll see there that recently there has been a good run of stories relating to various aspects of the NHS.
While on the subject of internal reviews which have found errors in original decisions on responses to FOI requests, here are probably the most bizarre examples I have come across.
When the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú asked the Home Office for a copy of the log listing the Home Secretary's correspondence, we were told that officials has assessed whether it was in the public interest to disclose it and had concluded not to.
When we asked for this to be reviewed, we were told that the decision was incorrect because in fact no such log actually existed.
The Home Office then stated: "I am unable to offer a satisfactory explanation for the fact that you were not advised in our initial response that we do not hold a correspondence log." And it is rather puzzling to imagine how the Home Office could originally have carried out a public interest test, comparing the merits of disclosure and non-disclosure, on a document that does not actually exist.
Funnily enough a similar situation arose with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who also rejected a request for a ministerial correspondence log after apparently assessing the public interest - only for it to turn out again on internal review that there was no such document on which a public interest test could have been conducted.
Still, the Defra internal review did make one additional point: "The original reponse did, however, correctly identify the appropriate exemption that would need to have been considered if Defra did hold such a list." Well, I suppose that's good to know anyway.
Having re-read the entry below I feel fairness demands that I point out that, despite the sarcastic tone adopted, internal reviews do quite often result in the release of more information than the initial request.
While in some cases they do seem to be rubber-stamping exercises, in others they are clearly methodical re-examinations which lead to the correct disclosure of information.
This often seems to be because the more senior person dealing with the review has a better grasp of the law and the public interest test, and/or is more confident about releasing information compared to junior officials who may be excessively cautious.
In other words, it is well worth taking cases to internal review where you are dissatisfied with the response - especially if the arguments used about the public interest seem weak, formulaic and not really addressed to the specific circumstances of your request.
If you are familiar with the FOI process, you will know that if you're not happy with the response to a freedom of information request, you can ask for the decision to be reviewed by the public authority involved.
Now, I know some cynics dismiss this as a pointless charade which tends to rubber-stamp the original decision. However, experience shows nothing could be further from the truth.
Take this example. My colleague Nicola Beckford asked the Foreign Office for some information relating to threats to British assets in Venezuala. She was told that it was all excluded from disclosure under various exemptions, such as of the which protects international relations and which protects commercial interests.
She then asked for an internal review and was told the review had overruled the initial decision on the following points:
• "In four cases where section 27 was applied to material, this internal review has concluded that material was not relevant to your request."
• "Conversely, one document judged to have been not relevant to your request in the original assessment, has been judged to be relevant but exempt under section 27."
• "An extract from one document exempt under section 27 and 43 has been judged, for that extract only, to be exempt under section 35(1)(a), the formulation of government policy and communication between Ministers 35(1)(b), rather than 27 or 43."
But did the review actually decide to release any information? Er, no. Still, maybe they'll get the choice of exemptions right in the first place next time.
Has freedom of information provided you with a new relationship to knowledge? If so, is it changing how you live?
An email from the think tank announces the following as one of the "emerging ideas" it is working on:
"Demos will explore the new relationship to knowledge, spurred on by cultural and legislative changes such as the Freedom of Information Act. We want to understand how the emerging channels for freer access to information are changing how people live."
Well, maybe the release of food hygiene inspection reports under FOI could be changing where people go to eat.
That aside, the Demos approach is an interesting contrast to the more specific being examined by the in their important research study on the impact of FOI, which is just beginning.
FOI has certainly changed my working life, but I think I'm still waiting for my new relationship to knowledge.
Interested in how much your Police force spent on the abandoned plans for force mergers?
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú surveyed forces using the Freedom of Information Act to find out, and you can find the answers for most forces
As a public body, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is also covered by freedom of information - well, partly anyway, and the limits of this are now being tested.
According to of the Freedom of Information Act, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is only covered by FOI "in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature".
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has just lost a at the Information Tribunal over exactly what this phrase covers. It concerned an internal Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú report, the "Balen report", on the corporation's news coverage of the Middle East, an always controversial matter.
The case involved much argument over the meaning of the word "journalism", with the Tribunal distinguishing between "functional journalism" and strategic policy.
Personally, I haven't read the report in question, and my work making FOI requests is separate from the activity of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú team who deal with incoming FOI requests. So I can't comment on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's point of view or what might happen next.
But what is interesting from the FOI perspective is that this is the latest in a series of Tribunal decisions which have overruled the Information Commissioner in the direction of being more favourable to the disclosure of information. This pattern was not widely expected prior to FOI coming into force, when it was generally predicted to be the other way around.
And now that people have started asking me whether I am a functional journalist or a strategic journalist, I have decided the safest thing to do is just look puzzled. That seems to work so far.
I see the criminal names story managed to make it into the Liverpool Echo earlier this week, and is in the and the Daily Express today.
The Times has picked up this morning on one of my earlier posts, the Ministry of Defence refusal below as a "curious argument".
So here is another in the continuing series. This is one reason that was given to Ollie Stone-Lee, a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú online politics journalist, by the Department for Education and Skills for not disclosing briefings prepared prior to the last general election for possible incoming ministers if the Conservatives had won:
"We are concerned about the possible disruptive effect which disclosing this material might have if the briefings were disclosed which reveal the priorities of the government over the coming months, which could prompt further responses by, for example, pressure groups intent on disputing the basis or the content of that advice. This could have the effect of preventing the decisions from ever being made because of, for example, public pressure."
Which does rather give the impression that civil servants think that public pressure on government is something to be avoided.
Following on from before, this is why the Foreign Office refused to disclose logs of ministerial correspondence which list the authors or recipients of letters to or from ministers, their subjects and dates:
"Release of the logs would permit analysis of the importance given to certain issues and the time taken to reply on particular subjects or to particular people. This exposure would restrict the ability of Private Office staff and Ministers themselves to handle business according to their assessment of the priorities, which would be against the public interest."
And this is why the Department for Constitutional Affairs would not disclose a list of diary appointments for the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary:
"Disclosure of all meetings with stakeholders and external experts may lead to greater pressure and increased expectation for a Secretary of State or Permanent Secretary to meet with others to the detriment of the effective conduct of public affairs."
The comment on my earlier post which was added by makes the useful point that the Information Commissioner may well take a sceptical view of this kind of excuse for a refusal.
Or to put it another way, it would seem from the reasoning in this decision that the Commissioner has more faith in the ability of Treasury civil servants to do their job properly than the Treasury itself has.
By the way, if you have received a refusal which strikes you as particularly peculiar and you think deserves a wider audience, please get in touch.
Following on from my previous post, here's a nice example of a refusal to disclose information which is based on the fear that disclosing it would distort the behaviour of civil servants.
This is why the Ministry of Defence refused to reveal statistics contained in briefing folders prepared for ministers for Parliamentary question time:
"If officials knew that the statistics included in briefing folders were likely to be published, they would tend either to include many more statistics so as to camouflage those of particular interest, or to omit statistics altogether."
I've been thinking further about the refusal of the Cabinet Office to disclose how often John Prescott has actually chaired Cabinet Committee meetings, revealed a fortnight ago.
The reasons for the refusal were as follows: "If Ministers and officials suspected that this information would be released, they would be less likely to make use of the Cabinet Committee system, and this would significantly undermine its effectiveness."
And:"If Ministers and officials suspected that once a decision was reached, information pertaining to the process by which they had reached that point was to be released (such as the timing and sequencing of meetings), they might be less willing to engage in full and frank discussion of the available options."
In other words, information cannot be released because civil servants and ministers would react to this greater flow of information by getting confused and doing the wrong thing, and that isn't in the public interest. This kind of reasoning for a refusal may seem bizarre but is actually quite common.
Some commenters on the Prescott refusal, both here and , have suggested the classic TV series 'Yes, Minister' as the inspiration for this kind of response, and of course one can see their point.
However, I now realise it reminds me of a different fictional work - Homer's .
Odysseus faced the problem of having to sail past the Sirens, whose singing enticed ships off course and into shipwreck. His solution was to plug the ears of his crew with beeswax so they could hear nothing (while tying himself firmly to the mast so that he could enjoy the singing without the risk of being lured into disaster).
So this kind of FOI refusal seems a bit like deciding to stuff the ears of civil servants with beeswax to protect their easily bewildered brains from the siren voices that would lead them into failing to call the right meetings or other forms of bureaucratic ruin.
I hope the analogy is not too contrived. Anyway I've been going through our records in search of refusals which involve the blocking of officials' ears with beeswax, and plan to post some of them next week.
In any case, according to your point of view, such refusals are either based on an unjustifiably low opinion of the character and integrity of civil servants or alternatively a realistic assessment of human nature.
Jump to more content from this blog
A blog about freedom of information, written by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's Martin Rosenbaum.
For the latest updates across Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
You can stay up to date with Open Secrets via these feeds.
Open Secrets Feed(RSS)
Open Secrets Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 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.
