FOI moves closer to heart of government
I referred a couple of weeks ago to an important decision taken by the Information Tribunal which could make the records of some internal Whitehall policy discussions more easily available to the public.
The of the Tribunal's judgment has now been published. It confirms the potential significance of this decision, which was the first one the Tribunal took relating to how much secrecy is or is not needed for information relating to the formulation of government policy.
The Department for Education and Skills lined up the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Turnbull, as one of its witnesses to argue that maintaining confidentiality of policy discussions is essential for good government. His appearance was one indication of the importance which government officials attach to this case. But his arguments were dismissed by the Tribunal, which decided that any harm caused by releasing minutes of the official meetings at issue was less than the benefit that would result from better public understanding of government policy.
The Department may now appeal the case to the High Court. Given that the Tribunal's reasoning was partly based on the traditional 'courage and independence' of the British civil servant, I wonder if the DfES will now have to provide evidence that British civil servants are not really as courageous and independent as the Tribunal believed.
The Tribunal also published key and related decision this week, which (subject to any appeal) would force the Department for Work and Pensions to release a feasibility study on ID cards.
Until now the main disclosures under freedom of information have related to themes like public spending, the performance of public services, public health and safety, factual background information, the actions of non-governmental publicly-funded bodies, and historical decisions of previous governments. Both these Tribunal decisions take FOI closer to more sensitive territory - the central government policy-making process.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Martin,
I was pleased with this post but sighed when you wrote The Department for Education and Skills may appeal against this decision. And so it goes round and round.
I note that "Scooter" Libby in the USA when he was found guilty of breaking whatever law it was he broke in outing that Secret Service operative - had his lawyer say he would apply for a new trial for Mr Libby!
So is that the way the lawyers carry on making money? Not an appeal any more - but new trials until their clients are given the "correct" verdict. Wither Britain in this regard?
I just tried reading the full text but between snoozes it occurred to me one of the main barriers to Freedom Of Information Act is language it is freed in. Ye old prison clothes come to mind.
I love some types of the English language but legaleses is not one of them.
And remembering a certain London Council's (allegedly) trying to tie up a former child in care in verbal knots via said language, your shorthand on FOI is greatly appreciated, Martin.
So much can be hidden in the dry legal terms - it is nice to know a few baleful eyes are kept on everything issued now by people who can actually understand the verbiage.
A few years ago, I am sure that serving Governments could have presented legislation that suggested "black was white" in law and it would have remained unchallenged by the supposed opposition parties except to point out the Government were stealing their "White was black" proposals. Ah - do not under estimate a Dull Grey Man. LOL
Can I start a campaign for Freedom of Information and the Information being freed being put automatically in an understandable language?