Toluu

Open Secrets

A blog about freedom of information by Martin Rosenbaum

FOI or E-Enabled Open Government?December 19 2008

We could be heading for an era of 'E-Enabled Open Government' in the world of freedom of information in the UK.

That anyway is according to a new book, Constitutional Futures Revisited, which predicts the future of constitutional change in the UK. The authors of the chapter on FOI, Mark Glover and Sarah Holsen, argue that a scenario of 'government on the web' with an emphasis on proactive disclosure of information by public authorities is the most sustainable scenario, satisfying both government and openness advocates.

But they do point out that this is set against an international trend towards 'a gradual weakening of the FOI law through administrative or legislative means'.

If public authorities do move towards much greater proactive disclosure, then one vehicle should be their publication schemes. The Information Commissioner is introducing a new model scheme from 1 January 2009, which public authorities will have to abide by (the BBC has just revamped its FOI site here).

The current pattern of proactive disclosure certainly seems to throw up all sorts of apparent anomalies. For example, if you want to know about cases where judges have imposed unduly lenient sentences,

Ministers approve FOI answersDecember 10 2008

To what extent are government ministers personally engaged in overseeing responses to freedom of information requests?

Some light has now been shed on this question thanks to a Home Office internal report inadvertently sent to the BBC. And the evidence it contains suggests that many Home Office FOI replies may involve ministerial approval, except for those where the requester is simply told that the Home Office doesn't actually possess the information wanted.

This Home Office document was sent in error by an official to a BBC East Midlands journalist, Alistair Jackson. (I have redacted the names of some private individuals).

It itemises a batch of FOI requests to be answered by the Home Office, dividing them into those that need to be seen by a minister before the reply is sent and those that don't. As far as this group of 15 FOI questions is concerned, the only ones excluded from direct ministerial oversight are the five where the intended response is that the information is not held. Any answer involving the actual supply of information, or the refusal to provide material held, required ministerial approval.

In each case it is also noted whether the FOI request comes from the press, and (for those going to ministers), the 'level of controversy' is assessed. The most controversial one in this list concerns executive bonuses at the Criminal Records Bure

Police pay millions to mobile companiesDecember 9 2008

Many questions are being asked about the police investigation into the actions of Damien Green. But here, I suggest, is a new one.

We know the police took his mobile phone. They may well have checked who he's been calling, and who's been calling him. But if they asked his mobile network for help with this, how much are they having to pay for that assistance?

I ask this because by using the Freedom of Information Act the BBC has discovered that last year the police had to pay mobile phone companies over eight million pounds for access to data which could benefit criminal investigations.

The Telecommunications UK Fraud Forum says that the moblle companies have to take on trained experts to help the police in this way, and that needs funding.

However the Tory MP David Davis says: "Companies should have a sense of civic responsibility, and in my view, that means this sort of material should be provided free."

The full details of the replies to the BBC's FOI requests, including a breakdown of how much has paid to the telecoms companies by each police force, are on the Politics Show website.

O'Donnell vs CampbellNovember 26 2008

Alastair Campbell says he was 'punctilious in my approach to the vetting process' when publishing his diary extracts about life in Downing Street.

But this punctiliousness about vetting doesn't seem to have involved complying with the wishes of the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell. He asked Campbell not to proceed with the book at all - that's according to the evidence O'Donnell gave to the Information Tribunal. This evidence has been most usefully transcribed by Sam Coates of the Times, he says for the benefit of 'FOI watchers and civil service nerds' (thanks, Sam).

This was part of the current hearing into the disclosure of cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq war.

O'Donnell's reluctance to sanction Campbell's book is very interesting. This issue - of the extent to which ministers, officials and special advisers are or are not authorised to write memoirs - has important implications for the handling of freedom of information requests, and I am sure we will be hearing more of it in this context.

O'Donnell told the Tribunal yesterday that a number of Cabinet ministers had asked him about the case and how it might change how the Cabine

Iraq Cabinet minutes FOI caseNovember 24 2008

Tomorrow the Information Tribunal will start hearing a freedom of information case about cabinet minutes that could have major repercussions for the impact of FOI. It is being treated with great importance both within government and within the Information Commissioner's Office.

The case concerns the records of cabinet meetings in March 2003 which considered legal advice on the imminent invasion of Iraq.

The Information Commissioner Richard Thomas ruled earlier this year that the formal minutes of these meetings should be revealed. The Cabinet Office is now appealing against this to the Tribunal.

Richard Thomas however decided not to support the disclosure of the notebook in which the Cabinet Secretary records discussion during the meetings. The Tribunal will also consider this material, which may be more detailed.

The significance the government attaches to this hearing is clear from the fact that they have decided that the Cabinet Secretary himself Sir Gus O'Donnell will give evidence to argue that releasing these minutes could impede free and frank discussion in the future. The Information Commissioner's Office is planning to have the distinguished Whitehall historian