Government plans FOI restrictions
The government is planning to introduce important new restrictions on access to cabinet and royal papers under freedom of information.
Under the new plans, cabinet papers would be absolutely exempt from FOI for a period of 20 years. This would include records relating to cabinet sub-committees.
This would be significantly tighter than the current position, where for most cabinet documents the decision on whether to release them depends on the "public interest test" - whether it is more in the public interest to disclose them in response to an FOI request or to keep them secret.
Royal papers will also be subject to an absolute exemption for 20 years, which in the case of the sovereign and the heir to the throne would be extended to five years after their death if that was later.
The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that this is what Gordon Brown meant when in his Commons statement today he referred to "the need to strengthen protection for particularly sensitive material".
This will be accompanied by greater openness for government papers apart from cabinet and royal documents, reducing the "30 year rule" which governs when most of them will be open to the public to 20 years. This is the government's response to the recent Dacre review of the rule.
Mr Brown also confirmed that FOI will be extended to cover a wider range of organisations. The justice minister Michael Wills had already indicated this last month.
The next step on this would involve consultation with those bodies that the government wants to bring within the scope of FOI, so it will be some time before any extension actually takes effect.
Mr Brown told MPs:
"Given the vital role transparency has played in sweeping aside the discredited system of allowances, and holding power to account, I believe we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information."
UPDATE 17.50: The Ministry of Justice has now given me this statement:
"The Dacre Review's recommendation that we consider - in parallel to adopting a new rule - whether certain categories of information deserve enhanced protection has prompted us to look at important safeguards in the current FOI Act. In relation to Cabinet information, and information relating to the Royal Household, it has become clear that those safeguards are insufficiently robust to protect our current constitutional arrangements, and need changing. We will be announcing the detail of these changes in our full response, to be published shortly.We will be making two amendments to the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act to ensure that our information access arrangements allow essential constitutional relationships and conventions to be preserved.
"Cabinet papers will be released much earlier than under the current rule, but will be subject to an absolute exemption under the Act until they are 20 years old.
"To ensure the constitutional position and political impartiality of the Monarchy is not undermined, the relevant exemption in the Freedom of Information Act will be made absolute for information relating to communications with the Royal Household that is less than 20 years' old. After that point - if the relevant Member of the Royal Family is still alive - then the exemption will continue to apply until five years after their death - on an absolute basis for the Sovereign and the Heir to the Throne, and on a qualified basis for other members of the Royal Family."
The Campaign for Freedom of Information is not happy.
A 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Does this government still not get the fact that the general public will not accept any form of exemption to the FOI from a corrupt cabinet. If they wish to indroduce this the must have an election and have it in their manifesto and let us decide what they are pemitted to exclude.
Complain about this comment
These proposals would be just fine, perhaps about 30 or 35 years ago when everyone trusted the integrity of "honourable" members.
In this day and age, people don't just expect but demand accountability and openness and efforts to "protect sensitive areas" come across as attempts to avoid the processes of scrutiny and accountability.
Now there always will be a balance to be achieved, e.g. the publication or otherwise of the report about Shahid Malik's expenses, but the Government really needs to be more open ion the ways it explains the whys and wherefores of these moves.
Complain about this comment
So the plan is to strengthen FOI for other public bodies (hopefully including Parliament), while restricting it for Cabinet/Royals? Sounds rather self-serving.
I'm fine with the exemption for the Royals, but i think Cabinet papers should only have that for 10 years then be subject to "public interest".
Complain about this comment
What utter trash.
MPs already are able to deny release of documents if it is deemed 'not in the public interest'. It therefore follows that this law will only block the release of documents that are in the public interest. For this reason, this restriction should be denied.
Complain about this comment
Why on earth is the Royal family exempt ?
Do they not receive tax payers money ?
What for instance happens to the huge sum received by them under CAP ?
Do we live in a modern world or do we not ?
A modern day "dissolution of the monastries" is required for much the same reason as in the 16th Century.
It is pointless changing a voting system if the FOI cannot be enforced. It is like voting whilst still half blindfolded.
Complain about this comment
I just don't buy in to the argument that cabinet meeting should be fully exempt from the FOI act.
The cabinet decision to go to war is a case in point where there should be no hiding place and what was said in cabinet is without doubt in the public interest. If the United Kingdom was taken into an illegal war then those who were responsible for that decision should be held accountable now, not in 20 or 30 years.
Knowing that minutes of cabinet meetings could be released far from resulting in cabinet members being reluctant to express their views may ensure that the views that they express are instead carefully considered.
There is sufficient protection to ensure that cabinet minutes are only released where they pass the public interest test and the governments decision to veto the decision that the papers concerning Iraq should be released is both a disgrace and a sign that they have something to hide.
Complain about this comment
"it has become clear that those safeguards are insufficiently robust to protect our current constitutional arrangements"
Translation: We won't be able to keep getting away with this if people are able to find out what we're up to.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it would be justified to extend it to Members allowances. After all the current safeguards under FOI have proved to be anything but robust.
Complain about this comment
Foreign goverments and agencies will already have a place a means to find out what they require. The only possible need to exclude Cabinet papers etc will be to make politicians unaccountable for their decisions.
It's okay to act in my name, but I am prevented from knowing why they felt the need to act. As has been already stated, modern politicians lack a moral compass and cannot be trusted to act honourably unless they are subject to public scrutiny.
The House of Commons should hold the cabinet to account, but this not happened with the current bunch of spivs. Until they gain public trust, they should be allowed to hide nothing. As for the Royals, exactly what sensitive information can there be left that isn't already in the public domain?
Complain about this comment
Kudos to the Ministry of Justice for effectively admitting that real decision-making power lies in the hands of the Cabinet and the Royals.
The MoJ response is eloquent testimony to the impotence of the Parliamentary committee structure vis-a-vis Government, and therefore to the fiction that is the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.
That said, recent scandals have done nothing to show that "Honourable" members could be trusted with real supervisory authority over anyone else anyway.
Complain about this comment
This government is very much out of touch with the public feeling, these proposals seem to be in favour of hiding MORE informatioon not less!
Complain about this comment
Shout out to Gordon Brown: It's alright, you convinced us long ago that your government is utterly clueless and insensitive - you can stop now. (Oh, BTW, thanks to you and your Tory Lites for handing the real Tories the next General Election on a plate. Really well done there.)
Complain about this comment
Personally I am for real open government.
All documents should be open to public scrutiny - every single one. Furthermore there should be no secret meetings.
The problem with England today is that the cameras are pointing at the wrong people. All cabinet meetings should be shown via the net.
If you have done nothing wrong there's nothing to fear.
The government must be made accountable to the people.
Complain about this comment
Although in theory this means some documents are less likely to be released under FOI, you have to really strain logic to argue that it is overall cutting down on FOI releasing. Cabinet minutes were certainly never intended to be released before the 30-year rule and it was a surprise to put it mildly when the tribunal suddenly decided that they should be. However reducing the 30-year rule to 20 years is a big change - and that means a whole stack of documents being released significantly earlier.
The Royal Family has always been removed from the operation of the FOIA so that's really just tidying up. Overall these changes are good.
Complain about this comment
If we have learned anything over the past three weeks it's that the actions of anyone in a position of public trust and responsibility must be open to scrutiny. The Head of State should not be exempt from this requirement. If the Windsors don't like the implications of the FOI Act, then they should give up their hereditary privileges and make way for an elected Head of State. The laws of this country must apply equally to everyone, no matter who your parents were.
Complain about this comment
Nos 15 - Yes indeed. Now Martin and all BBC presenters how much are you being paid ?
Complain about this comment
Does this government have something to hide??? What are they afraid of???
Obviously this information that is hidden must be proof that they've done something wrong.
Well, that's what they tell us about ordinary people's information and privacy.
Complain about this comment
Sounds like they are at it again!!!
Complain about this comment
I have read the statement.... and the 'explantation' from the Ministry of 'Justice' but are we not talking about the fox looking after the hen house here?
Please feel free to insert 'moat' and 'duckhouse' and 'office No 2' in that last sentence instead of 'hen house'if you feel it to be more appropriate!
Honestly, does anyone REALLY believe that we can trust the motives of the 645 current members of The Fraudsters' Parliament?
Complain about this comment
FOI request for a secret practice direction on royal wills has taken 18 months so far, and I still have no date for an answer. Is my request one of the reasons why there is a move to restrict FOI in respect of Royal matter.
It came to light in the court case seeking to open the two royal wills that a secret practice direction. as the practice of sealing royal wills Before and after the death of Princess Margaret there were discussions between the Palace, Farrers, the Attorney Generals Secretariat, and the Attorney General and the court a quite lengthy document system of checks and balances that was highly confidential The primary object of the process was to protect the privacy of the Sovereign had been created.
A freedom of information request has determined the knowledge of this practice direction was so limited that not even the staff at the Court of Appeal knew of this practice direction.
I applied for this document under Freedom of Information in January 2008 and the application remains ongoing. Initially the Court Service denied there was any such practice direction. I pointed out that the Court of Appeal had confirmed the existence of the document in the judgement (see below), and that the judgement confirmed that the document had been created outside any judicial process, and I argued the document was therefore amenable to freedom of information.
Following 15 months of denial of the existence of the document by the Court Service, notwithstanding responses on my part with evidence that there was such a document, I made a further fresh application direct to the Master of Rolls on 5 March 2009. I made an FOI request for the document exactly as described the Court of Appeal hearing (see below). The response I received denied the existence of the document referred to in the Court of Appeal hearing at which the Lord Chief Justice presided, using the rather odd logic that there was no such practice direction, and implying that therefore the document did not exist. I also understand that you then made a freedom of information request and Mr. **** dealt with the same. Following an investigation into the matter he established that there is, in effect, no such practice direction and you were informed accordingly. I had consistently pointed out that the document I requested was the one referred to in the Court of Appeal hearing, and that I was not concerned for the purposes of the application what the document was called.
To date I have been given no indication of when I might expect a response, and my requests for an indication of a date appear from my perspective to be simply ignored.
I set out below three abstracts from the Court of Appeal judgement, one of which indicates that it is not certain that a hearing in respect of the wills even took place, a second that for me raises the question if there are beneficiaries who have not been advised of their bequests, and a third that sets out some information on the secret practice direction.
Abstract Court of Appeal Hearing: [2008] EWCA Civ 56 Before :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE THORPE
and
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE DYSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Robert Andrew Brown
Appellant
- and -
(1) The Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
(2) The Executors of the Estate of HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
(3) HM Attorney General
8. No public hearing took place of the two applications. It is not clear whether any hearing took place at all. Nor is it clear whether or not the former President provided reasons for making the orders. If she did they have not been made public.
28. Before and after the death of Princess Margaret there were discussions between the Palace, Farrers, the Attorney Generals Secretariat, and the Attorney General and the court which reviewed what Mr Hinks described as the practice of sealing royal wills. The Senior District Judge was involved who sought the views of the former President. Ultimately a quite lengthy document was agreed that was reviewed and approved by the former President. The process that this contained involved a system of checks and balances that was highly confidential. The primary object of the process was to protect the privacy of the Sovereign. Thus when the two applications came before the former President she had an understanding of the background that she would not otherwise have had.
40 The first three issues are interrelated and are of general public importance. Mr Hinks submitted to us that the reason why wills were open to public inspection was to ensure that effect was given to the wishes of the testator. No material was placed before us in support of such a submission other than a decision, over a century old, that supports the proposition, on the face of it a surprising proposition, that an executor owes no duty to inform a legatee of the terms of his legacy Lewis v Lewis [1904] Ch 656.
Complain about this comment
An FOI request for a secret practice direction on royal wills has taken 18 months so far, and I still have no date for an answer. Is my request one of the reasons why there is a move to restrict FOI in respect of Royal matters.
It came to light in the court case seeking to open the two royal wills that a secret practice direction had been created. (See 28 below)
A freedom of information request has determined the knowledge of this practice direction was so limited that not even the staff at the Court of Appeal knew of this practice direction.
I applied for this document under Freedom of Information in January 2008 and the application remains ongoing. Initially the Court Service denied there was any such practice direction. I pointed out that the Court of Appeal had confirmed the existence of the document in the judgement (see below), that the judgement confirmed that the document had been created outside any judicial process, and I argued the document was therefore amenable to freedom of information.
Following 15 months of denial of the existence of the document by the Court Service, notwithstanding responses on my part with evidence that there was such a document, I made a further fresh application direct to the Master of Rolls on 5 March 2009. I made an FOI request for the document exactly as described the Court of Appeal hearing (see below). The response I received denied the existence of the document referred to in the Court of Appeal hearing at which the Lord Chief Justice presided, using the rather odd logic that there was no such practice direction, and implying that therefore the document did not exist.
(quote) I also understand that you then made a freedom of information request and Mr. **** dealt with the same. Following an investigation into the matter he established that there is, in effect, no such practice direction and you were informed accordingly (quote)
I had consistently pointed out that the document I requested was the one referred to in the Court of Appeal hearing, and that I was not concerned for the purposes of the application what the document was called.
To date I have been given no indication of when I might expect a response, and my requests for an indication of a date appear from my perspective to be simply ignored.
I set out below three abstracts from the Court of Appeal judgement, one of which indicates that it is not certain that a hearing in respect of the wills even took place, a second that for me raises the question if there are beneficiaries who have not been advised of their bequests, and a third that sets out some information on the secret practice direction.
Abstract Court of Appeal Hearing: [2008] EWCA Civ 56 Before :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE THORPE
and
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE DYSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Robert Andrew Brown
Appellant
- and -
(1) The Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
(2) The Executors of the Estate of HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
(3) HM Attorney General
8. No public hearing took place of the two applications. It is not clear whether any hearing took place at all. Nor is it clear whether or not the former President provided reasons for making the orders. If she did they have not been made public.
28. Before and after the death of Princess Margaret there were discussions between the Palace, Farrers, the Attorney Generals Secretariat, and the Attorney General and the court which reviewed what Mr Hinks described as the practice of sealing royal wills. The Senior District Judge was involved who sought the views of the former President. Ultimately a quite lengthy document was agreed that was reviewed and approved by the former President. The process that this contained involved a system of checks and balances that was highly confidential. The primary object of the process was to protect the privacy of the Sovereign. Thus when the two applications came before the former President she had an understanding of the background that she would not otherwise have had.
40 The first three issues are interrelated and are of general public importance. Mr Hinks submitted to us that the reason why wills were open to public inspection was to ensure that effect was given to the wishes of the testator. No material was placed before us in support of such a submission other than a decision, over a century old, that supports the proposition, on the face of it a surprising proposition, that an executor owes no duty to inform a legatee of the terms of his legacy Lewis v Lewis [1904] Ch 656.
Complain about this comment
The people have become educated to the point where governmental deception is much more difficult so the only prudent act is to disallow access to information concerning the process of agreement to foster such deceptions. Ethical behavior and public honesty are barriers to public office. An ethical member may turn on another member and expose some lie they are telling the public. We can't have that, where would behaviors like that end? When you spend a number of years building an entire governmental system on lies it becomes very difficult to begin telling the truth. It's for the good of the country, you know. Citzens can be so troublesome.
Complain about this comment
One rule for one lot at the top.
Another rule for the next lot down.
Yet another rule for everybody else.
Which lot have the least intrusion.
Which lot pay for the jamboree.
Complain about this comment
As ever our open and honest PM buries the devil in the detail - some modest improvements matched by a serius tightening of the stuff that matters .. two faced does not really cover this .. but no surprises there ..
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
So while the government is passing more and more laws meaning they get to look into ever-more detailed aspects of our lives, they are simultaneously passing more laws to make sure we don't get to see anything of what they are doing.
Sorry guys, if you feel it's necessary to see every single email I send and every single phone number I ever dial, I want to see what you're doing with my taxes. As your employer and the one who pays your salary I have the right to know what you are doing during the time I pay you. It's not that hard to understand, is it?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS