My Christmas / New Year break from the blog will be continuing for another week or so.
Meanwhile, however, a seasonal entry. On Boxing Day the hunting movement despite the law, which they regard as unenforceable. This reflects the fact that since the Hunting Act was passed there has been only limited Police intervention with the activities of hunts.
An insight into Police thinking about some of the practicalities involved can be gleaned from guidance issued to officers by Northumbria Police, which has been obtained by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ under freedom of information. It states:
"It is suggested that mass arrests would not be appropriate. This would have a significant effect on Northumbria Police resources in processing the arrests and also in dealing with searching and the associated seizure of evidence e.g. a pack of hounds. This would also, no doubt, cause widespread media attention. In following the ACPO guidance officers should record names/addresses of the alleged 'offender' and any witnesses as well as securing other appropriate available evidence. The incident would be documented and forwarded to the relevant Chief Inspector of Operations where consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would be undertaken to determine whether to prosecute.
"On the issue of search and seizure officers should also be aware of the associated practicalities. For example, if hounds/horses are seized as evidence, then the officer will need to identify kennelling and stabling at the area commands expense. Kennels for stray dogs in area commands could only be used for short periods, and under no circumstances are kennels provided for police dogs in area commands (or HQ Kennels) to be used, no matter how short the period. In relation to the seizure of horses the Mounted Unit stables and horseboxes can not be used, and so alternatives would have to be arranged."
The junior health minister Lord (Norman) Warner is soon leaving his job. Last week that he would stand down at the end of this year, because he wants 'to spend more time with his family rather than red boxes'.
Some people may wonder if his resignation has anything to do with an interview he gave to Newsnight on 24 May this year about the NHS's slow progress in its . This allows GPs referring patients to make an electronic booking of outpatient appointments with specialists, with a range of choices over hospital and timing.
The government set a target of 90 per cent of GP referrals being made through Choose and Book by March 2007. However earlier this year using freedom of information the ´óÏó´«Ã½ discovered that as of April 2006 only 9 per cent were being made through this scheme.
Lord Warner responded by telling Newsnight that he was still confident that they would reach 75 per cent by the end of the year and 90 per cent by March 2007. Asked by Jeremy Paxman if he would resign if this didn't happen, he replied: "Probably I will have to, won't I?"
I have now obtained from the Department of Health the following monthly figures for the proportion of GP referrals made through Choose and Book:
Apr-06 9%
May-06 12%
Jun-06 17%
Jul-06 19%
Aug-06 23%
Sep-06 25%
Oct-06 27%
Nov 06 30%
Well, the figures are going up, but the target of 90 per cent looks even more unlikely than it did back in May.
Maybe it's all a coincidence and this has no connection to his resignation; maybe he's resigned now before he would have been forced out in March 2007; or maybe when he was under questioning from Paxman back in May, Lord Warner already knew that he was planning to be gone by then anyway.
But as he now enjoys the company of his family he can also be happy that he's not having to spend time on dealing with any more FOI requests in his red boxes.
As is pointed out from time to time by commenters on this blog, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ itself doesn't always respond to FOI requesters by sending them all the information they have asked for.
Some people think that this means I am guilty of breath-taking hypocrisy. My point of view is that no public authority subject to FOI is bound to release everything it's asked for, and it would be bizarre to argue that just because the ´óÏó´«Ã½ gets FOI requests it should be disbarred from making any.
Be that as it may, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been involved in an interesting case today at the . The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has declined to reveal the minutes of the Governors meeting in January 2004 which ended Greg Dyke's position as Director-General of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in the wake of the Hutton Report.
The Information Commissioner backed the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in this stance, and the case has been appealed to the Tribunal by the Guardian and the open government campaigner Heather Brooke, both of whom had put an FOI request for the minutes to the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Their appeal is supported by Greg Dyke.
Since June 2005 the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has made public the minutes of Governors meetings, while redacting those parts of them which it feels must remain confidential.
It will be several weeks before the Tribunal announces whether it thinks the minutes of the January 2004 meeting should join them in the public domain.
UPDATE (Thursday): In my copy of today's Guardian, page 2 told me that I could read about the case on page 13, but when I reached page 13 it wasn't there. It looks like the story got dropped after the earlier editions. But if you're interested in the Guardian's account of yesterday's proceedings (and it reflects both sides of the story), you can still read it .
Is the Department for Constitutional Affairs in a big hurry to introduce new, more restrictive regulations on freedom of information?
I understand that Baroness Cathy Ashton, the junior minister responsible, told the recent meeting of the that the new regulations would be laid before Parliament on 19 March, with the intention that they come into force on 17 April. (The DCA press office has refused to confirm this timetable publicly, telling me that they won't comment on what is said at User Group meetings.)
Once regulations are laid before Parliament, MPs and Peers have a chance to object to them. By the way, due to the Parliament will not be sitting between 29 March and 16 April.
South Yorkshire Police is prosecuting South Yorkshire Police because South Yorkshire Police can't tell South Yorkshire Police which South Yorkshire Police officer was driving a speeding vehicle being used by South Yorkshire Police.
This follows ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporter Martin Shankleman's determined use of freedom of information in pursuit of cases where Police vehicles are caught speeding by speed cameras, but no driver is prosecuted - because the Police can't establish which one of their officers was doing the driving at the time. His revelations of such cases have featured on , firstly in September and then again last night.
Last night South Yorkshire's Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes told Newsnight that 'since Mr Shankleman brought this matter to my attention, we've reiterated the rules, issued national guidance, brought the disciplinary mattes to the attention of the officers concerned and for the first time prosecuted ourselves.'
So in other words ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporter uses freedom of information to find out and tell Chief Constable what's going on within his own organisation.
Chief Constable Hughes is the traffic safety spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. This is the list of instances where his force was unable to identify the Police officer driving a speeding vehicle.
The case against South Yorkshire Police will be heard at Rotherham Magistrates Court on 28 December.
The number of freedom of information requests to central government seems to be slowly dropping.
This is revealed in the , issued today by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
In July-September 2006 there were 7,641 FOI requests to central government departments and other central bodies monitored by the DCA. This is the lowest quarterly figure since the law came into force at the start of 2005. It is about 4 per cent down on the previous quarter and 5 per cent down on quarter 3 of 2005.
The DCA argues that within this figure the number of requests to departments themselves has been rising slightly, while the number to other central government bodies has been dropping more sharply. This is actually true just for the year-on-year comparison. In the last quarter both sets of figures registered a fall.
And interestingly, on closer examination of the figures, the rise in departmental requests compared to last year stems almost entirely from a near-doubling of requests to the Home Office.
Possibly this reflects the fact that the 2006 Home Office figures include requests received by the Criminal Records Bureau and the UK Passport Service, which are not in the 2005 data. If so, this would suggest that the apparent increase is at least partly artificial.
Possibly it reflects the experienced by the Home Office earlier this year, which may have prompted an increased number of requests from concerned citizens and even journalists. If so, this would imply that increased public interest in using FOI is associated with times when government is not 'fit for purpose'.
Possibly it reflects (and I say this from personal experience) a tactic of counting as a 'non-routine information request' (which is what the statistics cover) the kind of simple request that other departments treat as routine or as the provision of advice and assistance. If so, this may also explain the Home Office's considerable improvement in the proportion of requests which it answers within time.
The Labour and Conservative party conferences earlier this year were noted for , which meant that some of those attending had to queue for hours while others failed altogether to gain admission for certain sessions or fringe meetings.
As the tempers of frustrated queuers worsened, and pressure mounted on those processing applications, relations between the political parties and the Police were not entirely harmonious. This is clear in a document from the Dorset Police released to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ following a freedom of information request.
The Dorset Police were responsible for policing the Conservative conference in Bournemouth. According to this document, relations between the Police and party officials who were meant to be working alongside each other became so strained that the Police closed the door between their office and that of the Conservative officials, and then stationed a uniformed officer at the door.
The Labour conference was policed by the Greater Manchester force, which under FOI has supplied the ´óÏó´«Ã½ with a report of a 'multi-agency debrief' held after the conference to 'capture learning points'.
One Labour representative had this suggestion as to how to ensure similar problems did not crop up in future: 'Allow access without security screening for all who have attended before (except disruptives)'. Where this would leave is not clear.
This morning Breakfast featured an item about how the government's planned changes would restrict freedom of information. You can watch it via .
is one of those ´óÏó´«Ã½ News programmes which have been particularly keen on using FOI to shed light on important topics.
The programme's revelations stemming from FOI include the , , and .
If the proposed rules had already been in force, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would probably not have been able to reveal these facts to viewers.
Three further comments on the government consultation this morning.
1. The questions specifically asked by the Department for Constitutional Affairs focus very narrowly on the detail of how to implement its plans. The DCA has not asked for comments on the basic thrust of what it is trying to do. Nevertheless, given the reaction so far, it is likely that many respondents will tell the DCA that they reject the proposals altogether.
2. I understand that the junior DCA minister Baroness Cathy Ashton told the which met this morning that the regulations would be introduced on March 19. Since the consultation ends on March 8, this does not seem to leave very long for digesting its results. However, if the DCA does not act quickly, the changes could end up being considerably postponed.
April will see the election campaign for the Scottish, Welsh and local elections on 3 May. At time of writing it seems likely that this will then be followed by Blair announcing his resignation, with a new Labour leader and PM in post around the end of June. There will then be a ministerial reshuffle. It is widely predicted that Lord Falconer's position at the DCA will come to an end once his old flatmate is no longer in Number 10. And it is far from clear whether some of the Cabinet ministers most concerned about FOI, such as Jack Straw, will survive under a Brown premiership.
Gordon Brown's team are working hard on his plans to make a big impact in his first 100 days as prime minister. Would he want to make restricting FOI part of this?
3. The DCA quotes again a table setting out potential savings from its plans, while adding (in a footnote) that these figures are 'upper limits', or what others might call 'exaggerations'. Given that the proclaimed aim is to save time and money, it is striking how many additional tasks that will mitigate the savings will actually be created if the proposals come in:
* Additional internal reviews and complaints to the Information Commissioner
* Extra guidance on implementing the new regulations
* Greater need for providing 'advice and assistance' to requesters
* Time spent on estimating consideration, consultation and reading time
* Time spent on deciding when it is reasonable to aggregate requests
Most of these points are noted by the DCA, but they have made no apparent attempt to calculate what level of savings would actually survive once these factors are taken into account.
The government has this morning further details of its plans to restrict the use of the freedom of information law by those seeking access to information from public authorities.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs has produced a draft set of regulations and announced a formal consultation period on them which will run until 8 March.
The regulations are in line with the intentions previously announced by the DCA, although there are some small refinements.
The new rules would allow public authorities to take into account time spent on considering possible exemptions and consulting others when working out if requests are too expensive, but now proposes a cap on the amount of such time they can put towards the cost limit. This would still push many sensitive and tricky requests beyond the cost limit.
The proposals will also still allow authorities to aggregate unrelated requests from different individuals from one organisation and then refuse them on cost grounds, but now only where it is 'reasonable' for them to do so.
These refinements on their original plans will be presented by the DCA as the outcome of their 'taking stock' of the responses to their previous announcement.
They represent minor concessions to the wave of criticism that the initial proposals prompted, but at the cost of introducing more complexity. This may well eliminate many of the cost savings that the plans are intended to achieve. The proposals are bound to lead to time-consuming internal reviews and complaints to the Commissioner about matters like estimating the cost of consultation time and when it is 'reasonable' to aggregate requests.
More comment follows later.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has today expressed its 'strong opposition' to the government's proposed restrictions on freedom of information.
The Deputy Director General Mark Byford, who chairs the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Journalism Board, has written to Lord Falconer asking the government to withdraw the proposals. This is the text of the letter.
Byford writes: 'These proposals would dramatically curtail the ability of ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists and others to put into the public domain material which merits disclosure in the public interest. In this way the proposed changes would actually obstruct the aim of increasing openness and transparency in public life that lies behind the government's introduction of FOI.'
He adds: 'From our perspective as an authority receiving many requests we see absolutely no need for the measures that are being proposed.'
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is in a virtually unique position as an organisation which both submits and receives large numbers of FOI requests.
At last, a result - of sorts, anyway - from appealing to the Information Commissioner's Office.
Once the ICO eventually started to investigate a complaint I'd made about the Department for Education and Skills, the DfES sent me 265 photocopied pages of material which it now accepts should, in line with the public interest, be disclosed to me.
As it happens, last year I visited the DfES to look at other records which they had released in response to my original FOI request in this case. So if they had made this latest material available when they should have done, I would have seen it then and they wouldn't have had to copy and post it to me.
Perhaps those who are concerned about the cost of freedom of information should examine how much money could be saved by public authorities responding properly to FOI requests in the first place.
We know Ken Livingstone is keen on the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, but does he have to express it like this?
'I have long had the greatest admiration for the extraordinary courage and tenacity with which you have acted to improve the lives of the people of Venezuela and resolutely resisted external pressures to alter the just and progressive course of your government.'
That is an extract from a letter the London Mayor sent in January this year to . This was obtained by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ using freedom of information. The Mayor's Office supplied us with the Spanish version and an English translation.
And the letter continues in the same tone. Livingstone told Chavez how 'In London ... we have been deeply moved by your country's initiative, in partnership with Cuba, to provide free eye care to many' and 'your courage and tenacity have won many admirers in our city.'
Sadly for the Mayor, however, it is possible that his great admiration for President Chavez may not be completely reciprocated. Last month Livingstone's planned visit to Venezuela at short notice, leaving the Mayor having to cope with much embarrassing .
, the recent Police knife amnesty seems to have had no significant impact on knife-related crime.
This is according to an we obtained from the Metropolitan Police under freedom of information.
We also obtained a Met Police review of the national gun amnesty held in April 2003. This provides a similar picture of the amnesty not having a significant impact on crime levels.
This review states:
* Although they offer reassurance to the public and do remove potentially lethal weapons from circulation, gun amnesties have little impact on gun crime. Most guns surrendered are disused weapons. Amnesties are not attractive to criminals who use firearms.
* Amnesties are not an effective means of obtaining forensic evidence. The Forensic Science Service does not have the resources to examine all weapons surrendered.
The release of both these reports by the Met Police illustrates how freedom of information can lead to better-informed public debate about what are effective means to tackle violent crime.
David Cameron's visit to India in September was 'a great success' - according to British government officials.
Sir Michael Arthur, the British High Commissioner in India, reported back to the Foreign Office that 'India impressed the visiting team. They in turn impressed India'. This is revealed in internal Foreign Office communications released to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ following a freedom of information request.
Sir Michael wrote: 'This visit was a great success, and clearly useful to the UK. The Indians were very interested to see the new leadership of the Opposition, and struck of course ... by their relative youth ... It is fair to report that the overall impression made on the Indians that met them - political, media, business - was very positive.'
In another email exchange officials discussed how much briefing to give to Cameron. One commented on a draft: 'I do not think it is too long because I am told that he likes to read stuff.'
Let's hope the Indians were also impressed by the political impartiality of the British civil service.
A 
