´óÏó´«Ã½

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, , 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 is introducing a new model scheme from 1 January 2009, which public authorities will have to abide by (the ´óÏó´«Ã½ 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, - name of judge, details of the initial and the increased sentence, nature of offence, etc. But suppose you wanted comparable information for sentences reduced on appeal. Some are available (and admittedly there are many more cases), but nothing like the same level of detail - and the Courts Service has refused to provide it to the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Glover and Holsen do see alternative possible scenarios of 'Death by a Thousand Cuts' (in which FOI is starved of resources) or 'Legal Trench Warfare' (in which government resists disclosures in every way).

Of course some requesters will feel they are living through such experiences already. This week the ´óÏó´«Ã½ received an apology from the National Offender Management Service, now part of the Ministry of Justice, which had spent several months claiming that it was considering the public interest in releasing certain items of information - information which it then turned out it did not actually possess.

The letter of apology to my colleague Nicola Beckford stated: 'The lapse in the handling of your request was caused by a breakdown in our procedures. This resulted in officials being mistaken in judging that information existed when it did not.'

I have discussed the topic of 'NOMS and the ontological problem' previously. NOMS has a for its requests and records management, but perhaps it hasn't quite got to the point of the German government. A few days ago it was reported that .

But whatever the problems that sometimes crop up with freedom of information, the out this week indicate that the number of requests to central government bodies is remarkably stable, perhaps even slightly increasing.

This suggests that freedom of information is not so pointless that people are giving up on it, nor so fruitful that people are wanting to use it much more. And my view is that things are likely to continue in this way for the moment, whatever scenarios may appear in the future. Personally I'm going to be concentrating on some other projects at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for the next three months or so. I may continue to post on this blog from time to time, but it will be more intermittent.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

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 ´óÏó´«Ã½. 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 ´óÏó´«Ã½ 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 Bureau.

A Home Office spokesman told the ´óÏó´«Ã½: 'They are sent for a Minister to note them before a response is sent. This is so that Ministers are aware of information that is being released into the public domain.'

This high level of ministerial involvement has implications for the amount of civil service resources devoted to FOI, as it increases the time spent on it by senior officials and those in ministerial private offices. It also risks causing delays.

An internal Home Office email accompanying the document also reveals that the Permanent Secretary has set a 90% performance target for replying within the statutory 20-day deadline.

The Home Office spokesman said: 'The Home Office is committed to responding to FOI requests within the timescales set by the Act but the complexity of our cases means that this will not always be possible. We have therefore set an internal target of 90 per cent which is achievable and challenging. Our performance has considerably improved (from 45% in 2005 to nearly 90% this year) since the Act came into force and we intend to make further progress.'

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

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

We 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 ´óÏó´«Ã½ 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 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 ´óÏó´«Ã½'s FOI requests, including a breakdown of how much has paid to the telecoms companies by each police force, are on the .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?