1. A request to the Department for Constitutional Affairs for their Statute Law Database.

2. A request to the House of Commons asking for the number of attacks on MPs’ staff. This followed up my earlier request for the names of MPs’ staff. One of the excuses given for not releasing the names of MPs’ staff was that such disclosure ‘may render them, and the Members for whom they work, vulnerable to attack.’ The Commons FOI officer also stated that the Register of Interests covering Members’ secretaries and research assistants has been withdrawn from the Parliamentary website due to ’security concerns’.

One would hope that such drastic and undemocratic measures are underpinned with some kind of empirical evidence. Apparently not, as the answer to my request shows the number of attacks recorded on MPs staff is precisely ZERO.

http://www.yrtk.org/secret-squirrel/hc_attacks

There is considerable community interest in providing free internet access using cheap wireless technology – groups such as consume.net and Wireless London are active in building these networks, as are forward-thinking local authorities such as Westminster’s Wireless City project. All these “trailblazers” emphasise the extremely low cost of establishing wireless networks. In other major cities, libraries see free internet access as part of their public service remit – the New York Public Library being a prime example.

So why is the British Library, a supposedly free public service financed by public money, charging an outrageous £4.50 an hour for wireless access to their electronic resources?

My original FOI/EIR requests
Response from public authority
My request for internal review if request denied
Decision notice from public authority
Appeal to the Information Commissioner
Any other correspondence

In addition, I have added a new section under the ‘General’ category – the Request Diary. Here, you will find more detail about my dealings with various public authorities.

Read the full BBC response here:
http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/20050406_bbc_minutes.pdf (46k)

The BBC states there were two meetings during this time: one on 28 January and another informal meeting on the 29th. The second meeting was not minuted. The BBC cites section 36 (prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs) as reason to withhold the minutes from the 28th.

Section 36 is the ‘catch-all’ exemption that authorities pick when they are desperate. During the House of Lords debate on the FOIA, Lord Mackay summed up the exemption’s sole purpose: ‘Obviously the draftsman decided, just in case something escaped and there is one last fish in the sea, let us get it with a grenade; and this is the grenade.’

Section 36 is a qualified exemption, meaning information can only be withheld when it is in the public interest. The default position in such a balance is for openness, so a public authority must show how secrecy overrides the need for transparency. The BBC makes the claim that if the minutes were made public it would hinder discussion in future meetings and possibly hinder minute taking.

The belief that open meetings hinder vigorous debate is bogus. Secrecy in no way promotes good decision-making, in fact just the opposite. In secrecy, people can make decisions based on nothing more than personal prejudice, unsubstantiated opinion, favouritism or political gain. Good decision-making, like good policy making, must be based on reason that can stand up to public scrutiny. If it cannot, then the decision or policy was rubbish to start with.

The BBC was dealt a major blow by the Governors’ decision to accept offers of resignation from Davis and Dyke. Some would say, the BBC was irreparably weakened by the loss of its top two champions. Would we be seeing such massive cuts in staff if these two were still in power? The governors actions set the ball rolling on what could be the destruction of the BBC. It is imperative that the public know why the governors acted as they did. If the governors are so afraid to stand up and explain their actions to the public, one can only assume they know something we don’t — that their reasoning will not stand up to public scrutiny.

I will be making this argument in my appeal to the Information Commissioner.

What of the lack of minutes from the meeting on the 29th? Firstly, it is wrong to blame FOI for the culture of not taking minutes during controversial meetings. I was watching an old ‘Yes Minister’ episode from the early 1980s, and Sir Humphrey was expounding on this very topic. The problem with such opaque decision-making is that the public have no way of knowing how decisions came about. Minutes are the audit trail that show why decisions are made. Without minutes, a public authority lays itself open to accusations of dodgy dealing and corruption.

The investigative reporter Michael Crick estimates that around 100 MPs employ family members, and while most may work very hard, some may do nothing at all. An MP’s signature is all that is needed to draw money for staff from the public purse, yet the public are not allowed to know who these people are.

I am appealing this unacceptable attempt to avoid public accountability and will be sending my complaint to the Information Commissioner this week.

What is most bizarre about the Commons’ answer is their argument that ‘Members of Parliament in their individual capacities are not public authorities subject to the 2000 Act’ .

What a ridiculous notion. Their claim that MPs staff are not public employees also holds no water as these are people paid entirely from the public purse.

The Data Protection Act states that information can be disclosed if it is fair. It is not unfair that a person working for a public representative and paid for with public funds should be accountable to the public. To hide behind the DPA in this way makes a mockery of both the DPA and the freedom of information law.

It’s also interesting to note that the Department for Constitutional Affairs (the department in charge of implementing FOI across central government) has issued guidance claiming that the FOIA does not give public authorities the power to disclose information about named individuals whether public employees or not. See in particular the sections 4.2.9 and 4.2.13. This goes against government commitments to make public the names of secondees, given in response to a successful campaign by Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

The DCA guidance also contradicts the guidance on personal information issued by the Information Commissioner which clearly states information about public officials that relate to their public role should be disclosed. It seems the DCA might be trying to undermine the Information Commissioner’s stance on this topic.

• House of Commons response: results from Internal Review, 24 March 2005 (Word 37.5 kb)
• House of Commons response: to FOIA request for staff names and salary, 31 January 2005 (PDF 213 kb)
• Email correspondence from 31 January to 24 March 2005

Judy Wilson
Freedom of Information Officer
House of Commons Information Office
Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA

January 2, 2005

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST: MPs STAFF NAMES AND SALARIES

Dear Ms Wilson

I am writing to request a listing of all MPs� staff by name along with their individual salaries. My preferred format to receive this information is electronically either as a database on disc or via email. The Commons fees office, the central authority responsible for paying the staff, keeps a listing of this sort, making this an extremely basic request to answer.

I now make this request under the Freedom of Information Act. As I�m sure you know, the Act grants a statutory right to such information. The public have an interest in ensuring that the staffing operation of Parliament is above-board and that public money is being well spent.

This information is available in other countries. For example, the names of American Congressional Representatives� staff are made public as a matter of course even when they are funded privately.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request. I look forward to hearing from you within the 20-working day statutory time period.

Regards,
Heather Brooke

In summary, the Government continues to reject the public’s right to know any of the information. I am appealing the decision to the Information Commissioner and will post the results here.

Read the original FOI request here.

Read the intitial response from the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, Attorney General’s Chambers.

1 March 2005

Dear Ms Brooke,

REVIEW OF REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

I refer to your e-mail of 16 February of 2005 to Christopher Simson, asking for a review of the decisions to refuse your requests for information relating to (a) advice by the Attorney General on ID cards; (b) advice by the Attorney General on the legality of invading Iraq; and (c) a listing of topics on which the Attorney General has advised in the past 12 months.

I have carefully reviewed the handling of these requests. As to (a) and (b), the decisions not to disclose the information were made after very detailed consideration. This included consideration of the public interest arguments in favour of disclosure. As to (b), as explained in Christopher Simson’s response of 25 January, the Government has already publicly set out the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq.

I have therefore concluded that these requests were properly dealt with and that there are no grounds for altering the decisions taken in these cases.

As to (c), you have queried the contention that providing a list of all the Attorney General’s advice in the past 12 months would exceed the £600 cost limit. As you would expect, files are kept in the Secretariat on the work of the Law Officers and of the Secretariat. The giving of legal advice is only one part of the Law Officers’ role, and the filing system therefore spans a wide range of other activities including (for example) the superintendence of the prosecuting authorities and the Law Officers’ other public interest functions. The system is not maintained in a way which would enable us to identify, separately, the matters on which they have given legal advice. So it would I think be possible for us to produce only a partial list of such topics without exceeding the cost limit.

In any event, however, as explained in Mr Simson’s letter of 1 February 2005 in response to your request concerning ID cards, section 35(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts information which relates to the provision of advice by the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice. For reasons set out in that letter, there is a strong public interest in not disclosing those matters on which the Law Officers have advised. I therefore conclude that, even if a list of such topics (whether partial or complete) could be produced, its disclosure would be exempt under the 2000 Act.

If you wish to pursue any of your requests, you may make an application to the Information Commissioner for a decision under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Jones

• Letter from BA to the Prime Minister – 10 April 2003 (PDF 296 Kb)
  Letter released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Letter from Virgin to BA – 28 April 2003 (PDF 256 Kb)
  Letter released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Letter from BA to Virgin – 29 April 2003 (PDF 730 Kb)
  Letter released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Internal DfT e-mails – 29 April 2003 (PDF 140 Kb)
  Released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• BA Statement – 29 April 2003 (PDF 176 Kb)
  Released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Letter from the Prime Minister to BA – 30 April 2003 (PDF 105 Kb)
  Letter released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• DTI Minister’s briefing on responding to Virgin letters – 2 May 2003 (PDF 11 Kb)
  Released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Letter from DTI to Virgin – 6 May 2003 (PDF 168 Kb)
  Released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Letter from Virgin to DTI – 16 June 2003 (PDF 149 Kb)
  Letter released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Letter from BA to Virgin – 26 June 2003 (PDF 542 Kb)
  Letter released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• Letter from Virgin to BA – 23 June 2003 (PDF 312 Kb)
  Letter released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• DfT Briefing note 1 – 16 July 2003 (PDF 17 Kb)
  Released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.
• DfT Briefing note 2 – 22 October 2003 (PDF 17 Kb)
  Released in response to an FOI request regarding the decision to stop flying Concorde. Published: 3 March 2005.

Two of my requests came to fruition Tuesday. One positively; one positively Kafka-esque in the level of bureaucratic unhelpfulness.

First, praise for the handling of my FOI request for the borough’s waste management contract with private contractor SITA. I met with Peter Ramage, Head of Waste Management to view both the current contract and the working copy of the new contract, which will take effect 1 April 2005. By all accounts, I am the first member of the public to view the contract. But Mr Ramage said he would not have a problem making the contract available to all members of the public in its electronic form once it is finalised in the next few weeks. I hope this will be the case.

So why would you want to look at a waste management contract? Firstly, these contracts are paid for with your taxes. Kensington & Chelsea’s contract costs £12.2 million annually, not including the cost of running the waste management building, collecting abandoned vehicles, etc. Here’s a brief rundown of the contract:

• Street cleansing specifications – this section lists the number of employees that clean streets plus a listing of every street and minimum cleansing frequencies. You’ll also find in this section which streets must be cleaned of chewing gum and how often they should be cleansed. Clearing away abandoned vehicles can sometimes be found in this part of the contract, but in RBKC clearing away abandoned vehicles is covered by another contract.
• Location of all litter bins. As of 31 March 2004, the borough had 700 litter bins across the borough.
• Listing of all the manned public conveniences in the borough (just three!). Unmanned public toilets are managed by the outdoor advertising firm JCDeceaux under another contract.
• Number and location of winter vehicles (snow removers, salt bins, etc)
• Notting Hill Carnival & special events – 200 tonnes of waste was generated at the last Carnival, much of it was unsold food abandoned on the streets. This section of the contract outlines the cleansing schedule for the Carnival i.e. when residents should expect the area to be back to normal. The contractor also cleans the area outside basement flats after Carnival.

Now onto food safety inspections.

Before I went on holiday, I telephoned the Borough’s FOI officer to see how my request for environmental health reports was progressing as it was the last of the 20-working days. I was pleasantly surprised. The officer said he would be able to answer my FOI/EIR request after I narrowed it down for him by stating I was interested specifically in just the food safety inspection reports.

However, when I turned up at the council offices Tuesday, I was told that, in fact, they would not release these reports. Some of the difficulties are technical – it appears the council operates on an antiquated system where each report is scanned in without any key field recognition or identification. It is simply an electronic version of the actual document. But these could simply be put on disc. No – “We need to go through every inspection report on an individual basis looking for exemptions”, said Janet McCrae, the council’s food and training manager.

All exemptions in the FOI and EIR are discretionary so it is within a public authority’s power to disclose these documents and a public authority should not be hunting around for exemptions to restrict access. I have written articles about how such reports are made public in other countries and it is outrageous that citizens of the UK are routinely being denied information about the safety of the food they eat. How are we to make informed and educated choices about the food we buy and consume if this information is kept hidden?

Amazingly, Janet McCrae refused to even disclose the Harrods food hall inspection report – a document already in the public domain after it was FOI’d by the Sunday Times. It was actually on the table right in front of us and I’d already looked through its contents. Nothing amazing! But she demanded it back and refused to make a photocopy. I was stunned by this willful obstruction. McCrae said I would have to file a written request for the report (which I have since done).

I will be writing a longer article about this shortly. In the meantime, if you would like to add your support to my campaign to get these food safety reports made public, please write to:

FOI Support Team
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Room N111
The Town Hall, Hornton Street
London W8 7NX
Or email foi@rbkc.gov.uk

February 23, 2004

Dear Paul Stott

I am writing to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

I would like a copy of the food safety inspection report about Harrods food hall that was on the table when we met yesterday. As this is a simple matter of photocopying, I expect to receive it ‘promptly’ as mandated by law.

Secondly, I would like all correspondence, including email, concerning the release to the Sunday Times of information contained in this inspection report. This also includes external correspondence from other interested parties (such as, but not limited to, Harrods and any representatives of Harrods).

As you will know it is a criminal offence to ‘alter, destroy, hide or deface’ information once a request has been made. My preferred format to receive the report is in hard copy, my preferred format for the correspondence is a chance to inspect the records containing the information.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Regards,
Heather Brooke

• Material relating to the policy of shredding (PDF 404 Kb)
  In response to an FOI request regarding the policy of shredding Departmental files between the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its coming into effect in January 2005. Published: 8 February 2005.
• Material relating to the policy of shredding: Annex A (PDF 120 Kb)
  Supplementary annex in support of an FOI request regarding the policy of shredding Departmental files between the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its coming into effect in January 2005. Published: 8 February 2005.
• Material relating to the policy of shredding: Annex B (PDF 53 Kb)
  Supplementary annex in support of an FOI request regarding the policy of shredding Departmental files between the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its coming into effect in January 2005. Published: 8 February 2005.
• Material relating to the policy of shredding: Annex C (PDF 53 Kb)
  Supplementary annex in support of an FOI request regarding the policy of shredding Departmental files between the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its coming into effect in January 2005. Published: 8 February 2005.
• Material relating to the policy of shredding: Annex D (PDF 39 Kb)
  Supplementary annex in support of an FOI request regarding the policy of shredding Departmental files between the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its coming into effect in January 2005. Published: 8 February 2005.
• Material relating to the policy of shredding: Annex E (PDF 110 Kb)
  Supplementary annex in support of an FOI request regarding the policy of shredding Departmental files between the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its coming into effect in January 2005. Published: 8 February 2005.

The Sunday Times asked for the following information about the financial affairs of Electronic Data Systems Ltd, including:

• reports or investigations of any kind by the Office for Government Commerce into the financial affairs of EDS, the information-technology company commissioned or prepared within the last two years.
• reports or investigations of any kind into EDS commissioned by the Office for Government Commerce by any external firm or agency
• correspondence between the Office for Government Commerce and any external firm or agency concerning any report or investigation into EDS
• and may I please know the titles of any such reports, and see copies of them.

Disclosed Information

• OGC commissioned two reports into Electronic Data Systems Ltd (EDS) from Deloitte;
• These two reports were commissioned in 2002 and 2004. (Although the first of these reports was outside the two-year period that you stipulated, we confirm its existence in accordance with our duty to assist under the Act.);
• These two reports were entitled “Ranger I” and “Ranger II”;
• There was correspondence between OGC and Deloitte in respect of the Ranger Reports and this consisted of (a) an engagement letter and (b) discussion of the content of drafts of the Ranger Reports;
• OGC also prepared two financial reports into EDS (the “Internal Reports”) in 2004, but OGC has not prepared any other financial reports regarding EDS either within or before the last two years.

The release goes on to say: ‘Other requested information has not been disclosed in accordance with exemptions under Freedom of Information Act’ but unhelpfully does not reveal the other requested items.

The log lists the requests made and the information released from HM Treasury but does not include identifying details of the requesters and it does not list all those requests that the Treasury refused to answer. Nonetheless, there is some good stuff here!

The site states, ‘Every effort is made to post disclosures on the website as soon after they are released as possible.’ To see the actual documents, follow the link above.

01/02/05 Appointment of Mervyn King as Governor of the Bank of England
01/02/05 Equitable life
01/02/05 ERDF and ESF expenditures / EU funds
01/02/05 Golden rule
01/02/05 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)
01/02/05 House price projections
01/02/05 PFI Jarvis
01/02/05 PFI rates of return
01/02/05 PFI table 19
01/02/05 Wanless Review
12/01/05 EU membership costs

Heathrow Terminal Five planning process – response to FOI request
DfT response to an FOI request for details on the planning process that granted planning permission for terminal five. Published: 31 January 2005.

Planning Inspectorate Journal – Heathrow Terminal Five article
Additional information published in support of a DfT response to an FOI request regarding the planning process for Heathrow Terminal Five. Published: 31 January 2005.

Heathrow Terminal Five inquiry: Administration and procedure (PDF 26 Kb)
Additional information published in support of a DfT response to an FOI request regarding the planning process for Heathrow Terminal Five. Published: 31 January 2005.

You can read here my original letters asking for the legal advice on ID cards and for a listing of all the topics on which the Attorney General has advised.

—
1 February 2005
Ms Brooke

Thank you for your two Freedom of Information requests of 2 January 2005, received on 5 January.

Your first request was for “the advice given by the Attorney General to cabinet ministers on the introduction of identification cards”, and the second for “a listing of all the topics on which the Attorney General has advised the Government in the past 12-month period from the time this request is answered”. I deal with these separately below.

The first request – ID cards

I am unable to confirm or deny whether this Office holds any legal advice given to the Government by Lord Goldsmith on ID cards. I consider that, in the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether or not this Office holds the information.

Section 35(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides that information is exempt information if it relates to the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice. Section 35(3) and section 2(1)(b) together provide that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in respect of information which is exempt (or would be exempt) under section 35(1) if the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether or not this Office holds the information.

Section 35 is statutory recognition of the public interest in allowing government to have a clear space, immune from exposure to public view, in which it can debate matters internally with candour and free from the pressures of public political debate. This principle has also been judicially recognised (see, for example, Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910, 952 (Lord Reith); Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Bank of England [1980] AC 1090, 1112 (Lord Wilberforce), 1121 (Lord Salmon), 1126-1127 (Lord Edmund-Davies) and 1143-1145 (Lord Scarman)).

As part of this principle, there is a strong public interest in ensuring that a government department is able to act free from external pressure in deciding what sort of legal advice it obtains, at what stage, from whom, and in particular whether it should seek advice from the Law Officers. This strong public interest is reflected in the long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, that neither the advice of Law Officers, nor the fact that their advice has been sought, is disclosed outside government. This convention is recognised in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code. It is also an interest which is recognised by the particular form of words used in section 35(1)(c) (contrast the general provision in relation to legal professional privilege in section 42(1)).

Since the Law Officers are the government’s most senior legal advisers, their advice has a particularly authoritative status within government. However, the need for government to obtain legal advice on a very wide range of matters is such that it would be impossible for such advice to be provided by the Law Officers in every case. Disclosure of the occasions when legal advice has been sought from the Law Officers would therefore have the effect of disclosing those matters which, in the judgment of the government, have a particularly high political priority or are assessed to be of particular legal difficulty. This would be directly counter to the strong public interest which underlies the whole of section 35 (see above). To disclose routinely whether the Law Officers have advised on particular issues would potentially create a two-fold detriment. On the one hand, to disclose that they have advised on an issue could be taken to indicate that particular importance was attached to it or even that the Government was in particular doubt about the strength of its legal position. Even if that impression were unfounded, the risk of creating it might deter the Government from consulting the Law Officers in appropriate cases. On the other hand, to disclose that the Law Officers have not advised on an issue might expose the government to criticism for not having consulted them, and hence having failed to give sufficient weight to the issue or to obtain the “best” advice. Again, even if unfounded this could lead to pressure to consult the Law Officers in inappropriate cases or in an unmanageably large number of cases.

We recognize that there is a public interest in citizens knowing that proposals which might affect civil liberties have been properly developed with the benefit of sound legal advice. However, in the circumstances of this case, this public interest does not outweigh the opposing public interest in maintaining the current convention.

The second request – listing of topics on which the Attorney General has advised

Section 12 FOIA makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit. The limit has been specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. For central government the appropriate limit is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3½ working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting it.

You have asked for “a listing of all the topics on which the Attorney General has advised the Government in the past 12-month period from the time this request is answered”. This Office does not hold such a list. In these circumstances, we are not obliged under the FOIA to comply with your request. I should also point out that we estimate that to locate, retrieve and extract all the Attorney General’s advice in the past year in order to list them would take us over the limit.

You may, however, choose to refine your request to narrow its scope. For example, you might choose to specify a time period and/or restrict the type of information you are requesting. I would like to point out that, should you submit a narrower request, my initial assessment is that this information may be exempt under section 35 of the FOIA for the reasons set out in respect of your first request. Other exemptions may also be relevant. However, until we receive a refined request, we are not in a position to give detailed consideration to any applicable exemptions, including the necessary consideration of the public interest in the release or protection of the information.

If you are unhappy with the decisions made in relation to your requests to us, you may ask for an internal review. If you wish to complain, you should contact Jonathan Jones, Legal Secretary, at the address given on my covering e-mail.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

If you have any further queries about this matter, please contact me

Yours sincerely
CHRISTOPHER SIMSON
Freedom of Information Officer

Again, I did not get an answer to my question about the number of police patrols in the park. The main concern is this – how can the public have faith that the police are doing an adequate job if they refuse to release such basic information?

Not Protectively Marked

Dear Ms Brooke,

Re. Freedom of Information Request for Crime Statistics: Holland Park, London

Our analyst has been able to ascertain the attached statistics (excel spreadsheet 19kb) which I hope will be of assistance.

The below link is to the Parks Police which outlines their strengths and responsibilities.
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parksandgardens/parkspolice/default.asp

Malcolm Cameron
Operational Performance Unit
0208 246 0761

[You may note that the link to the website does not answer my initial query about the number of police officers that patrol the park on a daily basis.]

Links to the Met’s responses will follow.

For Holland Park, W11, London

Public Access Office
New Scotland Yard
10 Broadway
London SW1H 0BG

January 1, 2005

FREEDOM OF INFORMATON REQUEST FOR CRIME STATISTICS: HOLLAND PARK, LONDON

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to request the weekly crime statistics for Holland Park for the past two years up to and including the week this request is answered. Specifically, I would like to know the types of incident that have occurred, location, time and date. Secondly, I would like to know the number of officers who currently patrol the park on a daily basis.

My preferred format to receive this information is by electronic database, and I can provide discs. I imagine this may also be the easiest method for you if you have an electronic records system, but if these reports are only available in manual form then perhaps we can arrange another method (such as inspection of the records).

This request is in the public interest as the public have a right to know how safe they are. It would be wrong to reject this request using section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act as the data can easily be disclosed without violating the data protection principles as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998. Simply remove the name of the victim.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request, and I look forward to hearing from you in the 20-day statutory period.

Regards,
Heather Brooke

See the Met’s response to this request here.
—-

For Victoria Park, Bethnal Green, E2 London

Public Access Office
New Scotland Yard
10 Broadway
London SW1H 0BG

January 1, 2005

FREEDOM OF INFORMATON REQUEST FOR CRIME STATISTICS: VICTORIA PARK, LONDON

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to request the weekly crime statistics for Victoria Park for the past two years up to and including the week this request is answered. Specifically, I would like to know the types of incident that have occurred, location, time and date. Secondly, I would like to know the number of officers who currently patrol the park on a daily basis.

My preferred format to receive this information is by electronic database, and I can provide discs. I imagine this may also be the easiest method for you if you have an electronic records system, but if these reports are only available in manual form then perhaps we can arrange another method (such as inspection of the records).

This request is in the public interest as the public have a right to know how safe they are. It would be wrong to reject this request using section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act as the data can easily be disclosed without violating the data protection principles as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998. Simply remove the name of the victim.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request, and I look forward to hearing from you in the 20-day statutory period.

Regards,
Heather Brooke

To read my original letter, click here.

Ms Brooke
I refer to your request received on 5th January 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 for “the final advice given by the Attorney General to the Government on the legality of invading Iraq along with copies of earlier versions of such advice … and all emails and any other inter-departmental correspondence relating to the rationale behind changes made to this advice”.

This office holds no information within the scope of your request to which the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 apply.

Your request under the Act has been considered and we have concluded, for reasons set out more fully in the Annex, that there is no obligation under the Act to disclose this information. Accordingly your request for disclosure is refused.
This letter, together with the Annex, constitutes the notice required to be given under section 17(1), (3) and (7) of the Act.

Section 42(1) of the Act provides that information is exempt if it could be the subject of a claim to legal professional privilege. This exemption applies to the Attorney General’s advice. It reflects a strong public interest in protecting the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. This confidentiality promotes respect for the rule of law by encouraging clients to seek legal advice and allowing for full and frank exchanges between clients and their lawyers. It is particularly important for the Government to seek legal advice in relation to sensitive and difficult decisions, and for any advice given to be fully informed and fully reasoned. Without confidentiality, clients might fear that anything they say to their lawyers, however sensitive or potentially damaging, could be revealed later. They might be deterred from seeking legal advice at all, or from disclosing all relevant material to their lawyers. Or the advice given may not be as full and frank as it ought to be.

As Stephen Irwin QC, the Chairman of the Bar Council said in a statement on 1 March 2004: “Were this advice to be published, it would leave future Governments of whatever hue in difficulty when it comes to obtaining confidential legal advice on major matters of public or international law. That would be clearly against the public interest. It means the Government might not ask for advice when they should, or might not reveal all the facts when they do.”
As explained in the Annex, other exemptions in the Act also apply to the information you have requested.

It is accepted that there is a public interest in understanding the legal justification for the Government’s decision to participate in the military action against Iraq in March 2003. But the Government’s view of the legal position is already well known. On 17 March 2003, the Foreign Secretary submitted a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee which explained the legal background. The legality of the Iraq conflict has also been debated in Parliament on a number of occasions when Ministers have given reasoned explanations of the Government’s position. The Government has therefore fully explained the legal basis on which it decided to take military action. In addition, in view of the high public interest in the issue, the Attorney General exceptionally gave a written answer in Parliament on 17 March 2003 setting out his view of the legal basis for the use of force. Both the FCO memorandum and the Attorney General’s written answer are publicly available.

We therefore consider that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining each exemption clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosing the advice.

If you are unhappy with the decision made in relation to your request to us, you may ask for an internal review. If you wish to complain, you should contact Jonathan Jones, Legal Secretary, at the address given on my covering e-mail message.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

If you have any further queries about this matter, please contact me.
Yours sincerely

CHRISTOPHER SIMSON
Freedom of Information Officer

Annex
This note sets out in more detail the reasons why the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers considers that the Attorney General’s advice on the legality of the military action taken in Iraq in March 2003 and the related information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and why, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining each applicable exemption clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosing this information.

Section 42(1) The advice is legal advice to the Prime Minister and government in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. There has been no waiver of that privilege.

In the case of section 42, there is a strong public interest in a person seeking access to legal advice being able to communicate freely with his legal advisers in confidence, and in being able to receive advice from his legal advisers in confidence. The House of Lords has said that legal professional privilege is “a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests”: R v Derby Magistrates’ Court ex p B [1996] AC 487. The importance of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients has been recently reaffirmed by the House of Lords in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48. It is based on the following considerations:
(a) The underlying rationale for having a strong rule against disclosure is that it both encourages clients to seek legal advice in order properly to arrange their affairs and promotes full and frank exchanges between clients and their legal advisers, which is judicially recognised as being something strongly in the public interest, for a variety of reasons: see for example Lord Rodger’s comments in Three Rivers (No. 6) especially at paragraph [54]: “If the advice given by lawyers is to be sound, their clients must make them aware of all the relevant circumstances of the problem. Clients will be reluctant to do so, however, unless they can be sure that what they say about any potentially damaging or embarrassing circumstances will not be revealed later.” See also paragraphs [29] and [34] (Lord Scott), [61]-[62] (Lady Hale), [106] and [112] (Lord Carswell) and [120] (Lord Brown).

(b) These reasons apply with particular force in relation to legal advice concerning sensitive and difficult governmental decisions, because (i) it is strongly in the public interest that governmental action should respect the rule of law, which makes it imperative both that the government should seek legal advice in relation to difficult policy decisions and that clear, fully informed and fully reasoned and balanced legal advice should be available to the decision-makers with responsibility for such decisions; (ii) if either the instructions given by or the advice provided to government were liable to be put in the public domain, the great pressures of political debate and criticism are such that the instructions and advice might not be as full and frank as they should be if they had to take into account the impact they would have in the public debate in which they would feature. This would directly undermine the point at (i) above.

(c) Furthermore, the public interest in allowing government to have a clear space, immune from exposure to public view, in which it can debate matters internally with candour and free from the pressures of public political debate, is given recognition in the Act itself (see section 35), and has also been judicially recognised: see eg Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910, 952 (Lord Reid); Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Bank of England [1980] AC 1090, 1112 (Lord Wilberforce), 1121 (Lord Salmon), 1126-1127 (Lord Edmund-Davies), and 1143-1145 (Lord Scarman).
(d) It is also an important factor, which underlies the general rationale for legal professional privilege and its particular application in the case of governmental decisions, that the rule against disclosure should be known to operate with reasonable certainty in advance, since if its application were uncertain and too readily displaced, that would undermine the very public interest in encouraging full and frank exchanges between government and its legal advisers which the rule is supposed to promote. This is a common feature of rules which are designed to promote free exchange of information: see eg Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321, 334A-D and A v UK (2003) 36 EHRR 51 (protection for free speech in Parliament, through clear rules of parliamentary privilege); R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118 (protection of free debate in the jury room); Goodwin v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 123 (protection of journalists’ sources); R v Derby Magistrates, ex p. B [1996] 1 AC 487, 508E (strict rule of legal professional privilege, to protect exchanges between clients and lawyers); R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex p. Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274, 297D-E; and AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, 287D-F (strict rule of non-disclosure to encourage informants to provide information).

(e) All the reasons for favouring non-disclosure of information referred to above apply with especial force in the context of a decision of such gravity, sensitivity and difficulty in policy terms, legal complexity and diplomatic sensitivity as that concerning the decision to take military action in relation to Iraq in 2003; and in the context of advice given personally by the Attorney General at the highest levels of Government.

(f) The particular importance of maintaining the confidentiality of advice given by the Law Officers is reflected in the long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, that neither the advice of Law Officers, nor the fact that their advice has been sought, is disclosed outside government. This convention is recognised in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code and in section 35(1)(c) of the Act (see below).

The same considerations apply equally to your request for each of the “copies of earlier versions of such advice … and all emails and any other inter-departmental correspondence relating to the rationale behind changes made to this advice”.
Section 35(1)(a) The advice relates to the formulation or development of government policy, namely in relation to the measures to be taken in respect of Iraq and its non-compliance with Security Council resolutions.

Section 35(1)(b) The advice relates to Ministerial communications in that it relates to a communication between the Attorney General and the Prime Minister.
Section 35(1)(c) The advice relates to the provision of advice by one of the Law Officers (the Attorney General) to the Prime Minister.

The same factors as mentioned above in the context of section 42 are relevant in the case of each of the exemptions under sections 35(1)(a), (b) and (c).
In these circumstances, and having regard to the factors set out above, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the advice, and we therefore consider that section 2(2)(b) of the Act applies.

The Legal Secretariat also relies on the exemptions in sections 27(1) and (2) (international relations), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and further on section 35(1)(c). No further information is provided in relation to these exemptions, in reliance on section 17(4) of the Act.

The Freedom of Information Officer
The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General’s Chambers
9 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6JP

Jan 2, 2004

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST: IRAQ WAR ADVICE

Dear Sir

I am writing to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations 2004. In order to assist you with this request, I am outlining my query as specifically as possible.

I would like the final advice given by Attorney General to the government on the legality of invading Iraq along with copies of earlier versions of such advice. Additionally, I seek all emails and any other interdepartmental correspondence relating to the rational behind changes made to this advice.

My preferred format to receive this information is by electronic means or hard copies. Alternatively, I can come and inspect the documents and make my own copies.

If it is not your policy to disclose this information I would urge a re-assessment. The applicable exemptions under the FOIA (section 24, 26,35, 42) are all qualified exemptions and require a public interest test. There can be few types of information that are more obviously in the public interest than a country’s decision to go to war.

I understand that under the access laws, I am entitled to a response within 20 working days. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request, and I look forward to hearing from you within the statutory time period.

Regards,
Heather Brooke
—
ID CARDS

Jan 2, 2004

Dear Sir

I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the advice given by the Attorney General to cabinet ministers on the introduction of identification cards.

Additionally, I seek all emails and any other interdepartmental correspondence relating to this advice.

My preferred format to receive this information is by electronic means followed by hard copies. Alternatively, I can come and inspect the documents and make my own copies.

If it is not your policy to disclose this information I would urge a re-assessment. The applicable exemptions under the FOIA are qualified by a public interest test. The public will have to carry ID cards under the proposed policy and therefore they have a direct interest in knowing the legality of such cards and whether they violate privacy and/or human rights.

I understand that under the access laws, I am entitled to a response within 20 working days. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request, and I look forward to hearing from you within the statutory time period.

Regards,
Heather Brooke
—-
LISTING OF ADVICE SOUGHT

Jan 2, 2004

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST: LISTING OF ADVICE GIVEN

Dear Sir

I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for a listing of all the topics on which the Attorney General has advised the government in the past 12-month period from the time this request is answered.

My preferred format to receive this information is by electronic means. Alternatively, I can come and inspect the documents and make my own copies.

I understand that under the access laws, I am entitled to a response within 20 working days. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request, and I look forward to hearing from you within the statutory time period.

Regards,
Heather Brooke