91Èȱ¬

Two interesting things happened when Tony Blair attended a lunch on Monday for regional press political editors.

He .

And, following a question from Paul Francis of the Kent Messenger Group, he on changes to freedom of information. Which (assuming it happens) would suggest much more widely than anything the Department for Constitutional Affairs has done so far, since there has not yet been any formal consultation exercise at all.

The lunch was organised by the Newspaper Society, which is against the current government plans. The regional press would be particularly badly hit if the proposals do go ahead in their current form.

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

The 91Èȱ¬ has just the impact of lengthy delays at the professional body which hears complaints about alleged misconduct by nurses.

The revelations stem from documents obtained under freedom of information from the Nursing and Midwifery Council by my colleague Nicola Beckford.

According to , 'the public is not being protected from those individuals who, but for the delay, would be removed from the register or subject to some other sanction'.

warned that future cases could wait over three years to be heard.

An interesting - and important - question is whether these documents would have been released if the government's to restrict FOI were already in force. One can't be sure, but it is entirely possible that if these proposed restrictions on FOI were in force, then the NMC could have refused to release these documents. It could well have argued that the time taken to consider and consult on their disclosure could have exceeded the limit.

So this is exactly the kind of story which is solidly in the public interest but may not be brought to public attention if the government persists with implementing its proposed restrictions.

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

may be a fictional Kazakh TV journalist, but it seems that he's been causing real problems for British diplomats in Kazakhstan.

Foreign Office officials discussed how to put themselves 'at arm's length from the character a bit more' to avoid any 'hint of us defending him.' This followed British diplomats in Kazakhstan reporting back about the Kazakh government's 'serious concerns about the Borat character'.

Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev may have at his press conference last week with Tony Blair - 'The film was created by a comedian so let's laugh at it, that's my attitude' - but it clearly hasn't always been a laughing matter in British-Kazakh relations.

The fact that it has been a touchy subject throughout the past year is made clear in documents released to the 91Èȱ¬ by the Foreign Office under freedom of information. This stems from the period Borat has been a TV character, prior to the hit film coming out this month.

The British Embassy there reported that the 'Kazakhstan Government has serious concerns about the Borat character. His site is banned by Kazakhstan telecommunications operator.'

One diplomat told London: 'I've been asked about Borat in almost every press conference I have done here.'

A Foreign Office official advised: 'My concern here is to put us at arm's length from the actor a bit more and for there to be no hint of us defending him - while pointing out of course that we have a free media.'

Officials drew up a 'press line' as follows: 'We do understand your concern. However, the aim of this comic act, as I understand it, is not about discrediting Kazakhstan, but about revealing the prejudices of certain people. Borat is an entirely fictional character that no informed person would see as a representative of Kazakhstan or a Kazakh journalist. Media in the UK operate in a free and unobstructed way.'

The Kazakh Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) complained vociferously last year about Borat's appearance at the MTV Europe Music Awards. The British Embassy then reported home: 'There have been constant grumblings about Borat, but it looks like the MFA's patience has finally snapped.'

The information released constitutes only part of what Foreign Office officials have been saying to each other about Sacha Baron Cohen's portrayal of Borat. The Foreign Office refused to release other documents because it 'would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan'.

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

The 91Èȱ¬ publication scheme, which contains documents proactively released by the 91Èȱ¬, has just received its millionth page view this year. And just over 500,000 documents have been downloaded from it in the same period.

Publication schemes are a comparatively unknown part of the freedom of information system. Under the FOI Act every public authority has to have a publication scheme detailing the information it releases as a matter of course. They vary from perfunctory ones which are hardly updated to well-maintained and wide-ranging schemes which do contain a lot of new and interesting information.

The Information Commissioner's Office is currently and is seeking comments on how well they work.

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

Why did the Department for Constitutional Affairs change its mind on giving the 91Èȱ¬ the information discussed in my previous entry?

This is what the DCA told us in July:

"The public interest is better served by non-disclosure in this instance because government policy is still developing in this area. There is a strong public interest in officials being able to fully and frankly exchange views for deliberation when developing policy. This is particularly so when it is in relation to sensitive discussions about the development of the government’s policy on a particular matter. For Government to succeed in upholding that public interest, officials need to be able to consider the important issues at stake and all available options, to debate those vigorously, to expose all their merits and demerits and to understand their possible implications. The prospect of disclosure may also have a substantial impact on the nature of the discussions, which may lead to an unwillingness to engage in discussion as part of the deliberative process. If information was released at this stage of the policy process, sensitive issues still on the agenda could be released which might damage future policy formulation by inhibiting free and frank advice to Ministers from their officials and free and frank discussion between Ministers during the policy formulation stage."

And this is what the DCA told us today when releasing the information in response to our request for a review:

"Whilst the Government has announced what it is minded to do in relation to the fees regime, no final decision has been made and so the policy on this issue is still developing. However in considering your request on internal review, and in light of the recent Government announcement we consider that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information you have requested."

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

Until now the Department for Constitutional Affairs has refused to release raw background data relating to its assessment of the cost of freedom of information. This was based on a one-week sample of FOI requests received by government departments.

The DCA has today sent the 91Èȱ¬ the dataset for its one-week sample of FOI requests; what it calls its 'initial analysis' of the data; and the template filled out by those supplying the data. This was in response to a request for an internal review from the 91Èȱ¬.

Some interesting points immediately stand out:

There are numerous discrepancies between the cost estimates of FOI in the DCA analysis and those in the , about which I have written in the past. The latter gave the total annual cost of FOI for central government as £24.4 million, but the comparable figure in the DCA analysis is only £21.9 million.

According to the dataset sample, government ministers were involved in 10 per cent of information requests (53 out of 538 in this week). But there are strange aspects to the cases Ministers get involved in.

They were involved in none of the 35 internal reviews from this period. On the other hand, in 15 per cent of the cases with ministerial involvement (8 of the 53) the requester was told that the information was ‘not held’. It is not obvious why ministers need to be involved in telling requesters that the information sought is not actually held … unless there are some tricky decisions about how widely, or narrowly, to interpret the information requested.

Even more strangely, in one case (number 156), government managed to assess whether it was in the public interest to release information which it then decided it did not hold. Or to those with experience of using FOI – it is perhaps not so strange.

However, it is notable that the data supplied does not divide the cases up according to the government department involved. has asked the DCA for the returns from each department, but it has not been sent them.

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

An update on my recent posting on the medical ethics committee documents relating to the TGN1412 drug trial earlier this year which went badly wrong.

As noted, the Brent ethics committee was told by an external representative that the payment was higher because it was 'a totally novel drug and mode of action'. This is a surprising argument, since the ethical basis for paying healthy volunteers to take part in such trials is that they are paid for their time; they are not being compensated for taking risks.

However, the redactions on the documents supplied under freedom of information by the ethics committee meant they did not reveal who made this remark. I have now received an email from Dr Mark Lewis (Director of Clinical Governance and Research for North West London at NHS London), which clarifies matters:

'There were representatives of both TeGenero and Parexel at the first meeting of the ethics committee (23rd January 2006) when this study was discussed. It was the trial sponsor’s (TeGenero’s) representative, not the representative of the company that they commissioned to carry out the research (Parexel), whose first comment in response to point 7 suggested that the novelty and mode of action of the drug were determinants of the level of payment.'

Dr Lewis adds: 'Parexel, the company that actually undertakes clinical research, was quite clear about the ethical position, stating that the higher fees reflected the long duration of the planned study follow up and the scale of commitment that would be made by volunteers. Before the study was considered further, Parexel supplied a detailed breakdown of the proposed payment for participation. The committee would not have approved the study if they were not completely clear that Parexel remunerated volunteers on an ethical basis.'

TeGenero, the German pharmaceutical company which made the drug and sponsored the trial, declared itself unable to continue in business in July and .

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

What did our man in Havana think of Fidel Castro and life in Cuba?

Paul Hare, Britain's previous ambassador to Cuba, reported back to the Foreign Office on his view of Castro as follows: 'His regime has shown no one man can provide the right answers for 45 years ... Few countries have been held back so obstinately by their leader.'

This is revealed in documents released to the 91Èȱ¬ by the Foreign Office following a freedom of information request.

In his valedictory message (Part 1 and Part 2) when he ceased to be ambassador in 2004, Mr Hare provided his Foreign Office bosses with a bleak and depressing picutre of Cuban society.

'Cubans remain dependent on a government which seeks to minimise their freedoms and pay them a pittance,' he wrote. 'Few can survive without breaking the law. Most see trying to become a waiter, practising petty corruption or leaving the country as the most rational solutions.'

He criticised the ability of Castro's government to improve matters. 'Noone gets promoted in Cuba for showing initiative. Those who do, like the Tourism and Health Ministers in 2004, are fired', he said.

And he was not impressed by those policies which are sometimes claimed as Cuban achievements: 'Castro's widely praised education and health are less substantial than is supposed. No Cuban statistics are internationally verified. Most Cubans are either too bored or resigned to care.'

As for the Cuban economy, 'it is seriously underachieving'.

He added that his first impression in 2001 when he took up his post that Cuba was 'on course for positive natural evolution' was wrong.

He did however predict there could be a better post-Castro destiny for the country: 'The future - whenever that starts - should be bright for Cuba.' This future may now be imminent, given that Fidel Castro , having 'temporarily' handed over power to his chosen successor, his younger brother Raul.

Mr Hare is now the British government's project director for the 2010 Shanghai Expo. His successor as our man in Havana is the current ambassador there, John Dew.

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

Documents obtained by the 91Èȱ¬ under freedom of information raise new questions about the medical drug trial in March which .

The trial, which involved an anti-inflammatory drug called TGN1412 that had never previously been given to humans, was approved by Brent Medical Ethics Committee. The Committee's minutes show that Committee members initially had doubts about the sum of £2,000 paid to the volunteers. They felt that the payment was high in comparison with other similar studies and were concerned that the payment might be higher than normal in order to induce recruitment into the study.

The committee was given two reasons for the figure - that the study involved 'a totally novel drug and mode of action' and that the follow-up period was longer than usual.

Parexel, the research company running the trial, responded by submitting a breakdown of the £2,000 fee to the Committee. The Committee then approved the trial.

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

In January the 91Èȱ¬ submitted six freedom of information requests relating to sex offenders and schools to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES).

Last month - nine months later - we received the following batch of responses:

• In two cases, the DfES does not hold the information requested.

• In two cases, supplying the information would exceed the cost limit.

• In one case, the information was exempt as personal information protected by the Data Protection Act.

• In one case, the information requested was supplied - now several months out of date.

It's difficult to see why it needed nine months to come up with this. The DfES apologised for the delays but offered no satisfactory explanation for why it was handing in its work so late. Perhaps officials need to look to some of their schools for .

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I was fascinated but not surprised to read about the government's refusal to release an early draft of its famous pre-war dossier about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

The Foreign Office has turned down a freedom of information request for the document, and the matter is now being considered by the Information Commissioner.

Fascinated, because in 2003 I was seconded away from my job as a 91Èȱ¬ journalist to work with the 91Èȱ¬ management in the run-up to and during . It brought back all the time I spent in detailed examination of the consistencies and inconsistencies between the various accounts of who wrote what when where and why.

Not surprised, for two reasons. First, none of the basic facts about the dossier process in the New Statesman article are new - as I recall, we knew that some early drafting of the dossier had been done by the Foreign Office not the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), that the Foreign Office head of communications John Williams had been involved in drafting, and that it was the JIC first draft that included the notorious '45-minute claim'.

Second, the material which became public through the Hutton Inquiry is actually already much wider than the sort of stuff FOI is likely to produce. This partly reflects the political pressures for disclosure on the government at the time of Hutton. But it's also because much of the Hutton material would fall foul of various exemptions to FOI - for example, information relating to the security services.

Given this, I do not expect FOI to generally exceed the Hutton Inquiry in the level of openness, although there may be some exceptions. But on the other hand there is nothing to stop the government releasing this draft anyway, outside the terms of FOI. Personally speaking, as a fully-fledged Hutton anorak, I'd love to read it.

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

It's well worth reading about the Frontier Economics report.

He says that the current cost of FOI in practice according to Frontier Economics in fact appears to be much less than what the government was projecting when it was introducing the legislation in 1999. The 91Èȱ¬ Office research which contained these higher projections has, according to Steve, been removed from the DCA website, so it is difficult for me to comment in detail on this comparison, but at face value it is still very striking.

Steve also makes the point that the report was clearly put together in a big hurry, which may well explain some of the question marks over it.

I should also mention that the DCA has to give the Campaign for Freedom of Information the raw data on which the Frontier Economics report was based - a refusal which the Campaign has .

I have also asked the DCA for a subset of the raw data, in the hope that this might shed some more light on some of the report's more mysterious features.

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

The Ministry of Defence that a misaligned radar system at an RAF base in Norfolk could be affecting the electrics of passing cars.

This follows over whether mysterious emissions from the base at Trimingham could indeed be causing problems for local road traffic in this remote coastal area. 'It's like the X-Files, isn't it?', says a local mechanic.

The 91Èȱ¬ did try to find out, using the Environmental Information Regulations, what forms of radiation were being emitted from RAF Trimingham. This is what the MoD told us. No mention of the X-Files here. But it is good to be able to get an answer to this kind of question.

On the other hand, if the radar was pointed at passing traffic, was it leaving an unprotected gap in the sky above?

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

The 91Èȱ¬ has today launched a redesign of its corporate freedom of information pages to make them easier to navigate, clearer and better-looking. If you want to get information from the 91Èȱ¬, this is where you should go.

The disclosure log is now organised by subject-matter rather than just chronologically.

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