The Ministry of Justice has just announced that most government documents will be made available to the public after 20 years in place of the current 30-year rule.
However some royal papers will be made absolutely exempt from freedom of information.
Ministers have also dropped their proposal to give cabinet records an absolute exemption from FOI.
The proposals are contained in amendments being tabled tonight to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. They are part of the (which has just been published) to last year's which examined the 30-year rule and recommended a cut to 15 years.
The plan to reduce the 30-year limit to 20 years and the increased protection for Royal communications are in line with the intentions Gordon Brown previously indicated, but the decision not to demand greater secrecy for cabinet papers represents a change in policy.
The government says the changes relating to the Royal Family, which involve communications with the Sovereign, the heir to the throne and the second in line, are needed because of "unintended lacunae in the drafting of the FOI Act".
The reduction to 20 years will have a phased implementation over several years and will not apply to some categories of material, such as that which could damage commercial interests.
I thought it would be interesting to pick up on two aspects of an FOI story broadcast a few days ago by my colleagues on 91Èȱ¬ One's , as the Scottish government's referendum bill is being published.
the plans the had for a separate body rather than the to supervise a referendum on independence. It also illustrates one little truth about freedom of information - that if two public authorities might hold the information a requester wants, it's worth asking both of them because they may send different material.
The Politics Show story refers to an e-mail from the Scottish government to the commission stating:
"We are now looking at what the question in an independence referendum might be and at some point will need to show we have properly assessed it for intelligibility, neutrality, etc."
(While later the commission stated the government was making no provision to consult others on the question's intelligibility.)
This e-mail was included in the FOI response to the 91Èȱ¬ from the Electoral Commission, but not in the Scottish government's one. It's not clear however whether this is because it was one of those documents held back by the government on the grounds of protecting free and frank communications about policy, or whether it was not located or no longer held.
The process of obtaining the material also reflected one of the problems recently experienced by some FOI applicants to the Scottish government, which provided a rather unhelpful initial response to the 91Èȱ¬'s request for "copies of communications". This was turned down as not "a valid request" given a that the gives a right of access to information, not documents. Once the request was reformulated as being for "information" about views exchanged between the two bodies, it was then answered, if only partially.
This approach of the Scottish government was described last month as a "disturbing turn of events" by the . In an , he wrote:
"I have, in the past, commented favourably on the official attitude to freedom of information in Scotland compared to that in Westminster... But it is Scotland which is now going to attract unfavourable attention. I know of no other country in the world where the FoI law does not allow you to make reference to documents when requesting information. People will simply not play a parlour game where you have to identify what you want without using certain words - such as record, minute, report, e-mail, letter or indeed any means by which the information is recorded or could be located."
The Scottish government's was that it is:
"committed to freedom of information, and its underpinning principles of openness and transparent government... The court ruling says that the FOI Act provides a right to obtain information, rather than a right to obtain copies of specific documents, and of course we are now considering the implications of the court ruling in the context of the advice from the commissioner.''
The "climategate" affair involving FOI applications to climate scientists at the University of East Anglia has focused attention on whether public authorities abide by the rules in the way they reply to information requests.
Often the issue for authorities is whether they comply with the time limits they are meant to meet for freedom of information cases.
I have obtained documents from the Department for Communities and Local Government which reveal that its officials discussed whether to pretend they received one of my information requests later than the department actually did, so that they could avoid breaching the time limit on replying - before concluding that "unfortunately" this was not possible, because proof existed of when it was received.
This relates to my application last year for data comparing the energy efficiency of public buildings. My e-mail was apparently missed initially for several days, so one official wrote to another to ask "can I legitimately claim that I did not receive the e-mail until today?", adding that "unfortunately, the requester is from the 91Èȱ¬".
An e-mail in reply stated that "unfortunately we have proof that he request was received in CLG on 27 April, so that is the date that must be recorded".
The document extracts I have received also shed some light on other aspects of how my request, made under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), was considered. The material I eventually was sent could also have been obtained through the laborious task of visiting 28,000 public buildings and noting down the details on the Display Energy Certificates they have to display, but at first the department told me they could not give me all this data in one go as regulations from 2007 prohibited that.
One official wrote:
"The main head-scratching in this case has been to do with the incompatibility of our EIR obligations with the bar to disclosure in the 2007 Regs... those Regs would in that event potentially put the UK in breach of its EU obligations."
The government then changed the 2007 regulations to allow disclosure and released the material to me.
Some officials advocated seeking to charge the 91Èȱ¬ the sum of £1,611 for access to the data, but another civil servant wrote: "I consider it likely that Mr Rosenbaum will cavil at being asked for the cost of extracting the information, when it is something that CLG should be making publicly available in any case."
The security service MI5 is producing twice as much waste as it was five years ago.
As a security body, has an from the Freedom of Information Act. But it can't be excluded from the , which implement a on access to environmental information held by public authorities.
This means that MI5 has to be prepared to release some environmental data, such as its recycling rate, where it would not adversely affect national security or come under other EIR exceptions.
MI5 has told me, in response to an EIR request, that in 2009 it recycled 56% of the 1,546 tonnes of waste that it created. This is a major improvement on its recycling rate of 33% in 2006. But it only takes the service back to where it was more or less in 2004, when it had a rate of 55% - although this was on about half as much waste at 570 tonnes.
So although the security service is recycling at the same rate as five years previously, it is producing twice as much waste. However, a recyling rate of 56% is respectable compared to the . Presumably the top secret memos get shredded before they go in the recycling bin.
The data released also shows that MI5 has faced a remarkable increase in its electricity prices. In 2009 it consumed 32.4 million kWh, at a cost of £3.6 million, an average cost of 11 pence per kWh. But back in 2004 it was consuming 23.6 million kWh at a quarter of the 2009 annual cost, just £890,000 - representing just 3.8 pence per kWh.
If they've all been spending their time watching Spooks, they should surely be told to turn those televisions off - it's expensive!
Most of the data MI5 has sent me has also been posted on its , except that the website omits the 2009 recycling rate of 56% and waste figure of 1,546 tonnes.
The has rejected a freedom of information request from the 91Èȱ¬ - because it intends to publish the material by sixteen months from now.
My colleague Julia Ross asked the Council for some data relating to , their scheme for providing free theatre tickets to people under 26 at selected venues in England.
The Arts Council turned down her FOI application about the scheme's cost and the characteristics of those participating in it on the grounds that it "intends to publish this information by June 2011".
Under the UK FOI Act requests can be dismissed if the material is intended for future publication, and withholding it is reasonable and in the public interest. The refusal notice from the Arts Council does not explain why they think their response is reasonable and in the public interest, so the 91Èȱ¬ will be pressing them further.
While the lays down that the "future publication" exemption can only apply if the material requested is to be published within 12 weeks, no such maximum period is specified in the which affects England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
And while we're on the subject of delays in the publication of information, those of us who eagerly look out for decision notices from the Information Commissioner's Office have noticed they seem to have dried up.
In January the ICO only placed one decision notice on its . It still hasn't published the judgment on my Westland request, although it was decided on 22 December. Matt Davies of FOI News also that he's still waiting for a decision notice on one of his complaints to be published by the ICO.
The ICO tells me that in fact it issued 47 decision notices in January, but it has had problems putting them on its website. It says it will be trying to release as many as possible of them over the next few days.
The government has decided to fight the information commissioner's instruction to release the minutes of the controversial cabinet meeting in 1986 which was disrupted by Michael Heseltine from Margaret Thatcher's administration.
As I reported a month ago, the commissioner backed my freedom of information request for these minutes on the basis that releasing them would help remove uncertainties over historical events. But the Cabinet Office has now appealed against this judgement to the Information Rights Tribunal, which will hear the case in the next few months.
I made my initial FOI application for these records in February 2005, nearly five years ago, when the material was 19 years old. The Cabinet Office dismissed it after five months. The Information Commissioner's Office then spent over four years considering the matter before deciding to uphold my request, which thus now relates to information that is 24 years old.
The Cabinet Office has told me that it is appealing because it believes the minutes should be exempt from FOI and that it stands by its original refusal.
Lord Heseltine's dramatic resignation as defence secretary stemmed from a bitter dispute with Lady Thatcher over the future of the struggling Westland helicopter company. The Westland Affair is a fascinating and very significant episode in the politics of the 1980s - but I'm also interested in it because it poses intriguing questions about the accuracy of ministerial memoirs.
Michael Heseltine's departure from the cabinet is the subject of several eye-witness accounts from memoirists, providing us with a rare opportunity to compare numerous politicians' versions of a private event of such importance. It turns out that these contain a range of errors and discrepancies. The official minutes, if and when released, may or may not shed some light on these matters. Not having read them, I don't know. But meanwhile here is my guide to some of the conflicting reports we have at the moment.
The former cabinet ministers who have described the incident in their memoirs include (as well as Lord Heseltine and Lady Thatcher themselves) Geoffrey Howe, Nicholas Ridley, Kenneth Baker, Nigel Lawson, David Young and Norman Fowler.
The argument in the meeting focused on whether all ministerial public statements or responses to press enquiries on Westland should be cleared in advance by the Cabinet Office, a requirement that Lord Heseltine was unwilling to concede for confirming previous pronouncements already made.
Did anybody else support Michael Heseltine?
"'Surely,' I said, 'we can at least be trusted, without further checking, to confirm statements already made?'" (Howe)
"One or two colleagues, including Peter Walker, tried to find a way through." (Heseltine)
"We all agreed, except Michael Heseltine, both with the policy and with the requirement to clear anything we were minded to say, through the Cabinet Office." (Ridley)
"No one sided with Michael. He was quite isolated." (Thatcher)
Who uttered the words that triggered his walkout?
"I pressed him a third time. Twice he refused to agree. At the third time of asking, he closed his cabinet folder... and stormed out." (Ridley)
"I emphasised the importance of observing collective responsibility in this and all matters. At this Michael Heseltine erupted." (Thatcher)
How did he close his folder before departing?
"quietly" (Fowler)
"with dignity" (Baker)
"briskly" (Howe)
"slammed" (Lawson)
What were his exact final words before he departed?
"Prime Minister, if this is how it is to be I can no longer serve in your cabinet." (Young)
"If this is the way this government is going to be conducted, I no longer wish to be part of it." (Lawson)
"I cannot accept this decision. I must therefore leave this cabinet." (Ridley)
"There has been a breakdown of collective responsibility and I must therefore leave the cabinet." (Baker)
What happened afterwards?
"After an embarrassed silence we carried on with the next item on the agenda as best we could" (Young)
"In the stunned silence that followed Margaret announced that there would be a short break for coffee" (Lawson)
I therefore thought I should revive a post of mine from last year (with some corrections to its flaws in terminology, for which thanks to commenters). And apologies again for it being a little off-topic (although it could at least be argued in my defence here that freedom of information and electoral systems are both aspects of constitutional reform).
So if there is to be a UK referendum on voting systems, what should be the actual voting system for that referendum? Or to put it another way, what decision-making system is it right to use when what you're doing is choosing between different decision-making systems?
Suppose there were four options on offer for a voting system - the current first past the post system (FPTP), the supplementary vote (SV) used in mayoral elections in London and elsewhere, the alternative vote (AV) now backed by Gordon Brown and some other Labour electoral reformers, and Borda, a points-based system advocated by those who regard it as a more consensual approach. (A full explanation of each system is given below.)
Suppose also that there are 100 voters and they happen to be divided into four opinion groups, with their order of preference for the voting systems as follows:
Now what would happen if there was a referendum with all four options on the ballot paper with the votes counted under the various systems themselves (assuming no tactical voting)?
With such a distribution of public opinion, each system would win according to its own system and lose under all the others. Thus, if FPTP was used to count the result of the referendum, it would win; if SV was used, it would win; if AV was used, it would win; and if Borda was used, it would win.
So that leaves the puzzling question: what would be the fairest system for a referendum on electoral reform? Maybe what we need is a referendum to decide which voting system should be used in a referendum...?
To work through this example in detail:
Under FPTP, only the first preferences matter. FPTP has the most with 28 and it wins.
Under SV, the bottom two on first preferences (AV and Borda) are eliminated; FPTP gets no second preferences while SV gets 24 (from those who put AV first) to add to its 27 first preferences, so it scores 51, overtakes FPTP's 28 and wins.
Under AV, just Borda is eliminated on the first round. Since the 21 second preferences of those who put Borda first go to AV, on the second round AV has 45 votes and SV is now bottom as it still has 27. So SV is now eliminated, AV picks up another 27 votes in second preferences, so it now has 72 votes and beats FPTP, still on 28, in the final round.
Under Borda, FPTP scores 205 points, SV scores 257, AV scores 268, while it is Borda which finally seizes victory with 270.
So this analysis confirms that under this distribution of public opinion, each system wins if and only if the votes are counted in line with that system.
How different systems work
First-past-the-postWhat happened in 2010In the current system, people get a single vote for who they want to represent their constituency and whichever candidate gets the most votes wins.
UK use: Election to Westminster and local government in England and Wales.
Single transferable voteApplied to 2010 resultSeveral constituencies are combined and voters rank the candidates. Members are elected once they pass a certain number of votes, known as a quota.
UK use: Used in Northern Ireland for elections to Assembly, European Parliament and local government. Also used for local elections in Scotland.
Alternative voteApplied to 2010 resultVoters rank the candidates. If no candidate has 50% of first preferences then second preferences are counted and so on until someone has a majority.
UK use: By-elections to Northern Ireland Assembly.
Alternative vote plusApplied to 2010 resultThe same as AV to elect most of the Commons but with a second element - the "plus" part - which would be used to elect 100 MPs in a more directly proportional system.
AV+ has yet to be put into practice anywhere in the world.
Proportional representationApplied to 2010 resultThe crudest version of proportional representation would give all parties seats in parliament based directly on their share of the vote. In practice, countries which employ PR have thresholds in place to screen out the smallest parties.
Simple PR is not in use in the UK.
Source: Electoral Reform Society
Notes on each voting system:
• First past the-post (FPTP), the system currently used for UK general elections. Voters have one vote and the candidate with the most votes wins.
• Supplementary vote (SV), as used in mayoral elections. Voters mark a first and a second preference. The first preferences are counted and all except the top two candidates are eliminated. The second preferences of the votes cast for the eliminated candidates are examined and where they are for either of the top two they are added to that candidate's total. The candidate from the initial top two with the highest total of first preferences plus second preferences transferred from eliminated candidates wins.
• Alternative vote (AV), which is also equivalent to applying the single transferable vote (favoured by the LibDems for multi-member constituencies) to a single-member constituency; and since a referendum would only be selecting one voting system, there's no point in my example here in having STV as a separate method. Voters list candidates in order of preference. After the first preference count, the bottom candidate only is eliminated, and the second preferences from his/her votes are added to the totals for the other candidates in line with those preferences. After this the candidate who is now bottom is eliminated, and more second/third preferences are transferred. Then the bottom candidate is eliminated and this process continues until only two are left and the candidate with the higher total of votes including transferred preferences is elected.
• Borda count - as with AV, voters list candidates in order of preference, but unlike AV Borda is a points-based system. If there are four candidates and the voter puts them all in order of preference, a first preference is worth four points, a second is worth three points, a third is worth two, and a fourth is worth one. The candidate with the highest points total wins.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
A 
