UK FOIA requests - Spy Blog

The Information Commissioner may have been publicising Friday 28th September as international Your Right To Know Day (.pdf), but another Anniverseray has now been reached:

It is now over 1000 days since our original Freedom of Information Act request was submitted, initially to both the Office of Government Commerce and to the Home Office, for the to pre-Stage Zero and the actual Stage Zero Gateway review reports, on the Home Office's Identity Cards Programme.

Despite years of delays, and an appeal to the Information Commissioner, who made a Decision in favour of full publication, back in July 2006, folllowed by an appeal by the OGC to the Information Tribunal, who also found in favour of full disclosure in May 2007. The OGC is currently wasting more public money by appealing to the High Court.

These Gateway Review reports have still not been disclosed.

The High Court resumes its non-emergency activities after the summer break on Monday.

We will be nagging them to disclose when the alleged OGC appeal, supposedly on a point of law, rather than just the balance of the interpretation of the law, against the Information Tribunal's ruling is to be heard.

See OGC Gateway Reviews of the Identity Cards Programme category archive for the history of this deliberate and disgraceful bureaucratic and political suppression of our rights under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

It is very likely that when, not if, the High Court finds in our favour, and orders the Labour government to disclose the by now, very out of date documents, we will want to know exacly how much this has cost the taxpayer in terms of legal fees and civil servants' time.

UPDATE: 5th October 2007

The OGC have emailed to say that the High Court date for their appeal against the decision of the Information Tribunal regarding their ordering of the full publication of the Home Office Identity Cards Programme early Gateway Review reports, has provisionally been set for Tuesday 4th and Wednesday 5th March 2008 at the Royal Courts of Justice (times and Court still to be decided nearer the date).

Even assuming that the High Court makes a Judgement (hopefully rejecting the appeal of the OGC)) on the Wednesday, this will be at least 3 years 2 months 3 days i.e.1158 days since the original FOIA request to the Office of Government Commerce and the Home Office, when the Freedom of Information Act 2000 came fully into force on 1st January 2005.

Incredibly, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office have refused to disclose:

" the names and job titles of :

a) the Russian Federation Embassy or Consular staff in London or
elsewhere in the United Kingdom,

and

b) the United Kingdom Embassy or Consular staff in Moscow or
elsewhere in the Russian Federation,

who have been, or who are shortly being expelled, following the
diplomatic incident over the failure to extradite or prosecute the
suspect Andrei Lugovoi in the radioactive Polonium 210 murder case
of British citizen Alexander Litvinenko."

How, exactly are just the Names and the Job Tiles of British and Russian Diplomats to be considered as Personal Data ?

Every Embassy in London and in Moscow and therefore every important foreign Government, already knows these Names and (former) Job Titles, and so do lots of foreign journalists.

Why can't the FCO publish them themselves ?

I can confirm that the FCO does hold this information. However, we are withholding all the information you have requested under Section 40 (Personal Information) as the information is personal data relating to third parties, the disclosure of which would contravene one of the data protection principles. In such circumstances sections 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act apply. In this case, our view is that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. This states that personal data should be processed fairly and lawfully. It is the fairness aspect of this principle which, in our view, would be breached by disclosure. In such circumstances s.40 confers an absolute exemption on disclosure. There is, therefore, no public interest test to apply.

Continue reading "Foreign & Commonwealth Office refuses to disclose just the Names and Job Titles of the diplomats expelled over the Polonium-210 murder affair" »

We have finally received a disclosure from the House of Commons authorities, regarding our Freedom of Information Act request about the the formerly public areas within the the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House, which are now within the boundary of a Protected Site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Section 128 Offence of trespassing on designated site, as amended by the Terrorism Act 2006 section 12.Trespassing etc. on nuclear sites, as specified in the Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 930 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Sites under Section 128) Order 2007. specifically the map published in Schedule 8:

The paper hardcopy photopies reveal little of interest, except that it seems that the boundary around the main Palace of Westminster was originally going to extend some way into the River Thames, presumably along the as yet non-existent "security" boom or row of marker buoys.

How, exactly any Notices would have been fixed or how this law applies to the tidal River Thames is a mystery which is, at this point rather moot.

The memos and emails confirm that the Home Office was desperate to ensure that there was adequate signage so as to prevent the statutory defence of ignorance of the boundary from being invoked.

There are a couple of FOIA Section 24 National Security exemption redactions, which one could perhaps argue about, since Section 128 of SOCPA has nothing to do with real security, and everything to do with the suppression of political dissent, and of minor non-violent, non-threatening publicity stunts.

What is really infuriating, however, is the policy of censorship or redaction of the Names, Job Titles, Email Addresses , Postal Addresses and DirectTelephone Numbers of some of the officials in these memos and emails, on what seems to be spurious grounds

In each case, the full text of the memos and emails was disclosed (apart from some small Section 24 National Security redactions) but, for the most part, the people who were making the decisions and giving advice remain as faceless, nameless, contactless bureaucrats.

Continue reading "House of Commons - designation of Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House under SOCPA section 128 - redactions of faceless bureaucrats' names and contact details" »

The Foreign & Commonwealth Office website does not seem to provide details of any easy methods for the public to contact the FCO on anything except travel related matters.

There is a General telephone number,but no email, or postal address etc. or any email or postal mail contact details for the Foreign Office Ministers etc. They even seem to keep their Press Office details secret from the general public.

Hence we have reluctantly had to resort to a Freedom of Information Act request to try to elicit the names and job titles of the Russian and United Kingdom diplomats etc. who have been or who are in the process of being expelled as persona non grata, following the diplomatic incident over the failure to extradite or prosecute the suspect Andrei Lugovoi, in the radioactive Polonium 210 murder case of British citizen Alexander Litvinenko.

Every foreign government and intelligence agency will know who these people are, through their own normal diplomatic representatives in London and Moscow, so why shouldn't the UK general public know as well ?

Continue reading "Foreign & Commonwealth Office: names & job titles of the Russian and UK diplomats expelled after the Polonium 210 murder affair" »

Essentially, they have disclosed the information which was asked for,i.e. details of exactly which "colourless, odourless, non-toxic" gases, and the quantities which were released into the atmosphere, in the Marylebone / Westminster area of London, to help refine computer models of urban airflows, for chemical and biological warfare or terrorism planning purposes.

As suspected, the gases released are non-toxic, but that does not mean that they are harmless - they are,in fact very potent Greenhouse Gases.

It does seem that they were originally contemplating using Sulphur Hexafluoride, which is the most potent Greenhouse Gas ever tested, which , due to its inertness and stability, is estimated to be equivalent to 23,900 times the equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide, in terms of its Greenhouse Gas warming effect on the atmosphere, over 100 years.

As it happens, the 3 gases chosen, are the next 3 most potent Greenhouse Gases, equivalent to hundreds of tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, even for the small amount used in the Tracer Gas Trials, which planned to release a few grammes, on about 30 occasions.

This is a Carbon Equivalent which would be similar to a car, circumnavigating the planet several times.

Under the Environmental Information Regulations, the Home Office should have published the Environmental Impact Assessment pro-actively, before the gas emissions began. Why could they not have published these details as part of Home Office Minister Tony McNulty's original Statement ?

For clarity, the corrections in the Home Office email, to the number sequence of our original Questions, have been omitted:

Continue reading "Home Office EIR request - internal review and disclosure re Westminster Tracer Gas Trials" »

It seems that it could take up to 40 days for an Internal Review by the Home Office of our Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request regarding the Westminster Tracer Gas trials.

Perhaps we will get a proper response by the 20th of August.

Continue reading "40 days for Home Office Internal Review regarding handling of EIR request re Westminster Tracer Gas Trial" »

After sending a reminder email on Thursday 21st June 2007, i.e. 2 days after the 20 working day limit for our original request, the Home Office seems to be trying the bureaucratic tactic of "it's nuffing to do wiv us", and claim that they are forwarding the email to the Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs.

What possible relevance DEFRA has to some research being conducted for anti-terrorism and national security purposes, which was announced via a Ministerial Statement by Home Office Minister Tony McNulty, who also answered two Parliamentary Written Questions from Labour MP and political blogger Tom Watson on these trials.

These Written Answers partially answered one of our EIR questions within the 20 working day period of oir EIR request, something which the Department should have advised us of, bearing in mind the criticisms by the Information Commissioner in similar cases, including our own long running struggle with the Office for Government Commerce / Home Office over the Gateway Reviews for the Identity Cards Programme.

So far as we can see, since the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 are not as constrained as the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with regards to Exemptions, but we still have to wait for an Internal Review of the handling of our request by a different section of the Home Office, before complaining to the Information Commissioner.

Continue reading "Home Office tries to shift our Tracer Gas Trials Environmental Information regulations request over to DEFRA" »

The House of Lords has disclosed, as per our FOIA request, a couple of Home Office documents which give a glimpse about the chronology of the meetings and decisions which led to the Designation of the Place of Westminster and Portcullis House (and Downing Street, Buckingham Palace, MI5, MI6, GCHQ, MOD etc. buildings) under the Serious organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

The emphasis on displaying adequate warning signs around the perimeters of Designated Sites, some of which which are now called Protected Sites (after the amendment brought in by Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2006) is interesting - the Home Office civil servants fear that the legislation will "be brought into disrepute by a failed prosecution", based on the statutory defence under "section 128(4) if a person can prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect the site in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed was a designated site".

This is currently very topical, since the first people, Obadiah Marius and Victoria Smith have now been arrested and charged under this Section 128, for apparently wandering into Downing Street via the unmarked 70 Whitehall entrance to the Cabinet Office.

Warning signs suitable for the perimeter fence of a nuclear power station on an isolated site, are not adequate for public buildings or otherwise unmarked official office buildings in the centre of London, an area with with millions of foreign tourists who may not read English well or at all. There are also many British people who cannot read or see such signs either.

The House of Lords disclosure consists of 4 photocopied items:

Letter from the House of Lords Freedom of Information Officer.

The FOIA disclosure was made via post which arrived on Tuesday 12th June 2007, exactly 20 working days (allowing for the May Public Holiday).

1. March 2007 Letter from a senior Home Office civil servant to the Parliamentary Security Co-Ordinator

   "I know the policy is not a welcome one but it is one to which the Government has committed us and it will be difficult for us all if it is called into disrepute"

2. March 2007 Email to Parliamentary Estates Division from the Policy Team Leader at the Home Office Central Unit, which concisely lays out the chronology of the meetings and decisions and the importance of adequate signage.

3. July 2006 Appendix giving general policy advice about signs and section 128 - presumably this was sent to all the other Designated sites as well.

4. The House of Lords wording used on their temporary / freestanding signs by their entrances to the House of Lords e.g. the Monarch's entrance.
   

We have censored some names, addresses, individual email addresses and direct telephone extensions in the transcriptions below:

Continue reading "House of Lords discloses a couple of Home Office SOCPA Section 128 Designated / Protected Sites signage documents" »

According to the Financial Times the Office of Government Commerce, a creature of Her Majesty's Treasury, headed by Chancellor soon to be Prime Minister Gordon Brown is appealing against the Information Tribunal's decision to uphold the Information Commissioner's decision to order the OGC to publish in full, the documents requested in our Freedom of Information Act for the Stage Zero and two Pre-Stage Zero Gateway Review reports into the Home Office's controversial and hugely expensive Identity Cards Programme.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 Section 59 Appeals from decision of Tribunal does allow for an appeal against the decision of the Information Tribunal to be heard by the High Court, but only on a point of law

59. Any party to an appeal to the Tribunal under section 57 may appeal from the decision of the Tribunal on a point of law to the appropriate court; and that court shall be-

(a) the High Court of Justice in England if the address of the public authority is in England or Wales,
(b) the Court of Session if that address is in Scotland, and
(c) the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland if that address is in Northern Ireland.

We are mystified as to what "points of law" OGC can possibly argue before the High Court.

How much money in legal fees will all these pointless appeals end up costing the taxpayers ?

Gordon Brown is already reneging on his recent promises about "open government" or public transparency and accountability. He does not have to wait to take over as Prime Minister, he could have ordered the documents to be released disclosed already, since the OGC is directly under his control as Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems unlikely that such an infamous micro-manager, would not be fully aware of the OGC decision to waste further public money on legal costs in this matter.

We are awaiting details of any future High Court dates for this case, which could possibly be done via written submissions without a formal hearing. Hopefully the High Court will decide to reject the OGC appeal.

Apart from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Information Commissioner also regulates the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, which are a result of European Union law i.e. Article 7 (2) of the European Directive (2003/4/EC)

There seems to be less scope for a Government Department to wriggle out of providing EIR request information, compared with an FOIA request on the same topic. All the usual "Sir Humphrey" excuses seem to have a public interest test, so there are no absolute exemptions.

We shall see if Gordon Brown's vague promises of a more open and transparent Government mean anything to the supposedly re-organised Home Office, or whether they will obstruct our EIR request for basic information about the Tracer Gas Trials which are meant to have started today in the Marylebone / Westminster areas of London, as part of some Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear defence experiments being conducted, not on a test range, but in a real urban city environment.

This basic information, such as exactly what the unnamed , allegedly harmless Tracer Gases (plural) are, what quantities are to be released into the environment, and the Environmental Impact Assessment, etc. should, according to the Environmental Information Regulations have been proactively published already.

Continue reading "EIR request to Home Office re Westminster Tracer Gas Trials" »