The Office of Government Commerce has issued a press release announcing what they have disclosed in response to a Sunday Times FOI request. I am checking to see when the Sunday Times made their request and whether this disclosure log was placed online before or after they were given the information.

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 Treausry has published a disclosure log that details Freedom of Information disclosures made by HM Treasury since January 2005 where the material is new or of wider interest.

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

This is the Department for Transport’s response to a Freedom of Information request on the planning process for Heathrow Terminal Five.

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.

This is the actual text from the letter I received 1 February, 2005 from the Freedom of Information Officer, Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, Attorney General’s Chambers. To be brief, they refused both requests. It is particularly difficult to fathom why the department cannot even come up with the list of all topics on which the attorney general’s advice was sought. Surely this is a record of such basic necessity that a government department could not function without it. Are we to assume that no one in the Attorney General’s office has any idea what they’re being asked advice on and their overall workload? This is no way to run an efficient department.

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.
(more…)