uk freedom of information post legislative scrutiny submission 03 02 12

8/3/2019 UK Freedom of Information Post Legislative Scrutiny Submission 03 02 12

1/7

Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3GA

Tel: 020 7324 2522 www.indexoncensorship.org

Chief Executive: John Kampfner Editor: Jo Glanville

Trustees & Directors: Jonathan Dimbleby (Chair), Anthony Barling, Rohan Jayasekera,

John Kampfner, Katie King, David McCune, Lord Ken McDonald QC, David Membrey, Matthew Parris.

Index on Censorship works to pursue the charitable objectives of its founding charity, the Writers & Scholars Educational Trust.

It is a UK registered charity no. 325003 VAT registration no 241 0075 16

Sir Alan Beith MPChair of the House of Commons Justice Select CommitteeHouse of CommonsLondon, SW1A 0AA

3 February 2012

Dear Sir Alan,

Re: Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act

At Index on Censorship we strongly support the principle of an open society, and believe thataccess to information is part of the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. There is no doubtthat the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been hugely positive in opening up governmentand public authorities in the United Kingdom to scrutiny by its citizens and helped curb a cultureof secrecy.

It is believed that there were in total nearly a million information requests made to public bodiesfrom 20052010; but this has to be placed in the context of the 100,000 public authorities that theFOI Act covers.

Freedom of information helps promote efficient government. The total cost of FOI requests isestimated at around 40 million per annum,1 about the same as central government departmentsalone spend on external PR consultants.2 The Daily Telegraph identified 25 million worth ofquestionable spending by civil servants on credit cards with just a few FOI requests,3 andspending on freedom of information pales into insignificance in comparison to total governmentspending this financial year of 710 billion.

In this submission, we identify a number of areas where we disagree with the Ministry of JusticesMemorandum to your committee on Post-legislative assessment of the Freedom of InformationAct 2000. Our headings link with the numbered bullet points in the Memorandum in brackets.

We hope your committee will support the principle that open access to information is afundamental right, and also helps steer government in a more equitable and efficient direction.

1Memorandum to the Justice Select Committee: Post-Legislative Assessment of the Freedom of Information Act

2000, Ministry of Justice,http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-

the-foi-act.pdf, p. 53.2http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1005967/government-comms-budget-halved-40-million-amid-public-spending-

cuts/3http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555445/Civil-servants-spend-25m-on-credit-cards-including-luxury-

hotels-fine-dining-and-golf-trips.html
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1005967/government-comms-budget-halved-40-million-amid-public-spending-cuts/http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1005967/government-comms-budget-halved-40-million-amid-public-spending-cuts/http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1005967/government-comms-budget-halved-40-million-amid-public-spending-cuts/http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1005967/government-comms-budget-halved-40-million-amid-public-spending-cuts/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555445/Civil-servants-spend-25m-on-credit-cards-including-luxury-hotels-fine-dining-and-golf-trips.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555445/Civil-servants-spend-25m-on-credit-cards-including-luxury-hotels-fine-dining-and-golf-trips.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555445/Civil-servants-spend-25m-on-credit-cards-including-luxury-hotels-fine-dining-and-golf-trips.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555445/Civil-servants-spend-25m-on-credit-cards-including-luxury-hotels-fine-dining-and-golf-trips.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555445/Civil-servants-spend-25m-on-credit-cards-including-luxury-hotels-fine-dining-and-golf-trips.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8555445/Civil-servants-spend-25m-on-credit-cards-including-luxury-hotels-fine-dining-and-golf-trips.htmlhttp://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1005967/government-comms-budget-halved-40-million-amid-public-spending-cuts/http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1005967/government-comms-budget-halved-40-million-amid-public-spending-cuts/http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdf


2/7

MPs privilege in regards to constituents correspondence (88)

1. Correspondence with a Member of Parliament could, in specific instances, be granted thesame protection afforded to journalists sources under the Common Law and underArticle 10 of the Human Rights Act (see FT vs. United Kingdom) based on a public interest

test.

2. However, a full exemption for MPs correspondence could have a negative impact onfreedom of expression and access to information. To give one example, an MP couldprevent publication of leaked correspondence that relayed attempts by lobbyists to alterlegislation.

Vexatious requests (96)

3. Public authorities have expressed concern that section 14(1) on vexatious requests is hardto use. Index on Censorship supports the principle that the section should only be used as a

last resort against those filing multiple FOI requests where no public interest can bedemonstrated. As it stands we believe that section 14(1) is an adequate provision, asproven in practice (with the ICO tribunal upholding 14 of 19 decisions),4 and that anyattempt to make it easier to rule out FOI requests could be misused by public authorities.

4. According to University College Londons Constitution Unit, of 693,650 requests made tolocal government only 1.6% (11,336) were subject to internal review by the requesters, 5suggesting that the vast majority of requests are viewed as satisfactory by thoserequesting the data, and that very few people indeed tie up local authorities withvexatious internal reviews.

Exemptions to the FOI Act (102)

5. Index on Censorship is critical of the recent addition relating to members of the RoyalFamily within schedule 7, section 46 of the FOI Act. In a joint statement alongsideRepublic, Right to Know, Professor Roy Greenslade, the Reform Foundation and ProfessorJohn Millar we argued:

This is not simply about the royal household's use of public funds - it is a serious issue ofaccountability and transparency that goes to the heart of government. It is well documented, andadmitted by Clarence House, that the Prince of Wales routinely lobbies government ministers on awide range of controversial and deeply political matters such as the environment, education and

health. The current lack of scrutiny over such actions means that citizens have no means by whichto judge if ministers are taking decisions according to the public interest or to suit the interests andagenda of the heir to the throne.

[The] government has previously justified royal secrecy by asserting the importance of maintainingthe appearance of impartiality on the part of the monarch and heir to the throne. But the monarchand heir are required to be impartial in fact and not just in appearance.6

4Memorandum to the Justice Select Committee: Post-Legislative Assessment of the Freedom of Information Act

2000, Ministry of Justice,http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdf

5http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/FOI_Surveys_6_year_Summary_FINAL_Nov2011_edit.pdf.6http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/03/royalty-free-freedom-of-information/
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/FOI_Surveys_6_year_Summary_FINAL_Nov2011_edit.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/FOI_Surveys_6_year_Summary_FINAL_Nov2011_edit.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/FOI_Surveys_6_year_Summary_FINAL_Nov2011_edit.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/FOI_Surveys_6_year_Summary_FINAL_Nov2011_edit.pdfhttp://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/03/royalty-free-freedom-of-information/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/03/royalty-free-freedom-of-information/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/03/royalty-free-freedom-of-information/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/03/royalty-free-freedom-of-information/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/FOI_Surveys_6_year_Summary_FINAL_Nov2011_edit.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/FOI_Surveys_6_year_Summary_FINAL_Nov2011_edit.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdfhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdf


3/7

We believe that neither the last government who initiated the change, nor the currentgovernment who implemented the change, has justified allowing the Heir to the Throne alevel of official state secrecy that Ministers of the Crown do not enjoy. This presents uswith a constitutional anomaly.

6. The Committee may also wish to consider whether there is too broad a range ofexemptions which reduces clarity. Whilst 23 sections of the UK FOI Act can be invoked asexemptions (some absolute, some contingent on a public interest test), the US Freedom ofInformation Act has streamlined this into nine clear categories:

1) properly classified information; 2) agency management records; 3) information barredfrom disclosure by another law; 4) trade secrets or other confidential businessinformation; 5) inter- and intra- agency information protected by legal privileges; 6)information that, if disclosed, would invade another individuals privacy ; 7) informationcompiled for law enforcement; 8) federal government records of banks and other regulated

financial institutions; and 9) information about the location of oil and gas wells of privatecompanies.7

Information Commissioner's Office caseloads (153)

7. We note that the predicted peak in ICO caseloads has not materialised, and that afterinitial teething problems the case closure rate in 2010/11 reached 99%. Often news is time-sensitive, so dealing with FOI requests and disputes in an effective manner is important.

8. Index believes that the Committee should investigate whether the ICO should be givenadditional powers including the power to levy significant fines to deal with public bodies

who are consistently slow in responding to FOI requests, or who use a disproportionatenumber of exemptions. The ICO can already fine up to 500,000 for breaches of the DataProtection Act, but at present can only use the threat of criminal sanctions (with an undulyhigh threshold) against authorities breaching FOI guidelines.

Science researcher Les Rose told Index that public bodies will allow cases to be referred tothe ICO tribunal if they wish to delay publication of embarrassing information as there isno disincentive to do so. Fines for constituent breaches of the 20-day guideline would actas a powerful disincentive.

Cabinet papers

9. We agree with the analysis in the Memorandum based on the UCL Constitution Unitinterviews with civil servants in 2009, that there is no evidence of a chilling effect oncentral government and that claims that FOIA would undermine civil service neutrality orministerial accountability have proved unfounded.8

7Information provided by Amy Bennett from OpenTheGovernment.org

8Memorandum, p.87.


4/7

Local authorities (172)

10.In the Memorandum, it is stated:At a time when all public authorities are required to do more with less, this consideration of the

financial impact of FOIA on public authorities is pertinent.

Local authorities receive the majority of FOI requests, which is perhaps indicative of thegreater contact citizens have with their council in contrast with central governmentdepartments. The Local Government Association is lobbying to reduce the cost of FOIrequests, which Index believes will have a chilling effect on access to information andpublic discussion about the activities of local government.

Whilst the number of FOI requests to local authorities has risen, UCL research suggeststhat the cost of processing FOI enquires has fallen by over half from 410 per request in2005 to just 160 per request in 2010.9

The Local Government Association in a press release at the end of 2011, 10Councilsquizzed on Santa, Napoleon and Aliens in 2011's most wacky FOI's stated that FOIrequests were costing the taxpayer 31.7 million per year. Whilst this is a significantamount, in contrast Councils paid out 427 million in mileage allowances for councillorsand staff in 2009 / 2010, and this represents a statistically insignificant amount comparedto the total local government budget of 118.1 billion for the financial year 2011 / 2012. 11

Research from UCL12 shows that only 5% of FOI requests to Councils are from commercialbusinesses, whilst 52% are from individual citizens, 5% from journalists and 5% frompolitical parties - all important stakeholders for whom access to information is an essential

right.

We strongly disagree with any attempt to lower the cost limit of 600 per request forcentral government departments and 450 for all other public authorities as set by theFreedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations2004.

Cast study local authorities and defamation actions

The Derbyshire principle prevents public bodies from pursuing a defamation action in theHigh Court, with the rationale that the state should not sue its citizens for speaking out.

Index on Censorship found evidence last year that public authorities were continuing to usepublic funds to pursue defamation actions against UK citizens. Using the FOI Act, wewere able to obtain evidence that South Tyneside Council has spent $64,370 of taxpayersmoney pursuing one of its councillors, Ahmed Khan, in the Californian courts in adefamation action.13

9UCL, ibid.

10http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10161/3260888/NEWS-TEMPLATE

11http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1933771.pdf12

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/2010-foi-officers-survey.pdf13

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/local-authorities-use-libel-laws-to-silence-criticism/
http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10161/3260888/NEWS-TEMPLATEhttp://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10161/3260888/NEWS-TEMPLATEhttp://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10161/3260888/NEWS-TEMPLATEhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1933771.pdfhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1933771.pdfhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1933771.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/2010-foi-officers-survey.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/2010-foi-officers-survey.pdfhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/2010-foi-officers-survey.pdfhttp://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/local-authorities-use-libel-laws-to-silence-criticism/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/local-authorities-use-libel-laws-to-silence-criticism/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/local-authorities-use-libel-laws-to-silence-criticism/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/09/local-authorities-use-libel-laws-to-silence-criticism/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/foi/foi-and-local-government/2010-foi-officers-survey.pdfhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1933771.pdfhttp://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10161/3260888/NEWS-TEMPLATE


5/7

Fees for FOI requests

11.We strongly disagree with the proposal in the report by Frontier Economics commissionedby the Department for Constitutional Affairs (2006) for a targeted fee for commercial,media or repeat requesters. In Index on Censorship magazine journalist David Leigh

outlines the background to the commissioning of this report.14

Former Lord ChancellorCharles Falconer circulated a private paper to cabinet colleagues in July 2006 which wouldhave restricted serial requesters (NGOs, civil society groups and the media) to just fourFOI requests a year per department. Frontier Economics, a small consultancy with formercabinet secretary Andrew Turnball on the board, was commissioned at short notice at acost of 75,000 to develop Falconers position. As Leigh points outs:

[Frontier Economics] produced a sheaf of dubious statistics The small print revealed that time ofministers had been costs at 300 an hour. The time taken in consultations had been arrived at bytaking the numbers of hours logged by officials and then blithely doubling the figures. The figuresfor newspaper use were extrapolated from a single week. Nowhere was it pointed out that the initial

years of the Act would be far more expensive than subsequently, because every issue was aprecedent. Nor was it explained that the government spends far more - 300 million a year onhundreds of press officers.

The rationale for targeted fees, or limiting requests per organisation, in the name of costreduction, is not justifiable. Such proposals would serious affect important scrutinygroups such as the Taxpayers Alliance whose research into government spending ofteninvolves multiple FOI requests.

As John OConnell, the Research Director of the Taxpayers Alliance, told Index:

The Freedom of Information Act was one of the most important pieces of legislation enacted by thelast Government. For too long taxpayers did not have the tools necessary to hold politiciansproperly accountable but FOI helped shift the power back to those who pay, and away from thosewho spend. Its crucial that this principle is preserved and that means not allowing the Act to bewatered down. If anything it should apply to more bodies that receive taxpayers money, as NickClegg proposed last year. It would be wrong to impose limits or caps on how much informationtaxpayers can request, and if public bodies wish to cut down on the work they do responding to FOIrequests then they should simply publish more information proactively. Any changes that weakenFOI law would be a huge step backwards for transparency and a slap in the face for the taxpayerswho spent so long in the dark, unaware of how politicians spent their hard-earned cash.15

It would also affect the medias ability to hold government to account through open accessto information, which, in turn, would have an adverse effect on Article 10 rights tofreedom of expression.

The Guardians security correspondence Richard Norton-Taylor told Index:

Limiting the number of FOI requests per organisation is neither fair nor logical. There are morethan enough hurdles as it is in the way of disclosure, as well as measures to prevent vexatiousdemands.

14David Leigh, Public Nuisance,Index on Censorship, 36: 2 (2007)

15Email to Mike Harris, Head of Advocacy,Index on Censorship, 3 February 2012.


6/7

We know that government is imbued with unnecessary secrecy. It spends a great deal of resources -in time as well as well as money - suppressing information which should be out in the publicdomain.

Openness is cheap, transparency saves money all round.16

12.The Frontier Economics report contends that 5% of FOI requests in central government areresponsible for 45% of the total cost of FOI. Index asks the committee to consider thenature of FOI requests and that complex data may in fact be of the most use. Withoutfurther analysis beyond this striking fact, it is impossible to know whether it was those 5%of FOI requests that truly touched upon significant matters of public interest, and henceare the requests it is most crucial to protect.

Science and FOI

Case study public bodies and alternative medicine

Professor David Colquhoun is an outspoken critic of alternative medicine, arguing thatuniversities ought to be cautious not to teach its supposed benefits as being scientificallyproven. Using the FOI Act, Colquhoun requested course materials from universitiesteaching homoeopathy and acupuncture to see the claims made for these alternativetherapies. It took three years for him to obtain details of the University of CentralLancashires BSc course in homeopathy through an FOI request, which he won at the ICOtribunal in December 2009.17 Les Rose, a science researcher, told Index18 that the FOI Act isone of the most important pieces of legislation for scientists and key to the translation ofscientific knowledge into public policy and highlighting abuses of science to justifycertain government policies. Rose has used FOI requests to obtain the volume of referrals

from NHS primary trusts to providers of homeopathy. He believes without the FOI Act,primary care trusts would have cited resource concerns over providing the data, and itsimply would not be publicly available.

13.Some publicly funded university science laboratories have aired objections to current FOIlegislation. The most notable recent case was that of the University of East AngliasClimate Research Unit, which for several years resisted the requests for data from amateurclimatologist Steven McIntyre.

The CRU claimed at various points that the requested data was commercially sensitive, orcould damage international relations, and acceded to less than 10% of requests.

The perceived secrecy and subsequent hacking of the Units system severely dented thecredibility of the organisation and set back climate research in the public eye.

Environmental journalist George Monbiot commented:

[T]hose of us who seek to explain [climate changes] implications and call for action must demandthe highest possible standards from the people whose work we promote, and condemn any failures to

16Ibid, 2 February 2012.

17http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_(EA-2009-0034)_Decision_08-12-09_(w).pdf18

Conversation with Mike Harris, ibid, 3 February 2012.
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_(EA-2009-0034)_Decision_08-12-09_(w).pdfhttp://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_(EA-2009-0034)_Decision_08-12-09_(w).pdfhttp://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_(EA-2009-0034)_Decision_08-12-09_(w).pdfhttp://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_(EA-2009-0034)_Decision_08-12-09_(w).pdfhttp://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_(EA-2009-0034)_Decision_08-12-09_(w).pdfhttp://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i357/UCLAN_v_IC_&_Colquhoun_(EA-2009-0034)_Decision_08-12-09_(w).pdf


7/7

release data or admit and rectify mistakes.19

In a ruling against the CRU, Information Commissioner Christopher Graham ruled thatthe university had not demonstrated a good reason to withhold its data. As author FredPearce has pointed in Index on Censorship magazine:

Much of science has closed ranks behind the idea that those demanding access to their data aretroublemakers. Nobel laureate and Royal Society president Sir Paul Nurse says some researchers are getting lots of requests for, among other things, all drafts of scientific papers prior to theirpublication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successiveversions. If it is true, it will consume a huge amount of time. And its intimidating. Maybe, butthe current law allows vexatious requests to be rejected. So that is a straw man.20

14.It is in the interest of scientists, particularly those who are publicly funded, that thebroader population has a greater understanding and enthusiasm for their subjects. Betteraccess for lay people to open data and resources surely aids this aim, and will make

science less daunting for young people considering careers in this ever more importantfield.

Broader context

It took decades to establish the right to information through the Act, with campaigning by many.Since its implementation, FOI has been used to expose rampant expenditure on luxury hotels bycivil servants, the misuse of public money on vexatious legal cases by public bodies againstmember of the public, and helped bring about the revelations in the MPs expenses scandal.

It is also important that your committee views arguments around access to information in its

broader international context. The publication of US State Department cables by WikiLeaks hasdemonstrated how the urge to over-classify documents is present even in establisheddemocracies. We are also concerned over the UK governments Green Paper on Justice andSecurity currently being scrutinised by the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights which hascreated a highly broad term for sensitive material. This could be used as a precedent in otherareas such as the Freedom of Information Act.

Index on Censorship hopes the Justice Select Committee recognises the importance of the Freedomof Information Act in opening up access to information for British citizens. Any reduction in thescope of the Act; to limit the cost of the act, or cap the number of requests organisations can makewill have an impact on Article 10 rights to freedom of expression.

If you would like oral evidence to the committee we would be very pleased to oblige.

Yours sincerely,

Mike HarrisHead of Advocacy, Index on Censorship

19http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails20

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/climate-change-secrecy-freedom-information/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emailshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emailshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emailshttp://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/climate-change-secrecy-freedom-information/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/climate-change-secrecy-freedom-information/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/climate-change-secrecy-freedom-information/http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/11/climate-change-secrecy-freedom-information/http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails

uk freedom of information post legislative scrutiny submission 03 02 12

Documents