Dear Mr Wynn,

Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your email of the 23^rd September, which has been passed to me for reply.

In your correspondence, you have asked why there has not been a Government response to the consultation entitled `Freedom of Information Act 2000: Designation of additional public authorities [CP 27/07]' and requested to see copies of the responses to the public consultation.

The Government does intend to publish a formal response to the consultation, including a summary of the responses received, later this year. Once this has happened, we would expect to supply copies of individual responses on request.

The Ministry of Justice received 135 responses to the consultation and although the deadline was 1^st February 2008, it accepted responses up to one month after this date at the request of respondents. Unfortunately, this added a delay to the completion of the analysis of the individual responses and the formulation of the Government's formal response.

The information you have requested is central to the development of government policy and disclosure is subject to the public interest test under section 35 (1) (a) (information relating to the formulation or development of government policy) of the Act. When applying this exemption consideration has to be given to the public interest and an assessment carried out to weigh up the case for disclosure or non-disclosure.

The Public Interest Test

Section 35(1)(a) recognises the importance of protecting the policy-making process and maintain the delivery of effective government. Parliament drew such conclusions during scrutiny of the FOI Bill. For example, Robert (now Lord) Maclennan (Lib Dem)

said during the Standing Committee Debate on Clause 33, on 25 January 2000: “I accept that Government decision-making cannot be conducted in a goldfish bowl, with every shift and turn in discussion being simultaneously disclosed. That plainly does not make sense…” The Information Tribunal recognised this public interest in DfES v the Information Commissioner & the Evening Standard [EA/2006/0006]. At paragraph 75(iv) it stated:

“We fully accept the DfES argument, supported by a wealth of evidence, that disclosure of discussions of policy options, whilst policy is in the process of formulation, is highly unlikely to be in the public interest, unless, for example, it would expose wrongdoing within government. Ministers and officials are entitled to time and space, in some instances to considerable time and space, to hammer out policy by exploring safe and radical options alike, without the threat of lurid headlines depicting that which has been merely broached as agreed policy. We note that many of the most emphatic pronouncements on the need for confidentiality to which we were referred, are predicated on the risk of premature publicity”

It is important that those with an interest in the outcome of this consultation have sight of Government's full response to the consultation so they can understand how Government has formulated its conclusions and recommendations.

The Government recognises a significant public interest in public debate and democratic engagement. For this reason, the Government consulted the public on the designation of additional public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore in this case, this particular public interest consideration does not attract significant weight because that public interest has been met. In its absence, the balance of the public interest lies in favour of good governance that flows from preserving the space for government to consider the public view.

In this instance, the balance of the public interest is in favour of non-disclosure. If we were to release copies of the individual responses prior to publication of the formal response this could result in an adverse impact on policy deliberations and any subsequent negotiations that may be necessary with any third parties.

If you would like us to send you a copy of the Government response as soon as it is published, please reply to this letter providing your full postal or personal email address.

If you are unhappy with the result of your request for information, you may request an internal review within two calendar months of the date of this letter by writing to Access Rights Unit, Ministry of Justice, Post Point 6.17, Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QW.

If you remain unhappy with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Watts

Freedom of Information Policy