Dear Mr Battsworth,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST

I am writing in relation to your request for an internal review of our decision to withhold a small number of documents under section 36(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act.

Following a careful reconsideration of our decision, Amanda Kelly, formerly Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services concluded that section 36(b)(b) does not apply to a note from Edward Rogers, Head of Libraries, Archives and Information services. Therefore I am pleased to enclose the note in question.

However we are unable to disclose the remainder of the information which is within the scope of your request as Ms Kelly considered the balance of the public interest is in favour of maintaining this exemption.

I acknowledge your remarks regarding the application of section 36 namely that you do not consider any `democratic process was in operation which could be prejudiced. You also state that there is little sign of a `decision making which could equate with public affairs'. You suggest that the use of section 36 appears to be a `blanket' exemption.

With respect we disagree with your assertion that section 36 of the Act does not apply in this instance.

The Information Commissioners guidance on the matter helpfully explains the purpose of this exemption. Specifically he states the following regarding its application:

Although section 36 (2) (c) has been described as a `catch all' exemption, this is misleading. During the parliamentary debates on the FOI Bill, the government had indicated that the intention of the section was to cover those rare situations which could not be foreseen and which cannot be covered by another exemption, where it would be necessary to withhold information in the interests of good government, rather than catching anything and everything which is not otherwise going to be exempt.

Although we acknowledge the public interest in the accountability and transparency of decision making in local government and the value of public participation we do not consider the public interest to favour disclosure at this time due to the following factors:

Section 36 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) allow for the exemption of information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to inhibit the ability of public authority staff and others, when deliberating or providing advice, to express themselves openly, honestly and completely, or to explore extreme options.

If certain deliberations of public officials are to be opened up to public scrutiny, there could be a resulting deterioration in the quality of decision-making. If the information was disclosed it would have an inhibiting effect. That is, advice would be less likely to be sought or offered, or if any exchange of views would be more reticent or circumscribed either in relation to the specific issue or as a general result. The result of disclosing the information would result in advice being given that is materially different because of the possibility of the information being disclosed and advice being subject to unwarranted scrutiny.

It is in the public interest for decisions of this nature which in this instance relates to a decision whether to hold the book launch at a local library to be dealt with rigorously and that it would not be in the public interest if those involved in considering such decisions felt unable to express themselves as fully as they might for fear of future public disclosure. It is therefore important that the appropriate degree of private space be allowed for this to occur. In this case, if such information was disclosed it could have an inhibiting effect on the process by which advice is given and views are exchanged, which in turn could affect the quality of advice received by senior officials. The effective maintenance of this process is clearly in the public interest. The exemption at section 36(b)(ii) recognises similarly that public officials must be able to engage in free and frank exchange of views without undue concern that information would be routinely disclosed and for private space for this to happen.

We therefore maintain the view that the disclosure of this item of information would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and is therefore exempt.

If you are not satisfied following this Internal Review, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. He can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF 
Telephone: 01625 545 700

Yours sincerely

Reaz Khedarun

Corporate Information Governance Officer

ICT

Christine Peacock, Head of ICT, 6- 15 Florfield Road, Reading Lane, London E8 1DT

E8 1DT