Digital Economy Bill

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is a request for information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

Please provide me with information about the Scotland Office's
communications with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on
the application of the Digital Economy Bill to Scotland that took
place in 2008 and 2009.

Such information should extend to copies of minutes, memoranda and
correspondence, in an electronic format.

I am very grateful for your assistance.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Wyllie

Dear Mr Winsor,

Thank you for your email, which I have taken time to consider.

Please pass this message on to your FOI Officer in Edinburgh, in
order in part to save paper.

This is a request for an internal review of the Scotland Office's
handling of my request for information, only in relation to
“Scotland Office interaction with DCMS on” the Digital Economy
Bill. This does not relate to any communications containing legal
advice, and, as I state below, to other matters. My request was not
directed at these matters, shown in part because I did not request
information from the Advocate General.

I consider the application of the exemption under section 35 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to be poorly considered. This is
because I do not consider several factors were taken into account
when you assessed the public interest.

There is a public interest in ensuring the efficiency and
effectiveness of the Scotland Office. The Scotland Office's role is
to provide a voice for Scotland in the UK Government. Disclosing
this information will ensure that that voice is heard louder, given
the potential ramifications for other Departments of failing to
listen. I do not consider the convention of collective
responsibility enters here: it is recognised by the very setting up
of the Scotland Office and through the machinery of government in
general that vigorous debate takes place over policy, then
Ministers agree on it. Disclosing the information will ensure this
works properly.

Greater transparency makes government more accountable in general.
The Scotland Office is to be judged by how it articulates its
arguments. The only way in which this can be seen is through
examining the development of policy.

There is a public interest in ensuring public awareness and debate
in the role of the Scotland Office and the Digital Economy Bill. As
knowledge of the way government works increases, the public
contribution to the policy making process could become more
effective and broadly-based. The public debate is very much alive
now: the claim that the timing of the request is inopportune seems
curious given this.

Where public funds are being spent, there is a strong interest in
accountability and justification. It is to be noted that the answer
to the question contained in HC Deb, 25 November 2009, c135W
contained less information than in the request you provided to me.
Therefore, disclosure of this information could strengthen
Parliament by ensuring not only strong answers to Parliamentary
questions, therefore strengthening the convention of ministerial
accountability, but a strong base in policy for decisions.

Even where information relates to policy development, this does not
provide in itself a public interest favouring non-disclosure.
Section 35 was, indeed, designed to ensure civil servants could be
candid to Ministers, and vice versa. However, the exemption must be
one applied based on harm. There was no indication in the letter I
received that harm to individuals would ensue from disclosure. No
harm could reasonably be attributed to the community as a result of
non-disclosure.

As I have outlined above, while some harm could be considered to
arise to the Scotland Office, this seems to pale when other public
interests are considered, particularly given the need for “space”
seems to have ended given the publication of the Bill – it would
seem the job of the Scotland Office is over. However, if this is
not the case, I wish to clarify my request by saying it does not
extend whatsoever to any proceedings since the Bill was laid before
the House. Given the exemption concerning commercial interests was
not utilised, it cannot be divined that there will be harm to other
bodies arising from disclosure.

Therefore, I request you reconsider your decision, and look forward
very much to your response.

To help, a full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/di...

Yours faithfully,

Mr Wyllie