Duty to the public to be transparent and Tate's relations with BP

Glen Tarman made this Freedom of Information request to Tate (Gallery)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Tate Gallery,

As evidenced by media coverage in recent years and the petition (Open Letter to Nicholas Serota) signed by over 8, 000 Tate Members and visitors (as of the Tate Members AGM 2011 on 2 December 2011), there is widespread public concern with regard to the secrecy to date of Tate's agreement with BP.

Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide the following information:

1. Has Tate agreed or is Tate planning to not accede to any confidentiality clause similar to that made in the present contract between Tate and BP that 'Tate and BP agree to treat as secret and confidential any information relating to the terms of the contracted Agreement'?
2. Given Tate's confirmation (9 June 2010) that there was no correspondence between Tate and BP on the issue of confidentiality in advance of the present contract:
i. What correspondence has taken place since 24 May 2010 (when BP said to Tate that it wanted to keep the agreement pertaining then secret) in regard to such provisions, or lack thereof, in any agreement announced 19 December 2011 especially in the light of requests from the Tate Members, visitors, artists and other Tate stakeholders that key details of any agreement be made public? Please supply copies of any such correspondence.
ii. Has Tate requested that BP not require it to keep confidential any sum of the sponsorship announced on 19 December 2011 and/or has BP informed Tate that no such provision is now required of Tate.
3. What assessment(s), if any, has Tate senior management and/or Tate Trustees and/or Board of Trustees' sub-Committees such as the Ethics Committee made or been given on the issue of the confidentiality of future BP sponsorship by the date of reply to this Freedom of Information request? This would include any assessment of a. reducing Tate's risk of liability for breach of contract by amending any such clause or not entering into any such obligation b. Tate acting to increase public transparency given Tate itself has a "duty to the public to be transparent and accountable, and always to act in the public interest" (Tate Ethical Principles 2.0) and reducing reliance on Section 43 (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information Act to not supply the public with information, and c. the potential for Tate to increase sponsorship in future if the exact sponsorship sum from BP now becomes public. Please supply any such assessment and related due diligence undertaken.
4. How much is Tate's estimate or the actual amount that BP will give to Tate of the £10 million announced on 19 December 2011?

Yours faithfully,

Glen Tarman

FOI, Tate (Gallery)

Thank you for your request for information. Your request (our ref: 355) was received on the 29th December 2011. It will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and we will send you a response within 20 working days.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me.

Kind regards

Abigail Tadjrishi

On Behalf of Tate's Freedom of Information Group

show quoted sections

Jason Becker, Tate (Gallery)

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Tarman,

Please find attached the response to your recent Freedom of Information

<<2011 01 26 FOI Case 355 FINAL.doc>>
Kind regards,

Jason Becker
On behalf of the Tate Freedom of Information Group