On channel 4 news last night they interviewed an previous cabinet secretary and cabinet minister. A point both made was that what was put in the minutes was not what the ministers actually said. The secretary takes general notes then later records in the minutes what they believe the ministers would have said had they given it full consideration and been in possession of all the facts. Based on that I see no reason why the later release of minutes should impede a full and frank exchange of views. Should a minister say something unwise (and be on the good side of the cabinet secretary) it will be redacted to something wise before being committed to paper.
Stephen Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Somerville <[email protected]> Sender: developers-public-bounces+stephenbooth.uk=gmail....@lists.mysociety.org Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:17:58 To: mySociety public, general purpose discussion list<[email protected]> Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" <[email protected]> Cc: WhatDoTheyKnow team<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] FOIA - the future On 21 Dec 2011, at 11:31, Seb Bacon wrote: > There have already been a couple of stories along the line that Cabinet > debates should not be subject to FOI [1], "Sir Gus O'Donnell said ministers need to be able to have "real discussions" without worrying that arguments will be made public." Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: ------------------------- (2) Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act— (a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice— (i) the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the Crown, [...] (b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit— (i) the free and frank provision of advice, or (ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or (c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs. ------------------------- Seems that's already covered pretty well for anything for which he's concerned about in that article. ATB, Matthew > [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16229867 _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/stephenbooth.uk%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
