On 04/07/2011 08:50, Francis Davey wrote:
2011/7/4 Mark Goodge<[email protected]>:
I tweeted and blogged about it, and someone else on Twitter pointed out that
such an arrangement may well be contrary to section 14 of the Re-use of
Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. If so, that would apply to the
contract with Bailii as well. So I've followed it up with another FoI
request:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_interest_provisions_for_e
Yes, that occurred to me. Its not the strongest of provisions though,
but it would be interesting to see how they respond.
What regulation 14 does do is impose a statutory requirement to,
essentially, explain various arrangements in documentary form, which
means it can then be the subject of an FOI request. FOI can't be used
to make people explain things unless they have written that
explanation down - a fact which, alas, many requesters don't
appreciate.
I'm fully expecting that the response will be "information not held",
since both contracts predate the regulations and my guess is that they
never actually bothered to reconsider or document them when the
regulations came into force. But even that would be a step forward,
since it would be an opening for pressure to be brought to bear.
"Ministry of Justice breaks the law" is a nice headline :-)
The outcome of the FoI request was widely circulated on Twitter
yesterday, and I know it's been brought to the attention of at least a
couple of MPs as well as several campaigning groups. So I'm optimistic
that among them will be someone with the necessary leverage to get
something done.
Mark
--
Sent from my Babbage Difference Engine
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
http://www.ratemysupermarket.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
