Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman / Improving Services / Selected Cases / Access to Official Information / Investigations Completed July 2004

Mr Evans complained that the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and HM Treasury (the Treasury) failed to provide him with access to copies of all of the documents that they held relating to a Ministerial Direction overriding the advice of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence regarding the order of 20 Advanced Jet Trainer Hawk aircraft. Each department declined to provide him with much of the information he sought, citing Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code. Although MoD released further information to Mr Evans following his request for a review, they and DTI and the Treasury maintained their reliance on those exemptions to withhold from him the remaining information he sought. At that stage the Treasury also cited Exemption 14. In his comments on the complaint made to the Ombudsman the Permanent Secretary of MoD further cited Exemption 15. The Ombudsman concluded that Exemptions 2 and 13 applied to all of the information withheld by MoD, DTI and the Treasury, and that she was unable to recommend the release of any further information to Mr Evans. She did not uphold the complaint.

1. Mr Evans complained that the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and HM Treasury (the Treasury) refused to provide him with information that should have been made available to him under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (the Code). I have not put into this report every detail investigated by my staff but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked. I should explain that since 1 January 2005 the Code has been superseded by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As a result, references to the Code are couched in the past tense.

Ministerial Directions

2. Where an Accounting Officer of a government department considers that a Minister is contemplating a course of action that would be likely to infringe financial propriety or regularity, or the Accounting Officer’s wider responsibilities for economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it is the duty of the Accounting Officer to so advise the Minister. If that advice is then overruled the Accounting Officer will be required to seek a written Direction from the Minister to enable that action to be carried out. If such a Direction is issued by the Minister, the Accounting Officer must comply with it but must also notify the Treasury and pass the relevant documents to the Comptroller and Auditor General as soon as possible.

The complaint

3. On 7 January 2004 Mr Evans e-mailed MoD about a Ministerial Direction given by the Secretary of State for Defence in which he overruled the advice of the Permanent Secretary of MoD relating to the ordering of 20 Advanced Jet Trainer Hawk 128 aircraft from BAE Systems. Mr Evans said that the Permanent Secretary had conveyed his advice in a minute dated 29 July 2003, and that the Secretary of State had issued the Ministerial Direction on 30 July 2003. Citing the Code, Mr Evans asked MoD for complete copies of all the documents held by them relating to the Direction, by which he meant briefing material, minutes and papers for meetings, e-mails, letters received and sent, memoranda of conversations, and any other relevant paperwork. He asked for the information to be supplied within 20 days, as required by the Code. MoD acknowledged his request on the same day. Mr Evans wrote to DTI and the Treasury in virtually identical terms on 8 January 2004.

4. On 9 January 2004 Mr Evans again wrote to MoD, saying that he wished to have access to a complete copy of the Permanent Secretary’s minute of 29 July 2003: he had however seen from a letter sent by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence to Mr Vincent Cable MP on 1 December 2003 that MoD were withholding it. Mr Evans said that he assumed that if he were also to submit a request for the minute it would likewise be refused, in which case he wished to request a review. On 23 January 2004 MoD wrote to Mr Evans saying that they considered that the minute fell within the scope of the documents he had requested on 7 January 2004.

5. On 4 February 2004 MoD wrote to Mr Evans saying that they had reviewed all of the key documents and e-mails relating to the request for a Direction as well as the Ministerial Direction itself, and that they had considered the points he had made, including the argument that the public interest would be best served by the release of the documents. They said that they were willing to release two documents, namely the Secretary of State’s minute of 30 July 2003 which constituted the Ministerial Direction to the Permanent Secretary and a letter of 5 August 2003 from the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury Officer of Accounts. They withheld the other documents and e-mails that fell within the scope of Mr Evans’ request, citing Exemptions 2 (internal discussion and advice) and 13 (third party’s commercial confidences) of the Code.

6. On 5 February 2004 the Treasury wrote to Mr Evans to say that they were not then in a position to reply to his request, but hoped to be able to do so shortly: they apologised for the delay. On 11 February 2004 they wrote to Mr Evans saying that they had reviewed all of the information held by the Treasury on the Ministerial Direction but had concluded that, with the exception of a letter from the Permanent Secretary of the MoD to the Treasury Officer of Accounts (the Ministerial Direction copied to Mr Evans by MoD – see paragraph 5 above), which they enclosed, the information was exempt from disclosure under Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code. They considered that the release of the information would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and advice and would constitute an unwarranted disclosure of commercial confidences that would harm the competitive position of a third party. The Treasury said that they were satisfied that the harm that would result from disclosure of the information sought was not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. They drew Mr Evans’ attention to MoD’s Press Notice 172/03 of 30 July 2003 which explained the basis of the government’s decision in placing the order for the aircraft.

7. DTI acknowledged Mr Evans’ information request on 12 January 2004. On 18 February 2004 they sent him a substantive reply, saying that they had considered all of the information that they held regarding the Ministerial Direction on the Hawk 128 and had concluded that DTI had not originated any documents that dealt specifically with either the request for a Direction or the Ministerial Direction itself. However, DTI said that they did retain documents that contained references to the Ministerial Direction sent to them by other government departments as part of the normal consultation process in reaching decisions on major defence equipment procurements, but they concluded that these documents should be withheld, citing Exemptions 2 (relating to internal discussion and advice) and 13 (relating to third party’s commercial confidences) of the Code.. All three departments explained to Mr Evans that it was open to him to seek an internal review of their decision with recourse to the Ombudsman if, following such a review, he continued to remain dissatisfied.

9. Mr Evans therefore e-mailed MoD, the Treasury and DTI on 19, 20 and 24 February 2004 respectively asking them to reconsider whether or not the Code exemptions cited had been properly applied in this case. He said that he believed that there was a clear public interest in releasing the material. He accepted that the Ministerial Direction had been sought on value for money grounds rather than in terms of the regularity and propriety of the Secretary of State for Defence’s decision. He said, however, that the contract for the advanced jet trainer was worth a considerable amount of money, at least £800m, and he believed that one of the aims of open government must be to allow the public to scrutinise how their money was spent. He believed that each department should therefore release the material as it would shed more light on the reasons for the Ministerial Direction. He also asked them to consider redacting documents so that some information could be released. He asked all the departments for a reply within 20 working days, in accordance with their published targets.

10. DTI acknowledged receipt of the review request on 24 February 2004. They sent Mr Evans a full reply on 22 March 2004, saying that they had considered the matters raised in his e-mail of 24 February and were satisfied that Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code applied to the information he had requested. DTI said that they considered that the harm arising from disclosure would override the public interest in making that information available, despite the further points which Mr Evans had made.

11. The Treasury acknowledged receipt of the review request on 24 February 2004 and, on 23 March 2004 they sent Mr Evans a holding reply. On 1 April 2004, they wrote to him saying that they had concluded that the information he had requested fell within the terms of Exemptions 2 (internal discussion and advice), 13 (third party’s commercial confidences) and 14 (information given in confidence) of the Code, and that the public interest in access did not outweigh the harm that would be caused by the release of the information. They said that they were therefore unable to release any further information to him.

12. On 23 February 2004 MoD acknowledged receipt of the review request. On 17 March 2004 MoD sent Mr Evans a holding reply, apologising for the delay in sending him a substantive response. On 23 April 2004 they wrote to him saying that, although the Code gave an entitlement to information and not documents, they concluded that two further documents could be released to Mr Evans, namely Lines to Take and Question and Answer material, both prepared in July 2003, which they believed answered the substance of Mr Evans’ original request. They said that the remaining documents constituted correspondence both within MoD and more widely, relating to the selection of the Hawk 128 and the need for a Ministerial Direction. They were satisfied that those documents fell within the scope of Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code. They also concluded that the harm likely to result from disclosure of the documents relating to the direction would outweigh the public interest in making them available to Mr Evans.

13. Following his original complaint to me, Mr Evans made further representations on 18 August 2004, saying that he believed that the disclosure of the documents would be in the public interest as he felt that there was a certain amount of confusion as to the reasons for the Direction. He said that it seemed to be unclear whether there was a recommendation by officials to open up the contract to competition or to award the contract to a rival company, and cited press articles to illustrate the point. He said that one of the main declared aims of the Code was to explain the basis of decisions and that it was clear that the reasons behind the Ministerial Direction remained opaque. He said that disclosure would help the public to establish why a decision about a large amount of money was taken, and cited my decision in an earlier complaint involving a Ministerial Direction (A.37/03, published in Access to Official Information: Investigations Completed July 2003 –June 2004: HC 701) in support. He also questioned whether Exemption 2 was justified in cases of a Ministerial Direction, since the very fact that there was a Direction demonstrated that the advice from officials was contrary to the view of the Minister. He contended that, given that the existence of a disagreement was already in the public domain, there could be no harm caused by the release of the information and argued that secrecy in this case undermined the public’s confidence in the government’s decision-making process.

MoD’s comments on the complaint

14. The Permanent Secretary said that the information MoD had withheld could be separated into four categories : (a) his submission to the Secretary of State; (b) drafts of that submission and of the Secretary of State’s reply with covering e-mails; (c) Ministerial correspondence and a letter from the Chief Executive of the Office of Government Commerce; (d) a draft and final version of a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee outlining why the Ministerial Direction was necessary.

15. The Permanent Secretary said that his strong view was that all of the material requested constituted internal discussion and advice and thus fell within one or more of the subdivisions of Exemption 2. He said that a submission about the need for a Ministerial Direction was one of the most candid pieces of advice a Permanent Secretary could tender to Ministers, and the public interest in retaining the ability to cover the issues fully and clearly, rather than drafting with an eye to publication, was strong: in his view this far outweighed any public interest there might be in release. He said that the documents also contained much information of commercial significance which fell under Exemption 13 of the Code.

16. The Permanent Secretary went on to say that the letter MoD sent to Mr Evans notifying him of the outcome of the internal review had acknowledged that there was a legitimate public interest in expenditure decisions taken by government departments. It said that MoD had accepted that the need for a Ministerial Direction was indicative of a situation in which the decision was a difficult one, but it had also pointed to the process whereby the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee had to be informed when such Directions were given: a process which existed to allow for Parliamentary scrutiny of the use of public money. The Permanent Secretary said that it was therefore for the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office to decide whether, as a matter of public interest, the decision to procure Hawk 128 should be investigated. He said that all this strengthened the case for withholding the submission (category (a) above).

17. As to categories (b) and (c) above the Permanent Secretary again considered that they fell within Exemptions 2 and 13. He considered that the public interest in continuing to be able to have frank exchanges and in maintaining the convention of collective responsibility was far stronger than the public interest in the release of the documents. As to category (d) he again considered that Exemptions 2 and 13 applied and, because the correspondence related to possible proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee, he believed that it was subject to Parliamentary privilege and therefore fell within Exemption 15.

18. The Permanent Secretary said that he fully supported and upheld the decision reached at the internal review stage. He said that the effective operation of government departments rested on the ability of officials to conduct free, frank and open debate between themselves and with Ministers. Similarly, Ministers must be able to air their different perspectives and evaluate the relative merits of competing options before reaching difficult decisions that would then be upheld under the convention of collective responsibility. He said that it was in the public interest for such dialogue to be fully recorded but there was a significant danger that this process would be undermined if officials and Ministers believed that candid exchanges would become public knowledge. He considered the use of Exemptions 2 and 13 to be fully justified. He said that the additional information disclosed to Mr Evans following the internal review had given him some further background to the decision to select Hawk 128, but that it would not be appropriate to disclose more. The Permanent Secretary said that the arguments for withholding the letter to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee were equally strong and he believed that Parliamentary privilege brought Exemption 15 into play.

DTI’s comments on the complaint

19. The Permanent Secretary said that DTI had declined to release documents relating to the Ministerial Direction under Code Exemptions 2 (relating to information whose disclosure could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and the confidential communications between departments, public bodies and regulatory bodies) and 13 (relating to third party’s commercial confidences). The documents which they considered fell within the information request comprised Ministerial correspondence, a submission to the Secretary of State, and notes of, or about, interdepartmental meetings. The Permanent Secretary said that the decision to purchase Hawk 128 was reached after extensive discussion between departments at the highest levels of government. In relation to Exemption 2, he said that the information DTI held represented frank and candid debate on the part of Ministers and officials and that if the documents in question were to be released there would be a risk of harming the frankness and candour of internal advice on similar matters in the future. He quoted paragraph 2.9 of the Cabinet Office’s guidance on interpretation of the Code, which said that ‘collective responsibility requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached’. He said that this clearly had happened in this case and that the privacy of opinions expressed by Ministers in the period prior to the Ministerial Direction being made should be respected.

20. As to Exemption 13, the Permanent Secretary said that one of DTI’s functions was to form strong business relationships with key UK companies on their future strategy and investment of high value work in the UK. He said that if companies felt that commercially confidential information shared with government were to be subject to future disclosure, it would inhibit discussion and damage government’s relationship with business. He said that the commercially sensitive nature of some of the information and conclusions of the documents were clear reasons for non-disclosure.

21. The Permanent Secretary acknowledged that there was a legitimate public interest in the expenditure decisions taken by government departments. He said that the need for a Ministerial Direction highlighted that the factors bearing on this particular case were finely balanced. DTI were nonetheless of the view that the harm likely to arise from disclosure of the documents related to this Ministerial Direction would outweigh any public interest in disclosure. He commented that the Comptroller and Auditor General had been told about the Direction, as the procedure required in such cases: it then fell to the Comptroller and Auditor General to notify the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He echoed the comments of the Permanent Secretary of MoD that this process had been established by Parliament to ensure effective oversight of the use of public money and that through this process the public interest was recognised.

Treasury’s comments on the complaint

22. The Permanent Secretary said that, in their initial consideration, Treasury had concluded that, given the nature of the information held, the harm caused by disclosure would outweigh the public interest in allowing access to the information sought. He said that, in making that judgment, the Treasury had taken the view that, while there was clearly a legitimate public interest, given that the objection of the Permanent Secretary of the MoD had been raised on value for money grounds, release of the information requested would:

• harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion through the disclosure of sensitive internal advice and expose the process of discussion around the purchase of Hawk 128 and undermine the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility (Exemption 2);

• undermine the government’s broader relationship with industry since it could affect confidence in the government’s commitment to safeguard information provided to it on a confidential basis and strain the government’s relationship with key defence suppliers (Exemption 13); and

• prejudice the future supply of information from defence suppliers and impact negatively on the future willingness of companies to provide information to the government in confidence (Exemption 14).

23. The Permanent Secretary said that, as part of the established process for enabling Parliament to scrutinise public spending, the Treasury had considered that the Permanent Secretary of MoD’s letter seeking a Direction should be disclosed. Following Mr Evans’ request for Treasury to reconsider their decision to withhold the remaining information, a review was conducted by the Treasury’s Managing Director who concluded that all of the exemptions cited were appropriate. The Permanent Secretary said that Mr Evans had asked the Treasury to consider releasing redacted documents but the Treasury concluded that this would not have been possible because any redactions would remove the very information which Mr Evans wished to see.

24. For reasons which were virtually identical to those of the Permanent Secretary of DTI (paragraphs 19 to 21 above) the Permanent Secretary maintained that Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code were applicable, and that the harm likely to be caused by disclosing further information relating to the Direction would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In addition, in relation to Exemption 2, he said that it was essential that Ministers and civil servants could have frank and open discussions on issues such as this without fear that such discussions would become public. To make such discussions public would harm the frankness and candour between Ministers and civil servants and would ultimately be damaging to policy development and decision-making. The Permanent Secretary also agreed that the release of the information requested would be likely to undermine the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility. As to Exemption 13 the Permanent Secretary said that if companies felt that commercially confidential information shared with the government were subject to future disclosure, it might mean that they could be reluctant to share confidential and market sensitive material with government in the future. The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information

25. In refusing to provide the information sought by Mr Evans, MoD, DTI and the Treasury all cited Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code. Exemption 2 was headed ‘Internal discussion and advice’ and read: ‘Information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, including:

• proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet committees;

• internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation;

• projections and assumptions relating to internal policy analysis; analysis of alternative policy options and information relating to rejected policy options;

• confidential communications between departments, public bodies and regulatory bodies.’

26. Exemption 13, headed ‘Third party’s commercial confidences’, read: ‘Information including commercial confidences, trade secrets or intellectual property whose unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.’

27. In their response to Mr Evans’ review request the Treasury also cited Exemption 14 of the Code. That exemption was headed ‘Information given in confidence’. Paragraph (b) read: ‘(b) Information whose disclosure without the consent of the supplier would prejudice the future supply of such information.’

28. When commenting on Mr Evans’ complaint to me the Permanent Secretary of MoD also cited Exemption 15 of the Code, which was headed ‘Statutory and other restrictions’. Paragraph (b) read: ‘(b) Information whose release would constitute a breach of Parliamentary Privilege.’

29. In the preamble to Part II of the Code, under the heading ‘Reasons for Confidentiality’, it stated that: ‘In those categories which refer to harm or prejudice, the presumption remains that information should be disclosed unless the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available. References to harm or prejudice include both actual harm or prejudice and risk or reasonable expectation of harm or prejudice. In such cases it should be considered whether any harm or prejudice arising from disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in making information available.’

Assessment

30. Before considering the question of whether or not Mr Evans is entitled to the information he requested, I shall look at the way in which the three departments handled his information request. I and my predecessors have said that it was good practice, when departments refused requests for information, for them to identify the specific exemptions in Part II of the Code on which they were relying to support that refusal. Also, where information had been refused, the possibility of a review under the Code needed to be made known to the person requesting the information at the time of the refusal, as did the possibility of making a complaint to me if, after the review process had been completed, the requester remained dissatisfied. Finally, departments were expected to respond to requests for information within 20 working days, although the Code recognised that this target might have needed to have been extended when significant search or collation of material was required. While MoD, DTI and the Treasury took somewhat longer than 20 working days to respond to Mr Evans’ information request (paragraphs 3-12 above), I do not consider that to be unreasonable given the sensitivities of the information sought. From my examination of the papers it appears to me that all three departments have otherwise handled this request for information in full accordance with the requirements of the Code, for which I commend them.

31. I now turn to the question of whether or not the information sought by Mr Evans should be released to him and, in doing so, I should emphasise that the Code gives an entitlement to information, not documents and it is on this basis that his request has been considered.

32. All three departments have cited Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code in refusing to release to Mr Evans more information than he has already been provided with (paragraphs 5-7, 10-12, 15, 17-20, 22 and 24). I shall first assess the merits of Exemption 2, in respect of which all the departments have argued that the information they hold reflects frank and candid debate on the part of Ministers and officials and that it is therefore essential, for the future provision of similar advice, that such discussions are carried out without fear that they will become public. On the other hand, Mr Evans questions whether Exemption 2 could be justified in cases where a Ministerial Direction has been issued, since the very existence of such a Direction shows the advice from officials to have been contrary to that of the Minister (paragraph 13). The purpose of Exemption 2 was to allow departments the opportunity to discuss matters, particularly those which are likely to be sensitive or contentious, on the understanding that their thinking will not be exposed in a manner likely to inhibit the frank expression of opinion. I am satisfied, therefore, that the information sought by Mr Evans falls within the criteria of Exemption 2.

33. However, that is not the end of the matter. Exemption 2 incorporated a harm test, which was a test of whether or not any harm likely to arise from the disclosure of the information requested would be outweighed by the public interest in making the information available. MoD, DTI and the Treasury have argued that the need for a Ministerial Direction highlighted the fact that the various elements bearing on the case were finely balanced and that Ministers needed to be able to air their different views and evaluations of competing options before reaching difficult decisions that would then be upheld under the convention of collective responsibility (paragraphs 18-19 and 24). They also argued that it was in the public interest for such dialogue to be fully recorded and that this practice would be undermined if officials and Ministers believed that candid exchanges of this nature would become public. Mr Evans has argued that the very need for a Direction highlights a difference of opinion between officials and Ministers and, thus, that no harm would be caused by the release of the information. He has also argued that secrecy in this case would undermine public confidence in the Government’s decision making process (paragraph 13), particularly as he contends that there remains a degree of public confusion about the nature of the decision before Ministers.

34. I have reviewed the substantial number of background documents in this case and I have considered the departments’ and Mr Evans’ comments very carefully. I have also examined the information already released to Mr Evans, not least the quite comprehensive Question and Answer material (paragraph 12). I recognise that this particular Government decision was informed by a wide range of sometimes conflicting considerations and I do not doubt that some information relating to it needs to be available in the public domain. The question is, should there be any more than has already been released? I think, on balance, that the case for releasing more has not been made out. In cases such as this, where there are a number of opposing views, Government and officials must be able to discuss them in private, and I do not consider that the public interest in having access to the withheld information is strong enough, given what has already been released, to outweigh the potential harm to the frankness and objectivity of future advice which might result from its disclosure. I am therefore satisfied that Exemption 2 can be held to apply to much of the information requested by Mr Evans.

35. I now turn to Exemption 13. That exemption deals with the need to protect sensitive commercial information from disclosure in circumstances that would adversely affect those to whom the information relates. MoD, DTI and the Treasury have argued that the disclosure of commercially sensitive information would inhibit discussion and damage Government’s relationship with business and would engender reluctance on the part of companies to share confidential and market sensitive material with them in the future (paragraphs 15, 20 and 24). They further argued that disclosure of the documents in question would be likely to affect BAE Systems (paragraphs 20 and 24). Having examined the relevant documents from each department, I conclude that Exemption 13 does, indeed, apply in principle to the information withheld by MoD, DTI and the Treasury.

36. Again, however, I need to balance the harm that might be caused by disclosing this information against any public interest there might be in making it available. I fully recognise that there is a legitimate and ongoing public interest in establishing how substantial expenditure from the public purse on contracts such as that awarded to BAE Systems came about. However, having considered the terms of the documents which fall within the ambit of Mr Evans’ information request, I have nevertheless concluded that the potential harm that would be caused by the disclosure of the information requested would outweigh the public interest in its release, and that Exemption 13 therefore applies to that information. I should add that, in reaching this conclusion, I have taken account of the decision reached in the earlier case to which Mr Evans refers (A.37/03 – see paragraph 13 above) in which I recommended that certain key documents should be released. I am, however, of the opinion that that case can be distinguished from the one currently under consideration, in that there has been no suggestion that the information at issue in that earlier case was of a nature likely to cause damage to a third party. More pertinently, I believe that the current case is more closely analogous to the case of A.40/03, reported in the same volume as A.37/03 (see paragraph 13). In that case I took the view that the information at issue was also covered by Exemption 13 and that the release of it could cause damage of the kind covered by that exemption to a third party.

37. I have also considered the argument for a partial release of information, which Mr Evans has indicated he would be willing to accept. However, in my view, to edit the documents in question so as to remove from them all of the potentially harmful material would be to render them meaningless and of no value. I do not therefore consider that I can recommend the release to Mr Evans of any information other than that already released to him.

38. Since I have concluded that Exemptions 2 and 13 apply to the information sought by Mr Evans, no useful purpose would be served by my discussing whether Exemption 14, additionally cited by the Treasury, and Exemption 15, additionally cited by MoD, have any applicability. I therefore make no findings on these issues.

Conclusion

39. I found that MoD, DTI and the Treasury were entitled to withhold from Mr Evans the information he sought. I do not therefore uphold his complaint. Summary Mr Evans asked the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for copies of all documents relating to meetings between the Secretary of State for Defence and representatives of the Czech Republic in respect of allegations of bribery by BAE Systems in their attempts to sell Gripen supersonic jets to the Czech Government. MoD said that only one meeting had taken place at which the subject of unsubstantiated allegations of corruption had arisen, but considered the discussion to have been confidential and that the relevant material should be withheld under Exemption 1(b) of the Code. MoD said that disclosure of the relevant part of the note of the meeting would harm the UK’s relationship with both the USA and the Czech Republic. The Ombudsman agreed that release of the requested information would potentially cause harm to international relations, and that Exemption 1(b) had been correctly applied in this instance. While accepting that the public had a legitimate interest in knowing whether there was any substance in the suggestion of corruption surrounding arms sales, the Ombudsman considered that disclosure of the information sought would add little to what had already been reported on the subject, and would inhibit future discussions between the Governments involved and potentially damage good relations. Therefore, the Ombudsman did not believe that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed the potential harm that could be caused by its release. The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

Previous < Contents > Next

Last updated: 16 June 2005