FOI COMMISSIONER TO INVESTIGATE LIVINGSTONE'S 'SHREDDING WEEK' POLICY

12.01.00am BST (GMT +0100) Mon 11th Apr 2005

A letter published today shows that Ken Livingstone will be investigated by the Freedom of Information Commissioner following a referral by the Liberal Democrats that he took part in a shredding week before the FOI Act came into force on the 1st January 2005.

The news came in a letter to the Liberal Democrats from the FOI Commissioner's office that agreed to seek "clarification of what actually took place during 'shredding week'".

The London Assembly Liberal Democrats referred Mr Livingstone to the Commissioner after remarks made during a Mayor's Question Time in which he said: -

"There is almost nothing juicy in there; we never minute anything interesting. If there was, it was lost during shredding week just before 1 January 2005."

Leader of the London Assembly Liberal Democrats, Graham Tope, said:-

"It is good news for open, transparent and accountable Government that the Freedom of Information Commissioner has agreed to look in further detail the remarks made by Mr Livingstone.

"For the sake of the Act, and for the role of the Freedom of Information Commissioner, it is vital that he makes sure that the Mayor did not have a deliberate policy to prevent open government or hide decisions that affect Londoners."

"Some of the key decisions since Ken Livingstone took office have cost London taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds and yet we have been told very little about them.

"The Freedom of Information Act gave the Mayor a unique opportunity to demonstrate his manifesto promise that he would oversee 'the most open, accessible and inclusive style of government ever seen in the UK', yet Londoners have seen no sign of this happening."

ENDS

Notes to editor

· A copy of the letter from the Information Commissioner is below:

Our Ref: GT/APR/FOI

1 April 2005

Lord G Tope

Leader of the London Assembly Liberal Democrat Group

City Hall

The Queen's Walk

London

SE1 2AA

Dear Lord Tope

Thank you for your letter dates 21 March and enclosure, addressed to Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, raising concerns about comments made by the Mayor of London during a Mayoral Question Time on the 23 February 2005. Mr Thomas has asked me to respond on his behalf.

We have written to Mr Livingstone seeking clarification on the Greater London Authority's policy in relation to the retention and destruction of records, both now and prior to 1 January 2005.

We have also asked for clarification of what actually took place during 'shredding week', and emphasised how seriously Mr Thomas views both his role and the integrity of the Freedom of Information Act.

Thank you for drawing this matter to our attention.

Yours sincerely

GERRARD TRACEY

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

· A copy of the letter to the Freedom of Information Commissioner can be found below:-

21 March 2005

Richard Thomas

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Dear Mr Thomas

I am writing to bring to your attention comments made by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, about the way in which he appears to be willing to sidestep the Freedom of Information Act.

On the 23rd February 2005, during a Mayoral Question Time at City Hall, Mr Livingstone was questioned about whether he believed in freedom of information. Despite agreeing with the statement, in supplementary questions, the Mayor is on record as saying:-

"There is almost nothing juicy in there; we never minute anything interesting. If there was, it was lost during shredding week just before 1 January 2005."

I am gravely concerned that the dismissive tone of the remarks made by the Mayor could demonstrate a policy of obfuscation and deliberate destruction of documents in late 2004 that, come the 1st January 2005, would have been publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act.

If the comments made by the Mayor to the elected Assembly of London do purport to be true, I believe this could seriously undermine both the credibility of the Freedom of Information Act and the ability of your organisation to police and uphold both the spirit and the letter of the Act.

You have stated that:-

"We will be responsible in our approach, recognising that greater openness should strengthen, not undermine, effective government."

The comments made by Mr Livingstone appear to directly challenge this position. If, as Mr Livingstone has stated, documents were 'lost during shredding week' and anything 'juicy' has never been taken down in minutes, would this not undermine effective government?

I trust that you will look into this matter in order to maintain the integrity and standing of the office of Mayor, the Greater London Authority and the Freedom of Information Act.

I have also enclosed the full details on the exchange in the Appendix attached.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.

Yours faithfully

GRAHAM TOPE, AM

Leader of the London Assembly Liberal Democrat Group

· Mayor's Question Time

23 February 2005

Transcript of Item 4 - Questions to the Mayor

573/2005 - Freedom of Information

Sally Hamwee

Do you believe in freedom of information?

The Mayor: Yes, although of course there should be appropriate provisions for withholding information for reasons such as protecting personal data, security, confidentiality and the commercial interests of the GLA and others where it should be properly withheld.

Sally Hamwee (AM): There are indeed those protections under the Act. I thought you would say yes, I hoped you would say yes, and I believe the Commissioner for Transport would agree with all that. One of the questions that my group has asked - and we are trying to be quite discriminating in asking questions - is about the performance targets set for the Commissioner. The Commissioner himself on the Politics Show a couple of weeks ago said that the performance matrix would be published, I think he said within the 20-day period. In fact, it has been refused on the basis of its being personal data. Would you accept that this is not prurient interest in Mr Kiley's take-home pay, but it is because we think that London should know what the TfL board and you as its Chair expect TfL to achieve?

The Mayor: I saw a comment in the press about Bob Kiley saying that this stuff would be made available. I have not discussed this with him. I am happy to go and talk to him about it. I have to say, congratulations. We have had 257 requests so far; only 30 specified it was freedom of information (FOI). Out of those 30 where people specifically requested FOI, the Liberals have put in 10 so you are running at one-third of the demand at the moment. I will go and talk to Bob Kiley about where we are on it.

Sally Hamwee (AM): Can we expect you to come back to us within 20 working days from now?

The Mayor: Yes. Looking down the 10 you have put in, I think the initial problem is that you sent them to me and most of them should have gone to TfL.

Brian Coleman (Chair): You are the Chairman.

The Mayor: Yes, but they were sent to me as Mayor. I know this is madness.

Sally Hamwee (AM): Your office has kindly passed most of them on saying, 'Thank you for being practical about it.'

The Mayor: We even discovered some officers were passing them on and some were saying, 'No, you should do it.' Clearly in the first few weeks of this we are bound to have teething problems. I think it is going quite well. Most of what you have asked for does not exist.

Sally Hamwee (AM): One of the sets of information that exists is the Mayor's Management Board agendas and minutes. We have asked for those where the Director of Secretariat was excluded from the meetings. We have not had a refusal. We have been told we will receive a full response by 15 June 2005. Do you agree that given the responsibilities of the people who attend that meeting that the way your policies are implemented is a matter of public interest?

The Mayor: We have not excluded the Director of Secretariat. The Director of Secretariat works to you. The people who come to that meeting work to me. It would be unreasonable I think; it is conflict of interest. The Director of Secretariat was never excluded; he was never invited in the first place. What you have therefore asked for is every document I have considered in my five years as Mayor through my central management structure. It is vast, and therefore it will take until 10 June 2005 to retrieve them, just to read through them to check that none of the information about personal data is there, commercial data. If you want to be more precise and there is anything particularly juicy in there you want to get your hands on, we can do it a lot quicker. Almost all of my staff are going to be involved now in rereading documents from four or five years ago.

Sally Hamwee (AM): Of course, we do not know.

The Mayor: There is almost nothing juicy in there; we never minute anything interesting. If there was, it was lost during shredding week just before 1 January 2005.

Sally Hamwee (AM): We will keep a log of the times you say it was not written down so you are not going to be able to get it under FOI. I may have used the term 'excluded' inappropriately. I accept that there are parts of this organisation where the Director of Secretariat would not naturally be included. However, showing a practical attitude to it, would you recommend that I talk to your office about how we can actually work with them during this process instead of them spending five months and producing a huge file?

The Mayor: Why do we not let you see five years of agendas and if there is anything in there, we can go back and pick out the papers you want? The agendas are just one sheet with nine or 10 one-line items on them. The majority of them are Anne McMeel's various audit and other financial instruments that we had to consider.

Sally Hamwee (AM): I would like to see the agendas and the minutes.

The Mayor: Start with the agendas and then ask for which reports and minutes you want. That might be a lot quicker and save everyone a lot of time. We will get you the agendas as a first stage.