Saturday, 5 February 2011

DID FRANK WALKER NOMINATE HIMSELF?


Barbara Richards

5 January 2011
Dear Cabinet Office,

I would like to know who nominated Frank Walker for an OBE in the
2011 New Years Honours.

Yours faithfully,

Barbara Richards

Answer to my FOI request sent 5th Januart “Who nominated Frank Walker for an OBE?”
Letter received from Gary Rogers of the Cabinet Office February 2011 (he did not put the exact date)
“I can confirm that we hold some information relating to your request. However, the information we hold is being withheld under section 37 (1)(b) information related to the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity. Section 37 (1)(b) is subject to the public interest test. There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and I recognise that openness in government may increase public trust in and engagement with the government. I recognise that the honours and appointments process is one in which there is public interest. The public interest lies in the process being transparent and ensuring that the process of award of honours and dignities is clear, and that the public has confidence in the system.
It is also , however, in the public interest to maintain the integrity of the honours system. Non disclosure of information relating to individual nominations ensures that:
-those invited to offer information about a candidate (including the candidate him or herself) can do so freely and honestly, in confidence, on the understanding that their confidence will be honoured.
- decisions about honours continue to be taken on the basis of full and honest information about the person concerned.
- those who assess honours can carry out their work free from pressure for, or on behalf of, potential or actual candidates.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I believe the balance of public interest falls in favour of withholding the information exempt under section 37(1)(b) of the FOIA

6 comments:

Zoompad said...

This letter I have recieved seems a bit mad to me. Or am I reading it all wrong? To me, its sets out the argument that the public has a right to know who nominated people, but then it seems to just throw out this feeble clause excuse for saying NO.

Will someone please help me with this, as there does not seem to be any logic to it, and there must be, these people are lawyers and all sorts. I just can't make any sense out of it, and I have got to write back to this chap. Please help me understand this letter.

Anonymous said...

Send him the paxman interview and every piece of information you have on the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation

Zoompad said...

That's a good idea. I will. xx

Anonymous said...

If a member of the public wishes to nominate a certain person for an honour why would that person need protection?

The nominee is being nominated for public service to there community.

The person who does nominate a member of the public does so freely hopefully with integrity and by there own choice

Why would a nominee need protection if the nomination is made with integrity the very fact of there being no protection would be more in the public interest.

Zoompad said...

I never thought of that, thats a really good point and I will use it in the letter, thanks. xx

Ian Evans said...

A YOUNG SYVRET....ISH?