On Tuesday, I blogged about the decision of the Secretary of State for Health to veto the order requiring disclosure of the transition risk register in the NHS risk registers case. Today the Secretary of State published his statement as to the reasons for the imposition of the veto. You can read the statement here: http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/05/statement-transition-register/. The statement is notable not least because it suggests that, in the Government’s view, there is a very strong public interest in avoiding the disclosure of risk registers, which are used as a tool across government, particularly where the advice they contain ‘is required at highly sensitive times on highly sensitive issues’. The statement also reveals that, so far as the Government is concerned, despite being concerned with policy implementation rather than policy development, transition risk registers may yet retain a high degree of sensitivity, particularly where they are being used against a backdrop of shifting policy priorities. Finally, it is worth noting that one of the factors which apparently influenced the decision to issue the veto is the fact that the publication of the transition risk register would have acted as ‘a serious distraction from progressing the [NHS reform] proposals’. This is something which is likely to be leapt on by opponents to the reform proposals, many of whom take the view that the Government is deliberately seeking to avoid disclosure of the registers because it is concerned that they will reveal fundamental flaws in the proposals.

Tags
Click 'Tags' to show or hide the tag cloud.article 6 article 8 Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR CCTV confidentiality damages database data protection data sharing DNA EIR employment monitoring employment vetting environmental information First-tier tribunal FOIA Google High Court ICO powers Information Tribunal internet judicial review legal professional privilege national security personal data privacy Procedure public authorities public interest RIPA section 14 FOIA section 27 FOIA section 35 FOIA section 36 FOIA section 40 FOIA section 41 FOIA section 42 FOIA section 43 FOIA section 44 FOIA surveillance Upper Tribunal veto vexatious requests whether information heldBlog maintained by:
Search
Subscribe
Law Reports
Links
- 11KBW Resources
- Act Now Training
- Amberhawk
- Article 29 Working Party
- Australian Privacy Commissioner
- Centre for Freedom of Information
- Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- FOI Man
- FOI News
- freedominfo.org
- Ibrahim Hassan
- Information Commissioner’s Office
- Information Law Practice
- Information Tribunal
- InfoSec
- Ministry of Justice
- National Association of Data Protection Officers
- New Zealand Privacy Commissioner
- Northumbria University Information Rights LLM
- Open Secrets blog
- Out-Law website
- Scottish Information Commissioner
- Surveillance and Society
- UCL Constitution Unit
- UK Freedom of Information Blog
- Virtual Shadows
- Your Right to Know Blog
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
MINISTERIAL VETO STRIKES AGAIN – MINISTER’S STATEMENT PUBLISHED
May 10th, 2012Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500
Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2009
Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2009