The information relates to plans to open up the courts so that
non-lawyers could conduct litigation on behalf of members of the
public. Though passed into law 17 years ago, the legislation has
never been put into effect in Scotland.
William Alexander, who campaigns for legal services reform,
requested access to ministerial correspondence relating to the
issue but many documents were withheld from him by the
Executive.
The Scottish Information Commissioner ruled that they must be
released but the Executive appealed, and now the Court of Session
has backed their release.
"I believe that the issues considered demonstrate a strong
public interest in the release of information that would explain
why sections 25 to 29 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act have
never been commenced," said the court's ruling. "The exemptions
applied to such information must be considered in the context of
the public interest in releasing the information."
The Executive had claimed that some classes of documents were
eligible for automatic exemption from the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). The Commissioner and the court rejected that argument,
saying that the content of each document must be the basis of any
decision.
The documents in question are said to include correspondence
involving the late Donald Dewar, John Prescott and former Lord
Chancellor, Lord Irvine.
A second appeal was also denied relating to the Executive's
withholding of documents relating to a planning application in
Ayr.
"The court has agreed that it was wrong of the Executive to
conclude that it would be harmful to release information which it
characterised as belonging to a class or type, e.g. advice to
Ministers, without regard to the content of that information," said
Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner. "I have
consistently maintained this is not what Parliament intended and is
not what the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act allows."
“At the heart of these cases is whether the public is given
access to information which allows them to understand why decisions
have been arrived at," said Dunion. "With regard to the Law Reform
Act, I took the view that a democratic society is entitled to
expect that legislation passed by its elected representatives in
Parliament will be brought into force unless there are good reasons
for not doing so, and citizens are entitled to know those reasons
unless there is a greater public interest in keeping them
secret.”
