ASH advises councils on best practice concerning Freedom of Information
Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:25 I have in my hand a copy of a letter from Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, to Swindon Borough Council.
Dated 9 October 2014 and addressed to the chief executive, it begins:
Dear Mr Jones,
We're writing to councils to highlight current practice of the tobacco industry with respect to Freedom of Information requests. As a public health organisation we are of course committed to Freedom of Information legislation and its core principle that open and transparent government is very much in the public interest.
I sense a 'but' ... Let's see:
We have recently been contacted by a number of councils who have received FOI requests from tobacco companies. A number of other government organisations have also been subject to FOI requests from tobacco companies, including Government departments, Public Health England and regional offices of tobacco control.
Councils, as they would with all requests, should follow the law and best practice in dealing with FOIs related to tobacco issues. However, we would ask that, where information from non-governmental and other organisations will be made public, councils should follow good practice and notify those organisations affected ahead of any release.
There are a number of reasons why we are keen to ensure organisations in tobacco control have a chance to review any information which will be going into the public domain:
* In the past there have been threats of violence and direct abuse directed at ASH staff and other working in tobacco control. It is therefore important that personal information about staff is redacted in any documents released.
* While most of the communication between ASH and local councils should be released if requested, there are some written materials which are shared with council staff to assist in developing future policy, including early drafts of documents which are intended for later publication. In line with the Act it may not be appropriate [my emphasis] to release this information.
Some recent tobacco industry requests have been very broad in their scope, covering a number of years and not defining the topic on which they are requesting information. We would urge councils to consider these requests with caution [my emphasis], and when necessary and in line with the legislation to ask for further and better particulars of such requests.
Surely she's not suggesting councils should withhold information or make it more difficult for third parties to get the information they're entitled to? No, I can't believe ASH would do that. After all, "As a public health organisation we are of course committed to Freedom of Information legislation and its core principle that open and transparent government is very much in the public interest."
As for "threats of violence and direct abuse directed at ASH staff and others working in tobacco control", I think she's referring to this: Pro-tobacco activists accused of harassing and abusing anti-smoking campaigners as government considers banning branding on cigarette packets (Daily Mail).
I said at the time I thought one or two people were misguided to use the language they did, even in jest or to make a point. See how it's used, years later?
Anyway, the letter continues with a reference to the WHO treaty on tobacco control and "industry attempts to undermine UK and European public health policy", adding:
You can find out more about the activity of the tobacco industry through the Bath University Tobacco Tactics website www.tobaccotactics.org.
(I imagine most readers will be familiar with this website. If not, you can read about it here: Tobacco Tactics – what do you think of it so far?.)
I've nothing to add at this stage. If however you're wondering how I got my hands on the letter, I'll give you a clue:
Freedom of Information.
Oh, the irony.
Reader Comments (4)
As a registered charity, isn't ASH UK exempt from Freedom of Information legislation?
Councils and other government bodies are however subject to FOI so if they correspond with the likes of ASH we are entitled to see the correspondence. Ditto, ASH can request correspondence between government bodies and Forest or the tobacco industry. The difference is, we wouldn't 'advise' government on "best practice" or what government should (or should not) release.
I've visited the ash website in the past, it contains ASH's address and names of all their staff (on their annual report) - if you then google staff names you can find most of them on linked in, boasting about their work at ash, together with all the information you could possibly want about their dull, tedious lives and much more besides. So to claim that a generic letter from ASH to a council will contain information that will assist potential assassins is a bit demented, even by early-onset-Arnott's standards.
Well, it seems they fear that their tactics of manipulation (read collusion) and illegal interference in legislative affairs and governmental process will be exposed. The have no legitimate security concerns, but that red flag is thrown up to mask their concern that they may be prosecuted for their corruption. I certainly hope the Crown Prosecution Service is aware of this blatant interference with open and transparent governance.