I think that's a failure of the duty to assist...

Joshua

From my point of view the original request was clear, but perhaps they see ambiguity that I don't. However I am definitely confused by your 18 June 2013 email that refers to the release of "documents" and "papers", whereas your original request refers to releasing "titles".

I think you ought to have been even clearer still than what you were in your clarifying email of 18 June 2013. So my suggested approach would have been to state definitively what you want, and then add alternatives thereafter in a number fashion:

1.) the titles of each paper, and the Minister responsible for that paper, that was presented for consideration to the last meetings of Cabinet and each Cabinet Committee.

2.) If in the event you believe there are grounds to withhold ALL of the information I have requested above, the following alternatives apply, in order of precedence:

2.1) partially redacted titles, rather withholding the entire title.

2.2) releasing instead the titles of each paper, and the Minister responsible for that paper, presented for consideration at the first meeting of 2009, e.g. ... .

Ombudsman. 9(2)(f)(iv) is unlikely to apply to 2009 Cabinet business as it is unlikely to be still requiring a decision after 4 years. 9(2)(f) (ii) and (g)(i) are unlikely to apply, in that it is hard to see how a title alone could either breach cabinet collective responsibility on a long-dead issue, or expose any free and frank advice (at least, not from the sorts of titles which normally come up). This is just Cabinet Office trying to pretend the law doesn't apply to them again.

1. I do not agree with the assessment, and I'm not convinced that the withholding grounds apply.

2. The way I read the reponse is that Ms Kitteridge's reply is premised on a "consistent position that it would not be in the public interest to do so". This is the foundation for her decision, and she then uses withholding grounds to support the "consistent position".

3. She compares it to agendas (agendas are withheld so let's also withhold titles too), and seeks to place a blanket ban on releasing titles of reports, rather than taking a case-by-case approach by looking at the actual information in the titles of those reports to determine what information in the titles needs protecting.

4. Every OIA request is judged on its merits. That means that the particular information requested needs to be assessed against each of the withholding grounds in the Act (contained in sections 6, 9, 18) to determine whether it is "necessary" (in terms of the Act) to withhold that information. If it is "necessary" to protect an interest (in the information), at that point, you then turn to deteriming whether it is outweighed by "other considerations" (in terms of the Act) that render it desirable, in the public interest, not to release it. But she considers the public interest at the beginning of her assessment, as well as the end.

5. She has not identified any such considerations, though nor have you. I encourage requesters to think about these and include such considerations in their requests as an appendix.

6. Sometimes officials can be over-sensitive about the information that is held by their agency to the extent that they believe it needs withholding when in fact there is insufficient cause to withhold that information. I get a sense of that from her reply.

7. It would be interesting to know how releasing titles would affect "collective and ministerial responsibility". I don't see how either of those responsibilities are impacted.

8. We are talking here about titles to reports, not the full-text of the reports themselves. I wonder if she kept that in mind.

9. I think there is a case to answer and therefore you may want to consider asking the Ombudsmand to investigate and review the decision. But it's not as if they are short on work.