Letter from Mr Tim Nichols
SECOND CALL FOR EVIDENCE
I am submitting concerns that are of relevance
to questions 4 and 5 in the call for evidence.
None of the four regulatory bodies currently
ensures full transparency of the relationship between Ministers
and the press at the senior level of editors and proprietors.
The removal of foreign ownership restrictions raises serious questions
as to the extent to which democracy may be undermined by the discussions
that take place and the relationships that are built behind closed
doors with editors and proprietors.
While a researcher for the former MP Sue Doughty,
I undertook work to obtain information on meetings held between
the Prime Minister and both editors and proprietors of national
newspapers. This began with a parliamentary question, but details
were refused under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice
on Access to Government Information. Pursuit of the issue through
correspondence with the Prime Minster and the Cabinet Office,
followed by a request under the Freedom of Information Act, failed
to result any information whatsoever being provided about such
meetings.
Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access
to Government Information covers internal discussion and advice,
while exemption 7 covers the effective management and operations
of public services. The citing of these exemptions appears to
entail that national newspaper editors and proprietors are involved
in internal government discussions, including on policy options,
and have a particular role relevant to the effective management
and operations of public services. No explanation of these roles
is stated in the correspondence. The freedom of information request
was rejected on cost grounds.
8 February 2008
| 
