The example I cited in my e-mail was the main one where I have received
conflicting opinions and admittedly this was about nine months ago, one
opinion was verbal, the other was via e-mail. The opinion I received from
the National Archives was that the fragile state of a document and the
potential harm that could be done to it in providing information from it
could be considered a justifiable reason for not making the information
available, or at least the Information Commissioner would not look
unfavourably on the reason for not providing the information under these
circumstances. The view I got from a member of the Information Commission
was that the physical state of a document would not be considered just
reason for not making the information available. I for one would certainly
welcome a definitive answer on this question before 2005.
Richard



                      David Thomas
                      <[log in to unmask]        To:       [log in to unmask]
                      emon.co.uk>                   cc:
                      Sent by: "Archivists,         Subject:  Re: FoI and copying
                      conservators and
                      records managers."
                      <ARCHIVES-NRA@JISCMAIL
                      .AC.UK>


                      28/10/03 20:31
                      Please respond to
                      David Thomas






It would be helpful to us all if Richard could say precisely on what
specific questions the National Archives and the Information Commissioner
are not singing from the same hymn sheet.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Childs" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: FoI and copying


I may be unduly sanguine on this one but I don't see a problem. The FoIA is
about rights of access to and provision of information. This is not
necessarily the same as provision of copies of that information.
Particularly if your institution's collections have been included as a
class in your Publication Scheme then they are covered by the section 21
exemption, i.e. the collections are reasonably accessible for public
inspection during your opening hours, then the provision of photocopies is
not obligatory under the FoIA. (This remains the case even if the request
for the information comes from the opposite end of the planet.)  In other
words you have complied with the Act by making the material reasonably
available. A more interesting case of course is where access to information
is denied because of the fragile state of the document. Can potential
damage to a document by making available the information contained in it be
used as grounds for an FoI exemption? The jury is still out on the
interpretation of the minutiae of the Act and I am not sure that the
Information Commissioner and the National Archives are necessarily singing
from the same hymn sheet on some specific questions.
Richard Childs
West Sussex Record Office



                      Chris Webb
                      <[log in to unmask]>         To:
[log in to unmask]
                      Sent by:                  cc:
                      "Archivists,              Subject:  FoI and copying
                      conservators and
                      records managers."
                      <ARCHIVES-NRA@JISC
                      MAIL.AC.UK>


                      28/10/03 11:46
                      Please respond to
                      Chris Webb






Following on from the thread about retrospective FoI requests, I started
wondering about the interaction between FoI and archive copying agreements.
It's not uncommon, particularly with literary and dramatic archives, for
ownership of an archive to pass to a body caught by FoI, but for the former
owner to have imposed strict copying restrictions. For example, there are
agreements where copying is restricted to members of a University which
owns
the archive, or even where any copying at all is forbidden by the
agreement.

There are many potential threads that might help to overcome the difficulty
of squaring FoI with a restrictive agreement - the defence of unreasonable
effort; if the archive is catalogued there's the defence of it being
available anyway; and there will be copyright implications, too.

Has anyone else come across this potential problem, and thought of ways to
tackle it? It could be particularly important for the drafting of future
agreements of this kind.

Chris

Christopher Webb
Borthwick Institute
University of York
St Anthony's Hall
Peasholme Green
York YO1 7PW

  01904 642315