Introduction Part 1: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 Part 2: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 Annexes: annex A
3.1 Section 37 is not an absolute exemption. Only if the public interest in withholding is the greater should you refuse to disclose it.
Where subsection (2) applies, there is no obligation to confirm or deny whether or not the public body holds the information requested. This part of the exemption may be particularly relevant in the case of requests for information as to whether particular individuals are being or have been considered for particular honours and dignities.
3.2 In reaching a decision on the public interest, the factors which may need to be weighed might include:
3.3 The public interest in withholding information may be unlikely to outweigh the public interest in disclosure when the request is for information about the honours or dignities process, provided that disclosure would not involve the inappropriate disclosure of information about individual honours candidates or recipients, or about those directly involved in the honours or dignities process, for example as members of assessment committees
3.4 Members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission were appointed on the understanding that that their names would be available publicly because of the need to reinforce the transparent nature of the appointment of working peers.
3.5 The most finely balanced issues are likely to arise on requests for information about honours or dignities policy. In this particular case, however, the exemptions under sections 35 and 36 may need to be considered.
3.6 Senior Church of England appointments are unique due to the nature of the Church of England as the established church. The appointments all involve correspondence between the Crown appointments office in No.10, the Prime Minister and the Queen and information regarding preferred and other candidates will often be extremely sensitive, as will material used in the appointment process and the nature of the discussions regarding the appointments. Disclosure of this sensitive information about the appointments would subject those involved in the process to considerable pressure from or on behalf of individuals or from pressure groups within and outside the Church. Archbishops and three senior diocesan bishops have an automatic place to sit in the House of Lords on their appointment and 21 of the remaining diocesan bishops have a seat in the House of Lords at any one time, according to their seniority in terms of length of service. The pressures which would arise in relation to these appointments are therefore likely to be particularly great. The effect might be to constrain the appointment process which would not be in the public interest. It could be detrimental to the relationship between the Church and the state as a whole in that it could undermine the balance that has been struck between them. The public interest against disclosure of such information is therefore particularly strong. Several exemptions in addition to that under s.37(1)(b) may well therefore apply, including those under sections 35, 37(1)(a) and 40.
3.7 In the first instance Departments should consult, where appropriate via the official responsible for honours and dignities policy internally. This will ensure consistency of responses. In most cases this will be the Ceremonial Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, or The Central Chancery. However, a number of other departments take the lead in relation to particular classes of honour or dignity:
3.8 Under section 63(3), information relating to honours or dignities remains exempt for 60 years after it was created, subject to the public interest. The public interest in withholding information relating to the conferring of individual honours and dignities is likely to diminish with the passage of time, and in considering each case regard should be had to the age of the information requested. Personal information is however subject to the Data Protection Act regime, and not to the FOI Act regime.