Freedom of Information: Why was Prince William wearing that sash at the parade?

Freedom of Information officers working at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are not all tied up deviously looking for reasons to deny journalists disclosure to sensitive documents about the war in Iraq or the combat readiness of Prince Harry. A glance at the request log published by the department for the last month shows that most enquiries are from historians, researchers or members of the public trying to trace information about their ancestors.

The questions and issues raised by these requests are sometimes more interesting than the answers. For example, the answer to the question why did Prince William wear a sash at the Sovereign's Parade in December 2006 leads to all kinds of speculation. Could Prince William have been sporting it as a secret sign to Kate Middleton that it was all over between them? Or was it perhaps formal recognition by the army that as second in line to the throne William had absolutely no chance of joining his brother in Iraq? The truth, should it ever be disclosed, is probably much more mundane.

Of the 63 requests made under the Freedom of Information Act to the MOD in April, many are made in the hope of discovering more about British military history. Requests for information regarding the activities of HMS Zulu from 1973 to 1977 or the role of HMS Lancaster in the Dunkirk evacuation of 1940 will be of special interest to historians.

Others are enquiries from families looking for official service records of dead servicemen. Then there are more prosaic enquiries from businesses seeking information that might give them a commercial advantage over their rivals when tendering for MoD work. The answer to the request "Could you provide me with the [names of] companies that currently supply balmorals to the Highland Regiments in the British Army?" will be of huge help, no doubt, to anyone looking to break into the market for the supply of plumed Scottish caps to the military.

It was in April that eight Royal Marines were captured by the Iranian Navy and the MoD's request log inevitably reveals a flurry of media enquiries about the capture and subsequent sale of the marines' stories.

One question is aimed at trying to settle the dispute over who had jurisdiction over the territorial waters in which the marines were overpowered after boarding an Iraqi ship. Does the UK consider the 1978 United Nations document to be the definition of the current Iran-Iraq maritime border?

Another request asks to see all written communication relating to the decision to allow the sailors and marines held captive in Iran to sell their stories. A third enquiry specifically requests the letter from the Chiefs of the Naval Staff to the Defence Secretary of 5 April 2007 in which they informed Des Browne of the decision to allow the former detainees in Iran to sell their stories to the media. All this material is political dynamite and suggests that opposition party MPs may be among the growing number of users of the legislation.

Recent experience of the working of the Freedom of Information Act also suggests that these documents are unlikely to be disclosed as they will be protected by at least one of the exemptions.

The MoD request log is only a snapshot of who is using the right-to-know law but it is good illustrative evidence that beneficiaries are outside Fleet Street.

r.verkaik@independent.co.uk