Tonight’s programme on BBC Radio 4 featured a report on FOI by reporter Paul Moss. He interviews several campaigners who plan to use the new Act including myself.
A discussion followed with Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and The Guardian’s investigative editor David Leigh.
If you missed the programme you can listen again for a few days here. The report begins at minute marker 20.
The Guardian published an excellent series of articles today in readiness for implementation of the Freedom of Information Act this Saturday. It includes primers on using the UK and Scottish Acts and the new Environmental Information Regulations. Information Commissioner Richard Thomas also contributes a piece with a particularly welcome statement:
‘As the enforcer of this legislation, I expect the public sector to respond to this challenge. Whitehall departments, and more than 100,000 other public bodies that are affected by FoI, have had four years to prepare. I will not be able to be sympathetic to bodies that have not made good use of this time. Excuses such as lack of time or poor record management systems will not wash.’
At last, Whitehall declares opening time
Richard Thomas: ‘I expect the public sector to rise to this challenge’
Leader: Freedom of information
Ask, ask, and ask again … and be patient
Guardian columnist and activist George Monbiot used his column in yesterday’s paper to draw attention to the cost of secrecy in relation to Scotland’s Skye Bridge. The cost of building the bridge went from £25m to £93m and the public authority has refused to disclose its contract to the very people who paid for it, namely the taxpaying public.
Last week the people of Skye won their nine-year battle to remove the tolls on the bridge to the mainland. The bridge was Britain’s first privately financed public project. Monbiot asks whether the new Freedom of Information Act will be strong enough to get these contracts released into the public domain:
A scandal of secrecy and profligacy
The Skye bridge contract allowed private firms to fleece the taxpayer
Tuesday December 28, 2004
The Guardian
So what was in the contract? I have no idea, and nor does anyone who was not involved in negotiating it. Though it was giving away our money, though there was no possible security argument for keeping it secret, both the Tory and Labour governments have hidden the contract behind the excuse of “commercial confidentiality”. Unless an inventive challenge can be launched, governments will continue to do so, using the loophole in the act. The lesson of the Skye bridge fiasco is obvious. If we are not allowed to see what’s being done in our name, there’s a pretty good chance we are being ripped off.
Full article here, or at www.monbiot.com
The only thing I would add to this piece is that the exemptions likely to be used by public authorities to withhold these types of contracts require a public interest test. Both section 43 for commercial interests and section 42 for legal professional privilege are qualified exemptions, meaning information can only be withheld if an authority can prove that disclosure is not in the public interest.
There is also an absolute exemption for breach of confidence (section 41). However, within the law of confidence there is an in-built public interest test. Judges have not always viewed the public’s right to know as important enough to override confidentiality claims but this is starting to change.
The Information Commissioner has publicly stated that PFI contracts should be made public as a matter of course. It is doubtful that public authorities will proactively do this, but with sustained public pressure and demand we should start seeing more contracts made public. The publication of the Tube contracts shows that refusals can be successfully challenged. More info on my Tube campaign is here.
Two articles in the Scotsman yesterday on FOI:
Freedom Act Will Transform Writing of History
The Scotsman – Edinburgh,Scotland,UK
By Gavin Cordon, PA Whitehall Editor. The writing of modern British history will be transformed when the Freedom of Information Act takes effect. …
Freedom of Information Act Q&A
With the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 next year, members of the public and organisations will be able to access details held by public …
An article in the Guardian on Christmas eve highlighted several recent incidents where the government has backed down from requiring public authorities to reject broad confidentiality agreements.
The Ministry of Defense has written to arms firms promising them a virtual veto, according the article. And the code of practice on implementing the law, which urged civil servants to reject confidentiality agreements, was re-written at the last minute after intense lobbying from the MoD on behalf of arms firms.
Arms firms plan to thwart disclosure law
David Leigh, David Hencke and Rob Evans
Friday December 24, 2004
Arms manufacturers and other companies are seeking to frustrate Britain’s freedom of information act.
They plan to write legally enforceable confidentiality agreements into their dealings with Whitehall and are preparing “injunction packages” with which to threaten officials.
This will have the effect of bypassing the legislative machinery, and knocking a large hole in the act.
The Ministry of Defence wrote to arms firms this month, promising them a virtual veto and “the opportunity to seek a legal remedy” before files are disclosed. The government has also bowed to commercial pressures by deleting guidance to officials.
Full article here…
The Independent has carbon copied the shredding investigation that Ben Fenton and I published in the Daily Telegraph Novermber 29, 2004. See the original story here. The Independent took their figures from a series of written questions asked by MP Julian Lewis rather than filing an Open Government request.
Hundreds of thousands of government documents are destroyed in the great Freedom of Information Act scandal
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
23 December 2004
Sweeping powers that promise to open up government are highly vulnerable
Fear of information stalks corridors of Whitehall
By Robert Hazell
Leader: Access to information is welcome, but the Government will still keep too many secrets
BBC News is also following up the story:
Whitehall ‘shredding more files’
BBC Political Correspondent James Hardy says in this story that the prospect of outsiders poking their noses into the inner workings of Whitehall appeared to be causing jitters among the mandarins.
From a series of parliamentary answers Dr Julian Lewis, the Conservative spokesman for the Cabinet Office, says he has discovered a huge acceleration in shredding.
Friends of the Earth’s Right to Know website went live yesterday – www.RightToKnowOnline.org
The site features an Information Request Generator, a quick and easy way to request information from government bodies. At the moment it is set up for central government bodies but in due course it will cover many more public authorities and companies, FOE’s solicitor Phil Michaels told me.
The site also features a detailed Handbook to Right to Know processes and laws and a discussion forum that people can contribute to although it focusses primarily on Friends of the Earth’s local group network.
A couple of articles followed-up the Times story last week about the Cabinet Office’s brutal policy of destroying email in advance of the Freedom of Information Act.
Andrew Woodcock, the Press Association’s Political Correspondent, wrote a piece that appeared in The Scotsman.
Information Watchdog Probes Deleted Emails Claim
Tue 21 Dec 2004
The watchdog charged with monitoring Whitehall compliance with the Freedom of Information Act today confirmed he was looking into claims that the Cabinet Office had ordered staff to destroy emails before the Act comes into effect.
Any destruction of files – including emails – in order to prevent them being accessed under the Act should be “completely condemned”, said Information Commissioner Richard Thomas.
Cabinet Office staff have been told to delete emails more than three months old, unless they are important. The instruction came shortly before the freedom of information legislation comes into effect on January 1.
Mr Thomas told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “I am not sure what the Cabinet Office have said. I am urgently asking for details of the guidance they have put out.”
more…
It will be interesting to see if Mr Thomas takes any action once he has the full details of the email destruction policy.
Dan Ilett wrote a piece in ZDNet UK that examines reaction from the computer services community in Parliament and the private sector. He makes an interesting point that private sector organisations such as financial services companies must comply with strict auditing regulations, such as Basel II and Sarbanes Oxley, which require the retention of all emails for seven years.
If those companies are found to have destroyed data in connection with an audit trail, the chief executive of the firm can face a jail sentence. Does this mean then, that private companies are more accountable than our own government? This is ludicrous.
MP slams Cabinet Office’s email destruction
December 21, 2004, 16:55 GMT
Anti-spam lobbyist Derek Wyatt MP is angry that the Cabinet Office is deleting millions of emails just days before the Freedom of Information Act comes into force.
See full article here.
The Food Standards Agency – the government food safety watchdog, albeit with few teeth – announced it will make available agendas and papers for board meetings along with final copies of the minutes. They are available online here.
You can register for the next FSA board meeting by complete the Registration form. For other queries or to register for future Board meetings Email: fsaboardmeetings@glasgows.co.uk
Tel: 01772 767730 Fax: 01772 767555You can also submit a question in advance of the question-and-answer session which takes place at the end of each meeting, though we can’t guarantee we can answer all of them.
I question the need for putting any obstacle (such as completing a registration form) in the way of public involvement. Why can’t I just show up to the meeting if I feel like it? I don’t imagine people are rushing to attend the FSA board meetings so why the need for registration? Also, why is the public forced to submit questions in advance? A better solution would be to set aside a time period for any arising queries from the public.
The Land Registry has put a new version of its Publication Scheme online that you can download as a pdf file here (file size: 661 Kb).
The scheme lists all the types of information the Land Registry will make public. You can access several of the more important documents, such as annual reports and property price reports, online. The most useful data is found under the heading ‘Performance Information.’
However, the scheme has several flaws. Firstly, it fails to identify by name the FOI or Data Protection Officers. Providing names is an essential aspect of public accountability. Why are these people hiding behind anonymous department titles? Freedom of Information Officers should set the tone for openness and at least tell us who they are!
Unfortunately some of the scheme’s more interesting documents are only available in hard copy such as statistical information (staff numbers, sickness rates etc.), policy statements and staff policies including the staff handbook.