Archive for February, 2005

« Older Entries

International Conference of Information Commissioners

Monday, February 28th, 2005

An article in The Saratogian newspaper of Saratoga, New York reports from the third annual International Conference of Information Commissioners in Cancun, Mexico. It was the largest gathering of its kind with 400 people in attendance from 50 countries.

Official: US must do more to provide for open government

ALBANY — The U.S. could improve its freedom of information laws by following the example of nations that have just recently adopted them, a state official said Friday.

However, the UK’s Freedom of Information Act is not mentioned as one of the examples to follow. Despite being under sustained attack since September 11, the US FOIA still allows far greater access than the British Act.

Posted in Freedom of Information | No Comments »

Tesco food labeling

Monday, February 28th, 2005

I have a number of requests in to various councils requesting that Trading Standards reports be made public. Two stories in the Sunday Times this past weekend show why the public have a pressing and direct need to know the contents of these reports.

Tesco misleads shoppers on salt and sugar labels
Richard Fletcher

Tesco, Britain’s biggest supermarket chain, is being accused of misleading customers over the nutritional and health benefits of a series of products in stores throughout the country.

Trading standards officers have found more than 20 alleged failings in an eight-week period after testing Tesco products. Some that boasted specific health benefits were found to contain excessive amounts of sugar or salt or significantly less vitamins than claimed.

Food labels of confusion at Tesco
Richard Fletcher and Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas

…The misleading Boulders [a brand of cereal] blurb is one of more than 20 incidents of suspected mislabelling that trading standards officers have found in an eight-week period after testing Tesco products. All were recorded in December and January by Hertfordshire trading standards, which collects reports from other trading standards offices around the country. The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act; similar reports for other supermarket chains have yet to be released.

Posted in Freedom of Information, Politics | 1 Comment »

High praise for Waste Management – Boos for Environmental Health

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

FOI Requests to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Two of my requests came to fruition Tuesday. One positively; one positively Kafka-esque in the level of bureaucratic unhelpfulness.

First, praise for the handling of my FOI request for the borough’s waste management contract with private contractor SITA. I met with Peter Ramage, Head of Waste Management to view both the current contract and the working copy of the new contract, which will take effect 1 April 2005. By all accounts, I am the first member of the public to view the contract. But Mr Ramage said he would not have a problem making the contract available to all members of the public in its electronic form once it is finalised in the next few weeks. I hope this will be the case.

So why would you want to look at a waste management contract? Firstly, these contracts are paid for with your taxes. Kensington & Chelsea’s contract costs £12.2 million annually, not including the cost of running the waste management building, collecting abandoned vehicles, etc. Here’s a brief rundown of the contract:

  • Street cleansing specifications – this section lists the number of employees that clean streets plus a listing of every street and minimum cleansing frequencies. You’ll also find in this section which streets must be cleaned of chewing gum and how often they should be cleansed. Clearing away abandoned vehicles can sometimes be found in this part of the contract, but in RBKC clearing away abandoned vehicles is covered by another contract.
  • Location of all litter bins. As of 31 March 2004, the borough had 700 litter bins across the borough.
  • Listing of all the manned public conveniences in the borough (just three!). Unmanned public toilets are managed by the outdoor advertising firm JCDeceaux under another contract.
  • Number and location of winter vehicles (snow removers, salt bins, etc)
  • Notting Hill Carnival & special events – 200 tonnes of waste was generated at the last Carnival, much of it was unsold food abandoned on the streets. This section of the contract outlines the cleansing schedule for the Carnival i.e. when residents should expect the area to be back to normal. The contractor also cleans the area outside basement flats after Carnival.

(more…)

Tags:
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

FOI Request for Harrods Food Hall inspection report

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

Freedom of Information Team
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
The Town Hall, Rm N111
Hornton Street
London W8 7NX

February 23, 2004

Dear Paul Stott

I am writing to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

I would like a copy of the food safety inspection report about Harrods food hall that was on the table when we met yesterday. As this is a simple matter of photocopying, I expect to receive it ‘promptly’ as mandated by law.

Secondly, I would like all correspondence, including email, concerning the release to the Sunday Times of information contained in this inspection report. This also includes external correspondence from other interested parties (such as, but not limited to, Harrods and any representatives of Harrods).

As you will know it is a criminal offence to ‘alter, destroy, hide or deface’ information once a request has been made. My preferred format to receive the report is in hard copy, my preferred format for the correspondence is a chance to inspect the records containing the information.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Regards,
Heather Brooke

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Asylum Statistics: The figures behind the headlines

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

The Home Office yesterday published Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2004 (pdf 624 kb). This publication will make interesting reading for those curious about the actual number of asylum cases, which countries they come from, the number of people detained, deported and granted asylum. It includes data for the 4th Quarter of 2004, so October to December 2004. This edition also presents the first provisional analysis for 2004.

The data for 2004 are subject to revision in Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2004, to be published later this year. New summary data on Assisted Voluntary Returns (AVR) for the fourth quarter have been added within the Removals section.
The 36-page report breaks down like this:

  • Applications – countries with largest number of applicants: Iran, China, Iraq
  • Initial Decisions – almost all asylum applications are initially rejected
  • Appeals
  • Removal of Asylum seekers – The top 5 applicant nationalities removed in Q4 were Serbia and Montenegro, Iraq,Afghanistan, Romania and Iran.
  • Assessments of eligibility
  • Natl Asylum Support Service (NASS) Applications – for subsistance and accommodation. Top 10 Nationalities seeking support: Iran 1,205; Iraq 800; Somalia 585; Sudan 420; Eritrea 410; Zimbabwe 400; Afghanistan 395; Pakistan 390; Dem. Rep. Congo 380, and Turkey 360.
  • Supported Asylum Seekers – A total 61,625 asylum seekers were in receipt of NASS support. The five regions with the highest number of asylum seekers in NASS accommodation were: Yorkshire & the Humber (23%), North West (16%), West Midlands (15%), Scotland (14%), North East (10%). Within the regions, NASS disperses asylum seekers to cluster areas in Local Authorities (see Tables 9, 10). The 10 Local Authorities with the highest numbers of asylum seekers in NASS accommodation were: Glasgow City, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Bradford, Nottingham, Manchester, Kirklees and Salford.
  • Detention – ‘As at 25 December 2004, 1,515 persons who had sought asylum at some stage were being detained in the UK solely under Immigration Act powers.’
  • Oakington Reception – figures on this fast-track immigration centre.
  • Related Publications
  • Index of tables

Enquiries about this bulletin should be addressed to: Immigration Research and Statistics Service, Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Room 1402, Apollo House, Wellesley Road, Croydon, Surrey CR9 3RR. Telephone 020 8760 8274.

Information about the Home Office’s Research and Development publications is given at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm
Information about immigration & asylum can be found at
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/content/ind/en/home.html

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Public access to Defence Estate

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005

The Ministry of Defence has put together a website that gives information about public access to the Defence Estate. The site includes maps showing general access to various defence properties. A detailed walking guide is available by following the link ‘Walks on MOD Lands’ on the publications page.

Public access to the defence estate can be restricted or excluded where there is live firing or where other operational training is underway. These access restrictions are generally operated through military byelaws. Access may also be restricted or excluded under the provisions of the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) in England and Wales and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (LR(S)A) in Scotland.

An FOI page outlines how to make requests for information that is not listed on these pages.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Contacting MPs and local councillors

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005

The beta version of www.writetothem.com is now up and running. Brought to you by the mysociety.org team, this project is the successor to the highly successful www.faxyourmp.com. It provides an easy way for the public to write to their local councillors, MPs, MSPs, MEPs, and local assembly members.

Check it out and use it often!

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

London FOI Forum & FOI contacts

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005

London Connects is a useful site if you want to make FOI requests to one or more of the London boroughs. London Connects is funded by the London boroughs, Metropolitan Police, fire, Greater London Assembly and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and is a place for London public bodies to share best practice in e-government.

They also sponsor the London FOI Forum and this page is the publicly available section of the London FoI Forum extranet. The group has worked on a number of items including the text of an FoIA leaflet for staff. A couple of documents are available on the webpage including a suggested guidelines document that is intended to supplement the DCA’s Code of Practice Section IV: ‘Consultation with Third Parties’.

Comments can be sent to nick.tjaardstra@londonconnects.gov.uk. Nick says the forum is predominantly for local government, but members of the public can comment as well.

A list of London FOI email contact addresses:-

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham – enquires@lbbd.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Barnet – foi@barnet.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Bexley – foi@bexley.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Brent – foi@brent.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Bromley – foi@bromley.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Camden – sandie.dunne@camden.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Croydon – angela.buckler@croydon.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Ealing – foirequest@ealing.gov.uk
  • London borough of Greenwich – foi@greenwich.gov.uk
  • London borough of Hackney – bambos.charalambous@hackney.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham – foirequests@lbhf.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Haringey – foi@haringey.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Havering – foi@havering.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Hillingdon – foi@hillingdon.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Islington – foia@islington.gov.uk
  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea – foi@rbkc.gov.uk
  • Royal borough of Kingston – foi@rbk.kingston.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Lambeth – foi@lambeth.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Lewisham – foia@lewisham.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Merton – data.protection@merton.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Newham – information.governance@newham.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Redbridge – foi@redbridge.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames – foi@richmond.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Southwark – AccessInfo@Southwark.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Sutton – foi@sutton.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets – foi@towerhamlets.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Waltham Forest – foi@lbwf.gov.uk
  • London Borough of Wandsworth – foi@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • City of Westminster – FOI@westminster.gov.uk
  • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority – infoaccess@london-fire.gov.uk
  • Metropolitan Police Service – PublicAccessOffice@met.police.uk
  • Transport for London – enquire@tfl.gov.uk

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Dept for Transport: Shredding disclosures

Monday, February 21st, 2005

The Department for Transport has posted its response to a Freedom of Information request regarding the policy of shredding Departmental files between the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its coming into effect in January 2005.
My original investigation into shredding appeared in the Daily Telegraph.

Tags:
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Surgeons seek to block heart league tables

Tuesday, February 15th, 2005

An article in the Daily Telegraph today claims leading heart surgeons are against the publication of operation survival league tables.

If heart surgeons are so concerned about the public then they should publish and be damned. The solution to ambiguous or unclear statistics is more information, not less. Where surgeons are concerned that those who operate on risky patients will be unfairly penalised then the solution is simply to include the risk factors in the survival rate statistics.

Better to make the current statistics public in whatever form they take so we can all see (public and surgeons alike) how this information is being collated across different trusts. Publication creates a powerful incentive to unify and clarify statistics. In secrecy, no such pressure exists and the results have clearly not been in the public interest as the Harold Shipman and Alder Hey scandals make clear.

Posted in Freedom of Information | No Comments »

« Older Entries