Archive for March, 2005

« Older Entries

Names of MPs staff: Internal Review Results

Wednesday, March 30th, 2005

I received a decision notice (below) from the Commons last Thursday (hard copy arrived today) in relation to my FOIA request for the names and salary details of MPs staff. You can read my original letter to the House of Commons sent 2 January 2005. I made the request in order to abolish the needless secrecy surrounding who works for our public representatives. Despite being paid for with public money, the public actually has no way of knowing who is working for their MP.

The investigative reporter Michael Crick estimates that around 100 MPs employ family members, and while most may work very hard, some may do nothing at all. An MP’s signature is all that is needed to draw money for staff from the public purse, yet the public are not allowed to know who these people are.

I am appealing this unacceptable attempt to avoid public accountability and will be sending my complaint to the Information Commissioner this week.

What is most bizarre about the Commons’ answer is their argument that ‘Members of Parliament in their individual capacities are not public authorities subject to the 2000 Act’ .

What a ridiculous notion. Their claim that MPs staff are not public employees also holds no water as these are people paid entirely from the public purse.

The Data Protection Act states that information can be disclosed if it is fair. It is not unfair that a person working for a public representative and paid for with public funds should be accountable to the public. To hide behind the DPA in this way makes a mockery of both the DPA and the freedom of information law.

It’s also interesting to note that the Department for Constitutional Affairs (the department in charge of implementing FOI across central government) has issued guidance claiming that the FOIA does not give public authorities the power to disclose information about named individuals whether public employees or not. See in particular the sections 4.2.9 and 4.2.13. This goes against government commitments to make public the names of secondees, given in response to a successful campaign by Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

The DCA guidance also contradicts the guidance on personal information issued by the Information Commissioner which clearly states information about public officials that relate to their public role should be disclosed. It seems the DCA might be trying to undermine the Information Commissioner’s stance on this topic.

Tags:
Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »

Names of MPs staff: FOI Request

Wednesday, March 30th, 2005

Judy Wilson
Freedom of Information Officer
House of Commons Information Office
Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA

January 2, 2005

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST: MPs STAFF NAMES AND SALARIES

Dear Ms Wilson

I am writing to request a listing of all MPs� staff by name along with their individual salaries. My preferred format to receive this information is electronically either as a database on disc or via email. The Commons fees office, the central authority responsible for paying the staff, keeps a listing of this sort, making this an extremely basic request to answer.

I now make this request under the Freedom of Information Act. As I�m sure you know, the Act grants a statutory right to such information. The public have an interest in ensuring that the staffing operation of Parliament is above-board and that public money is being well spent.

This information is available in other countries. For example, the names of American Congressional Representatives� staff are made public as a matter of course even when they are funded privately.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request. I look forward to hearing from you within the 20-working day statutory time period.

Regards,
Heather Brooke

Tags:
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Article: Parliament crime figures

Sunday, March 27th, 2005

I wrote this article based on two FOI requests made to the House of Commons and Lords security service. The detailed incident logs and correspondence will be posted shortly.

Commons thieves walk off with MPs’ valuables – and a sandwich
The Sunday Times, March 27, 2005
By Heather Brooke

The Houses of Parliament have been revealed as rich pickings for thieves, with more than £150,000 worth of valuables stolen in the past four years, including MPs’ computers, solar panels and jewellery.

Newly released documents show thieves strike on average at least once a week. There have also been a number of outbreaks of vandalism, including £100 worth of damage to a bust of John Smith, the late Labour party leader.

The crime figures are compiled by SO17, the branch of the Metropolitan police that guards the Palace of Westminster. One of the most serious problems is the number of knives and gas canisters that have been found on people entering parliament.
(more…)

Tags:
Posted in Articles, Freedom of Information, Politics | No Comments »

Iraq War resignation letter censored

Thursday, March 24th, 2005

The Guardian
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday March 24, 2005

The government yesterday tried to suppress evidence that the attorney general believed war against Iraq was illegal less than two weeks before British troops joined the US-led invasion of the country.

It has removed a key passage in the resignation letter written by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy chief legal adviser at the Foreign Office, on March 18 2003, the eve of the invasion.

The remainder of her letter – in which she described the planned invasion as a “crime of aggression” – was released yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act. The entire letter would have remained secret had not the Guardian published parts of it last month, the FO said.

Read full article here

Tags:
Posted in Freedom of Information, Politics | Comments Off

More on the feudal farm subsidy system

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005

Most of the national papers picked up on the release of farm subsidy information.

The Guardian focused on how much of the money goes to the Royal family and agribusiness.
Royal farms get £1m from taxpayers
David Hencke and Rob Evans

Leader: Another countryside
Agriculture subsidies: A little bit of history was made yesterday when the government finally published details of the £1.7bn in support payments that farmers and agricultural companies in England receive from the taxpayer.

The Times
Leader: Muck and brass

The Independent
Revealed: the rich landowners making hay on EU subsidies
By Danielle Demetriou

The Government’s right to keep us in the dark
By Heather Brooke

BBC News
Subsidies ‘help large farms most’

Posted in Freedom of Information | No Comments »

The Government’s right to keep us in the dark

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005

The Government’s right to keep us in the dark
The Independent, 23 March 2005
By Heather Brooke

In a modern democracy we should not have to go begging for scraps of information

Yesterday’s publication of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) farm subsidies in England marks one of the first major successes for freedom of information. The public pays £4billion toward this system, so it might seem obvious that the public have an interest in knowing how this money is spent.

I campaigned for the release of these figures in my book Your Right to Know, but it wasn’t until formal requests were filed under Freedom of Information Act and the new Environmental Information Regulations that government departments took seriously the public’s right to this information.

The Rural Payments Agency, responsible for doling out cash to farmers in England, is releasing the names of subsidy recipients and the annual amount paid to them in the last two years. It will be supplemented in a few weeks time with information broken down by region.

This is admirable but the Scottish and Welsh agricultural departments are refusing to release even these basic details, citing the privacy rights of individual farmers. Without names, the subsidy information is neutered. Names are essential for gauging the fairness of the system. Are the richest landowners getting the biggest handouts? In England at least, the answer is ‘yes’. Is this the way we want our tax money spent?
(more…)

Tags:
Posted in Articles, Freedom of Information, YRTK | 1 Comment »

Results of Internal Review: Attorney General’s advice on Iraq War, ID Cards and listing of advice

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2005

I received the response below from the Attorney General’s Chambers. It details the results of their internal review on their decision to refuse my FOI requests for the Attorney General’s advice on the Iraq War, advice on ID cards and a listing of all the topics on which the Attorney General’s advice was sought.

In summary, the Government continues to reject the public’s right to know any of the information. I am appealing the decision to the Information Commissioner and will post the results here.

Read the original FOI request here.

Read the intitial response from the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, Attorney General’s Chambers.

1 March 2005

Dear Ms Brooke,

REVIEW OF REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

I refer to your e-mail of 16 February of 2005 to Christopher Simson, asking for a review of the decisions to refuse your requests for information relating to (a) advice by the Attorney General on ID cards; (b) advice by the Attorney General on the legality of invading Iraq; and (c) a listing of topics on which the Attorney General has advised in the past 12 months.

I have carefully reviewed the handling of these requests. As to (a) and (b), the decisions not to disclose the information were made after very detailed consideration. This included consideration of the public interest arguments in favour of disclosure. As to (b), as explained in Christopher Simson’s response of 25 January, the Government has already publicly set out the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq.
(more…)

Tags:
Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Releasing the names of public officials

Thursday, March 17th, 2005

No more shadowy figures
Wednesday March 16, 2005
The Guardian

The Freedom of Information Act is pressing authorities to reveal the names of staff. In Seattle they call it accountability. Heather Brooke asks if we should follow suit

Not many people would choose telephoning a call centre over speaking to a named individual, yet many public authorities continue to plough money into centralised call centres rather than taking the simple step of making their staff directories publicly available.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is putting pressure on authorities to reveal the names of public sector staff who, until now, have been hidden behind faceless titles such as waste management team or head of environmental health.

Councils, universities and quangos are getting dozens of requests for staff directories. The Ministry of Defence has had a request from the Guardian for staff names. So far the MoD is refusing to release the information and the newspaper is appealing, saying the MoD already gives its staff directory to arms traders: the public, who provide the department’s funding, have a right to see it, too.

In Seattle, by contrast, any member of the public can search the city’s website to find the name, direct telephone number and email of all public employees. Not only can residents find out who is in charge of various departments, they can drill down to see who is collecting their rubbish, who sweeps the street, who is enforcing dog control ordinances or even filling potholes.

“We call that accountability,” says Dewey Potter, of Seattle’s parks and recreation department. “It would be a disservice to the public not to give out those names. We’re public employees. We work for the public and the public are our boss. They have a right to know who we are and what we do.”

It’s a philosophy shared by most US public employees. Not only are directories made available, photographs of senior staff and elected officials are hung in public areas. School district offices (the equivalent to local education authorities) are decorated with smiling faces of the school superintendent and board members. Even at the Miami-Dade International Airport, you’ll find a full-colour poster showing the region’s county commissioners.
(more…)

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Newspapers working for the public

Wednesday, March 16th, 2005

Can you spot what’s odd about the story below?

How open is open?
BY JOE GERAGHTY
BRISTOL HERALD COURIER
13 March 2005

Reporters at the Bristol Herald Courier participated in Sunshine Week, a nationwide effort to test the accessibility of public records.

Five members of the Bristol Herald Courier staff fanned out across the region March 3 to assess local governments’ compliance with Freedom of Information laws.

Answer – this is Bristol, USA not Bristol UK. Why aren’t we seeing local newspapers in the UK doing these kinds of Freedom of Information Audits? An important role of the media is to give a voice to the common man/woman. Local media should be pressing for our rights to attend meetings and access government information. The best way to do this is for reporters to ask for information or go to a meeting as a regular citizen. The media, in particular local media, have a civic obligation to shine a light on the goings-on of local councils. Too few reporters now do this. In part because of staff cutbacks, but also because of a mistaken belief that the public aren’t interested.

Having seen the packed town halls for local meetings in America and bursting letter bags that came into our local newspaper, I cannot believe the public don’t care. If they don’t it is for two reasons: they don’t know what is going on and/or they believe nothing they do can make a difference. Journalists play a major part in educating people about civic structures. They can also give people a voice when they are ignored by a public authority. When journalists ignore this part of their job, they are letting down not only the media but all of us.

So let’s see some FOI audits!

Posted in Freedom of Information | 1 Comment »

Hospitals denying patients vital information

Wednesday, March 16th, 2005

The Guardian newspaper today published the results of its investigation into heart surgeons. The newspaper used 36 simultaneous applications under the Freedom of Information Act to extract for the first time national data about the individual mortality rates of all cardiac surgeons practising in the NHS.

The exercise found:

  • One London teaching hospital where trust managers and the cardiac consultants cannot agree among themselves about which surgeon should be assigned responsibility for particular deaths;
  • Hospitals which diverted money the government allocated to improve record-keeping and risk assessment;
  • Hospitals that are unable to give risk-adjusted data, which would reveal to patients the proportion of high and low risk operations undertaken by surgeons.

    • Informed choice necessitates that patients have access to individual surgeons’ mortality data. You can read more about this in earlier posts.

    Hospitals deny patients facts on death rates
    Sarah Boseley, John Carvel and Rob Evans

    Ten years after the Bristol babies scandal, patients are still being denied the information they need to make an informed choice about heart surgery, a Guardian investigation has discovered.

    The Kennedy inquiry into the deaths of babies at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, following disciplinary action against two surgeons whose success rates were not as good as colleagues at other children’s heart units, prompted the government to demand in 2001 that adult heart surgeons make their death rates public.

    The information should have been available by last year, but many hospital trusts are still not collecting adequate data.
    more

    Leader: The heart of the matter
    Landmark step on the road to more openness
    The surgeon’s view

    Posted in Freedom of Information | No Comments »

    « Older Entries