Archive for July, 2005

New contact details: UK Trade & Investment

Thursday, July 28th, 2005

The point of contact for UK Trade & Investment’s Publication Scheme is now:

Caroline Llewellyn
UK Trade & Investment Open Government Team
Bay 155, Kingsgate House
66-74 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6SW
020 7215 2427
caroline.llewellyn@uktradeinvest.gov.uk

UK Trade & Investment is the Government organisation that supports companies in the UK doing business internationally and overseas enterprises seeking to locate in the UK.

There is no direct link on the UK Trade & Investment website to the Publication Scheme or to general information on the public’s right to access information from UK Trade & Investment. The only way I have found to access the Publication Scheme is by conducting a search for the term ‘freedom of information’ from the main website. I have complained about this to Ms Llewellyn and she has said more direct links may be added at the next website review in late 2005.

Posted in YRTK | No Comments »

Cross London Rail Links

Wednesday, July 27th, 2005

A debate in Parliament on 28 June 2005 has shed some light on the public accountability (or lack thereof) of Cross London Rail Links Ltd (CLRLL). Crossrail is not wholly owned by any one public authority, and as such is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

However, Derek Twigg (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport) told Parliament that he understands from CLRLL that the board of directors will behave as though it has to conform to the Act. And so it should as it is a 50/50 joint venture owned by Transport for London and the Department for Transport, both public bodies subject to the FOIA.

Romford residents have endured a long wait for details about a depot site elimination as a result of Crossrail, according to MP Barbara Smith. Crossrail is covered by the new Environmental Information Regulations 2004, so it may be better to make enquiries citing this law.

Posted in YRTK | No Comments »

Quoted in The Observer

Monday, July 25th, 2005

Free to find out all you want?
The Observer, Sunday July 24, 2005
Jon Robins on how the Freedom of Information Act can be used to find out everything from MRSA levels in your hospital to planned air traffic over your home

Heather Brooke, a former crime reporter in the US and now a freedom of information expert in the UK, has made in the region of 50 requests since 1 January. ‘I am trying to set precedents for public authorities and change the culture of secrecy in the UK,’ she says. She has successfully requested waste management contracts in the London borough where she lives and crime statistics for Victoria Park in East London where Margaret Muller, the American artist, was tragically stabbed to death when out jogging. ‘I used to be on the neighbourhood committee and a policeman would come to our group,’ she says. ‘When I asked him about it he gave me no information at all and then I asked a question under the Freedom of Information Act and they gave me the answer straightaway.’

What advice does she have for would-be FOI sleuths? ‘You need to know exactly what it is that you want,’ reckons Brooke. ‘Surprisingly, no-one has completely blown me off yet. I think people will be pleasantly surprised to discover that their requests are taken seriously.’ Campaigners lambasted ministers for diluting its legislation through a fairly comprehensive list of exemptions. For example, public authorities can withhold information if that disclosure would prejudice defence, international relations, law enforcement, commercial interests, the economy, collective cabinet responsibility or inhibit frank discussions by officials.

Read the full article on the Observer’s website.

Tags:
Posted in Freedom of Information | No Comments »

Free PFI database

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

How much money is your local authority spending on Private Finance Initiative projects? A new database created by Partnerships UK is one of the best resources for PFI facts and figures. It brings together data on all 633 PFI and public-private partnership contracts signed in the UK.

The database is free to use and is fully searchable. You can either pick your area using a map or go to the ‘advanced search’ to find specific companies. Until the database, all the publicly available data on PFI projects was scattered and often difficult to find across government departments, local councils and various quangos. Search the database for listings of projects that have been signed, their capital value, which firms built and own the facilities, whether they are open, and who the advisers were.

Partnerships UK is the organisation that advises public sector bodies entering into PFI and PPP deals. Its stated mission is to bring greater transparency to a sector traditionally wreathed in a fog of confusion.

The database went live on March 10, and currently details are limited to the time the contracts were signed but as development continues it is expected to reflect changes in the market.

‘Everything you ever wanted to know about PFI’ in Public Finance magazine provides further useful tips.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Less accountability for special advisers

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

The Prime Minister has surreptitiously changed the law governing Special Advisors giving them greater power to instruct civil servants.

The legislation – the Civil Service Order in Council – was amended on the 22nd June by the Privy Council but no statement to Parliament or public announcement has yet been made by the Government. This prompted Sir Alistair Graham, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Standards in Public Life to issue a scathing statement against the Government:

I am very disappointed that the Government has chosen to make changes to the legislation governing the role of Special Advisers using prerogative powers without any proper parliamentary and public debate on an issue which has been of clear concern to the public, parliament and media for some time. On this important constitutional matter, not only has the Government not consulted Parliament, it has chosen not to tell them about the changes. Even if the intention is not to extend special advisers’ powers, the manner in which the changes have been made could lead to this very perception and consequently a loss of trust in the machinery of Government.

Special Advisers are often better known as ‘spin doctors’ as they work solely for a particular minister and do not have to sign up to the Civil Service Code that requires impartiality. Their power can be immense as seen by the activities of the PM‘s former adviser Alistair Campbell, so it is important that they account for themselves to the public. Instead, they are being given more power and made less accountable! This is a dangerous combination that will further erode the public’s trust in government.

There is also an article about this change in today’s Guardian.

Posted in Politics, YRTK | No Comments »

FOI in parliament: 4-11 July 2005

Tuesday, July 12th, 2005

Written Answers – Trade and Industry: Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate (11 Jul 2005)
James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the Report by ASE Consulting into privatising the Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate; and if he will make a statement.

Malcolm Wicks (Minister of State (Energy), Department of Trade and Industry) Hansard source
I have placed in the Libraries of the House copy of the Report recently released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A few extracts have been withheld under Section 43 of the Act.

Written Answers – Constitutional Affairs: Freedom of Information Act (5 Jul 2005)
Norman Baker (Lewes, LDem) Hansard source
To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans she has to review the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Hansard source
The Freedom of Information Act has only been in operation for six months and represents a new way of working for public authorities. Already there is evidence of the beginnings of the long-term culture change that the Act was designed to drive forward. The Government will monitor the Act’s progress on an on-going basis and take action as necessary.
(more…)

Posted in Freedom of Information | No Comments »

FOI used as delaying tactic

Monday, July 11th, 2005

A disturbing trend has emerged whereby government officials are using the Freedom of Information Act’s 20-working day time limit to delay answering questions. For example, MPs’ written questions are expected to be answered within seven days of the question being tabled. But some ministers, including the Prime Minister below, are citing the FOIA and extending the time period to four weeks (20 working days).

Written Answers – Prime Minister: Correspondence (5 Jul 2005)

Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield of (a) 14 June and (b) 15 June.

Tony Blair (Prime Minister, HM Treasury) Hansard source
The request for information set out in the hon. Member’s letter of 14 June is being handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A reply will be issued within the statutory 20 working-day limit set out in the Act.

MPs are not the only ones suffering from this misuse of the FOIA. Instead of getting questions answered within one or two days from the press office or enquiries desk, the media and public are being asked to submit their request by email and when they do so, they are told, ‘your request is now being considered under the FOIA and we will respond in the 20-day time period.’

This practice is becoming worryingly common in some government press rooms, according to the Observer’s Home Affairs editor, Martin Bright. During the FOI Live conference in London last month, Friends of the Earth solicitor Phil Michaels recounted similar examples of government departments refusing to answer questions in a timely way by citing the FOI’s time limit.

The Freedom of Information Act is designed to get official information into the public realm in a quick and easy manner. The spirit of the law is being violated when it is used in this way as a means of hindering public accountability.

If any readers have experienced this type of misuse of the FOIA please send me an email detailing the offending organisation and the case. I will compile these into a report and submit this to the Information Commissioner.

Posted in Freedom of Information | No Comments »

Secrecy doesn’t stop terrorism

Friday, July 8th, 2005

There was only one thing harder to find than a way home from central London yesterday and that was any kind of official information about what had happened. In the initial confusion after the explosions Thursday morning, keeping mum was understandable. Authorities don’t want to spread rumour. But by late afternoon, members of the public were still starved of official information. In the absence of reports from the authorities, the public relied heavily on the media who in turn relied on citizens who had witnessed the incidents first-hand. This was democracy in action.

Meanwhile, the authorities put few resources into public information, relying instead on the old belief in security through secrecy. We were told that the “London Emergency Plan” was put into effect, but no one actually knows what this is. Certainly not the public – and even many London doctors complained to Which? magazine last year that they didn’t know what their role was in this emergency plan.

In fact, secrecy is no guarantee of safety. And sharing accurate information with the public rarely causes panic or terrorist incidents. Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has stated the failure to prevent the 2001 attacks was rooted not in leaks of sensitive information but in the barriers to sharing information between agencies and with the public.

“We’re better off with openness,” he said. “The best ally we have in protecting ourselves against terrorism is an informed public.”

The government should realise this before passing reactionary laws that do little to stop terrorists but do infringe on the very freedoms that make our country great.

Posted in Crime & Justice | No Comments »

Guardian publishes censored policy report

Tuesday, July 5th, 2005

The Guardian newspaper today published the full contents of a government report on drug policy. Only the first half of the report was released last Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The other half of the strategy unit study led by the former director general of the BBC, Lord Birt, was withheld but was subsequently leaked to the newspaper.

The report showed that low drug seizure rates give traffickers vast profits from a business that nets £4bn a year. The report was presented in its full form to Tony Blair in June 2003 but even under the Freedom of Information Act, only 52 of its 105 pages were published. The first 50 pages deal with drug consumption patterns and drug-related crime, but the second half of the report delivered a scathing verdict on efforts to disrupt the drugs supply chain.

The government yesterday defended its decision not to publish the second half citing the exemptions for information supplied by law enforcement agencies dealing with security matters, the formulation of government policy, and information that if published that would be prejudicial to the conduct of public affairs. These exemptions are qualified by a public interest test.

There may be an argument that effective law enforcement policies must be kept secret for them to remain effective, but how is the public interest served by keeping failing techniques secret? That only allows for their continued use.

The Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, called on the information commissioner to order full disclosure. “What this report shows and what the government is too paranoid to admit is that the ‘war on drugs’ is a disaster. We need an evidence-led debate about the way forward but if they withhold the evidence we can’t have the debate.”

Danny Kushlik of the Transform drugs policy foundation, which campaigns for legalisation, said the government was using the act to hide the parts of the report which demonstrated that, far from reducing production, trafficking and supply, prohibition spawned the business.

Read the full article on the Guardian’s website.

Tags:
Posted in Crime & Justice, Freedom of Information | No Comments »