Archive for March, 2006

FOI exposes mast mistakes

Tuesday, March 28th, 2006

A journalist who attended my NUJ course wrote in to tell me of his FOI experience. Malcolm Prior sent FOI requests to 41 councils and the resulting stories are running on the BBC News website, BBC South Today and local radio stations:

Council mast blunders uncovered – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4838152.stm

Eastleigh case study – Nurse fights on against mast blunder – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4840670.stm – and a full list of where the masts are – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4836396.stm

Malcolm said: “What’s amazing is how many councils wait right until the end of the 20 days to palm you off with a wrong or inaccurate answer. Luckily in some cases I already knew of a couple of examples, so I could point out that they had not checked their records properly. I am considering putting in complaints about a couple of them, which proved very resistant to providing the info.”

British Transport Police FOI contact

Friday, March 24th, 2006

New details for making FOI requests to British Transport Police:

Freedom of Information Manager
25 Camden Road
London, NW1 9LN

Or you can make a request online using the feedback form.

British Transport Police cover the national railways, London Underground, Docklands Light Railway, the Midland Metro Tram System and Croydon Tramlink.

New Commissioner caseload

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006

Here is the latest database showing all the cases received by the Information Commssioner’s Office. The Commissioner is still refusing to proactively publish this data unlike his Scottish counterpart. Instead it is only available on this website after I made a Freedom of Information request for it.

This database was received 14 March 2006.
Information Commissioner’s Caseload Database (uncorrected) (Excel 429 Kb)

Read more about the database in Secret Squirrel.

Free Our Data

Thursday, March 16th, 2006

The Guardian technology section has launched an excellent campaign to ‘Free Our Data’. I’ve been banging on about this for years, so it’s good to see the idea gaining momentum.

The Guardian uses the example that it’s easier to create UK maps using the American Google Maps than our own Ordnance Survey. This is because the OS charges for this data. This is not the case in America where any information created or collected by a public body is copyright free.

See my article: ‘Why we must cut the costly Crown Copyright’

The late Peter Weiss, of the US National Weather Service, did the most comprehensive analysis of the American versus the European system of restrictive copyright. In his paper Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impact, he mentions a 2000 study for the European Commission carried out by Pira International, that points out the enormous economic benefits of the US approach. The US and EU are comparable in size and population; but while the EU spent €9.5bn (£6.51bn) gathering public sector data, and collected €68bn selling and licensing it, the US spent €19bn – twice as much – and realised €750bn – over 10 times more.

Weiss stated: “Governments realise two kinds of financial gain when they drop charges: higher indirect tax revenue from higher sales of the products that incorporate the … information; and higher income tax revenue and lower social welfare payments from net gains in employment.”

Articles in the Guardian:

Latest figures on Commissioner backlog

Thursday, March 2nd, 2006

MP Norman Baker asked for the latest figures on the Information Commissioner’s backlog. It is now running at 1,373 cases. Of the 1,196 cases closed, only 59 resulted in an order of disclosure. The Commissioner ruled much more often against the complainant with 696 refusals. Many of the cases are being resolved informally (417), which means the vast majority of people are none the wiser about what has been refused or disclosed. And some of these ‘resolved’ cases are only closed because the Commissioner has taken so long to investigate the case (sometimes more than a year) that the public authority has already disclosed the contested material.

Written Answers – Appeals to the Information Commissioner
Norman Baker (Lewes, LDem): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many appeals have been received by the Information Commissioner in each month since the coming into force of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and in each month how many have (a) been determined and allowed in whole, (b) been determined and allowed in part, (c) been determined and refused and (d) not yet been determined.
Harriet Harman: The answer to this question is set out in the two following tables: (1) Number of cases received per month and number of cases yet to be determined per month; (2) Number and status of cases closed by month of receipt and information on cases which have been closed by informal resolution.

Please click on here to view the tables in their correct format.
(more…)

FOI in Parliament 27 Feb-2 March 2006

Thursday, March 2nd, 2006

Highlights – The National Archives has received 171 requests for access to information contained in the 1911 census returns, and 14 appeals from inquirers who have been denied access to this information.

27 February 2006
Written Answers – Trade & Industry
Peter Law (Blaenau Gwent, Ind): If the Minister for Trade and Industry will list the freedom of information requests made since 1 January 2005 concerning information on (a) energy policy, (b) renewable energy and (c) nuclear energy; and whether the request was (i) fully complied with, (ii) partially answered and (iii) refused in each case.
Alan Johnson (Secretary of State, DTI): Since 1 January 2005, the Department has received in total 88 energy related Freedom of Information Act requests. In broad terms: (a) 18 related to energy policy; (b) 22 renewable energy and (c) 48 nuclear energy. Some requests were a combination of these categories. Of these requests, 39 were released in full; 12 were partial release of information and 23 information was withheld. There are two requests that are still being processed and in the case of a further 12 requests no information was found. A full list of the document will be placed in the Libraries of the House. (NB – the Libraries of the House are not accessible to the general public! These documents should be placed on the DTI’s disclosure log online.)

Written Answers – DTI
As if reading my mind Peter Law asks: What criteria are used to judge whether information released to applicants in response to freedom of information (FOI) requests is of wider public interest and should be included on the FOI pages of his Department’s website.
Alan Johnson: Information released to applicants under the Freedom of Information Act is considered for publication on the DTI’s web pages on a case-by-case basis as to whether it would be of wider public interest. My Department aims progressively to increase the amount of information it publishes from FOI requests on its website.
This publication is not a requirement of the FOI Act, but is in the spirit of freedom of information, and consistent with Whitehall best practice guidelines on publishing FOI responses that are likely to be of broad interest. (No surprise that the DTI has decided these FOI disclosure are not in the public interest and thus only available in the House library)
(more…)

FOI in Parliament: 14-26 February 2006

Thursday, March 2nd, 2006

Highlights this week: MP Bob Spink continues to ask departments if they have received any money to process FOI (answer, no). MPs are also pursuing the difficulties obtaining census data from 1911 and 1921 despite FOI.

14 February 2006
Written Answers – Work and Pensions: Freedom of Information Act
Bob Spink (Castle Point, Con): What total sum has been received by Department for Work & Pensions for the provision of information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in its first year of operation.
Anne McGuire: Nil.

Written Answers – Health: Freedom of Information ActBob Spink (Castle Point, Con): Sum total received by Department of Health for the provision of information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in its first year of operation.
Liam Byrne: The Department has not received any money for provision of
information under the *Freedom of Information* Act 2000, either in the
form of fees where the cost of processing a request would have exceeded
the appropriate limit or in payment for disbursements.
(more…)