Several people have told me their requests for information are being blocked by Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This section of the act restricts disclosure of information about individuals and businesses. Councils are citing the law in their refusals to give the public information about rogue traders, fraudulent business and even restaurant inspections.

The Scottish Information Commissioner has stated that many local authorities want to release information because it is clearly in the public interest, but are concerned that this part of the Enterprise Act makes such disclosure a criminal offence. The Commissioner says:

‘I have obtained legal opinion from senior counsel, which states that Part 9 of the Enterprise Act does not constitute a prohibition on disclosure. This is contrary to the view taken by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Constitutional Affairs.’

The Scottish Commissioner had not yet issued any decisions in relation to Part 9, but he says they are imminent so check his website for more details.

Proposed changes to the Enterprise Act under the Company Law Reform Bill may also amend the restrictions of the Enterprise Act. Until the situation is clarified on the Enterprise Act, I suggest you challenge any refusals by referencing the section of this law that states it does not prohibit the disclosure of information ‘held by a public authority to another person if the disclosure is required for the purpose of a Community obligation’(section 240).

The community obligation is similar to the public interest. The law also says that a public authority can disclose information to the public ‘for the purpose of facilitating the exercise by the authority of any function it has under or by virtue of this Act or any other enactment’ (s. 241(1)). In this case the public authority has an obligation to uphold the FOIA.

Americans are embroiled in a debate about surveillance and civil liberties that will be familiar to UK residents. The confirmation hearings for Gen. Michael Hayden as director of the Central Intelligence Agency have highlighted the dubious practice of spying on citizens. Here’s a short film that sums up both the US and UK governments’ attempts to justify intrusive surveillance:

Cartoon: Snuggly the Security Bear

‘We’re watching you…because we love you.’
If you believe that, you deserve to live in a police state. I go by Benjamin Franklin‘s saying: ‘They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

Intrusive surveillance does not make us safer or happier, but precisely the opposite. It breaks the bonds of community between individuals. It is a way for the state to accumulate power by turning us against our fellow citizens whom we are told are dangerous, in contrast to the protective state that loves us. History shows that it’s the all-powerful, paternalist state that we need to be most wary of. Handing over our individual liberties for the sake of a unspecified ‘safety’ takes us down a very unsafe path.

Cartoon: How to be Happy

Spying on citizens is par for the course in the UK – we are possibly the most spied upon nation on Earth. Without a written constitution, the Government has passed laws requiring internet and telephone companies to keep records of our calls and connections for up to seven years. There are little to no checks in the UK for overseeing wiretapping or covert surveillance by the state. While the Amercians make a hue and cry about surveillance, it seems the British are content to sleepwalk into totalitarianism.