Britain’s political establishment is still recovering from last year’s scandal surrounding Members of Parliament and their expenses. As accounts of lawmakers’ claims were revealed in the press, public anger grew and their popularity nosedived.
Heather Brooke is the journalist and campaigner whose investigations exposed the opaqueness of the expenses system. She talks to Sarah Montague about the culture of secrecy in Britain and the importance of making public information more accessible.
Something very disturbing is happening in Scotland. At one time it was a beacon for transparent and democratic government. Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner, made bold rulings on the people’s right to know including a decision that all Members of the Scottish Parliament would have to disclose their expenses. It was this decision that I used as a legal precedent in my own case against Westminster MPs.
Now it seems some Scottish politicians are regressing. The SNP Government is going to court to try and strip the Scottish Information Commissioner of his power. Ministers, including First Minister Alex Salmond, want the Court of Session to rule that the Commissioner doesn’t have the right to ask the Government for information as part of his FOI investigations. This comes after Mr Dunion launched a freedom of information probe after ministers turned down a request to see government files. When the Government refused to provide the files, the Commissioner issued an “information notice” against ministers, demanding they provide more details.
As the Sunday Herald reports:
Since he was appointed as Scotland’s first Information Commissioner, Mr Dunion and his staff have adjudicated on hundreds of appeal cases where people were unhappy with responses from public bodies to FoI requests.
As a routine part of the process, the Commissioner and his staff ask to see what information has been withheld and then decide whether the public body made the right decision.
The Government’s challenge centres on whether the Commissioner has the power to make such requests or, if necessary, order access using an Information Notice. The Government is also arguing that the original FoI question at the heart of the case is invalid as it requests documents, not information.
Mr Dunion told the Sunday Herald: “The appeal relates to what I can ask for as part of an investigation. That is what is being challenged by the Government.”
The cases include requests for correspondence between Mr Salmond and SNP donor Brian Souter, as well as between the First Minister and tycoon Sir Angus Grossart, government adviser George Mathewson and pop star Sandi Thom.
I’ve a lot of time for Kevin Dunion. I’ve met him on several occasions and he strikes me as the sort of regulator who actually takes his role of protecting the public interest seriously. He is one of the few who is willing to stand up for what is right regardless of political pressure or powerful interests. He should be lauded, not harassed. What can the people of Scotland make of their elected leaders’ attack on such a true man of the people? I know if I was Scottish I’d be pretty angry.
The story that keeps on giving has given me another blast on the airwaves. I’ve been on the TV and radio the last few days talking about the internal audit done on MPs’ expenses in which several hundred MPs have been asked to pay back money. I’ve been brutal, accepting only a few requests due to my tight book deadline, but one appearance I certainly wasn’t going to turn down was Newsnight with the great and glorious Jeremy Paxman.
It’s long been an ambition to get a grilling from him. Oooh!
And it certainly made up for having to debate with Sir Stuart Bell yet again.
You can check out the online repartee on Youtube.
BBC Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman debates the MPs Expenses scandal with Heather Brooke, Benedict Brogan of the Daily Telegraph and ridiculous old fart Stuart Bell.
Hmm – it’s 3pm on a Friday and I’ve just had Ofcom’s response to my freedom of informaton act request seeking their registers of gifts and hospitality. Ofcom is the regulator of the broadcast industry and as you’ll see there’s a lot of ‘stakeholder engagement’ in evidence. Friday afternoons are the preferred time for government disclosures of an embarrassing nature so I’m hoping this is no exception.
Please – everyone – dig in. I’m particularly interested to hear what media insiders make of Ofcom’s response and to the lobbying. Please send me comments here or on twitter (newsbrooke).
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/registers_of_gifts_hospitality#incoming-44534
Here is a talk I gave to the Centre for Investigative Journalism this summer, for those interested in hearing the full tale of how I battled to obtain MPs’ expenses.
A short interview piece for ITN on the criminal investigation into MPs’ expense claims.
Freedom of information? It’s a state secret
The Times, June 11, 2009
By Heather Brooke
Promises of more open government have been made before
When it comes to politicians advocating open government the best advice is to ignore what they say and focus on what they do.
Yesterday, Gordon Brown used the dreaded word “transparency”. I have been campaigning for five years on freedom of information and had to go to the High Court to force the disclosure of MPs’ expenses, so it is with some satisfaction that I now hear the Prime Minister issuing statements about the need for open government that I couldn’t have written better myself.
Mr Brown proposed extending the scope of freedom of information. The funny thing is that he suggested this once before, in October 2007. It must have slipped his mind.
Back then, in the first flush of office, he gave a rousing speech on civil liberties. He announced a public consultation about extending coverage of the Freedom of Information Act to institutions that received huge whacks of taxpayers’ cash but had no obligation to be publicly accountable, such as city academies, Network Rail, and private companies providing public services.
The consultation closed in February 2008 and the results were supposed to be implemented no later than November 2008. Need I say that nothing happened? In January I inquired about this phantom consultation. I asked the Ministry of Justice for a copy of the submissions and timelines of progress on implementation. Not getting a straight answer, I filed an FoI request (as I do).
You can guess what happened next. My FoI request about the progress of freedom of information was rejected. The ministry claimed that all the information was exempt as it involved the “formulation of government policy”. So much for Mr Brown’s airy claim that “this is the public’s money. They should know how it is spent.”
Now Mr Brown has put in charge of the FoI reforms one Jack Straw, of the Ministry of Justice, (a department with one of the shoddiest records in answering FoI requests). He is to head a public debate on this secret public consultation. When it comes to making bureaucracies accountable this is the snail’s pace of progress.
How unlike the lightning speed with which new bureaucracies are created. Two were magicked into life just this week: A shiny new department for Peter Mandelson and the ironically-titled Government Democratic Council. I say ironic because in the true spirit of Yes, Minister its creation is shrouded in secrecy. It appears the members will be ministers appointed by the Prime Minister in secret and it’s unclear how transparently they will formulate reforms for a more transparent democracy. Here’s betting it will be behind closed doors.
Debating the MPs expenses scandal on Channel 4 News with presenter Jon Snow and MP Stuart Bell.