Freedom of Information (Scotland) Blog

ICO accused of burying bad news

2011-09-28T20:23:00.001+01:00

The freedom of information watchdog has been accused of trying to “bury” the announcement of an enforcement decision that it hoped would go unnoticed by the press.

A string of emails obtained and published by Privacy International, the pressure group, show senior officials at the Information Commissioner’s Office planned the release of the news for a day it would not attract attention.

The decision that the ICO, which oversees data protection rules, is accused of trying to play down concerned Internet Eyes, a company that offers a bounty to members of the public for watching CCTV footage and catching shoplifters. Privacy International and another privacy watchdog, No-CCTV, had complained that the company violated shoppers’ privacy.

However, the ICO rejected the complaint, asking Internet Eyes to sign an undertaking that it would not break the law.

The ICO then became concerned about how the decision would be received and planned a strategy to minimise the impact of the news.

“It has occurred to us that the ICO may not wish this release to stand out from the crowd – maybe it would be better to send the letter today and publish Wednesday or Thursday this week to ‘bury’ it among others?” wrote Diane Slater, lead case officer at the organisation.

The phrase was an unfortunate echo of one used by Jo Moore, the Labour government adviser who notoriously suggested that the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was a good day to bury bad news.

In another email, Kirsty McCaskill, press officer, said: “Yes, we would ideally not want this to attract much publicity.” She confirmed that when sending out the press release “we will try to pick a day when it looks like a busy news day out there”.

The press release went out on June 14 this year, on the same day that the government announced a U-turn on NHS health reforms and teachers voted for a national strike.

Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said: “I am satisfied that the ICO acted with complete integrity in the matter of Internet Eyes. We published the results of our inquiry on 14 June with a full news release. Given the complainants’ long track record of media stunts misrepresenting the ICO’s actions it is perhaps understandable that there was consideration of the presentational issues around the publication of the undertaking we had secured.”

Privacy International said the emails “cast a more sinister and disturbing light on the activities of the regulator”, and called for an inquiry into the ICO’s activities.

“There is need for urgent reform to the way the ICO operates. It is clear that the office is now incapable of fulfilling its statutory responsibilities,” said Simon Davies of Privacy International. “It is up to the government to decide if the ICO is fit for purpose. It cannot go on any longer the way it is.”

The group has said it will ask to see correspondence around all of the ICO’s recent decisions under the Freedom of Information Act. This will include details of the ICO’s response to the security breach last year when Google’s Street View service collected unsecured wireless data from thousands of private homes without permission. The ICO had initially decided not to investigate the violation, but reopened the case after other data protection authorities abroad decided to act.

The ICO has been criticised for often taking a softer line on privacy regulation than similar organisations in Europe.

Financial Times, 28 September 2011

Britain exempts monarchy from FOI law

2011-01-20T21:26:00.001Z

Welcome to the open society:

What happens in the palace stays in the palace.

A law that took effect yesterday makes Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, and Prince William exempt from freedom of information laws, meaning many details of their activities won’t be public for decades.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said the exemption will protect the monarch’s private conversations with politicians and officials — but others say it will make it even harder to hold the royal family accountable.

For centuries, the workings of the monarchy were shrouded in secrecy, a blend of law, convention, deference, and media self-censorship. That media acquiescence is long gone, and under laws that took effect in 2005, information about the royal family could be released if it was in the public interest.

“It at least raised the possibility that information could be disclosed,’’ said Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. “What the [most recent] changes do is remove the public interest test — exemption becomes absolute.’’

Clarke, the justice secretary, said the new rule is needed “to protect the longstanding conventions surrounding the monarchy and its records.’’

But critics say Prince Charles has cast neutrality aside by peppering ministers with letters on behalf of environmental issues and his pet projects.

“What he’s doing in some of these cases is obviously lobbying,’’ said Frankel.

Britain exempts royals from FOI law (Boston Globe, 20 January 2011)

See also: More privacy for the Queen, less for everyone else (John Oates, The Register, 19 January 2011)

Go here to read Clarke's statement on Freedom of Information, from Hansard.

Transparency and the state

2011-01-20T19:49:00.001Z

“You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop…I quake at the imbecility of it.” So Tony Blair berates himself in his memoirs for passing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which came into force in 2005. The realities of power transformed him from an advocate of official openness into a despairing critic.

Mr Blair’s jaded attitude seems not yet to have infected the coalition government, which is planning to let a little more light into the tenebrous corridors of Whitehall. In opposition, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, promised to promote transparency. It is a cause that Mr Clegg’s Liberal Democrats have long championed, arguing that it will improve the workings of government, while the Tories see informed citizens and an open state as essential conditions of their plans to devolve power.

To those ends, the government intends to broaden the scope of the FOIA, extending it to currently uncovered parts of the state, among them the Association of Chief Police Officers, an outfit that sets much policing policy, as well as the regulators that oversee many privatised industries. The government also plans to reduce the length of time that official records remain sealed from 30 years to 20 (the rule looks rather quaint now that former ministers publish tell-all memoirs within months of leaving office).

Other changes are already revealing more details of how government works. The Downing Street website features a new “transparency” section that discloses, among other things, which lobbyists and potentates are meeting which ministers and when. All central-government spending of more than £25,000 must be published, as well as local government spending of over £500. The government is keen, at least in theory, to make available much of the data that it holds, for the perusal and analysis of “armchair auditors” and enthusiastic nerds (see article).

Britain’s small but vocal freedom-of-information lobby has given the plans a cautious welcome. Maurice Frankel, who runs the Campaign for Freedom of Information, is heartened that the government has pressed ahead despite having plenty of other things on its plate.

Nevertheless, much will remain whelmed in mystery. Messrs Cameron and Clegg both promised before the general election that the new regime would cover Network Rail, an oddly constituted body laden with publicly backed debt that runs Britain’s railway tracks. That idea seems to have been ditched. Northern Rock, a bank nationalised in 2008, will escape scrutiny; the rules concerning the royal family are to be tightened. Private firms that administer parts of the NHS, criminal justice, schools and other public services will also be exempt (Scotland, which has separate laws, is considering making big contractors subject to FOI requests).

And changing the rules might not, by itself, fix a cultural resistance to scrutiny within some bits of government. Heather Brooke, a journalist who did much of the spadework that led to the revelations over dodgy expense claims by MPs, thinks that parts of the British state are run “almost feudally,” and remain resistant to explaining their workings to mere voters. She argues that better enforcement of the existing system would do more to inform the public of what is done in its name than fiddling with it. That might be a vain hope: the Information Commissioner’s Office, which enforces the Freedom of Information Act, has a hefty backlog of cases—and, under the government’s austerity plans, is facing cuts.

Fiat a little more lux: The coalition hopes to build on one of Tony Blair’s biggest regrets (The Economist, 20 January 2011)

Wikileaks and FoI - an American perspective

2010-12-14T21:11:00.000Z

Here's a useful insight into the Wikileaks saga from Maher Arar, a Human rights advocate:

Let me state at the outset that governments have indeed legitimate reasons to keep some information confidential and out of public reach. But it is also important to mention that this should be the exception rather than the norm. Unfortunately since 9/11, Western governments have become more secretive and less transparent especially when it comes to foreign policy and national security.

Have you tried recently to get information from your government through the Freedom of Information Act? Good luck!

When the so called National Security label is attached to these documents you will mostly end up receiving heavily redacted documents 3-5 years later. I have experienced this first hand with both the Canadian and the U.S. governments while fighting to obtain information about what happened to me. So it is in this context that people should understand the emergence of web-based media like WikiLeaks willing to publish information from whistle-blowers.

What I found disturbing is the animosity shown by various mainstream media outlets towards this small and young organization. Since WikiLeaks published what appeared to be State Department cables some media outlets have decided that focusing on the person of Julian Assange, spokesperson and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, makes more sense than discussing or publishing the content of these cables.

As a concrete example of this vendetta, the Toronto Star published an article entitled "10 things you don't know about WikiLeaks mystery Julian Assange." The title itself is extremely sensational. How can this be explained? Is it jealousy, naivety or complicity? I really do not know. If anything, it shows that many of these mainstream media organizations have lost touch with reality. They have completely forgotten the purpose of their existence.

When I was a kid I used to hear stories around me about some political reformers in Syria who were detained by the government because "they allegedly engaged in illegal trade" or because "they allegedly had affairs with some women".

It was common belief among the population that the Syrian government circulated these rumors in order to damage these people's reputations. Bingo here we are but this time we have Western governments, who claim to support free speech, resorting to the same tactics.

Let's for a moment suppose that the leaked documents belonged to the North Korean government in which information is revealed about this country's nuclear ambitions. How would the U.S. government have portrayed Mr. Assange? I can assure you that he would have been invited to Oslo last week to receive the Nobel Peace Award.

When Salman Rushdie insulted over one billion Muslims by writing Satanic Verses, every Western government came to his rescue after Khomeini issued his fatwa calling upon Muslims to assassinate him. I do not remember seeing a list of "ten things you don't know about Salman Rushdie".

To this day he is portrayed as the darling of free speech. Another example is that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the House of Representative in the Netherlands. Her screenplay entitled Submission, which the majority of Muslims considered offensive to their religion, led to various death threats.

Again this was considered by all Western countries as an attack on freedom of speech (not to mention the various free speech awards she has received). Again we did not see any press coverage about "the ten things you don't know about Ms. Ali".

This is despite the fact that she was found to have obtained political asylum by lying to authorities. When this fact became public she was forced to resign from her post. A few months later she immigrated to the U.S. where she was immediately welcomed and hired as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.

What I am trying to say is that WikiLeaks is filling a vacuum that governments have themselves created. So instead of blaming WikiLeaks, governments should blame themselves.

The solution is for these governments to become more transparent, more accountable, to uphold the principles of fundamental justice and to ensure that citizens of the world are treated equally regardless of their race, color or religion. Only then will WikiLeaks and its future clones be deprived of the audience they are looking for.

Enough Hypocrisy: WikiLeaks Is Filling a Vacuum (Huffington Post, 14 December 2010)

Wikileaks publishes information that FoI laws cannot reach

2010-12-12T17:11:00.002Z

The recent furore surrounding the Wikileaks release of US diplomatic communications serves to highlight the shortcomings of our freedom of information laws.

Does FoI really lead to a more open society with more transparent and accountable government? Not on the evidence so far (MPs' expenses, political interference by the royal family, what governments are doing behind our backs and in our names).

Or are formal FoI laws just an extension of the state - providing scraps of information to present the illusion of openness while ensuring the most important information stays secret and citizens remain in the dark?

A thought-provoking article from the American news service The Inwell (part of the College Media Network) is presented below - it's a valuable insight into the key issues surrounding Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

In the weeks since Thanksgiving, Julian Assange has been cast as public enemy No. 1. Outcry against the Australian national erupted after his whistle-blowing organization, WikiLeaks, published a slew of classified State Department cables shedding light on questionable foreign policy issues.

The documents, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, included directives asking U.S. diplomats and other State Department employees to gather personal information about foreign dignitaries.

Included in the documents were insulting comments made about foreign heads of state and the revelation of treaty-violating – and law-breaking – practices, such as spying on diplomats at meetings of the United Nations in New York.

Since publishing the cables late last month, Assange has been in the figurative crosshairs of prominent politicians and the American public.

On Tuesday, the embattled WikiLeaks founder was arrested in England on a Swedish extradition warrant pertaining to alleged sex offenses. Assange's lawyers maintain the charges are an attempt to discredit his character.

Whether the charges stick is yet to be seen, but the notion that powers-at-be are trying to mar Assange's public image isn't that far-fetched.

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Assange deserved to be hunted like Osama Bin Laden, and The Washington Times published an editorial calling for his assassination.

Even the President, who campaigned ardently on government transparency, decried WikiLeaks' publishing of "classified" State Department cables.

The American public, for the most part, seems to have jumped on the witch-hunting bandwagon.

And truly, that anger isn't entirely misdirected. The publication of the leaked cables compromised the security of individual persons and, to a certain degree, put national security at risk.

Nonetheless, Assange broke a story.

Diplomatic gossip aside, WikiLeaks exposed a massive security flaw in the way the United States government transmits top-secret information. This was a legitimate act of journalism. It was not story created from spite but a desire for accountability.

When criminals break the law, we expect them to be sent to prison.

When nations break the law, we expect them to reform.

The State Department cables were supposedly pulled from the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SPIRNET, a hypothetically secure private internet used by the military and the State Department.

In an "All Things Considered" story on Nov. 29, NPR News correspondent Martin Kaste reported that clearance to SPIRNET was expanded after 9/11 on the belief that inter-agency information sharing would abet the detection of terrorist activity. It's now estimated, Kaste said, that more than two million military and civilian personnel have access to SPIRNET.

A network accessible by two million people is not secure. There's no feasible way to police the flow of information through so many eyes. It was inevitable that this "top secret" conduit would spring a leak, and the government's failure to recognize such a security crater is nothing short of irresponsible.

It's not believed that Assange and crew hacked into SPIRNET, but rather that the cables were provided to WikiLeaks by someone who had access to the network.

That shouldn't happen. We trust our government to keep us safe, and allowing for such damning documents to fall into the hands of a trigger-happy publisher like Assange endangered American lives.

That's a story that deserves breaking.

But our government attempts to sway public opinion away from that revelation. Last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee called for Assange's prosecution under the Espionage Act. To successfully do so would require proof that Assange aimed to deliberately harm the United States by publishing the State Department cables.

If this scenario sounds somewhat familiar, it's because our nation has been down this road before.

Nearly 40 years ago, The New York Times began printing portions of classified government documents detailing American policy in Vietnam. The press dubbed the documents the Pentagon Papers, and they shed light on government deception regarding the Vietnam War. Other newspapers followed suit, and the Nixon Administration lobbied the Supreme Court to put a stop to the publishing of the Pentagon Papers on the grounds of national security.

The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment, ruling that the government had no authority to halt the publication of state secrets barring that information would have direct and irreparable damage to the United States or its citizens.

The court did, however, opine that journalists could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act after the publication of state secrets.

The journalists who published the Pentagon Papers were never prosecuted. And so far, the U.S. Government has brought no such charges against Assange – perhaps because no such merit exists.

A reader recently asked Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, how the press can print state secrets.

He candidly answered: "Why do we get to decide? And why did we decide to publish these articles and selected cables? We get to decide because America is cursed with a free press."

It's the job of journalists to hold the feet of government officials to the fire – it's bedrock of the free press. So too is using editorial discretion when it comes to publishing sensitive information. In that, Assange failed miserably. Whether he will be brought to answer for this oversight remains to be seen.

We, the American people, owe it to ourselves to think subjectively. In channeling public attention at ostracizing Assange, we are, in effect, shooting the messenger. We simply help our government quietly bury its security failings – presumably to Washington's delight.

Freedom of information needed in free society (The Inkwell, 9 December 2010)

Recession? What recession? Senior officials at the House of Commons awarded bonuses totalling £250,000

2010-12-12T10:24:00.000Z

While bankers face "stringent" caps on their bonuses by European regulators, officials at the Houses of Parliament have quietly been awarded some tasty little festive perks.

Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the House, has signed off bonuses worth nearly £250,000 for his 56 top members of staff.

A Freedom of Information request reveals that, on the recommendation of the mysterious "Senior Pay Panel", two individuals will receive £9,375, while 11 have been awarded £6,375.

Christmas brings generous bonuses at the House of Commons (The Telegraph, 12 December 2010)

Government proposes blanket ban on release of information about royal family

2010-12-12T09:41:00.002Z

The Queen is at the centre of a Government row over proposed moves that would give the public sweeping rights to demand secret information.

The Liberal Democrats have been incensed by Conservatives’ attempts to restrict a new ‘right to data’ law so that it excludes the Royal Family.

The new open access law, which was secured by the Lib Dems as part of the Coalition agreement, would extend the freedom of information rules, which have unearthed scandals such as last year’s furore over MPs’ expenses.

But after lobbying from Buckingham Palace – which is worried that it would lead to a rash of fresh revelations – the Justice Ministry has proposed a blanket ban on the release of details about the Royals.
The move has infuriated Lib Dems, who argue that the Royals should be held to account for the way they spend taxpayers’ money.

Under the current rules, although members of the Royal Family cannot be directly subjected to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, Whitehall departments holding information about them can be ordered to release details if it is deemed in the public interest.

Recent disclosures have included secret correspondence between the Government and the Royal Household which showed that courtiers were lobbying for a top-up to the annual £42 million maintenance grant for palaces.

The Royals have been embarrassed by repeated revelations about the cost of global junkets by Prince Andrew in his role as a British trade ambassador, and by details of Prince Charles’s ‘black spider’ memos – a reference to his handwriting – to ministers on issues such as the environment, architecture and education.

FoI requests have disclosed how Charles foiled a £3 billion redevelopment of London’s Chelsea Barracks after personally meeting planning officials, and how he lobbied the NHS to provide homeopathy.

One senior Lib Dem with access to the negotiations said he was ‘livid’ over the attempt to restrict the reforms.

‘It was written into the Coalition agreement that the scope of the Freedom of Information Act would be extended,’ he said.

‘Openness in Government is part of the spirit and philosophy of the party, and that should extend to finding out how the monarchy is spending taxpayers’ money. We have made enough compromises as it is to take our place in the Coalition and we are not really in the mood to make any more.’

Last night Lib Dem MP Tom Brake demanded the inclusion of the Royals in the new law.

‘The Royal Family should be subject to freedom of information rules, with the sole exception of the usual considerations about security,’ he said. ‘The balance of these things should always lie on the side of transparency.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘We are looking carefully to see where we can further increase the openness and transparency of public affairs whilst ensuring that sensitive information is properly protected. We will announce the next steps on this in due course.’

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said they could not comment because the proposals had not yet become law.

Lib Dem fury over Royal gag on freedom of information laws (The Mail Online, 12 December 2010)

FSA spends up to £270,000 a year on Xmas parties

2010-12-11T09:45:00.000Z

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has spent over £600,000 on Christmas parties since the beginning of the credit crunch.

Britain’s financial regulator, which is the coalition government plans to break up, was forced to reveal details of its lavish festive celebrations under the Freedom of Information Act provoking fury from consumer groups and politicians.

The FSA has spent some £1.2 million on Christmas parties since 2004.

The extravagant spending reached a peak in the early days of the crisis in 2007 when the regulator spent over £270,000 on staff entertainment at a time when questions where starting to be asked as to how it could have allowed the crisis to develop.

The partying continued in 2008 as the credit crunch began to take hold in earnest with £228,461 spent on staff junkets. The true cost could be much higher as the figures released do not include expenditure on travel and accommodation for the regulator’s hard-partying employees.

When recession gripped the country in 2009 the FSA showed relative restraint and kept its staff entertainment budget down to a comparatively modest £107,814.

Charlotte Linacre, campaign manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “It is appalling that the FSA was living the high life in the middle of the financial crisis, when their failure was one reason the crisis was so severe.

“Blowing almost a quarter of a million pounds on their own Christmas party is shocking and their levy on companies and entrepreneurs should not be spent so extravagantly.

‘They are supported by what they treat as a bottomless pit of money but the heavier the burden they put on businesses becomes, the more companies will consider relocating their activities outside the UK.”

Totally Money (12 December 2010)

News digest

2010-10-24T18:13:00.001+01:00

Here's some recent FoI stories that you might have missed:

NYC Set To Release Controversial Teacher Effectiveness Rankings - Huffington Post, 20 October 2010
The New York City Department of Education is set to release individual rankings of 12,000 teachers. But the city's United Federation of Teachers is fighting back and plans to go to court to ensure the controversial documents, based on students' test scores, aren't released.
Information revolution opens door to secrets - Sydney Morning Herald, 21 October 2010
Australians will be able to make freedom-of-information requests by e-mail and without charge from next month under changes set to revolutionise the 28-year-old law.
Police pay £78k bonus to officers - The Scotsman, 18 October 2010
Performance-related payments of more than £78,000 were paid out to 17 senior officers in Lothian and Borders Police over the last year. A freedom of Information request showed that the 17 officers, including superintendents, detective superintendents, the assistant chief constable and the deputy chief constable, were paid £78,640 between them.
MoD papers reveal catalogue of nuclear safety failures - The Herald, 17 October 2010
Potentially catastrophic lapses in nuclear weapons safety at the Clyde naval base have been exposed by secret Ministry of Defence reports released after a three-year freedom of information battle. The ministry released a series of reports on the eve of an appeal to the UK Information Tribunal that threatened to expose multiple breaches of freedom of information law.
Boy aged 3 who thinks he's a girl treated for identity disorder - Daily Mirror, 18 October 2010
A boy of three who believes he is a girl has become the youngest child in Britain to be treated for the rare condition Gender Identity Disorder. Sufferers feel that they are in the body of the wrong sex. And the unnamed nursery schoolboy is currently being seen by experts with 20 other boys and three girls aged under 10, a Freedom of Information Request by the Mirror has found.
FSA loses 20 laptops in just three years - Citywire, 18 October 2010
City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has lost 41 laptops and Blackberries containing secure document and emails, in the past three years. However, the scale of losses at the FSA is dwarfed by the Ministry of Defence, where 220 laptops were lost and 120 stolen in the past two years. And less than half of the lost MoD laptops were not encrypted, according to a Freedom of Information request.
Federal Agents Urged to 'Friend' People on Social Networks - Fox News, 14 October 2010
A privacy watchdog has uncovered a government memo that encourages federal agents to befriend people on a variety of social networks, to take advantage of their readiness to share -- and to spy on them. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Digg have not commented on the report, which details the official government program to spy via social networking. Other websites the government is spying on include Craigslist and Wikipedia, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed the FOIA request.
Met chief privately urges Theresa May to protect police from civilian lawsuits - Daily Telegraph, 10 October 2010
Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson claims that money is being wasted fighting speculative law suits by civilians alleging brutality or wrongful arrest. He also urged the Home Secretary to load higher costs onto officers and other staff suing police forces at employment tribunals over claims of discrimination or unfair treatment. He added that members of the public should be charged a fee for making Freedom of Information requests, which he said were burdening police forces with unmanageable levels of paperwork.
Campaigners offered free guide on Freedom of Information Act
The NCVO has launched a guide on using the Freedom of Information Act as a campaigning tool. The guide cites five case studies from organisations that have successfully used the Act to further their cause and features the findings of a survey of 45 campaigning charities. These organisations were polled on their experiences of using the Act, how familiar they were with it, what benefits it could bring and the challenges involved in using it.

The guide can be downloaded for free at the following URL: http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/yourrighttoknow
Leeds Council: We spied in bins for five years - Daily Express, 5 October 2010
A secret five-year study of rubbish bins and refuse habits was carried out by spies for one of Britain’s largest councils. Leeds City Council had hoped to keep taxpayers unaware of its clandestine checks until forced to admit what was going on under the Freedom of Information Act.
Report finds little FOIA improvement under Obama - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1 October 2010
Despite pledges to bring a new level of transparency to the federal government, the Obama administration has not shown a marked change in how agencies handle Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a report released by the public interest group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Supreme Court To Decide Whether Corporations Have Privacy Rights - Huffington Post, 29 September 2010
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case early next year that will impact whether corporations are able to prevent the government from publicly releasing documents that could expose their corporate misconduct. At the heart of the matter is whether or not a personal privacy exemption contained in a freedom of information law extends the same rights to corporations as it does to people.
Royal officials 'spent £96,000 on cleaning chandeliers' - Daily Telegraph, 27 September 2010
Royal officials spent more than £1.5m of public money on cosmetic improvements such as cleaning chandeliers and refurbishing a staff canteen. A report in the Daily Mail said The Queen’s officials spent £96,000 on cleaning chandeliers and £14,000 on a curtain to protect wine bottles in the Buckingham Palace cellars. Refurbishing a staff canteen and games room cost £808,000 while turning a private cinema into a state function room was £458,000, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Queen's Bid For Poverty Grant Slammed - Sky News, 24 September 2010
The Queen has been criticised after a freedom of information request revealed she tried to use an anti-poverty grant to heat her palaces. A senior Royal aide wrote to the Government in 2004 asking whether Her Majesty would be eligible for a handout from a £60m energy-saving fund. He complained that the cost of keeping the Queen and her staff warm had doubled to £1m a year, and the £15m Government grant to maintain her palaces was inadequate. But the request to replace four combined heat and power (CHP) units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle was turned down, according to documents obtained by The Independent under the the Freedom of Information Act.

See also: Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace - The Independent, 24 September 2010

How to save money in a recession

2010-10-24T17:23:00.002+01:00

Here's an interesting suggestion for cutting back on inefficiencies - by merging four information bodies into one super-regulator. It's a bit different for Scotland, since there's separate legislation for FoI, but it could work for the rest of the UK.

Spending Review? Why not axe the Information Commissioner? writes Amberhawk Training

I have come to the conclusion that there is a credible argument to scrap the Office of the Information Commissioner. “No” I have not lost my marbles. Nor have I received a backhander from Google to fund our new Amberhawk web-site. This is a credible argument that can be made, especially at a time when deep public sector cuts are going to be announced next Wednesday.

As you know, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude MP, blows hot and cold with Freedom of Information. First he announced at the Conservative Party Conference that he will change FOI legislation (presumably the Freedom Bill) so that FOI requestors can commercially exploit any information released by a public authority. Second he has simultaneously ordered a leak inquiry when a document which listed the Quangos under the threat of the axe. (This 20 page list was published by the BBC - see references).

If you look at this Quango list one sees that the Information Commissioner’s Office is to be retained as is the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner. For some reason, the Human Rights Commission and the Interception of Communications Commissioner do not feature on his list so one assumes they are safe.

All these four bodies have a role in protecting privacy. So my cost-cutting solution is to merge all four bodies into one super-regulator whose collective function is to oversee privacy protection across the board.
Just look at the advantages.

•    With respect to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, you would have a single regulator who could protect individuals from the excessive use of wide ranging secondary legislation (by ensuring the processing of personal data was “lawful” in a human rights context) and report to Parliament about defects in primary legislation before it is enacted.

•    You would have a single point of contact for those individuals who allege their privacy has been invaded.

•    With respect to interception of communications and covert surveillance, you would not have the lead regulators, appointed by the politicians, and reporting to the politicians who have a vested political interest in the outcome of any interception or surveillance. It is easier to argue that such a combined regulator should directly report to Parliament.

•    With respect to decision taking on important privacy matters, you would have a range of Commissioners and a collegiate decision making process. With the current mish-mash of Commissioners, you have a single individual making important decisions.

•    With respect to investigations by the regulator into possible malpractice, you would have a critical mass that would allow best practice to emerge. Currently, each Commissioner has a small investigations group employing a number of techniques and different practices

•    With respect to staff, you would streamline administration and retain front-line staff by offering a wider range of career paths (e.g. someone could start in data protection and realise that they are more interested in equal opportunities).

•    With respect to privacy policy development, you would have a Commission that could report to Parliament with unrivalled authority and experience.

•    With respect to the national security agencies, these bodies would be seen to be subject to independent scrutiny in a way that the current fragmented system of scrutiny denies.

•    With respect other regulators that have powers in relation to privacy (e.g. OFCOM or the Financial Services Authority), their role in relation to privacy protection should be transferred.

In other words, this recession provides an opportunity to restructure all the Commissioners that have fingers in the privacy protection pie. The “cuts” provide an opportunity to reorganise privacy protection into a coherent form that integrates all aspects of data protection and the respect for private and family life.

This is a win-win scenario. The Conservatives get their “cuts” and the Lib Dems get their enhanced privacy protection. That is why it should appear in next week’s Spending Review.

References

The list of quangos at risk is on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405096

From Hawktalk, 13 October 2010

Culture of secrecy alive and kicking - FoI fails us again

2010-09-20T20:57:00.001+01:00

An appeal seeking the release of Prince Charles's correspondence with ministers, so that the extent of his behind-the-scenes lobbying may be publicly assessed, has been adjourned until next year.

Examination of the documents by a freedom of information appeal tribunal has been "deferred" for reasons the panel said it could "not go into".

The delay came at the end of a day's cross-examination of Rodney Brazier, professor of constitutional law at Manchester University, who said that the "obligation of confidence [on the government] is very wide indeed". Perhaps, he added, the tribunal would say it was too wide.

The Guardian is seeking the release of letters written by Prince Charles during an eight-month period between September 2004 and April 2005 involving the departments responsible for business, the environment, health, schools, culture, Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Office. The Guardian argues they should be released so the public can see how much Prince Charles seeks to influence government policy.

The government departments and information commissioner have refused on the grounds that such correspondence remains private under "constitutional convention" that allows the heir to the throne to be educated in the business of government to prepare him for succession. Any disclosures would undermine the perception of political neutrality fundamental to him being sovereign, they claim.

Attention was drawn today to the prince's official website, which states that in his correspondence with ministers he "is always careful to avoid party political issues".

Brazier was asked by Michael Fordham QC, for the Guardian, whether public confidence in Prince Charles would be undermined if some of the prince's letters strayed into such matters.

It would depend on the quantity of such examples, Brazier replied. "We can all make mistakes. We can all be badly advised or reject advice for any reason. No one over the course of 40 years is going to be able to say they have never put their foot wrong."

Brazier agreed that in an article for a constitutional law review in 1995 his view had been that the extent of letter writing by the prince amounted to a "constitutional innovation".

In evidence to the tribunal the professor said: "I think [the prince] has taken this kind of initiative in writing to ministers and putting his views to a much greater extent than his predecessors."

Nonetheless, Brazier said he considered this activity to be part of the traditional activity of the heir the throne under what he termed "the apprenticeship convention" – the process of the prince learning about the business of state.

Prince Charles is keeping a close eye on the proceedings: a number of royal aides were in court today.

The case continues.

Prince Charles's letters to ministers stay secret as appeal is adjourned (The Guardian, 16 September 2010)

Tony Blair on Freedom of Information

2010-09-05T00:26:00.001+01:00

In Tony Blair's latest book he regards the Freedom of Information Act as of no use to anyone but journalists who use it as a weapon to beat the government:

"Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders, you idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate ... Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him?"

See also Martin Rosenbaum's recent blog post ("Why Tony Blair thinks he was an idiot") where Blair is quoted as saying about FoI, "For political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, 'Hey, try this instead', and handing them a mallet."

In his Guardian interview to promote his book, Blair said:

"If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations... And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."

Scottish Information Commissioner caves in to Scottish Government as case is "settled"

2010-09-01T21:45:00.002+01:00

The Scottish Information Commissioner has agreed to settle a case with the Scottish Government, withdrawing an information notice he had served on Scottish ministers in respect of an application he was considering.

But this climbdown by the Commissioner has been portrayed in a different light by The Herald newspaper - as a victory for FoI.

It raises a serious question - how many other cases have been quietly "settled" by the Commissioner and his staff?

Scottish ministers have backed down in a controversial row over the authority of the country’s freedom of information tsar.

Government lawyers were due to appear in court last week to challenge the powers of Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion.

Ministers wanted to restrict Dunion’s access to their files – a vital part of his job.

However, at the eleventh hour they abandoned a key plank of their case.

The climbdown has been hailed as a victory for Dunion and other freedom of information (FoI) campaigners, who had viewed the government’s challenge as an unprecedented attack on the public’s right to access state files.

The Sunday Herald revealed in March that SNP ministers wanted the Court of Session to issue a clarification of Dunion’s powers. In particular, they wanted the court to rule on whether he should have unfettered access to state papers.

It followed Dunion issuing the government with an “information notice”, ordering it to release material to the media.

Although ministers downplayed their appeal to the court as “a small technical point”, FoI campaigners saw it as an unprecedented attack on the law underpinning FoI.

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which came into effect in 2005, has led to a series of breakthroughs in public access to official data, including the release of PPP/PFI contracts, patient mortality figures for surgeons and MSPs’ expenses.

It has also embarrassed First Minister Alex Salmond, unearthing his private correspondence with singer Sandi Thom, and revealing details of a controversial planning application involving ministers and an SNP donor.

Dunion considers appeals from people unhappy about public bodies withholding information. As part of this work, his office has access to all relevant documents, and decides how much should be made public and how much withheld on grounds such as commercial confidentiality, law and order, and personal privacy.

The government’s planned appeal against Dunion questioned whether he should have this right to inspect public records, even though it is an integral part of his work.

However, minsters retreated at the last minute, Dunion dropped his information notice, and the court dismissed the government’s appeal.

Heather Brooke, the FoI campaigner who exposed the MPs’ expenses scandal and author of The Silent State, said that “wiser heads had prevailed”.

She told the Sunday Herald: “It would have set a very dangerous precedent if they had gone through with it. It would also have looked incredibly bad, as if they were politicians of the old school, very shady and secretive.

“I don’t know how they could have argued an action like that was in the public interest.”

Robert Brown, the LibDem MSP for Glasgow who denounced the court case as “spurious”, accused the government of wasting taxpayers’ money on the case.

“The government has ultimately taken the right approach. But at a time of public spending pressures, it’s not at all satisfactory that they’ve been wasting our money on trying to prevent our FoI champion doing his job.”

A spokesman for Dunion’s office said: “In the lead-up to this week’s court hearing the ministers amended their grounds of appeal quite substantially, with the result that, following discussions with the ministers’ team, we were able to settle this case earlier in the week.

“As a result, the Court of Session dismissed the appeal at a hearing on Tuesday, and the full hearing did not proceed. The Commissioner is now progressing with the investigation of the case in question.”

A Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Information Commissioner agreed to withdraw the information notice he had served on Scottish ministers in respect of an application he is currently considering. Ministers will not now proceed with their challenge to the notice.

“The Scottish Government is committed to FoI and its underpinning principles of openness and transparent government.”

Government climbs down over legal threat to freedom of information tsar (Tom Gordon, The Herald, 18 July 2010)

Possible extension of FoI in Scotland

2010-09-01T20:57:00.001+01:00

The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on a possible extension of the coverage of Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) to specified bodies.

This follows on from the Scottish Ministers' decision to consult with certain bodies on the extension of FOISA.

This consultation, and all other Scottish Government consultation exercises, can be viewed online on the consultation web pages of the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations.

Consultation commenced on 28 July 2010 and will run for 14 weeks. Responses should be received by 02 November 2010.

A schedule list together with copies of the responses to the discussion paper is available to view here.

£11m: Yorkshire's toll of 180,000 repaired potholes

2010-09-01T20:48:00.003+01:00

More than 180,000 potholes have been repaired this year across the Yorkshire region as councils battled with the prolonged winter cold snap.

So far this year authorities have filled in or patched up in excess of 35,000 more holes than in the whole of the previous year.

One authority, North Yorkshire County Council, says it needs in excess of £25m to repair "accelerated damage" to the roads, including potholes and other problems – a figure that could yet rise. It has warned it will struggle to complete repairs before the onset of winter.

Earlier this year it opted to impose a controversial "snow levy" on council taxpayers to help pay for repairs.

Responding to a Freedom of Information request, the authority says it has redirected resources and amalgamated funds and received Government money to meet the huge bill.

Yorkshire Post (1 September 2010)

Commissioner commits u-turn on legal professional privilege exemption

2010-07-13T22:56:00.000+01:00

Not only has the Scottish Information Commissioner changed his mind about the information you are entitled to receive under Scottish Freedom of Information laws (you are now not entitled to receive a copy of actual documents you request, only the information that is contained within them - which opens up an opportunity for public authorities to mislead and misinform the public), but Mr Dunion has also committed a u-turn on legal professional privilege.

In his May/June newsletter (http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/News/Newsletter/InformNewsletterMayJune2010.asp), Mr Dunion wrote that he has now changed his approach to the legal professional privilege exemption. Previously in cases where some aspects of legal advice had been disclosed into the public domain, the Commissioner had ruled that the advice in full should be disclosed. In a complete reversal to this, Mr Dunion "no longer considers that this rule will apply to most requests under FOISA" and, so, will not normally order a public authority to disclose legal advice in its entirety where it has already disclosed parts of that advice. This totally contradicts his findings in a 2008 case (002/2008 Ms D Cairns and the City of Edinburgh Council).

Does this now mean that any past cases where Dunion was of the decision that information was to be released on the basis of his erroneous application of the 'cherry picking' rule are all null and void because he applied the law incorrectly?

Let's hope there are more challenges to the Commissioner's rulings in future - remember his decision is not final (and on this evidence it certainly cannot be trusted).

Case: 056/2010 Mr William Lonsdale and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council

Commissioner's confusion over personal data results in court failure

2010-05-30T23:03:00.001+01:00

Scotland’s first, longest and most disputed Freedom of Information case has ended up keeping vital cancer statistics secret.

After two investigations by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, plus appeals to the Court of Session in Edinburgh and the House of Lords in London, numbers that might (or might not) shed light on links between children’s blood cancer and radioactive pollution have been kept hidden from the public. The case has cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees.

According to a report in the Sunday Herald, "The Scottish Green Party, which made the original request, is frustrated and annoyed. The Scottish Health Service, which fought to keep the information confidential, sounds relieved."

From The Herald:

"Back at the start of 2005, Michael Collie, a researcher for the then Green MSP, Chris Ballance, asked the Scottish Health Service for the annual incidence of childhood leukaemia in every census ward in Dumfries and Galloway from 1990 to 2003.

They wanted to test widespread suspicions that the debilitating and potentially fatal cancer could be caused by radioactive contamination. Plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria washes up on the Solway coast, and has been detected around the shoreline.

The health service, however, refused to release the information on the grounds that the small numbers of cases in particular areas might enable individual patients still alive to be identified. So Collie lodged Scotland’s first Freedom of Information appeal with Mr Dunion’s office in St Andrews on 27 January 2005.

After a six-month investigation, Mr Dunion concluded that the information could be released in a way that would not identify individuals. But the health service appealed to the Court of Session.

The Scottish court upheld Mr Dunion’s findings, but the health service then appealed again to the House of Lords in England. In July 2008, five law lords concluded that Mr Dunion was wrong in law, and ordered him to rethink his decision.

They argued that the form in which the information would be released amounted to sensitive personal data, that should be kept confidential under the 1998 Data Protection Act.

As a result Mr Dunion, below, has conducted a second investigation, the results of which were sent to those involved last week. This time he agreed with the House of Lords, and ruled that the information as requested should not be released.

He did, however, order the health service to provide aggregated statistics for the whole Dumfries and Galloway Health Board area. But they will not show the very local effects that are suspected.

“I regret that it has taken so long to finalise this decision, particularly when your application was the first to be made,” wrote Mr Dunion to Mr Collie. “I appreciate how frustrating the whole process must have been for you.”

The saga had helped resolve some issues over the form in which information had to be provided, but there were still problems. “Confusion over the definition of personal data is likely to remain for some time,” said Mr Dunion.

“I don’t think there is anything at all for us in this,” commented former MSP Mr Ballance. “We wanted to test the hypothesis that childhood leukaemia rates are higher by the coast than inland, because of radiation from Sellafield blown in on sea spray.

“An aggregated set of statistics for the area will tell us nothing except that they are about in line with national statistics. I think we know that already.”

Mr Ballance argued that local communities had a right to their own health statistics. “The small numbers at issue here are a problem, but I don’t accept that there is no better way round it,” he stated.

NHS National Services Scotland’s medical director, Dr Marion Bain, accepted this had been a difficult request. “We are fully supportive of the fundamental principles underpinning Freedom of Information,” she said.

“At the same time, we have a clear duty to respect and preserve patients’ right to confidentiality.” The information in the form now requested by Mr Dunion would be released.

“We will continue to work closely with the information commissioner to make as much information available as possible where this is consistent with protecting patient privacy,” Dr Bain added."

Longest FOI battle ends in defeat over cancer data (Rob Edwards: Environment Editor, Sunday Herald, 30 May 2010)

FoI and the monarchy: secrecy rules

2010-05-24T22:49:00.000+01:00

The exemption from scrutiny under Freedom of Information shows the status gap between crown and public interest - by Heather Brooke.

Where there's secrecy, there's scandal. The two certainly go hand in hand in the picture painted by the weekend's News of the World video that shows Sarah Ferguson accepting a $40,000 briefcase of cash while promising that, for a £500,000 backhander, she would provide an introduction to trade envoy Prince Andrew.

Any effort by the royal family to sweep away any impression of secrecy is, however, undermined by their aversion to transparency. Among the laws rushed through in the "wash-up" of the last government was a change to the Freedom of Information Act granting an absolute ban on all communications with the royal family and royal household. Prior to this such information was still exempt but if there was a public interest in the material, it had to be disclosed.

That exemption meant, for example, one could argue that, as the billpayer, the public has a right to know the detail of how the £7.9m from the civil list is spent, about the additional £15m spent to maintain the royal palaces, and the estimated £50m spent on royal security.

July will see the announcement of a new civil list settlement. There are rumours the royals are asking to double the amount to more than £15m. In the information blackout, facts are few and far between. We will only know the deal when it is done. As Graham Smith, campaign manager of the pressure group Republic, says: "We have no idea if these rumours are true. We aren't allowed any information about what the palace is lobbying for, or on what grounds."

In a similar vein, there has been considerable speculation about Prince Charles's penchant for writing letters to ministers of state – be they about health, education or the environment. The Prince's health charity lobbied the NHS to provide homeopathy, and last year he scuppered a £3.6bn redevelopment project for Chelsea Barracks by lobbying the Emir of Qatar.

A high court case is finally revealing the extent of the emails, phone conversations and meetings between the prince, his private secretary – Sir Michael Peat – and the Qataris over a decision to abandon the project. The prince's approach prompted the Riba president to say: "If the evidence presented is correct, it appears the Prince of Wales has brought inappropriate pressure to bear on the democratic planning process … The Chelsea Barracks developers chose not to proceed with the original design, which had been through extensive consultation and design review, and that was their prerogative. However, behind the scenes influence would have been a huge hurdle to consider. No individual should use their position in public life to influence a democratic process such as planning."

Then there is Prince "air miles" Andrew, whose use of public funds for helicopter jaunts is well known. Less well known are the details of what he does as the UK's special representative for international trade and investment.

Last December the tide was turning on all this archaic secrecy. It looked as though the royals would have to follow MPs in adapting to the new age of open, accountable government. Freedom of information cases such as my own (on MPs' expenses) had shifted the default position from automatic secrecy for the powerful to the belief that power must be open and accountable to the people.

The Independent newspaper had just won a three-year battle for the disclosure of public subsidies paid for the upkeep of royal palaces. In 2009, that amount was £41.5m, up £1.5m on 2008. Government officials refused all requests because of the "well established constitutional convention that correspondence between the sovereign and government is confidential in nature".

When Republic tried to ascertain the number of letters government departments received from Prince Charles, even that was refused: "Whilst it is publicly known, and acknowledged by the Prince of Wales himself, that he corresponds on occasion with government, it is generally not known when, and with whom, he corresponds. This is entirely proper."

Proper according to whom? Not the information commissioner. In December 2009 he ruled in favour of the Independent, saying: "Disclosure … would enhance public awareness and understanding of the funding and accommodation arrangements of the royal household and this would be in the public interest." He went on: "The discussions relate to the spending of the Grant in Aid which is specifically in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Household. In the commissioner's view, disclosure would not undermine the privacy of, nor the constitutional position of, the royal family."

When some of the information was finally released in March 2010 the nature of the correspondence was much like that of MPs' expenses – it showed the only "harm" was embarrassment. The palace was shown to be lobbying for more money while at the same time providing rent-free accommodation to a number of minor royals and courtiers.

The monarchy is a part of the state. It exists to serve the people. By granting the royals an absolute ban from FoI, the previous government made it clear that the interests of the royals were more important than that of the people. This is an extraordinary and undemocratic victory for secrecy, and one that can only invite scandal.

Royal appetite for secrecy can only invite scandal (Heather Brooke, The Guardian, 24 May 2010)

Council catches canine terrorists

2010-05-24T22:35:00.013+01:00

Allerdale Council has admitted to spying on dog owners to see if their pets foul pavements and are wearing a collar, in some cases using hidden cameras.

The authority was today named and shamed by the organisation Big Brother Watch, which says Allerdale has been misusing surveillance legislation aimed at tackling serious crime and terrorism.

The group used the Freedom of Information Act to ask 372 local authorities Regulation of Investigatory Power Act (Ripa) and found it was be used, on average, 11 times a day.

Allerdale has admitted using the Act a dozen times in 2007 and 2008, mostly to spy on dog owners. The council said the purpose of one of the investigations was: “To obtain evidence to see if [a] person is walking their dog, cleaning up after it but then depositing poop bag in trees, grass, or on road.”

Other surveillance was carried out to see if a dog was wearing a collar and tag with “possible photographing” being allowed in that instance.

Big Brother Watch campaigns against intrusions of privacy. It says councils such as Allerdale are abusing extensive powers, which allow them to bug homes and vehicles, follow people and use informers.

Alex Deane, the group’s director, said: “Now that the absurd and excessive use of Ripa surveillance has been revealed, these powers have to be taken away from councils.

“The coalition government plan to force councils to get warrants before snooping on us is good but that doesn’t go far enough. If the offence is serious enough to merit covert surveillance, then it should be in the hands of the police.”

But Councillor David Wilson, deputy leader of Allerdale, said it was using the law correctly and was mystified as to why it had been singled out.

He said: “We used it four times in 2007 and eight times in 2008 – these were static, covert observations not CCTV cameras after we received numerous complaints about dog fouling and strays in Silloth, Aspatria, Maryport and Workington. Use of the powers was authorised by the borough solicitor.”

Big Brother’s report, called The Grim Ripa catalogues alleged abuses. Hambleton Council in North Yorkshire, and the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, used the act to check on staff suspected of faking illness. Other councils said they monitored customers smoking and drinking outside a pub and investigated the “fly tipping” of clothes outside a charity shop.

More than 12 local authorities, including Allerdale, admitted using the Act to check up on dog owners whose pets were suspected of dog fouling. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Council used the act the most often – 231 times in two years.

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: “Surveillance powers should never be used lightly but there are times when it’s clearly in local residents’ interests.

Allerdale Council used terror laws to nick dog foulers (News & Star, 24 May 2010)

UFOs and FoI

2010-02-24T21:31:00.004Z

Defence officials' insulting remarks about the public had to be blanked out of government UFO files before they were made public, a memo has revealed.

The Ministry of Defence had agreed to publish its full archive of reported sightings in response to a deluge of Freedom of Information Act requests.

But the once-secret memo, published on its website, reveals "uncomplimentary comments" were edited out.

Comments on international relations and defence technology were also deleted.

Thousands of pages from the department's UFO files have been released through the National Archives since 2008, revealing details of reported flying objects and encounters with aliens.

The newly released memo to ministers and defence chiefs, dated September 2007, discusses how to make the largely "low security classification" information public.

It notes they "include references to air defence matters, defence technology, relations with foreign powers and occasional uncomplimentary comments by staff or police officers about members of the public, which will need to be withheld in accordance with FoI principles."

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) recorded UFO sightings from the end of the Second World War until it shut its special investigation unit on 1 December last year.

Officials feared publishing only part of the information would "fuel accusations of a 'cover-up'," the document reveals.

"Contrary to what many members of the public may believe, MoD has no interest in the subject of extraterrestrial life forms visiting the UK, only in ensuring the integrity and security of UK airspace," it says.

"The MoD is aware of no clear evidence to prove or disprove the existence of aliens, and consequently the files are considerably less exciting than the 'industry' surrounding the UFO phenomena would like to believe."

The fifth instalment of MoD UFO files was released last week, revealing reports of a large triangular UFO hovering in the skies above former home secretary Michael Howard's home near Folkestone, Kent, in March 1997.

UFO sightings - MoD 'blanked out' insults about reports (BBC News, 21 February 2010)

MPs in duck house over unpaid bills

2010-02-14T21:31:00.002Z

MPs are trying to block the publication of embarrassing details about unpaid food and drinks bills they have run up in the House of Commons.

Next thing you know, they'll be submitting fraudulent expenses claims to pay these bills. Or not.

The House authorities have delayed releasing the data after MPs reacted furiously to the prospect, following a freedom of information request by the Press Association.

Officials have been forced to seek new legal advice on their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act after the request for a detailed breakdown of the bills.

After months of delays, the information watchdog has now written to the Commons demanding either the release of the details or an explanation for why it is refusing to do so.

Hundreds of MPs are liable for large tabs in Parliament's restaurants, many running to thousands of pounds. Total debts to the publicly-funded Commons catering department stood at £138,046 last summer.

Commons sources claim that officials had initially intended to release the information last autumn.

But MPs on the Commons Administration Committee - which oversees the House catering facilities - asked for its release to be postponed pending further legal advice.

It is understood that MPs have demanded that data protection considerations are studied afresh in relation to the case.

The Data Protection Act was cited by the Commons in its three-year battle - ultimately unsuccessful - to prevent the release of a detailed breakdown of MPs' second home allowance claims.

MPs bid to block bill documents (Press Association, 14 February 2010)

Hamfisted Commissioner accuses Scottish Government of taking restricted view of FoI after court ruling

2010-02-08T20:37:00.005Z

The Scottish Government has been accused of routinely rejecting valid Freedom of Information requests.

Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion said civil servants took a "restrictive view" of applications "as a matter of course".

Mr Dunion issued new guidance on how the laws should be interpreted after a ruling said people had the right to the information but not the documents.

The Scottish government said it was committed to freedom of information.

Kevin Dunion said: "If it is reasonably clear to the public authority what information you're looking for, they should respond to it in a perfectly normal way.

"The Scottish government has taken a rather restrictive view of it and is now issuing, almost as a matter of course, refusal notices saying requests are invalid if they make reference to documents. "I'm very surprised and disappointed by the line that they have taken, because up until now they have had an excellent record of supporting FoI.

"But that doesn't obscure the fact that in this case we now have ample evidence that as a matter of course civil servants are turning away perfectly valid information requests which are quite inexplicable."

Mr Dunion said the Government's stance was "hamfisted" and "misguided", adding: "I think it can be remedied by simply coming into line with the rest of the public authorities in Scotland and with my guidance, which spells out what should be done.

"It's my job to interpret what the law is and I've issued to the permanent secretary of the civil service in Scotland guidance asking him to change the instructions he has given to his staff so that they accord with my interpretation of the Court of Session decision."

'Transparent government'

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said the administration was "committed to freedom of information, and its underpinning principles of openness and transparent government".

She said: "The publication of the Scottish Information Commissioner's guidance on the recent Court of Session decision is welcome.

"The court ruling says, for example, that the FoI Act provides a right to obtain information, rather than a right to obtain copies of specific documents, and of course we are now considering the implications of the court ruling in the context of the advice from the commissioner."

Government 'rejects valid FoIs' (BBC News, 29 January 2010)

* Commissioner issues guidance for public authorities - "On 27 January 2010, the Commissioner published important new guidance explaining the practical effects for public authorities and applicants of the Opinion of the Court of Session in Glasgow City Council v Scottish Information Commissioner. The Court found that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the requests were invalid. The guidance provides practical advice on the interpretation of information requests, alongside the important duty to advise and assist applicants"- view the guidance here: Scottish Information Commissioner's Guidance

A desperate plea from the Scottish Information Commissioner

2010-02-08T19:43:00.004Z

If you wanted to find out the terms of a legally binding agreement entered into by a public authority and a commercial contractor, would you not simply ask for a copy of the contract?

If you wanted to establish what submissions were made by officials to a government minister in respect of a planning application, would you not simply ask for a copy of their report? In all likelihood you would use the normal everyday language of asking for a copy of the information.

Freedom of information requests couched in terms of copies of contracts, minutes, reports, briefings have produced valuable insights into PFI hospitals and road building programme, schools closures and the incidence of hospital acquired infections. But now the validity of such requests and the need to respond to them is being questioned by Scottish Government officials.

The freedom of information regime in Scotland has just celebrated its fifth birthday and is an internationally acknowledged success story. It was designed to have the minimum of formality so that anyone could make a request to any of Scotland's public authorities.

Unlike some other countries, there is no need to fill in an official form, cite the legislation or pay a fee when making a request. In case of dispute, there is a right of free appeal to me as the Scottish Information Commissioner to determine the case. I have issued nearly 1,000 formal decisions and settled hundreds of other cases informally. Few of my decisions are appealed against to the Court of Session.

But the Scottish Government's interpretation of a recent court decision threatens to undermine the right-to- know regime. Last year, in the circumstances of a particular case, the court determined that freedom of information gives a right to "information", not to specific "documents".

Scottish Government officials are writing to requesters refusing to respond to requests where there is a reference to documents. MSPs, journalists and voluntary workers are being told to try to rephrase their request. Some have tried and have still been refused. In exasperation, they are seeking my view.

I find this to be a disturbing and unexpected turn of events. The current government has built on the groundbreaking work of the first Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition administration which brought in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act. It has signalled that it wants to extend FoI to bodies such as local authority leisure and recreation trusts, major PFI/PPP contractors and to others such as the Glasgow Housing Association.

I have, in the past, commented favourably on the official attitude to freedom of information in Scotland compared to that in Westminster. There, the failure to extend FoI to similar bodies, the sustained attempt to withhold details of MPs' expenses, and the use of the ministerial veto to prevent disclosure of Cabinet minutes stands in marked contrast to our experience.

But it is Scotland which is now going to attract unfavourable attention. I know of no other country in the world where the FoI law does not allow you to make reference to documents when requesting information. People will simply not play a parlour game where you have to identify what you want without using certain words – such as record, minute, report, e-mail, letter or indeed any means by which the information is recorded or could be located. In my view, it is obviously possible to describe information by reference to documents.

(By the way, it is almost impossible to conceive of certain requests for information being made without asking for copies – how else, in plain language, would you ask for a photograph, a map, a plan, or a CCTV recording? All of these can be requested under freedom of information laws.)

Crucially, the judges recognised that people will ask for copies of a document, and that authorities should still respond to a request if it is reasonably clear that it is the information contained in those documents which is wanted.

But not only are officials saying that they can refuse to respond to the requests, they are also saying that there is no right of appeal to me. Indeed, they are challenging my ability to adjudicate in such cases at all. I do not share this view and will do my job – of issuing guidance on good practice which I expect authorities to follow and determining whether authorities are dealing with requests in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, including whether it has misdirected itself as to what constitutes a valid request

This is not a marginal technical disagreement. It lies at the core of whether we have a functioning FoI regime at all. I have looked at my current caseload and in nearly 80 per cent of cases the applicant has asked for a copy of a document. No-one wants to see the Freedom of Information Act being reduced to a mechanism for issuing official refusals of information, by which the majority of requests are turned away.

A commonsense approach to what was intended to be a commonsense law would ensure that we can get back to celebrating the real progress towards openness which we have made in Scotland.

Kevin Dunion: Resist this threat to our freedom (Scotland on Sunday, 31 January 2010)

MoD Staff Embrace Openness (even if MoD doesn't)

2010-01-25T19:15:00.001Z

Ministry of Defence staff have leaked secret information onto social-networking sites sixteen times in 18 months.

The MoD refused to say whether the leaks related to sensitive operational issues

The figures were uncovered using the Freedom of Information Act, by computer security firm F-Secure and Lewis PR.

F-Secure security expert Mikko Hypponen said: "It's worrying that employees in sensitive positions have been sharing confidential information.

"They might think they are confiding in friends or family when they go on Facebook. However, the recent changes in Facebook's privacy settings might make them disclose information to the world. This is a potential security risk."

The MoD refused to comment on whether the leaks related to operational issues and what disciplinary action was taken.

MoD personnel need clearance from their bosses before publishing anything which relates to operations, or offers opinions on Defence activity.

Staff are also forbidden from speaking on behalf of the MoD in relation to controversial, sensitive or political matters.

For security reasons, the MoD's main computer network doesn't allow access to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

But a small number of computers allow staff open access to the Internet when off duty. This includes internet cafes on military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Staff guidelines state: "Remember you are a member of HM Forces/MoD civil servant. Observe the same high standard of conduct and behaviour online as would be expected of you in your professional or personal life."

In a statement, an MoD spokesperson said: "Service and MoD civilian personnel are encouraged to talk about what they do, but within certain limits to protect security, reputation and privacy. We have implemented a wide range of measures to improve the security of our information but we continue to make changing the culture of data handling across the whole Department one of our top priorities."

MoD Secrets Leaked Onto The Internet (Sky News, 25 January 2010)

60 children abused every day: NSPCC

2010-01-25T17:20:00.001Z

More than 21,000 child sex offences were recorded in England and Wales last year, figures have revealed.

An average of 60 sex crimes against youngsters were recorded every day, according to data from 43 police forces.

Of the 21,618 cases of abuse - including rape, gross indecency and incest - between April 2008 and March 2009, one in seven victims were younger than 10 and 1,000 were five and under.

The "shocking" statistics were obtained by a Freedom of Information request by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC).

In more than three out of four cases the offences were committed against 10 to 17-year-olds.

Read more here: Press Association (25 January 2010)

WHO, Swine Flu and Vested Interests - A Bitter Pill to Swallow

2010-01-24T17:36:00.002Z

Was it smart action by governments that kept swine flu (H1N1) in check last year? Or was it more that fears about the disease were grossly (and deliberately) exaggerated to begin with and swine flu never was the killer disease it was made out to be?

As India commences clinical trials of the first H1N1 vaccine, even as many countries are getting rid of their vaccine stockpile, the answer to those questions is no longer academic. Why?

Because documents acquired under the Danish ‘Freedom of Information Act,’ suggest the World Health Organisation (WHO) might have had a vested interest in terming the outbreak of the disease a global pandemic. Not only did a member of the WHO board receive substantial funding for his research centre from vaccine manufacturer, GSK, six other members of the WHO board on vaccines were also found to have financial ties with vaccine companies.

The question is did those links play any part in WHO declaring the disease a pandemic? Yes, says Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe. It led governments to activate ‘sleeping contracts’ entered into with vaccine companies during the earlier scare over avian flu for millions of doses of vaccine resulting in huge profits for pharma companies.

The final word is not in. But there was clearly a huge conflict of interest. In the past, too, we’ve seen how tobacco companies successfully stymied all attempts to link smoking to lung cancer by funding research studies that faithfully trotted out results that backed their position.

Closer home, conflicts of interest in the medical profession have led the Indian Medical Council to revise its 2002 regulations regarding professional conduct and ethics of doctors. While doctors can work for research projects funded by industry it enjoins them to ensure their right to publish research results in the greater interest of society by inserting a suitable clause in the agreement to do such research.

Conflicts of interest are not unique to medicine. We’ve seen such conflicts in the context of accounting majors (Enron and Arthur Andersen), rating agencies, journalists and even in politics where increasingly politicians are businessmen in their own right (think Italy’s Berlusconi, Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra, US’Dick Cheney, some of our own ministers and many African leaders). But to the extent the public is aware there is a potential conflict of interest that in itself acts as a check on more egregious forms of such conflict.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about subtler conflicts of interest in the domain of economics and finance that influence policy making. Yet such links are more insidious and can do far more damage. Take the recent financial crisis that was driven in many ways by Big Finance with vested interest in encouraging a proliferation of worthless products.

Or the still unanswered question whether the then US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s ties with Goldman Sachs had anything to do with his decision not to bail out Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs’ arch rival; a decision that plunged the world into the worst post-war crisis.

In the Indian context we’ve seen the same conflict in the context of foreign investment banks and consultancies urging the government to open up faster, dismantle capital controls, issue sovereign bonds etc regardless of the macro consequences or the macro economic environment. Presumably with an eye on the commissions to be earned from the mandates they would win. But the conflict of interest is often not obvious to the lay public. Hence the danger!

Lord Robert Skidelsky of Warwick University puts it best. Speaking at the Bharat Ram lecture at FICCI, earlier this month he said, ‘In economics much more than in physics, the research agenda and structure or power within the profession reflects the structure of power outside it... Who finances the institutions from whom ideas spring? Who finances the dissemination of ideas — media, think tanks? What are the incentives facing producers, disseminators and popularisers of ideas even in a society where discussion is free?’

As research institutions and other players involved in the dissemination of ideas become increasingly dependent on outside, rather than taxpayer funding, and get more and more profit-oriented, those are troublesome questions; with no easy answers.

To quote Skidelsky once again, changes in facts do not directly give rise to new theories. It is how those facts are interpreted and who controls the interpretation of those facts that is crucial. In the circumstances the only safeguards are greater transparency and more tolerance for the voices of dissent.

The hidden hand (The Economic Times, 24 January 2010)

Goodbye Information Tribunal - You Served Us Well

2010-01-20T20:57:00.002Z

The appeals process for freedom of information and data protection cases changes from today as the previous structure is absorbed into a wider tribunals service. [note: there has never been a tribunal system in Scotland, more's the pity]

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is responsible for monitoring organisations' compliance with freedom of information and data protection laws. Appeals against its ruling have until now gone through the Information Tribunal.

From today, though, the Information Tribunal has been subsumed into the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC), part of a unified tribunals service.

The unification of tribunals services is part of a Government plan to centralise tribunal activity. Tribunals covering tax and property issues already form a part of the service.

Other Tribunals becoming part of the GRC include the Gambling Appeals Tribunal; the Claims Management Tribunal; the Immigration Services Tribunal; and the Family Health Services Appeal Authority.

The move involves a change to the structure of appeals against ICO decisions. A first tier tribunal will hear initial cases but it will be possible to appeal these to an Upper Tribunal's Administrative Appeals chamber.

Last year the Tribunals Service told potential users of the new structure, though, that some issues will be deemed serious enough to be heard immediately by that Upper Tribunal.

"For some information rights appeals, cases will be heard in the first instance in the Upper Tribunal," said Tribunals Service officer Mike Watson in a letter to the Service's users last year. "This will occur where it is considered that the appeal raises complex or unusual issues and the importance of the case would merit it being dealt with in the higher Tribunal."

The High Court previously heard appeals from the Information Tribunal. Cases will now go straight from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeals, the Service said.

A Statutory Instrument published earlier this month ordered that the changes take place today and that from today the Information Tribunal be abolished.

See: The Statutory Instrument (52-page / 202KB PDF)

Information Tribunal is abolished as new service takes charge (Out-Law.com, 18 January 2010)

Who decides what constitutes a legitimate FoI request?

2010-01-20T20:00:00.002Z

How many premises across Hampshire are licensed to sell kittens is not a legitimate inquiry, says Ken Thornber.

When is a Freedom of Information (FOI) inquiry a legitimate question and when is an inquiry an outright waste of public money – as well as a trying test of the patience of those of us working in the public sector?

There's no doubt that the reputation of public servants is under scrutiny – perhaps justifiably as evidenced by the revelations that came out of the MPs expenses scandal.

Since April 2009, Hampshire county council is well on the way to dealing with 500 requests – a 60% increase on the previous 12 months. I worry about the cost and the consequences as staff divert their attention from delivering services to delving for statistics. The council spends at least £50,000 a year dealing with FOI requests, and that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding staff costs.

When the Freedom of Information Act was passed five years ago, the council embraced the new legislation and learned a lot about the sorts of things the public want to know – much of which we now routinely make available.

But I boil over with rage when my staff are tasked with identifying the number and cost of Fairtrade teabags that have been immersed in hot water on council premises in the previous financial year (0.2p per council taxpayer per annum), and the number of biscuits (plain and chocolate) that were supplied at council meetings.

There have been many other ridiculous requests. In addition to teabags and biscuits, my list of the most pointless ones so far includes what we spent on fireworks, alcohol, Christmas decorations (do people really expect us not to put them in residential care homes or children's homes?); how many premises across the county are licensed to sell puppies and kittens; the number of mortuaries set aside for swine flu deaths; and a list of every piece of art we have commissioned in the last five years, including from schools.

The question on my mind is whether the public sector is being asked to put political correctness above common sense as it struggles to answer some of these more "challenging" FOI requests in an even-handed way.

I no longer believe that my staff should be spending their precious time on such spurious requests. I believe we should explain to the inquirer at the outset the lengths to which we will have to go to get the information and, if they persist, we should have the courage of our convictions and refuse to answer the inquiry. It should be left to the information commissioner to adjudicate as to whether the inquiry is a legitimate cost on the public purse and in the public interest.

• Ken Thornber is leader of Hampshire county council

We need a commonsense approach to Freedom of Information requests - Instead of delivering services, council staff are delving for statistics – many of them ridiculous (The Guardian, 20 Januray 2010)

Police block release of London bomber's will

2010-01-19T21:17:00.001Z

Scotland Yard is blocking the release of London bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan's will citing human rights and privacy concerns as part of the reason, it has been emerged.

Mention of the 7/7 terrorist's last will and testament was made in a Home Office report on the bombings that left 52 people dead in 2005.

But a Freedom of Information (FoI) request by the Mail on Sunday for the document has been denied, with the Metropolitan Police refusing to allow it to go public.

Khan, the eldest of the four bombers, killed six people and himself when his explosive device went off on a train pulling out of Edgware Road Underground station. A subsequent video of the Leeds-based terrorist surfaced, with Khan attempting to justify his actions, stating "We are at war and I am a soldier".

It is believed that his will likewise indicates that he intended to martyr himself through a terrorist attack. But despite requests, Scotland Yard - who hold the document - has blocked its release. Non-disclosure of a will is unusual, with most documents open to inspection through the Probate Registry.

But in a response to the Mail on Sunday's FoI request, the Metropolitan Police outlined a number of reasons why it thinks the details of Khan's will should be kept secret.

It argued that releasing it might hamper future probes. In its reponse to the newspaper, a Scotland Yard official wrote: "I find the strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is the consideration of information which could be vital to any subsequent investigation."

The Met added that it could reveal to others how investigations are conducted and that this might enable suspects to conceal information. But in its latest response to the FoI request, Scotland Yard also cited privacy and human rights concerns.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said the Met's argument in terms of Data Protection did not stand up.

"I do not think that example is legitimate. If that was the full basis for the decision I would not think it was legitimate," he said. Mr Frankel added that the bomber was dead and as such is not covered by provisions in the Data Protection Act. As to others mentioned in the will, their names could be redacted to protect their identities, according to Mr Frankel.

The Press Association (18 January 2010)

Celebrating five years of more open information

2010-01-10T21:26:00.003Z

The key to a new age of transparent government, or simply a godsend for campaigners, journalists and the terminally curious?

The Freedom of Information (FoI) Act has had an interesting five years, providing the media and campaigners with some tasty scoops, as well offering some uncomfortable moments for politicians and public officers.

Heralding its fifth anniversary this week, Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion – the man tasked with policing its application – acclaimed the "good news" offered by the legislation, which he said was offering "more information than ever before".

But with recent research showing the public's perception and knowledge of the legislation is on the wane, and anecdotal evidence that public authorities are becoming cannier with their interpretation of the rules, is the transparent Utopia forecast by the proponents of the act in danger of becoming bogged down by bureaucracy?

More worrying for Mr Dunion, is the increased threat of legal challenges to his interpretation of the legislation. In October, he was on the receiving end of an excoriating verdict from Court of Session judges Lords Reed, Clarke and Hardie, who branded his actions "irrational" and said he had failed to treat Glasgow and Dundee Councils fairly on cases involving the sale of land records (Commissioner makes basic errors in law and fails to act fairly).

The judgment said the public was allowed access only to the information contained within documents and not the documents themselves. The ruling, commentators said, paved the way for public authorities to apply even narrower definitions to requests something that appears to fly in the face of the supposed spirit of the law.

As he ponders his legal response to that judgment, Mr Dunion raises some concerns about its implications: "We have always known that the right was to information, but the expectation was that people could ask for the minutes of a meeting," he says. "People understood that meant the information contained within those minutes.

"My concern is going to be that if that decision leads to an officious response so that authorities delay, at the very least, the information by saying, 'You have asked for a copy, or a document, when what you should have asked for is information'."

But even as he faces a restriction on the information that may be released, Mr Dunion continues his campaign to have the remit of the legislation extended. He is a vocal supporter of the Scottish Government's plans to extend FoI to private firms operating public services. His contention remains that much of the information now covered under the act will no longer be held by public authorities, instead being kept by contractors or arm's-length trusts.

"I have no doubt that some of them will resist it – particularly the private contractors – but the case has got to be made strongly that if you receive public funding to the extent they do, they should be held publicly accountable for it through the FoI act."

Also on his radar in the coming year are concerns that those entitled to access information are unaware of their rights, especially in relation to appeals.

"I don't think people are as aware of it as they should be," he warns. "The way the act was set up was that people don't need to be aware of their legal rights to be able to exercise them.

"My concern comes when there is any kind of dispute. People are not aware of their right of appeal to me, and if authorities are not telling them of their rights, that is a real problem."

Despite the concerns, Mr Dunion remains convinced that public life in Scotland is moving towards the open society envisaged when the act was brought in. Its intention, he insists, was not to create the bureaucratic dance some people find when attempting to access data, and he warns against public authorities moving towards that situation.

"The law was set up to give people an entitlement to information, whether that is held in documents, photographs, CCTV records, and to do so in a way that people didn't have to cite the law," he says. "It is not like America, where you have to say, 'under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, please give me the following,' or, in the case of Ireland, paying a charge. The whole intention was for people to make a normal request. To now say you have to phrase the request in a certain way for it to be valid, that will be highly retrogressive and not at all within the spirit of the legislation."

But are things improving?

"I honestly do think that is the case," he says.

"The vast majority of requests made to a public authority will get a response within 20 days. In most cases you will be given the information you want or you will be given a reasonable explanation as to why you can't get it."

The Scotsman (7 January 2010)

The battle for openness goes on

2009-12-30T22:14:00.002Z

Freedom of information: Let the sunshine in

"The worst mistake we ever made," remarked a belligerent member of Tony Blair's cabinet, as he shook his head at the top table in late 2004.

Although the Iraq fiasco was reaching its nadir, he was not referring to any foreign entanglement, but rather to domestic legislation — the Freedom of Information Act, which had passed through parliament several years earlier, and was finally due to come into full force at the start of 2005. The tale provides a neat illustration of how warped political judgments become when they are formed in the dark.

Five years on, a measure of daylight has had a profound effect on the way Britain is governed. Despite current plans for reform, the annual release of historic papers under the 30-year rule underlines the state's traditional presumption: that everything stays secret until it no longer matters. Today's haul from 1979 includes Margaret Thatcher's preference for Rhodesian refugees over Vietnamese ones and the new Tory government's struggle to implement cuts. But files on Prince Charles's future career, the Anthony Blunt affair and Jeremy Thorpe remain closed.

In the past year, MPs' expenses have shown the power of information when it is released.

Dodgy duck islands, however, are far from the most important things unearthed by the act. From the 1911 census to present-day hospitals facing bankruptcy, it has enabled the public to get its hands on information which was always nominally held in its name.

The regime covers 100,000 public bodies, from GPs' surgeries to Whitehall departments, and has received nearly 200,000 requests. There is a constant stream of news stories, but the scale of this interest is too great to be explained only by journalists' probing. The information commissioner's polling has charted the build-up of a strong majority of citizens who believe the information laws are crucial, both to uncovering what is going on and to trusting people in power.

Initially, there were understandable worries – among campaigners and smug mandarins alike – about what difference would be made. There were potentially sweeping exemptions covering policymaking and the conduct of public affairs, which between them might have blacked out everything important. But the get-out clauses were always subject to a public interest test, and the first information commissioner, Richard Thomas, applied this with some vigour.

The ministerial veto was also a threat, but those who wielded the ultimate weapon came to regard it as too dangerous to use, save in two cases involving cabinet minutes, one involving the records of the deliberations on the eve of Iraq. Even where FoI initially produced something short of full disclosure – as over MPs' expenses, and the attorney general's war advice – the processes it set in train fuelled great public interest, and arguably encouraged the leaks that would eventually put the record straight.

It is unimaginable for any serious politician to overtly propose a return to the dark days of the past. Stealthy attempts in the later Blair years to limit FoI through tighter cost caps and other wheezes soon bit the dust. Gordon Brown once battled to keep secret advice he received on tax rises, but belatedly realised this was not good politics. Next month he is likely to trumpet the extension of the act to various bodies at arm's length from the government.

But the battle for openness is one that will never be won. There are still too many exemptions, and new ones could be introduced. While talking the FoI talk, the government is quietly considering reducing its bite in connection with cabinet papers – a category that could be defined very widely. There are always moments when those in power instinctively flinch from the unforgiving glare of the public. Five years of FoI has proved its worth. But without perpetual vigilance, the victory of light over the dark side can never be secure.

The Guardian - Editorial (30 December 2009)

Bungled police raids last year cost taxpayer £500,000

2009-12-28T22:06:00.000Z

Police pay out £500,000 for damage in bungled house raids: Poor information leads to the wrong houses being entered, often next door to the actual target

Police in Britain paid out more than half a million pounds last year to repair doors, ceilings and even mantelpiece ornaments smashed in raids that were based on wrong information.

Bungles included a string of heavy-handed operations at properties next door to the real targets, leaving householders terrified and facing months of negotiation for payments.

The Metropolitan police accounted for more than half the national total, with £283,829 paid overall and the highest individual bill, for £6,932. The Police Service of Northern Ireland came second, with £45,072, followed by Lothian and the Borders, with £43,880.

The level of error was criticised by the Taxpayers' Alliance, whose political director, Susie Squire, called the amount "much too high". She said: "It is very important that police are able to fight crime effectively, but this indicates that, in many cases, they are acting in a destructive and careless manner and without enough evidence.

"If they are more careful in future, then this money could be put towards better frontline policing."
The payments, revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, involved 3,607 cases which were overwhelmingly the result of errors in compiling evidence or administration prior to raids. Case after case lists "incorrect address" or "entering the wrong property" as the reason for agreeing to compensation.

Durham police replaced 35 doors that were battered down and Northamptonshire police replaced eight, including one in Wellingborough belonging to Carly Payne, a 24-year-old nursery nurse, who was breastfeeding her five-day-old daughter Bella when police with a battering ram stormed in.

They arrested her partner, stepfather and a friend before realising that the drugs raid warrant was for next door. Payne, whose door was replaced three months later, said: "Northants police told me these mistakes were rare but it looks like the police screw things up all over the country. I can't believe there have been so many mistakes. The police need to do their homework much better in the future."

Other successful claims included damage for a pet cage and a tent ripped open. Half the payments, which were also relatively high in Kent (£26,523) and Thames Valley (£25,725), were for doors, with lock repairs, replastering and redecoration also at the top of the list.

The Home Office said that compensation policy was decided at force level but most police authorities draw tight legal lines round repayments. A spokesman for the Gwent force said: "The critical factor is simply whether forced entry is legal, proportionate and reasonable given the circumstances."

Tayside police said: "Compensation is only paid for damage deemed to be caused accidentally, maliciously or with gross recklessness." The Metropolitan police said that claims had to have evidence of police negligence to succeed.

Compensation for damage to the homes of people subsequently convicted was described by the top-paying forces as "very unlikely".

The Guardian (28 December 2009)

Ministers' U-turn cost National Express east coast rail line

2009-12-23T21:58:00.001Z

Ministers considered releasing National Express from its financial obligations, letters show

The government was on the verge of agreeing a deal over National Express's £1.4bn east coast contract that would have kept the troubled transport group in the rail business, it has emerged.

A series of documents rushed out by the Department for Transport under the Freedom of Information Act tonight reveal that the DfT agreed to negotiate switching the expensive franchise to a management contract that would have released National Express from its onerous financial obligations. But ministers changed their position on the deal and National Express was forced to abandon the prestigious main line route in June, plunging the company into a crisis that saw the chief executive resign.

The Guardian (23 December 2009)

An insight into privilege and excess: Queen's finances to be revealed

2009-12-21T21:31:00.004Z

The Independent wins three-year battle to publish secret correspondence with Government over spiralling cost of maintaining royal palaces.

Secret correspondence between the Government and Buckingham Palace concerning the growing public cost of the Royal Family is to be released to The Independent after three years of campaigning.

In a far-reaching ruling, the Government must disclose more than 100 letters and memos written by ministers and members of the Royal Household during negotiations over public subsidies paid to the Queen for the upkeep of her palaces.

The Information Commissioner's decision deals a severe blow to the Royal Family's efforts to ensure correspondence between the Palace and the Government is not caught by the public's right-to-know law. Royal aides warned ministers that they did not want the letters disclosed to The Independent.

But the Deputy Commissioner, Graham Smith, said the public interest in releasing the letters and other documents outweighed the Royal Family's right to protection under the Freedom of Information Act. He said: "[The Commissioner] believes that disclosure of the requested information would enhance public awareness and understanding of the funding and accommodation arrangements of the Royal Household and this would be in the public interest."

The Government had also argued against disclosure because it claimed that publishing the documents would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views between ministers and so prejudice the conduct of public affairs.

But again the Commissioner said the exemption was overruled by the public interest and that disclosure would "increase transparency and accountability" in the awarding of grants to the Royal Household.

He said that by withholding the information, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) had breached the terms of the Freedom of Information legislation, which Labour introduced in 2000. The Government has been given 35 days to surrender the correspondence to The Independent.

MPs and republican groups have criticised the lack of transparency over the public money given to the royals, who have spent £41.5m in 2009; £1.5m more than last year.

The documents will shed light on the extent of the financial crisis at the Palace as the Queen tries to balance her books. A small number of the letters concern an application for a public subsidy for energy-saving measures, as well as money spent on security lighting and cameras. But the contents of the vast majority of the correspondence will not be known until it is handed over to The Independent.

Some of the information held contains "free and frank commentary" on the decisions being taken by the DCMS. And the Commissioner said that while he recognised that this correspondence was of a "candid" nature, it was in the public interest to understand how public money was spent and how the Government had responded to requests for funding from the Royal Household.

Palace officials admit they are still locked in a battle with Whitehall after the DCMS rejected a request for extra funds to repair the crumbling royal palaces, leaving the Queen in despair at her "patch and mend monarchy". The backlog in essential maintenance is estimated at £40m, but staff have been given just £15m for the year.

The Queen is also negotiating with the Government over an increase in the Civil List. But MPs and taxpayers' groups want a greater say in how the Royal Family is subsidised after a string of scandals over public money being spent on minor roles.

This year it emerged that £250,000 had been spent on redecorating Princess Beatrice's university accommodation. The cash helped redecorate a private four-bed apartment at St James's Palace for her use while she is a student. Last year Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were made to pay rent of £120,000 a year to stay in their Kensington Palace apartment, after almost seven years of paying only a nominal fee. Buckingham Palace has said that the royal couple will be charged the full commercial rate from 2010 to remain in their five-bedroom, five-reception home.

The move followed demands by MPs on the Commons public accounts committee that full rent should be paid for the property after it emerged that the prince and princess were paying a nominal amount.

Under a financial memorandum drawn up between the Government and the monarch, there is an obligation on the Royal Household to provide officials with easy access to any documents which have a bearing on the public cost of the accommodation of the Queen. It is this correspondence which the Information Commissioner says should be disclosed in the public interest.

In his ruling in favour of the The Independent, the Commissioner disagreed with ministers' contention that if the information was made public it would have a "chilling effect" on the future disclosure of private documents to the Government.

The Deputy Commissioner concluded: "The content of the information is such that it does not relate to the personal privacy of any member of the Royal Family, but rather the discussions relate to the spending of the Grant in Aid which is specifically in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Household. In the Commissioner's view, disclosure would not undermine the privacy of nor the constitutional position of the Royal Family."

Yet the Palace contends: "It is particularly worth recognising that information that interests the public may not be the same as that which would be disclosed in the public interest. It is a fundamental constitutional principle that communications between the Queen and her ministers and other public bodies should remain confidential, and that the political neutrality of the Queen and the Royal Family, and the Royal Household acting on their behalf, should be maintained."

A spokesman for the DCMS said that Government lawyers were considering the implications of the ruling and would respond in due course.

Robert Verkaik - The Independent (21 December 2009)

See also: Graham Smith - The Guardian (21 December 2009)

Stop the royal secrecy: With Prince Charles up to his neck in political lobbying, the royal family must be subject to freedom of information rules

The news this morning that the information commissioner has ruled in favour of disclosure of royal correspondence could have profound repercussions for the monarchy and the British constitution.

When the Freedom of Information Act was introduced the monarchy was simply not recognised as a public body, so the remit of the act failed to get past the gates of Buckingham Palace. Correspondence between the palace and public authorities that are covered by the act was exempted under section 37. There was, however, a public interest test, meaning that if it could be demonstrated that it was in the public interest to release information then the information must be released.

There is a clear public interest to be served by full disclosure of royal documents. Two present examples illustrate the case. Firstly, the palace is currently negotiating a multimillion-pound hike in the civil list, which is due to be renewed next year. We must know why and for what reason the palace thinks it fit to demand more public money while public spending is being squeezed like never before. Secondly, Prince Charles, who is getting ever closer to the throne, threatens a major constitutional crisis with his continued political activity.

[...]

At present the damage Charles can do is somewhat limited. That may not always be the case. Elizabeth Windsor is 83, Charles could be king any day now. Once installed he has far more opportunity to influence policy, particularly if "his" government is a Conservative one and so less willing to pick a fight with the palace.

It is no wonder then that the government wants to change the law to protect the royals. With Charles nearing the throne they are no doubt terrified that more decisions from the information commissioner will be made in favour of disclosure, leading to revelations that could threaten support for the monarchy. In that sense the Justice Ministry is right: more secrecy is required to protect our current constitutional arrangements. But surely the response to that is not more secrecy, but a new constitution, one that isn't afraid of freedom of information.

Be scared, be very scared - the Information Commissioner gets fierce

2009-12-20T21:19:00.001Z

The fearsome Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham

Information Commissioner pledges 'fierce' approach to 'slowcoach' public officials:
Christopher Graham, Britain's new Information Commissioner, has pledged to prosecute public officials who fail to comply with openness laws in his first newspaper interview.

Mr Graham said he would take a "fierce" approach to overly-secretive authorities. He warned that some public bodies were still "dragging their feet" in complying with the Freedom of Information Act, and said that even Cabinet minutes should not routinely have their release blocked.

In a recent unpublicised case, Mr Graham broke new ground when he threatened a public body, the London Development Agency, with contempt of court proceedings for failing to disclose information under an FOI request. "This will send a shock-wave through the system," he said.

In his first newspaper interview, to mark his first six months in the job, Mr Graham told The Sunday Telegraph: "Shining the spotlight of publicity across a public service is how you find out where money is being wasted."

At the same time he is urging the Government to introduce firmer enforcement of personal privacy laws including jail sentences of up to two years for rogue company employees who illegally sell confidential information.

Mr Graham said: "All Governments or bureaucracies would prefer, at some time, to get on with their business in private, but in their better moments they are interested in 'engagement' [with the public]. And you don't get that if people do not know what is going on.

"Freedom of Information has been 'live' for five years and some public authorities are better at addressing openness than others. But some are dragging their feet and my job is to get the slowcoaches to speed up and to realise my office will be on to them if they don't get a move on."

The role of Information Commissioner was created in 1984 but it has been given greater powers in recent years to promote greater openness from public bodies and data privacy for individuals. Mr Graham is the head of a 300-strong independent authority with an annual budget of more than £16 million.

"The Information Commissioner has a key role at the moment. I have responsibility for encouraging the highest standards of data protection and of transparency by public bodies. I am in the business of information rights. It's a role that is only going to get more and more important," he said.

Mr Graham's term will last five years and he hopes to leave a significant legacy. "I want to run an effective operation. I don't want to be remembered for fine speeches and interesting essays. I want to have got things done.

"I want to ensure that people's rights under the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act work. I want to ensure that problems are resolved in a timely way because justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr Graham, 59, a divorcee who is due to get remarried in the spring, relishes his new challenge.

"I think [in the past] the Information Commissioner's Office [ICO] has not been alert enough and fierce enough with public authorities that do not comply with their requirements under the Freedom of Information [FOI] Act," he said.

"After five years, public authorities should be able to do better. From now on, we will be a rather tougher partner. We will insist on adequate responses within the time limits. I will be up for issuing what are known as 'information notices' [which compel public authorities to supply information to the ICO or they will have committed a criminal offence]. We have not really done this so far but we will from now on."

The Information Commissioner has also sent a firm message to Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, that he should not routinely veto the release of Cabinet minutes without good cause. This followed Mr Straw's decisions to veto the release of documents relating to a devolution issue from 1997. "The point is that the [FOI] act does not say that all Cabinet papers should be vetoed. The veto is there only for exceptional circumstances," Mr Graham said.

Mr Graham, who was a news journalist with the BBC before working as Director General of the Advertising Standards Authority for nine years, denied that the Telegraph's revelations of the abuse of expenses by MPs had made the public think that senior figures in Government were trying to hide behind privacy laws. "It's a bit unfair on the Government because they did bring in the Freedom of Information Act," he said.

Last month Mr Graham studied a case in which the private details of millions of mobile phone customers, including their numbers and addresses, were illegally sold. Staff at T-Mobile passed the information to brokers who then sold it to rival phone companies. The companies, in turn, then cold-called customers as their contracts were about to expire to offer better mobile phone deals. At present, such offences carry what Mr Graham considers to be "paltry" fines under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act.

Mr Graham said: "People guilty of serious, negligent and reckless breaches of people's privacy – basically where information entrusted to organisations, companies or public authorities is made public without authority – should be liable to custodial sentences.

"Courts ought to have the power to jail offenders for up to two years. At the moment offenders who are caught might get a modest fine which is, frankly, set off as a business expense. But if people knew they could go to prison, they would think twice about committing such an offence that some people now consider as just a prank."

The Information Commissioner said his recommendations had now gone to Mr Straw because he wanted the increased penalty to "act as a deterrent to those who are currently involved in the illegal trade in personal information."

He added: "I have a clear agenda and it's an agenda that needs to be upheld with energy and vigour because the modern world of online activity and databases will only deliver benefits for people if they are very effectively policed. We [the Information Commissioner's Office] want to be respected and, to some extent feared, to ensure that people get their rights."

Mr Graham's latest initiative – announced on Wednesday – is to carry out a massive analysis next year into surveillance – a follow-up to his organisation's report "A Surveillance Society" published in 2006.

The Information Commissioner is clearly concerned society's obsession with CCTV cameras has gone too far. "There needs to be some evidence that it is necessary. You can't just say: 'It's a [crime] deterrent so we will have it.' It needs, for example, to go into pubs where there is a history of trouble. But it's unfair for a licensing authority to have CCTV as a matter of routine because law-abiding citizens should be able to have a meal or a drink without being captured on CCTV."

Daily Telegraph (20 December 2009)

'Big Brother' Councils Treble CCTV Cameras

2009-12-18T21:15:00.000Z

Big Brother Britain: Councils operate 60,000 CCTV cameras

Fears are growing over "Big Brother" councils after it was revealed they have trebled the number of CCTV cameras.

Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch revealed the figures, after putting in a Freedom Of Information request to every council in the country.

Director Alex Deane said the rise of the expensive "surveillance networks" had made little impact on the crime figures they were designed to cut.

He said: "Local councils across Britain are creating enormous networks of CCTV at great expense, but the evidence for the ability of CCTV to deter or solve crimes is sketchy at best.

"The quality of footage is frequently too poor to be used in courts, the cameras are often turned off to save money and control rooms are rarely manned 24 hours a day.

"If you ask people whether they would prefer a camera or a police officer, I’m sure they would say an officer.

"Another main concern is privacy – people are concerned about the permanent retention of images of them doing perfectly innocent things like walking into a council building."

The study, entitled Big Brother Is Watching, found that 418 local authorities control 59,753 cameras - 10 years ago the total was 21,000.

Sky News (18 December 2009)

Scores of Scottish ministers' files lost or stolen

2009-12-17T21:07:00.001Z

Scores of Scottish Executive files have been lost or stolen from memory sticks, laptops and mobile phone devices, it has been revealed

Policy documents belonging to SNP ministers have also been lost in the post, stolen from a Holyrood conference room and left on a train and in a car park.

The litany of lost information has been revealed for the first time, and includes data that was “protectively marked” because of the sensitive content.

There have been 11 cases of paper documents being lost or stolen since February this year. Meanwhile, there have been 21 laptops, PCs and Blackberry mobile phones taken or mislaid over the past two years.

The Executive insisted information “should not” have been kept on these machines, but it is not know how many files were actually stored on their hard drives.

Officials stressed the missing data was more likely to include policy documents than lists of personal data, such as addresses and bank account details, that could be used to commit identity theft.

A summary released under the Freedom of Information Act shows documents that were not marked secret were left on a train in February this year and never recovered.

The following month personal data was sent to the wrong address, and only some of it eventually retrieved.

Daily Telegraph (17 December 2009)

How Prince of Wales's aides tried to influence Labour ecotowns policy

2009-12-16T20:52:00.002Z

Prince Charles at Poundbury, the Dorset village built to his vision. His foundation tried to persuade the government to adopt the village’s ‘traditional’ model for its ecotowns.

When Gordon Brown was campaigning to become prime minister in the early summer of 2007, he announced that he wanted to build more than 100,000 homes in 10 carbon-neutral ecotowns to create a "home-owning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy".

Royal aides looked on intently at the rapidly changing political landscape, and, eager to keep the Prince of Wales involved in the environmental issues of the day, seized their chance to influence the highest profile policy of the new Labour administration.

They moved fast. On 28 June 2007, 24 hours after Brown moved into 10 Downing Street, senior aides at one of Prince Charles's charities dispatched a letter about ecotowns to Hazel Blears, the Salford MP whom Brown had the day before promoted to secretary of state for communities and local government with responsibility for his town-building policy.

Evidence of the lobbying efforts emerged from a series of requests under the Freedom of Information Act from the Guardian to Whitehall ministries asking them to release correspondence from Charles and aides at his architecture foundation.

It revealed that in the last three years, Charles wrote to ministers in at least eight government departments, and his aides were willing to engage with ministers on overtly political matters, often with success.

Campaigners for the abolition of the monarchy believe that ministers are likely to give a letter from the prince's charity almost equal weight to a letter from the prince himself. They believe that all the correspondence should be made public.

"The charity is little more than a soapbox for his views," said Graham Smith, campaign manager for the Republic campaign group. "It promotes his world view, which is quasi-environmental feudalism."

The departments refused to release the letters received from Charles, citing the need for the heir to the throne to be aware of government business and to be able to communicate with ministers on it confidentially.

In the past, Charles is reported to have told Tony Blair that farmers were being treated worse than black and gay people. He also allegedly told the prime minister he was destroying the countryside and urged him to drop the ban on fox-hunting. In another letter to Blair, he urged the government to do more to help families fleeing Robert Mugabe's brutal regime in Zimbabwe.

His former deputy private secretary, Mark Bolland, has described how he saw "on many occasions … letters which, for example, denounced the elected leaders of other countries in extreme terms".

The Guardian (16 December 2009)

You don't have to be dumb to be educated here but it helps

2009-12-14T20:49:00.001Z

Some academies are using Freedom of Information laws to hide evidence of "dumbing down", it is claimed.

GCSE results in England's state-funded independent schools are said to be improving at twice the national rate but Academies will not publish details.

But a report claims some academies push pupils into taking exams that are less academically rigorous than GCSEs to boost their league table position.

The government says academies are transforming standards and lives.

Questions have been raised about the value of some vocational qualifications. They also take up less teaching time than GCSEs.

They can be worth up to four top GCSEs grades (A* - C ) in the league tables.

The researchers from the think-tank Civitas suspected that some academies which showed a fast improvement rate in their published headline GCSE scores were using these examinations to boost their results.

But because academies are exempt from Freedom of Information rules they are not obliged to release the breakdown of their results.

BBC News (14 December 2009)

The sound of wind power

2009-12-13T20:40:00.001Z

Wind turbines

Wind turbine noise warnings were dismissed by civil servants

A warning about the health effects of noise from wind turbines was removed from a government study following pressure from civil servants.

Consultants recommended lowering night-time noise limits because the sounds made by spinning blades were enough to disrupt sleep patterns.

However, the advice, contained in a draft version of their 2006 report, was removed from the final submission which was eventually used in official guidance for local authorities ruling on planning applications from wind farm developers.

It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain built since 2006 have been allowed to continue generating high levels of noise.

Evidence of the changed advice was uncovered after a two-year battle using the Freedom of Information Act by campaigners opposed to a wind turbine development close to their home at in mid-Devon.

One of those campaigners, Mike Hulme, said: “This proves what we have been saying all along, that the noise guidelines should be reviewed. They haven’t changed substantially since 1997, in which time the design of turbines has changed and the number of wind farms has increased.

“Turbines used to be about 50 feet and now they are closer to 400 feet.

"Residents are afraid to complain to their council because the problem is then in the public domain and it becomes impossible to sell their house."

The noise warnings were made in a draft report by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP).

Daily Telegraph (13 December 2009)

FoI in N.Ireland: £2m taxi bill in 6 months

2009-12-11T20:36:00.000Z

The Department of Health spent more than £2m on taxi fares in the first six months of this financial year, it has been revealed.

The information was released to DUP MLA Alex Easton who described the figure as "totally outrageous".

The cumulative total for taxi fares for the five NI health trusts from 1 April to 30 September 2009 came to £2.2m.

The health minister said taxis were used to transport vulnerable patients and children to vital appointments.

Mr Easton said he eventually received the figures through a Freedom of Information request.

BBC News (11 December 2009)

Straw uses FOI veto on Cabinet minutes

2009-12-10T20:25:00.000Z

Justice Secretary Jack Straw today blocked the publication of minutes of a 1997 Cabinet committee meeting on devolution.

It is only the second time since the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2005 that the Government has used its veto following a ruling to release material by the Information Commissioner.

Mr Straw told MPs that disclosure of the information would put the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility for decisions "at serious risk of harm".

In a written statement to Parliament he said the decision "was not taken lightly".

Mr Straw said that in his opinion the Information Commissioner "wrongly found that the Cabinet Office had failed to comply" with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by withholding copies of the minutes.

The only other time Mr Straw has vetoed publication was in February this year when he blocked the release of Cabinet minutes relating to the Iraq War.

In his statement today, he said: "This is only the second time this power has been exercised since the Act came into force in 2005 and over that period of time central government has received approximately 160,000 non-routine requests for information."

He added: "My conclusion rests on an assessment of the public interest in disclosure and non-disclosure of these Cabinet minutes and of the exceptional nature of the case.

"Whilst the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility is only one part of the public interest test, in my view disclosure of the information in this case would put the convention at serious risk of harm.

"As an integral part of our system of government the maintenance of the convention is strongly in the public interest and must be given appropriate weight when deciding where the balance of the public interest lies.

"Having done that, and having taken into account all of the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that the public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure and that this is an exceptional case where release would be damaging to the convention of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government.

"Consequently this case warrants the exercise of the veto."

The application for the release of the minutes states that the committee was chaired by the then-Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg.

The request said the committee's remit was "to consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's policies for devolution to Scotland and Wales and the regions of England and to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and it subsequent implementation".

The applicant added: "My understanding, from an article by the Constitution Unit, is that this Committee met 15 times from May to July 1997.

"Like all other Cabinet Sub-Committees, its meetings were held in private."

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham will "carefully consider" Mr Straw's reasons for exercising his veto power.

A statement from the Information Commissioner's Office said: "This is the first time the Commissioner has ordered the disclosure of Cabinet minutes since the ministerial veto was first exercised in February this year.

"In other cases, the Commissioner has agreed with the Cabinet Office's decision to withhold Cabinet minutes.

"The Commissioner is concerned that the Government may routinely use the veto whenever he orders the disclosure of the minutes of Cabinet proceedings, irrespective of the subject matter or age of the information.

"The Cabinet Office had appealed the Commissioner's decision to the Information Tribunal.

"A full hearing was due to take place on 25 January 2010 and the Commissioner regrets that the Tribunal's role has been disregarded at this stage.

"On the only previous occasion when the veto was exercised, in relation to Cabinet minutes on the declaration of war on Iraq, the Tribunal had heard the appeal and had upheld the Commissioner's decision.

"Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, confirms that he will fulfil the commitment to report to Parliament whenever the ministerial veto is exercised."

The Independent (10 December 2009)

Scottish Government May Extend Coverage Of The Freedom Of Information Act

2009-12-09T20:11:00.009Z

Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford today confirmed the Scottish Government will consult on whether to extend the Freedom of Information Act for the first time to cover a wider range of bodies who deliver public services in Scotland.

Organisations that will be considered are contractors who build and maintain schools, hospitals and roads; private prison operators; leisure, sport and cultural trusts set up by local authorities; Glasgow Housing Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

Speaking at the 2009 Holyrood Freedom of Information Conference in Edinburgh, Mr Crawford said:

"The Scottish Government is committed to the principles that underpin Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation. These principles of openness and transparency are essential parts of open democratic government.

"Responses to a discussion paper which looked at the options for extending coverage of the FOI Act beyond the public sector supported the principle of greater openness. I now intend to formally consult with a range of organisations about whether it is appropriate for them to be covered by FOI.

"It is important that organisations who deliver key public services for the people of Scotland operate transparently so the public can be reassured we are getting high quality services and value for money. I am also sympathetic to the view that people should be able to 'follow' the expenditure of public money through their access to information, in particular in relation to PFI/PPP contracts which tend to be high value and long term.

"Given the global economic downturn, some sectors of the economy are under particular strain and recent events are having a wide-ranging impact on both private and public sector bodies. A key part of the consultation will be our examination of the costs and burdens associated with any extension of coverage and any risks to business efficiency and competitiveness that flow from that. The Government is committed to increasing sustainable economic growth and will only introduce legislation that is measured and proportionate.

"We will listen to organisations who raise concerns about being able to meet the requirements of FOI."

Mr Crawford continued:

"As a further measure to improve transparency across Scotland's public sector, I am today also launching a revised Code of Practice which provides guidance to public authorities in meeting their duties under Freedom of Information. This specifies the Scottish Government's clear expectations about disclosing contractual information and proactively publishing documents."

The organisations to be consulted on extending the FOI Act to cover are:

Local authority trusts and bodies with responsibility for providing leisure, sport and cultural services. Many local authorities have outsourced these important functions to such trusts and bodies. An unintended consequence is that the public lose their rights to access information about those services from the local authority itself. These organisations deliver services of major public benefit, and receive significant public money.

Private prison operators running Addiewell and Kilmarnock prisons, and with the private contractor providing prisoner escort services. These organisations provide services normally provided centrally by Government, and coverage would put them on the same footing as their public sector equivalents.

Glasgow Housing Association. Glasgow Housing Association is unique in its scale and public profile and the level of interest that it attracts. In principle the Government therefore considers that there are strong grounds for its coverage.

Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. The Association is the collective organisation of senior police from the eight forces across Scotland. It oversees and coordinates the direction and development of the Scottish police services. Its members are all public servants and it receives significant public funding.

Private contractors who build and maintain schools and hospitals, and those who operate and maintain trunk roads across Scotland. These are key areas of public service which are often delivered under private contract. These contractors form a large and diverse group and we will have to consider the appropriateness of coverage in detail, which may well be on a case by case basis.

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 encourages the development of a more open culture across the public sector by providing a statutory right of access to information held by some 10,000 Scottish public authorities.

The coverage of the Act can be extended to bodies which appear to the Scottish Ministers to be exercising functions of a public nature and to contractors who provide services that are a function of a public authority. This is done by an order made under powers in section 5 of the Act. Before making any such order Scottish Ministers must consult with the proposed bodies themselves. The power to extend coverage under section 5 has not yet been used.

The Scottish Government will also be exploring the options for ensuring that the social landlord sector as a whole increases its transparency and accountability through the proposed Housing (Scotland) Bill.

The consultation process will commence in spring 2010.

egovMonitor (9 December 2009)

See also:
Mixed reception for new move to extend 'right to know' to firms (The Scotsman, 10 December 2009)

Fooling some of the people some of the time

2009-12-07T10:55:00.004Z

Climategate: as with the recent MPs' expenses debacle, it's taken leaked information to uncover the true extent of the corruption involved. In both instances the leaking of the data helped to circumvent any stage-managed release of the requested information and any massaging of the figures before they were officially published under FoI laws by the authorities involved (or by the Information Commissioner).

In the case of the Climate Change data, it is unlikely that such information would have seen the light of day had it been left to the FoI authorities to release it. This raises the question of just how effective FoI actually is - if people in public authorities want to hide information from public disclosure they will find ways to do so. Or they will find ways to manipulate the release of the information so as to try and minimise any adverse publicity.

For example, the Scottish MPs' expenses were released under FoI - there was some (limited) evidence of MPs claiming for expenses they were not entitled to ("taxi for McLetchie") but no suggestion of widespread fraud and corruption. By contrast, the UK MPs' expenses were publicly disclosed before the information was filtered through the official FoI disclosure route - the scale of fraud and corruption revealed was staggering. It makes you wonder.

The web intervenes where FoI fails

2009-12-07T10:23:00.010Z

Bloggers peer review a scientific 'consensus' By L. Gordon Crovitz

... Climategate began with the disclosure of emails and other documents showing how leading global-warming scientists had evaded peer review and refused to disclose data. Over the past week, there have been resignations and investigations of top scientists in England and the U.S.

The British government is recalculating its historic weather findings in light of the now-suspect data from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. Even the United Nations, which had claimed "unequivocal" evidence for man-made global warming, pledges that it will review the evidence.

More details will come out as the leaked documents get fully parsed, but already one certainty is the end of certainty. The one-sidedness of the views of the most influential scientists had led many to believe in the gospel of global warming.

Unlike Watergate, Climategate didn't come to light because investigative journalists ferreted out the truth. Instead, this story so far has played itself out largely on blogs, often run by the same scientists who had a hard time getting printed in the scientific journals. Climategate has provided a voice to the scientists who had been frozen out of the debate.

This may be how information-based scandals play out in the future: A leak from a whistleblower directly onto the Web. Expert bloggers then assess what the disclosures mean—a Web version of peer review.

Much of the analysis is on the site of Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian who edits ClimateAudit.org. He has long tried to get access to raw data on temperatures. He filed numerous freedom-of-information requests of the East Anglia scientists, leading them to ask one another to delete records. He also showed that the familiar hockey-stick graph showing global warming was based on incomplete sampling.

Blogging scientists have been busy reviewing the 15,000 lines of code by programmers that were included in the "Documents" folder of the leaked materials. The latest twist is hidden notations in the data from programmers that indicate where they had manipulated results. The programmers expressed frustration when the numbers didn't fit the case for global warming.

Comments in the code include "These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures," referring to an effort to suppress data showing that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. Comments inside the code also described an "adjustment" as follows: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!" Another notation indicated when a "fudge factor" had been added.

There are three other data sets on historic temperatures, but blogging scientists have pointed out that they aren't completely independent of the now-dubious East Anglia assertions. Atmospheric data from satellites, for example, rely on the East Anglia surface data to calibrate their measurements.

In addition to blogs, skeptics of global warming have used "crowdsourcing" to improve on the science supposedly done by professionals. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who was surprised by how local conditions affect the reliability of the 1,200 U.S. weather stations. Along with more than 600 volunteers, he found that almost all the stations violate the government's standards by being too close to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt.

...

This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards, at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still, it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court of public opinion—a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where eventually all views get a hearing.

Climate of Uncertainty Heats Up (New York Times, 6 December 2009)

See also:

A change for good in the climate debate (Mail on Sunday, 5 December 2009):

"... the disclosure of deeply embarrassing emails exchanged between Green academics has done much to convince fair-minded scientists and politicians that the question of whether human activity causes global warming is more open than they thought it was.

The emails, with their talk of 'tricks', their apparent glee at the death of an opponent, their nervousness about Freedom of Information requests and their discussions about deleting inconvenient information, are seriously damaging for the Green cause - as the leading environmental commentator George Monbiot has honourably recognised.

... It is a pity that it should have taken the theft of private correspondence to get us to this point, but it is an ill wind that blows nobody good."

Who judges the judges? Expenses claims rise by £3m in two years

2009-12-02T21:18:00.002Z

The judiciary claimed £32 million this year on luxuries including first-class train tickets, air fares, hotel stays and eating out, figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act disclose.

The sum also includes compensation paid to judges who buy homes closer to the courts where they work, and nightly allowances of £32 when they choose to stay at their second homes.

The data, obtained by The Independent, shows that the expenses bill for the 3,679 fee-paid and salaried judges for this year was £3,676,333 – a rise of more than £500,000 in the last two years.

There was a similar increase for those serving on tribunals, while the rise in the expenses bill for magistrates was just over £2m in the same period.

Judiciary expenses claims 'rise by £3 million in two years' (Daily Telegraph, 23 November 2009)

Climate scientist steps down

2009-12-01T21:55:00.002Z

Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia will be stepping down temporarily. The university has announced that it will investigate Jones and the many statements he made in emails that were released on the Internet in recent weeks.

Jones’ messages are arguably some of the most controversial and have been seized upon by many as signs of a corrupt process involved in studying manmade climate change. One message in which he says he was able to use a “trick” to “hide the decline” of temperatures in the last decade has drawn charges of data manipulation. Jones and his colleagues have said he was simply referring to a substitution of tree ring data.

Notably as well, Jones was seen as an active figure in blocking access to climate data needed to replicate the conclusions he and other researchers reached. He openly discussed hiding behind other regulations to avoid releasing information under Freedom of Information laws and at one point said, “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” In the wake of the scandal, the university has said it will be releasing the data.

Climategate - Complete coverage from Examiner.com

Ironically, some of the messages that were leaked show Jones asking some of the world’s top climate scientists to delete emails he did not want to see released. In one he wrote, “Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!”

Read more

Central Climategate scientist to step down pending investigation (The Examiner, 1 December 2009)

FoI in Ireland: Taypayers fund Travellers' paradise

2009-11-30T21:39:00.000Z

A senior member of Clare County Council expressed concern yesterday over the council spending almost €500,000 per family to house six Traveller families in a group scheme in Ennis.

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, the council confirmed the cost of constructing six Traveller homes at Knockanean is almost €3 million. The figures show that the cost of the scheme is €2.862 million, with the cost of housing each family at €477,000.

The council confirmed the purchase cost for the site was €1.16 million, while the build contract for the six homes was €1.489 million, with technical fees/salaries for the project costing €190,488. The recently appointed chairman of the council’s traveller accommodation advisory committee, Cllr Brian Meaney (Greens), expressed his concern yesterday. He said: “The costs are extremely high given the number of units.”

One of the new residents and father of five, Patrick Mongans, said yesterday: “This is absolute luxury and paradise for us.”

Councillor queries cost of housing Travellers (IrishTimes.com, 30 November 2009)

Setting the new silver standard: Chris Graham, Information Commissioner

2009-11-30T21:15:00.000Z

Martin Rosenbaum of the BBC writes:

"The new Information Commissioner [for England, Wales & Northern Ireland], Chris Graham, says he's devoted the first phase of his time in office to "listening and learning". Now he has decided on what he's going to do to improve the effectiveness of his organisation - it's responsible for freedom of information and data protection law - and to tackle his most pressing challenge, the huge backlog of freedom of information complaints.

So if you're waiting for a decision notice from the ICO, you might have to accept (in his words) a "silver standard" rather than a "gold standard" one - but at least it should be quicker."

Interestingly, only last week the Information Tribunal criticised an ICO decision from June for its "insufficiently rigorous" analysis. So that'll be the gold standard then. Can't wait to see the silver standard.

Read more

Chris Graham interviewed on his plans as Commissioner (BBC website, 30 November 2009)

Climate change email exchange hots up

2009-11-30T20:55:00.000Z

The unsettling news from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) continues.

The Sunday Times reports that the scientists at the CRU at the University of East Anglia admitted that they threw away “much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”

The CRU made this admission in response a Freedom of Information request. Scientists who have sought access to this data for years now learn that the raw data was purportedly dumped in the 1980’s.

Without access to the raw temperature data, no one can check the CRU’s calculations that show a rise in temperatures over the past 150 years. All that is available is the “valued-added” data, which Jonathan Leake of the Times described as “quality-added and homogenized” data.

Phil Jones, the current head of the CRU and party to many of the controversial leaked emails, was not at the helm at the time of the data destruction. Jones, however, did use the databases created from the raw data to show global warming, and he linked this rise to the rise in greenhouse gases.

The Times further points out that the "[CRU] findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity."

CRU tossed raw temperature data out in the trash (The Examiner, 30 November 2009)

Iraq Inquiry: Business as usual

2009-11-29T22:11:00.001Z

Gordon Brown is facing demands to change the rules of the Iraq inquiry this weekend amid fears that the most explosive documents explaining why Britain went to war will not be made public.

As the inquiry enters its second week, the prime minister is under pressure to make key evidence relating to secret government discussions public, including minutes showing how the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, changed his mind about the legality of the war.

The demands are made in a letter to Brown from the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, who insists that unless the lid is lifted on secrecy, the Chilcot inquiry will fail to satisfy the public's demands for honesty.

...Clegg writes that such powers are draconian for a government that has pledged to allow the truth about Iraq to emerge. "The restrictions on information released by the inquiry are greater than those which apply under current freedom of information rules," he writes.

Gordon Brown urged to lift Iraq inquiry secrecy (The Guardian, 29 November 2009)

See also: Iraq: The inquiry cover-up that will keep us in the dark (The Independent, 25 November 2009)

Inconvenient truths about climate scientists revealed

2009-11-29T22:05:00.000Z

The New York Times reports:

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.

The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name "FOI," were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.

... emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line "IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you may have had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.

Read the full article here

The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths (New York Times, 29 November 2009)

Clinging to the culture of secrecy

2009-11-29T21:08:00.000Z

Labour may come to regret introducing the Freedom of Information Act but without it MPs might have been able to keep their expenses private. Peter Facey looks at what the act has done for genuine transparency

Who would have guessed, a decade ago, that one of the most radical pieces of legislation introduced by New Labour in its first term of office would be the Freedom of Information Act? After Dr David Clark's far-reaching White Paper 'Your Right to Know — the Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act' came Jack Straw's significantly scaled back version.

At the time, organisations such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and Charter 88 were united in their condemnation of a piece of legislation with so many caveats and get out clauses that it appeared to merely protect the government's right to remain in secrecy, hidden behind the fig leaf of reform.

Many of those criticisms remain valid as any journalist or researcher who has attempted to get information out of government can testify. It is still too easy for civil servants and ministers to use the existing legislation to lead people on a game of cat and mouse and hide behind commercial confidentiality and dubious claims of national security. Gordon Prentice MP recently highlighted in Parliament how he had "30 closely typed pages of freedom of information requests going back to 2005 that have not been properly addressed by the Information Commissioner".

This backlog is at least partially due to the small budget the Information Commissioner has to work with. But while getting straight answers out of public bodies remains a struggle, it is now clear that the legislation has, obliquely, opened a Pandora's box. What is fascinating is that a culture of freedom of information within the media has arisen quite quickly, partly fuelled by the Internet, while Whitehall and Westminster have doggedly stuck to the pervading culture of secrecy.

Read more...

Freedom of information – the genie's left the bottle (Public Service, 30 November 2009)

FoI in Australia: Delays to FoI reform

2009-11-27T22:20:00.000Z

Media organisations have cautiously welcomed the introduction to the Australian parliament of new Freedom of Information laws that promise to make it simpler, cheaper and more rewarding for journalists to scrutinise commonwealth agencies.

But the Rudd government has been forced to push back the original January 1 start date for its new access regime, with Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig now saying only that it will be operational "as soon as practicable" after the new bills are passed.

The government, with an election expected next year, has moved to honour a commitment to be more transparent, showing significant goodwill towards media organisations by committing to reforms that will not only be more costly but potentially more politically troublesome.

Application fees will be removed, personal information will be free, the proactive release of information will be encouraged, and an Office of the Information Commissioner will be established at a cost of $19.5 million over four years.

FOI reform hit by delays (The Australian, 27 November 2009)

FoI in Ireland: Requests up by one-fifth

2009-11-26T22:33:00.000Z

The number of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests in Ireland increased by almost one-fifth during 2008, according to the latest annual report published by the Department of Finance.

The 11th report on the operation of the FoI Act showed that the total number of applications made in 2008 was 12,672, an increase of almost 2,000 on the 2007 figures.

The number of requests from journalists was 1,848 or 15 per cent of the total. This was twice the number of requests submitted by journalists the previous year.

The number of non-personal requests was 4,239, the highest total since fees of €15 were introduced in 2003. Before the new charging regime was introduced, non-personal inquiries, including those from journalists, peaked at almost 8,000.

While a marked increase was recorded last year, the highest number of FoI requests was made in 2003, when the total was more than 18,000. This has been attributed to the large number of personal requests made by, and on behalf of, residents of children’s homes and other institutions.

In his introduction to the report, Minister of State Martin Mansergh said the increase was a good development, because it was a reflection of democracy in action. However, he defended the introduction of the fee structure after the Act was amended in 2003: this was seen as the main reason why journalistic inquiries decreased dramatically.

Labour’s deputy leader Joan Burton welcomed the increase but pointed out that the total lagged well behind the figures that pertained before the fees were increased.

“This indicates that the culture of transparency has still not taken hold at senior level in our public administration.”

She called for the Act to be extended to include the Central Bank and Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ireland, the National Treasury Management Agency, the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission and the State Claims Agency.

More than three-quarters of requests dealt with in 2008 were granted in full or in part. Five per cent went to internal review with only 1 per cent being appealed to the Information Commissioner.

Freedom of Information requests up by one-fifth (Irish Timnes, 26 November 2009)

Not many know about their right to know

2009-11-25T23:00:00.000Z

According to research carried out for the Scottish Information Commissioner, the majority of people in Scotland are unaware they have legal rights under Freedom of Information (FOI) rules.

In 2009, 39% of people polled said they were aware FOI allowed them legal access to information from public authorities. That was down 10% from 2008's survey. However, the poll of 1,000 people allegedly found general awareness of FOI was high.

Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion said he was surprised people's understanding had decreased.

Mr Dunion said: "There have been many examples reported in the media of people and organisations using freedom of information legislation to access information, most recently in relation to MPs' expenses, and from this coverage we might expect understanding of FOI rights to be increasing."

This raises the question of whether peoples' awareness of their rights under FoI was ever as high as originally claimed by the Commissioner.

People's understanding of their FOI rights has fallen (BBC website, 24 November 2009)

Commissioner makes basic errors in law and fails to act fairly

2009-11-12T19:48:00.000Z

Published 29 October 2009

The Scottish Information Commissioner and his team appear to have made some fundamental errors in law in interpreting some of the most basic aspects of the Freedom of Information(Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

In a recent decision against the Scottish Information Commissioner, the Court of Session has clarified the meaning of the term "information" under FOISA and has defined who is an "applicant" under the legislation.

The Court held that the Commissioner had failed to comply with his duty to act fairly in reaching his decision and that, in the Glasgow City Council case, his decision was irrational.

Background
MacRoberts requested from Glasgow and Dundee City Councils copies of statutory notices (copies of all notices served under various building and planning legislation since 17 February 2005) i.e. documents rather than the information contained within those documents.

Access to information
FOISA provides access to "information recorded in any form" and a distinction can be made between the information itself and the record in which it is contained, for example a document. FOISA provides a right of access to information, but this does not mean that an applicant has a right of access to the documentation in which the information is contained.

The Court took the view that where a request does not detail fully the information requested, but instead refers to the document within which the information can be found, as was the case in this instance, it is reasonable to take the view that it is the information and not the document itself which is relevant and should be provided.

The applicant
The Court also considered the fact that MacRoberts was acting as an agent on behalf of Millar & Bryce, a private search company. It was held that the Scottish Information Commissioner had not taken this into account when coming to his decision.

Under FOISA, information will be exempt from disclosure if it can reasonably be obtained by the applicant other than by a request under the legislation (e.g. under a publication scheme). By ignoring MacRoberts’ status as an agent, the Commissioner failed to have regard to the fact that Millar & Bryce as a private search company could otherwise obtain all the information it requires from Property Enquiry Certificates and from searching public records. The Court held that certain provisions of FOISA make it necessary for the principal and not the agent to be regarded as the applicant.

The judge, Lord Reed, concluded that:

1. The requests were invalid in that they were not requests for "information" within the meaning of the Act.

2. The requests were in addition invalid in that they did not disclose the name of the applicant, namely the second respondents.

3. The Commissioner erred in reaching his decisions on the basis that copies of statutory notices constituted "information" within the meaning of the Act.

4. The Commissioner erred in reaching his decision in the Glasgow case on the basis that a preference expressed by the applicant in terms of section 11 was relevant to the application of section 25.

5. We question whether, in any event, a request for copies of specified documents falls within the scope of section 11, but we do not require to express a concluded opinion on the point.

6. The Commissioner further erred, in relation to section 25, in failing to proceed on the basis that information which is made available in accordance with an authority's publication scheme, any payment required being specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme, is deemed to be reasonably obtainable.

7. The Commissioner further erred, in relation to section 25(1), in failing to take into consideration the nature and characteristics of the applicant.

8. The Commissioner failed to comply with his duty to act fairly in reaching his decisions, in relation to section 33(1)(b), in both the Glasgow case and the Dundee case.

9. The Commissioner's decision in the Glasgow case was, in addition, irrational in that it dealt with the contentions in respect of section 12 and section 25 on inconsistent bases.

Reports suggest that the Scottish Information Commissioner is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court of Session (Court of Session website, 30 September 2009)
Court of Session narrows the scope of Freedom of Information in Scotland (Dundas & Wilson website, 8 October 2009)
Court of Session rules no right to request copies of documents under FOI(S)A (FOIA blog, 8 October 2009)

Ruling on Freedom of Information Act redefines the debate

2009-11-12T19:42:00.001Z

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act is an important piece of legislation, affording the public a means to access data held by public authorities.

The Court of Session recently granted an appeal that has important implications.

It found in favour of Glasgow and Dundee city councils, but its significance is not restricted to local authorities.

Health boards, the Crofters Commission and indeed the Scottish Parliament, for instance, can all receive freedom of information (FOI) requests.

The case was the result of FOI requests made to the councils from solicitors acting for a private firm, whose business involves providing land and buildings information for a fee.

This information includes any securities over a property and, crucially, information relating to local authority notices – planning permissions, building controls and the like.

Even in a credit-crunched economy, searches related to property transactions are a tidy earner. Scottish councils often charge a fee for information, but the private firm wished to short-circuit the system by obtaining all relevant data held by the councils.

In turn, it could then sell on a package of information to third parties.

Despite various representations by the local authorities, the Scottish Information Commissioner ordered disclosure. The councils then successfully appealed.

Key issues included the court distinguishing "information" from "records", since the solicitors acting for the firm had requested specific copies of statutory notices.

The court ruled that the commissioner had been wrong not to allow public authorities the chance to provide the information contained in the statutory notices in a form other than a copy. The act is about free access to information, not free access to documents in a specified form.

A Scottish public authority must, so far as practicable, provide information in a format that the applicant would prefer, but where this is impractical and the information can be provided in another format, there is no need to comply with the expressed preference.

The court also clarified that information does not include unrecorded information. Only information that already exists can be sought.

Another issue was whether the information sought by the applicant could be obtained other than by a specific FOI request. There is an exception in the legislation that stipulates there may be no need to disclose information already made available, whether or not a fee is involved. In this case, the already existing schemes meant the information sought fell within the exception and could be obtained elsewhere.

There is much in the opinion of the court to keep in mind. Careful consideration must be given to any request before anything is divulged. In fact, public authorities should not be afraid of asking for more detail, or of rejecting an application that goes beyond the act's terms. The act does contain a 20-day deadline for compliance, but this should not hurry an authority into unnecessary disclosures.

The same advice applies to anyone working in tandem with the public sector, such as contractors or a project company in a public-private partnership arrangement.

While the act is a useful tool to access information, it is not a blunt instrument, and this judgment makes clear it should not be treated as such.

From a public authority's perspective, an incomplete understanding of the act could lead to inappropriate disclosure that could cause embarrassment or even a degree of self-incrimination.

Some regard this decision as damaging to the public's right to information, but the key lessons to take from the decision are to make appropriate FOI requests in an appropriate manner.

• Malcolm Combe is a solicitor with Tods Murray LLP.

Ruling on Freedom of Information Act redefines the debate (The Scotsman, 12 November 2009)

NSW Office of the Board of Studies needs a lesson in FoI

2009-10-04T20:21:00.001+01:00

For a standout example of what is wrong with freedom of information in New South Wales you cannot go past the Ombudsman's new report into the Office of the Board of Studies.

Over 120 pages the deputy Ombudsman, Chris Wheeler, has shredded the office over its handling of freedom-of-information applications made by former students seeking details of the standardised marking system that determines the marks 67,000 students are awarded each year in the higher school certificate exams.

Wheeler was called in by students in 2007 to resolve a dispute that goes back to 2001, when a new HSC was introduced and several students tried to find out their actual, or raw, marks. His starting point reflects the fundamental reason we have freedom-of-information laws: a belief that open access to information is the best way to ensure systems work as intended...

The Ombudsman described the office's behaviour as "adversarial, defensive, combative, obfuscatory, technical, legalistic, unco-operative as well as being in breach of the law."

People, not laws, block freedom of information (Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, 2009)

The lengths some people will go to prevent disclosure

2009-10-02T20:18:00.000+01:00

Freedom Communications Inc., parent of The Orange County Register, is throwing up roadblocks in its bankruptcy case by designating more

than 1 million documents as confidential, including a Dodgers baseball game schedule and poetry, said the unsecured creditors committee in a court filing in Delaware today.

“The gamesmanship has to stop if these Chapter 11 cases are to proceed in an orderly fashion for the benefits of all constituents,” the creditors said in their motion, noting Freedom Comm Inc even designated blank sheets of paper as confidential.

Freedom Communications tries to keep bankruptcy documents secret (Orange County Business News, 2 October, 2009)

Owned by the public, hidden from the public

2009-10-02T20:14:00.000+01:00

A bid to force publication of a review by the BBC of its Middle East coverage has been rejected in the High Court.

London lawyer Steven Sugar wanted the Balen report, which was drawn up in 2004, to be revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.

But Mr Justice Irwin ruled that, as the material was held "for the purposes of journalism, art or literature", the corporation had no duty to disclose it.

He also ruled the BBC did not have to disclose information about expenditure.

The judgement followed requests for budget details of the BBC's news and sport coverage as well as programmes including EastEnders and Top Gear.

BBC report to stay confidential (BBC News, 2 October 2009)

See also: BBC wins legal battle over report on Middle East coverage (The Guardian, 2 October 2009)

The rising cost of data

2009-10-01T20:12:00.000+01:00

From 1 October 2009 large companies that collect or process personal data must pay £500 to register with the Information Commissioner's Office.

The heavily increased annual charge applies to firms with a turnover of more than £25.9m and 250 or more employees. Public sector organisations with 250 or more staff must also pay.

Smaller outfits will still be charged £35 per year, which previously applied to all data controllers.

The new two-tiered charging structure was waved through by the government in July and its estimated will affect about four per cent of data contollers. Failure to register is a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine.

The Information Commissioner asked for an increase to cover what it said was the true administrative cost of regulating large firms. Fees hadn't been increased since the Data Protection Act came into force in 2000.

Data watchdog jacks up charges (The Register, 1 October 2009)

FoI in the USA: salary and food inspection databases

2009-09-30T20:09:00.000+01:00

The State (South Carolina) has compiled state and local salary details of 5,600 local and nearly 20,000 statewide positions. Local salaries included are for Kershaw, Lexington and Richland county government, most municipalities in those counties and school districts. More than half the data in the local agencies database has been updated in the last two weeks and new data is coming in daily.

This information is available via Freedom of Information Act submissions, as state law requires base salaries be made available upon request for certain classes of state employees making $50,000 or more annually. More information about how they obtain and why they share this information is available on their salary search pages.

Their restaurant inspection database contains thousands of Dept. of Health and Environmental Control inspection results for eateries in Kershaw, Lexington and Richland counties. The data can be searched by county, restaurant name, address (find results from all restaurants with "Harbison" in the street name, for example), city, ZIP code or inspection type or result.

Data updates: State, local salary, food inspections (The State, 30 September 2009)

ICO expands

2009-09-30T19:54:00.001+01:00

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is expanding its head office on Water Lane, Wilmslow. Building work is now underway following planning permission to extend Wycliffe House.

The ICO is the national independent body that champions information rights, regulates data protection and freedom of information, and employs some 300 staff in Wilmslow. The organisation handles over 100,000 calls from the public every year, investigates around 25,000 individual data protection cases, and determines over 3,000 complaints under the Freedom of Information Act.

Simon Entwisle, Chief Operating Officer at the ICO, said: “Wilmslow is a great location for us and I am delighted that we are staying in the town. Our work on information rights - protecting people’s privacy and promoting access to official information - has never been more important. The decision to stay put is good news for jobs in Wilmslow and other businesses in the area.”

The building work will enable the ICO to accommodate all Wilmslow based staff in one building, enhance the existing office space and provide scope for further expansion. It will provide an additional 10,000 square feet of modern, environmentally friendly accommodation over three floors. The work will be managed by Jones Contracts and is due to be completed by summer 2010.

The decision to extend on the existing Water Lane campus in central Wilmslow follows a review of property requirements. Accommodation in other areas was considered, but the organisation has decided that Wilmslow provides better value for money and is a more convenient location for the majority of staff.

The ICO is currently based on two sites in Wilmslow (Wycliffe House, Water Lane and Town House, Alderley Road). The ICO also has small offices in London, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Information Commissioner’s Office grows in size (Publictechnology.net, 30 September 2009)

Surf's up

2009-09-28T19:46:00.000+01:00

It is due to be the jewel in the crown of a multi-million pound project to rebrand a less than glamorous part of the Dorset coast.

A hi-tech artificial reef - the first of its kind in Europe - to bring a new surf culture and clientele to Boscombe in Bournemouth.

But questions over the surf reef's performance and safety were still being raised recently, e-mails seen by BBC News reveal.

Work was previously delayed on the reef between November and April due to bad weather, pushing the cost to £3m - nearly double the original price.

Recent e-mail correspondence between Bournemouth Borough Council and developer ASR, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, shows concerns over gaps in the artificial reef.

Surf reef safety questions raised (BBC News, 28 September 2009)

The sun ain't gonna shine anymore

2009-09-28T19:41:00.000+01:00

Doctors' leaders have strongly criticised a local authority which has taken more than £83,000 from operating sunbeds in the past five years.

After a Freedom of Information request, the British Medical Association (BMA) found that Wrexham generated the money.

After BMA Wales criticism, the Vale of Glamorgan council recently agreed to remove its leisure centre sunbeds.

Wrexham council said it would also be removing sunbeds by April 2010, and has already reduced their numbers to five.

The BMA said it was "deeply shocked" after obtaining the £83,632 income figures relating to sunbed use at Wrexham council leisure facilities.

Doctors criticise council sunbeds (BBC News, 28 September 2009)

Extra curricular activities

2009-09-26T19:34:00.000+01:00

Almost 150 teachers in England have been sacked or disciplined for sexual misconduct in the last two years, new figures revealed.

Some 49 of the 56 teachers who lost their jobs were reported to the police, according to a Freedom of Information request made by More4 News.

A further 92 faced disciplinary action.

Sexual misconduct could include a number of offences such as sexual assault, sex with a pupil, or showing students pornographic material.

A breakdown of the figures, provided by 100 local authorities in England, show that 52 teachers were disciplined in 2007/08, and 40 were disciplined in 2008/09.

In addition, 31 teachers were sacked for sexual misconduct in 2007/08, with 25 losing their jobs in 2008/09.

The police were informed in 26 cases in 2007/08, and in 23 cases in 2008/09.

The figures mainly relate to teacher and pupil behaviour More4 said, although some cases of teacher and teacher behaviour are included due to the way the data was collected.

Sexual misconduct figures revealed (Press Assciation, 26 September 2009)

Sick tax

2009-09-25T19:39:00.000+01:00

NHS hospitals raked in more than £110 million in car parking charges last year, research by the Liberal Democrats revealed.

The figures, disclosed in a Freedom of Information request, showed visitors were hit with £84 million in parking fees while NHS staff were charged £28 million.

Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge made the most out of any hospital, taking £2.8 million in parking charges.

Peter Wilcock, Liberal Democrat candidate for Saffron Walden, Cambs, said the parking charges were "effectively a tax on the sick".

Hospitals make millions in parking (Press Association, 25 September 2009)

The mole and the MPs' expenses

2009-09-25T19:30:00.000+01:00

The mole who leaked details of MPs' expenses says he was partly motivated by anger at inadequate equipment for UK troops, the Daily Telegraph reported.

It says staff sorting through MPs' receipts were guarded by servicemen on leave moonlighting to earn extra money.

The mole said their stories "helped tip the balance" in the decision to leak details - the Telegraph has confirmed it paid £110,000 for the information.

The MoD says its top priority is to get the "best equipment" for troops.

The claims are made in a book being published by the Daily Telegraph on Friday about the expenses scandal.

Expense mole 'angry at Army kit' (BBC News, 25 September 2009)

Questions over child abuse sentences

2009-09-23T19:28:00.001+01:00

A quarter of child abusers avoid court action and are issued with police cautions instead, it emerged today.

Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution.

The statistics include 20 who raped girls under 16 and eight who attacked young boys.

The shocking figures were provided to The Sun by the 33 forces in a response to a Freedom of Information request.

The data also shows three in five of those who admit child neglect or cruelty avoided court action.

With police charging 1,019 adults while 1,568 were cautioned.

In London, where Baby P was tortured and killed, almost a third of abusers avoided court action.

Quarter of child abusers escape court action and get police cautions instead (Daily Mail, 23 September 2009)

Questionable practices in police reporting of rape

2009-09-20T19:26:00.000+01:00

Some UK police forces fail to record more than four in 10 rape claims on official crime records, it has been reported.

Figures obtained by the BBC, using Freedom of Information legislation, found wide regional variations.

In Northumbria, 172 of a total of 382 reports of rape (45%) did not make it into official Home Office figures.

The BBC said rules state that only allegations verified as false - reported to the wrong force or recorded in error - can be removed.

Police in Durham said only five of 130 cases had been "no-crimed", yet the BBC said figures showed a further 83 cases were never officially recorded in the first place.

Forces in Humberside, Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire recorded at least 90% of cases for investigation.

The figures also showed hundreds of complaints lodged in the year to March 2008 never went forward to a full investigation.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said significant advances had been made into investigating rapes, but admitted there was still much more to do.

'Missing' police rape cases queried (Press Association, 20 September 2009)

New unified tribunals service for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

2009-08-17T18:47:00.000+01:00

People appealing against rulings by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) will face a new tribunal structure from January next year. The Information Tribunal, which hears appeals on ICO rulings, will become part of a wider system.

Under the new regime, which awaits Parliamentary approval, very serious or very complex cases will be sent to a more senior tribunal straight away, while junior tribunal hears more everyday cases.

The ICO makes rulings on whether or not there have been breaches of the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

People or organisations who disagree with those rulings appeal to the Information Tribunal.

In January the Information Tribunal will transfer over to General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) which is one part of a new unified tribunals service.

This is part of a Government plan to centralise and standardise regulation. The tax and land tribunals are already part of the new structure.

For the first time there will be two-tiered Information Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal will hear most cases, and it will be possible to appeal those rulings to the Administrative Appeals chamber of the Upper Tribunal.

Some cases, though, will go straight to that Upper Tribunal, the Tribunals Service said.

Changes confirmed for data protection and freedom of information appeals (Out-law.com, 17 August 2009)

Hello Goodbye to iconic level crossing

2009-08-16T19:43:00.000+01:00

The zebra crossing which featured on the cover of The Beatles' Abbey Road album should be removed because fans are causing too many accidents, politicians have claimed.

Hundreds of Beatles fans made the pilgrimage to the site to follow in the footsteps of the Fab Four, 40 years to the day after the cover was photographed there.

But now local councillors are proposing to move the crossing altogether over fears that the number of people posing for photographs in the middle of the road is causing accidents and holding up traffic.

The crossing, in St John’s Wood, north London, has attracted increasing numbers of sightseers in recent years, and figures obtained from Westminster Council under the Freedom of Information Act reveal a rising number of accidents in the area.

Iconic Beatles zebra crossing faces axe (Daily Telegraph, 9 August 2009)

Al Qaeda and gifts from the Queen

2009-08-14T23:40:00.001+01:00

For years, the Queen has rewarded the police officers who guard her Sandringham estate with miniature bottles of whisky.

It transpires that the number of gifts she bestows is not only a closely guarded secret but a matter of grave national security.

That is the view of Norfolk Police. It has declined a request made under the Freedom of Information Act to divulge how many of its officers received presents because, it says, it would allow ‘domestic or foreign terrorists to establish the level of police protection afforded to Royal residences’.

In a five-page explanation, the force added that such information amounted to ‘vital intelligence’ that might have disastrous consequences were it to fall into the hands of dangerous extremists such as Al Qaeda.

Police keep details about gifts from the Queen secret... because it might help extremists (Daily Mail, 8 August 2009)

BBC splashes out on bottled water

2009-08-14T21:45:00.000+01:00

The BBC is assessing 'health issues' of tap water after a freedom of information request revealed cost to licence fee payers.

The BBC has been accused of wasting public money and creating unnecessary environmental damage by spending nearly half a million pounds a year on bottled water. Responding to a freedom of information request from the Guardian, the public broadcaster said it spent £406,000 annually on large bottles for its water coolers.

In addition, BBC staff are allowed to order bottled water for the organisation's hospitality events. The BBC refused to reveal how much it did spend on bottled water at the 103,000 events it held last year, claiming the cost of finding out was more than the Freedom of Information Act required.

BBC accused of wasting £406,000 of public money a year on bottled water (The Guardian, 11 August 2009)

£300,000 a year - just what the doctor ordered

2009-08-14T19:37:00.000+01:00

Some GPs received up to £380,000 last year, although from this they have to pay for other staff in their practice as well as rent.

Nonetheless, in Norfolk, one GP makes £310,000 per year even after these costs have been subtracted, according to statistics obtained by The Daily Mail after Freedom of Information requests.

The figures also found that family doctors are being paid more than £200 an hour for working evenings at the weekends, something they did for free before 2004 until the contract moved responsibility to primary care trusts.

Family doctors 'earn more than £300,000' (Daily Telegraph, 4 August 2009)

That's entertainment - BBC puts licence money to good use

2009-08-13T21:29:00.000+01:00

Once the holiday home of the legendary record producer Mickie Most, with panoramic views of the Mediterranean, the luxurious villa perched on a hilltop overlooking Cannes has had more prosaic guests in the last three years – executives from the BBC who have been using it as a base and for entertaining.

In figures released to the Guardian after a Freedom of Information request, the corporation admitted spending £90,530 on five separate hirings of the villa and related travel and hospitality since 2006, most recently in April.

The BBC also confirmed it has been using the villa twice a year for "at least seven or eight years" to wine and dine executives from other UK and foreign broadcasters at international programming markets in Cannes in a bid to get them to inject cash into new television projects.

BBC spends licence fee payers' money on luxurious villa to entertain in Cannes (The Guardian, 3 August 2009)

£300,000 petty cash for 60 MPs

2009-08-13T20:33:00.000+01:00

Sixty MPs arranged for nearly £300,000 of taxpayers' money to be wired directly to their bank accounts without having to produce any form of receipt, it has been claimed.

The politicians all set up what were in effect standing orders of up to £250 a month over a four year period from 2004 to 2008.

This was the maximum amount of petty cash allowed by the Fees Office without needing a receipt. This figure was reduced to just £25 last year.

MPs who claimed petty cash this way included former defence minister Des Browne, former sports minister Richard Caborn and the new Speaker John Bercow, according to a Freedom of Information request by The Sunday Times.

60 MPs 'arranged for petty cash to be wired direct every month' (Daily Telegraph, 3 August 2009)

Taxpayers cough up £37million for police stress

2009-08-13T20:27:00.000+01:00

Police officers took 225,000 days off for stress last year, costing the taxpayer £37million.

It means that the equivalent of 600 staff a day called in sick with mental health problems such as stress-related depression or anxiety.

The figures for England and Wales, which exclude those absent with ordinary illnesses or officers on paid leave awaiting disciplinary hearings, also show that more than 40 officers took the entire year off.

Critics pointed out that the numbers, obtained through Freedom of Information legislation, were far higher than in the private sector. They said it was a cause for serious concern.

600 policemen call in sick every day with stress...and it costs the taxpayer £37million (Daily Mail, 1 August 2009)

They know where you live and what you watch

2009-08-12T22:19:00.000+01:00

The law states that anyone watching or recording TV programmes as they are broadcast must have a licence. It really doesn't matter if you use a TV, a computer or a mobile phone – if it's live, you have to pay. Catch-up services such as the BBC iPlayer or 4oD fall under different rules and don't require a licence.

But how does TV Licensing, which collects and enforces licence fees on behalf of the BBC, know when a PC is receiving a live broadcast? Have the mysterious detector vans been fitted with some new equipment?

TV Licensing is very secretive about its detection methods, fearing that disclosing too much could help potential evaders. In a Freedom of Information request last year the BBC refused to reveal the technical equipment used by its vans, stating it "relies on the public perception

that the vans could be used at any time to catch evaders".

Do you need a licence to watch TV on your computer? (The Guardian, 29 July 2009)

Pop goes the iPod

2009-08-12T21:35:00.000+01:00

The father of an 11-year-old girl in the U.K. said Apple tried to keep him from speaking about his daughter's iPod after it exploded last month.

Speaking to The Times in the U.K., Ken Stanborough said after he dropped the iPod Touch, it began hissing and started to get hot. As a precaution, he threw the iPod outside and "within 30 seconds there was a pop, a big puff of smoke and it went 10 (feet) in the air," he said.

Apple agreed to give Stanborough a refund, but only if he signed a confidentiality agreement, agreeing not to disclose any information about the incident. Stanborough said he found the letter "appalling" and refused to sign it.

Reporter Amy Clancy of KIRO-TV in Seattle said it took her more than seven months to get documents from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on iPods that mysteriously burst into flames. She said she had filed a Freedom of Information Act request, but Apple lawyers

filed "exemption after exemption" with the commission to stop her from getting the over 800 pages of documents.

Clancy said the documents show 15 "burn and fire-related incidents" that iPod owners blamed on the device.

Apple tried to silence family over exploding iPod (cnet news, 3 August 2009)

Air Force One: flyover photos released

2009-08-12T21:24:00.000+01:00

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Department of Defense has released 146 photographs that were taken during the photo-op involving Air Force One and the Statue of Liberty on April 27. President Obama was not on the plane when the photos were taken.

The low-flying plane caused panic among New Yorkers because it was a reminder of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The controversial flight resulted in the May resignation of White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera.

Flyover photos of controversial Air Force One flight released (Examiner.com, 1 August 2009)

FoI in Yemen

2009-08-10T22:21:00.000+01:00

Amid accusations of government suppression of the media, a new bill that promotes freedom of information was presented to lawyers, journalists and representatives of local and international non-government organizations on Thursday.

The bill says that every person in Yemen has the right to access to information from every government body.

It aims to ensure citizens' rights to timely access to information, enhance government transparency, expand opportunities for public participation in government, and help society develop its capabilities.

The bill, called the "Right of Access to Information," was presented by the Parliament's Media and Culture Committee, The International Research & Exchanges Board and the Yemeni Parliamentarians Against Corruption.

It requires the establishment of a commission for information. It also directs every ministry, government and military body, judiciary and prosecution to create an office of information with specialized employees.

MPs introduce freedom of information bill (Yemen Times, 29 July 2009)

Time for a bonfire of the quangos?

2009-07-28T21:07:00.002+01:00

The Daily Mirror reports:

"Freeloading bosses of some of our most pointless quangos have enjoyed sun-drenched overseas jollies - costing the taxpayer £11.5million.

In the second part of our shocking probe into our public-funded bodies, we can reveal they have jetted off on more than 15,000 trips abroad in the last year - all bankrolled by YOU.

The far-flung jaunts included at least 226 trips to the States, 59 to China, 33 to Australia and New Zealand, 24 to Canada and 13 to Dubai.

Quango bosses and staff have stayed at luxury five-star hotels, casino hotels and beach resorts.

Our probe, using the Freedom of Information Act to hold nearly 300 quangos to account, has uncovered thousands of overseas trips taken in the 12 months to April 2009 by Britain's quangocrats."

Read more at the following link...

The fabulous quango junkets to Australia, China, USA that the taxpayer is paying for
(Daily Mirror, 28 July 2009)

FoI Tribunal gets it wrong

2009-07-27T20:50:00.000+01:00

The High Court has ruled that the Information Tribunal misunderstood part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request and failed to properly adjudicate other parts of it. The case must now be re-considered by the Tribunal.

When the Government passed the Financial Services and Markets Act in 2000 the then-Chancellor Gordon Brown declared that the law was compatible with the Human Rights Act.

Evan Owen wrote to the Treasury to ask to see the legal documentation on which that declaration was based. His request was made under the provisions of the FOI Act. The Treasury denied his request, saying that advice from Government advisors the Law Officers was exempt from disclosure under FOI. There is a provision in the FOI Act that exempts information subject to legal professional privilege.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), agreed that the advice was exempt from disclosure. It also ruled, though, that the Treasury should disclose whether or not Law Officers' advice was held by it. It did not have to disclose what the advice was, only whether or not it had been given, the ICO said.

The Treasury appealed that decision to the Information Tribunal, which backed the ICO's ruling, and to the High Court. It said that even just the fact of whether or not advice had been sought or given could be politically sensitive and damage the confidentiality necessary for legal advice to be effective.

The Court found that the Tribunal had had a "fundamental misunderstanding" about the convention governing Law Officers' behaviour and its relation to the case which was "at the heart of the Tribunal's concerns".

It also said that the Tribunal did not properly consider the balance of public interest in disclosure or withholding of the information.

The Court said that it would make no ruling on the substance of the claims, but would ask the Tribunal to rule on them again.

Info Tribunal fluffed on FOI, rules High Court (The Register, 24 July 2009)

Northern Ireland FoI chief suspended

2009-07-19T22:58:00.001+01:00

The head of the Northern Ireland branch of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has been suspended.

BBC News understands it is alleged Aubrey McCrory engaged in inappropriate conduct within his Belfast office.

The ICO promotes public access to official information and protects personal information across the UK.

Mr McCrory was appointed as Assistant Commissioner for Northern Ireland at the Information Commissioner's Office last June.

He had previously worked at the Equality Commission.

The post of Assistant Commissioner for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) commands a maximum salary of £58,650.

NI information chief is suspended (BBC News, 13 July 2009)

Top presenters' salaries at the BBC should be revealed

2009-07-19T22:25:00.000+01:00

The culture secretary, Ben Bradshaw, has signalled that the BBC should follow the “painful” example of MPs in coming clean over the salaries and expenses of its top stars.

Bradshaw’s intervention comes after the broadcaster repeatedly blocked requests to disclose the amount of money it spends on its highest-paid presenters and other on-screen talent.

The BBC has attracted more complaints than virtually any other public-sector organisation for refusing to make disclosures under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act – despite the fact that its journalists are among its biggest beneficiaries.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Bradshaw, a former BBC correspondent, said: “Organisations that are spending public money should be transparent and open about how they spend it.”

Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw calls for stars’ salaries to be revealed (The Times, 19 July 2009)

2 year consultation results in 4 more bodies being covered by FoI

2009-07-18T23:15:00.001+01:00

The Ministry of Justice has named four public bodies that should be covered by Freedom of Information laws - but campaigners have said the list does not go far enough.

Academy schools, the Association of Chief Police Officers, university admissions body Ucas and the Financial Ombudsman Service would be included within the scope of FoI under the new plans.

Justice secretary Jack Straw said the government would consult the bodies with a view to bringing them within the laws early in the next parliamentary session.

He also said ministers would work with Network Rail and utility companies to consider how the freedom of information regime might also apply to them.

Extending FoI to prisons, detention centres and foster care homes run by private contractors on behalf of public authorities was a "matter under review", the Ministry of Justice said.

The moves follow a consultation on extending the Freedom of Information Act, which defines what information certain public bodies are required to produce on request.

Freedom of Information Act scope to be extended - a bit (Press Gazette, 17 July 2009)

Freedom of Information Act to be extended (Hold the Front Page, 17 July 2009)

UK: Government to extend Freedom of Information Act (EditorsWeblog.org, 17 July 2009)

Companies carrying out public functions escape FoI

2009-07-18T23:13:00.001+01:00

Companies that provide public services will not be brought within the Freedom of Information Act, the government said yesterday. The Campaign for Freedom of Information said the decision was very disappointing given the growing role the private sector had in providing public services.

The justice ministry has bowed to the arguments of employers' organisations that meeting FOI requests would add to the costs of contracts.

Companies to stay outside FOI (Financial Times, 17 July 2009)

Companies to stay outside Freedom of Information regime (Out-Law, 17 July 2009)

Tourist rage is all the rage

2009-07-18T23:09:00.000+01:00

Some of Scotland’s most famous heritage sites are being blighted by “ruin rage”, with visitors aggrieved by everything from parking problems to child misbehaviour.

Staff working for Historic Scotland have been left with black eyes and broken teeth, while one worker was almost run over by a visitor in a dispute about car parking.

The incidents were revealed in documents released yesterday by the agency, which is responsible for maintaining chief tourist sites including Edinburgh Castle and the Antonine Wall. The files reveal 30 separate incidents of abuse and violence against its staff in two years.

The incident logs show that in March 2007 one steward was beaten up by a visitor after asking for an illegally parked car to be moved. A year later a visitor subjected staff to a torrent of verbal abuse before attempting to damage a monument. In another incident, staff were intimidated by a group of Italian tourists owing to “closure of the site at closing hours”.

The documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act, also include details of 241 on-site accidents involving both staff and visitors, although Historic Scotland bosses did not specify where they had occurred. Among the mishaps were a steward being blown over by a gust of wind and a dog trapped in a lavatory.

Scots heritage sites alarmed at rising ‘aggression and violence’ (The Times, 17 July 2009)

Information watchdog has no teeth

2009-07-15T23:02:00.000+01:00

Martin Sixsmith writes: "This Government claims it is committed to openness. My gruelling battle to find out who lied about me shows otherwise"

"... I was a member of the senior Civil Service when the Freedom of Information Act was formulated in 1999 and I remember all the whispered discussions about how to circumvent it (never write anything down, don’t keep minutes of sensitive meetings), and partly because I have just emerged from a gruelling battle to make use of Britain’s information laws and have found the odds stacked firmly against me."

"... in April 2006 I filed a subject access request for all the information the Government held on me and expected to get it within the 40-day deadline specified by the Freedom of Information Act. Some hope. The Government didn’t even reply within 40 days let alone provide the data."

"When I asked why it was not sending me the information, I triggered a mildly surreal sequence of excuses that went on for two years: we have faulty IT equipment; manpower shortages; new priorities; “I am on holiday in France, R. Smith, Data Controller”; pressure of other business; change in IT supplier; the need to consult widely; Christmas leave commitments; third-party interests; concerns over data security."

"When I rang, the ICO said that it had mislaid the case file. I asked for a meeting. At ICO headquarters in Wilmslow, Cheshire, I found an understaffed, cowed and demoralised organisation with nothing like the clout and resources the job demands. Staff members told me that they were stressed, overworked and scared of challenging the Government (which pays their wages)."

Read more at the link below.

The information watchdog without any teeth (The Times, 14 July 2009)

Modern art can be dangerous

2009-07-14T22:56:00.000+01:00

It was a sensation in the 70s when the Tate was forced to close a new exhibit, just four days after it was opened, when it was almost wrecked by an overly exuberant public.

Nearly 40 years on, Robert Morris's Bodyspacemotionthings has lost none of its potential for danger after clocking up a string of casualties during a special reappearance at Tate Modern this summer. The artwork, in which participants are invited to negotiate see-saws, a tightrope and other obstacles, left 23 people needing first aid in just over week.

According to records released under the Freedom of Information Act, the injured included a two-year-old girl who was taken to hospital after banging her head, and two boys aged 11 and seven who were taken to hospital with a crushed finger and grazed forehead in separate incidents involving the installation.

Other injuries included a cut leg, a rope burn to the hand, bruised ribs, and a bruised shoulder.

The injuries occurred despite a stringent application of 21st century health and safety procedures by the Tate.

Tate Modern perfects the art of living dangerously (The Guardian, 12 July 2009)

FoI in the USA: Red light cameras bring in the dollars

2009-07-13T22:51:00.000+01:00

Red-light cameras often -- but don't always -- translate into big money for suburbs that install them.

West suburban Bellwood kept more than $1.1 million last year in red-light camera revenue, according to figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Bellwood did not reveal how much it paid its camera vendors, Lombard-based Redspeed and Australia-owned Redflex.

Southwest suburban Bolingbrook briefly had 10 cameras operating in 2007 before pulling the plug. In August of that year, fines collected topped $261,000, with a little more than half going to Bolingbrook and the rest to Redspeed, invoices show.

In west suburban Berwyn, however, it is Redspeed, not the town, that usually keeps most of the monthly split from ticket revenue generated by the city's four cameras. In April, for example, fine collections totaled $18,000 and Redspeed's share came to $13,327, invoices show.

Red-light camera revenue varies in suburbs (Chicago Tribune, 12 July 2009)

Consultation: Reducing the 30 year rule to 15 years

2009-07-09T22:43:00.000+01:00

The Scottish Government is asking whether information held by public authorities could be made available for public viewing earlier than is currently the case.

That is the question being asked by Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford as the Scottish Government invites views on proposals to reduce the lifespan of certain exemptions in the Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) from 30 years to 15 years.

The consultation follows the recent decision by Scottish Ministers to open Scottish Government files from the period 1979 to 1994, 15 years earlier than has previously been the case.

Mr Crawford said: "The Scottish Government is committed to the principles that underpin Freedom of Information legislation. That is why I announced last month that we would make available, from later this year, Scottish Government files which would otherwise have remained secret for up to 30 years - files which cover, among other things, the first devolution proposals and the introduction of the poll tax.

"I believe there is a case for extending that approach to all public authorities who are subject to the legislation. However I am clear that it is important to seek views on the extent of any changes. That is why our consultation paper asks a number of questions - and the responses we receive will help determine our next steps."

This consultation seeks views on whether the lifespan of certain 'exemptions' in FOISA should be reduced from 30 years to 15 years. This would allow information to be available at an earlier date.

Responses to the consultation are invited by September 30.

Consultation by Scottish Ministers on reducing the term of certain exemptions within the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Scottish Government website)

Scottish Government considers releasing public sector information earlier, under FOI (PublicTechnology.net, 7 July 2009)

Gifts for Metropolitan police revealed

2009-07-08T22:33:00.000+01:00

Fine wines, ringside seats at major sporting events and – perhaps inevitably – a greatest hits CD by the Police. Scotland Yard's finest may have been battered by some unprecedented recent controversies but at least toiling in its upper echelons comes with perks.

Records of hospitality accepted by the 12 members of the Metropolitan police management board, released after a Freedom of Information request, show they received an eclectic mix of gifts.

A boomerang from the Australian police, a ceremonial dagger from Abu Dhabi police and a mounted truncheon shield from Bahrain's chief of public security were just some of the gifts accepted over the last year and a half by Sir Paul Stephenson, the Met's current commissioner,

He also enjoyed a Rolling Stones concert courtesy of O2, rugby tickets from Capgemini and Unisys and had meals from Mercedes Benz, Policy Exchange, Lord and Lady Ashcroft, BT and various media organisations, including the Guardian.

Gifts to Metropolitan police's top officers revealed (The Guardian, 6 July 2009)

Freedom of information regulator accused of excessive delays

2009-07-03T22:26:00.001+01:00

Freedom of information campaigners say the regulator takes too long to decide to release documents to the public, undermining efforts to open up official files.

The public has to wait more than a year and a half on average before the information commissioner delivers a decision, according to figures. A decision about gun-related crime in Yorkshire took three years and 10 months.

The commissioner's staff take eight months on average before they even start investigating a complaint. One person waited nearly two years for the commissioner to begin an investigation into their complaint, concerning a refusal to release information about student loans.

Criticism by the Campaign for Freedom of Information is levelled mainly at Richard Thomas, who was information commissioner for seven years until last month. He has been replaced by Christopher Graham, the former director-general of the Advertising Standards Authority.

Maurice Frankel, the campaign's director, said the delays were "sufficiently serious and widespread to represent a major threat to the Freedom of Information Act's effectiveness and public confidence in it". He said: "A delay of two to three years or more in reaching a decision, as happens in over a quarter of cases means that even if the information is ultimately disclosed, it may no longer be of interest or use to the requester.

"Requesters ... may be so frustrated that they become reluctant to use the act again or to complain to the information commissioner about refusals."

Freedom of information regulator accused of excessive delays (UTV News, 2 July 2009)

Secrecy rulings 'taking too long' (BBC News, 3 July 2009)

The cost of war: over 100 civilian deaths in Afghanistan

2009-07-01T22:13:00.000+01:00

The government has paid or is assessing compensation over 104 civilian deaths allegedly caused by the Army during operations in Afghanistan.

Figures revealed after a Freedom of Information request by Channel 4 News show $200,000 (£120,000) compensation was paid in the last 18 months.

Payouts range from $210 (£127) for a woman's death to $39,752 (£24,155) for a "multiple fatality" incident.

But 113 compensation claims have been rejected by the Ministry of Defence.

UK Afghan civilian death payments (BBC News, 1 July 2009)

Private prisons performing worse than state-run facilities

2009-06-30T21:56:00.000+01:00

Report pours scorn on Government claim that private sector is raising standards

Britain's private prisons are performing worse than those run by the state, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The findings, based on the overall performances of 132 prisons in England and Wales, appear to undermine claims by ministers that the greater use of private jails is raising standards for the accommodation of more than 83,000 prisoners held across both sectors.

Separate figures, also released under the right-to-know law, show that nearly twice as many prisoner complaints are upheld in private prisons as they are in state-run institutions.

Private prisons 'performing worse than state-run jails' (The Independent, 29 June 2009)

Police Officers' expenses published

2009-06-29T21:50:00.000+01:00

The expenses claims of Norfolk police's top police officers have been published online and the force plans to extend this to other senior members of staff in the near future.

Claims submitted by all Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) ranks - the chief constable, his deputy and assistants and the force's assistant chief officer - have been uploaded and show travel, accommodation and hospitality claims over the past year.

The force says: “Information about locations and functions/events has been excluded in the interests of the personal safety of the chief officer and colleagues.”

The claims do not include details of chief officers' remuneration pack-ages, but many of these are already in the public domain following various Freedom of Information Act requests for, for example, details of bonus payments and company cars.

Police chief's expenses published (Great Yarmouth Mercury24, 26 June 2009)

BBC to publish expenses claimed by senior staff

2009-06-29T21:45:00.000+01:00

Details of the expenses claimed by senior staff are to be made public for the first time as early as today, amid growing concern about possible misuse of licence fee-payers' money.

But information about the sums spent on hospitality for its most high-profile presenters and actors will be censored, sparking allegations of a partial cover-up.

The BBC has brought forward the publication in an effort to head-off criticism of its lack of transparency, following the Daily Telegraph's coverage of MPs' expenses claims.

Some BBC executives claimed as much as £1,000 a month for lunches, hotel stays and theatre trips in addition to their salaries, according to the newspaper.

The corporation claims the Freedom of Information Act allows expenses related to "journalism, art or literature" to be kept secret.

BBC to censor expenses which detail how much is spent on entertaining best-paid stars (Daily Telegraph, 25 June 2009)