Recently CFOI compared the position of the three main parties on Freedom of Information based on there manifestoes.
I wanted to find out about some of the other parties' policies, UKIP have replied today:
"...Thank you for your email, which has been passed on to me as a member of the UKIP policy team.
UKIP supports the right for the British people to find out more from government about how decisions are made, information the government keeps on government business and where the government spends our money. The Freedom of Information Act is an invaluable tool to empower the British people.
Best wishes, ..."
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Thursday, 15 April 2010
UK Parliament Exploits Dissolution to Delay FOI Responses
MY EMAIL TO ICO
Dear ICO
I am writing to complain about the general approach taken by public
officials to those requests addressed to the House of Commons and the
House of Lords to:
(a) requests received prior to dissolution but not yet answered; and
(b) requests received during dissolution.
I am also complaining specifically about the approach taken to a
request I made myself. [6]
I fully accept that Parliament has been dissolved however there are a
number of other factors the Information Commissioner should consider
in dealing with this complaint. I am sure you will appreciate that
a general election is a time of increased awareness of politics and
that it is very damaging for democracy if questionable technicalities
are used to avoid disclosing information to the public.
The standard response being used by officials is [1][2][6]:
"When Parliament has been dissolved there is no ‘House of Commons[or
Lords]’ for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, and
there is therefore no ‘public authority’ to which the 20 day deadline
under section 10 of the 2000 Act is capable of applying. The time
limits do not, therefore, apply during the period of Dissolution.
The effect of the 2000 Act, including its time limits, resumes when
the new House of Commons/Lords first meets. "
(1) Under Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ('the
Act') public authorities must reply to requests "promptly". If the
House of Commons considered that it would cease to be a public
authority on dissolution it ought to have interpreted the word
"promptly" in that context. This would mean applying significant
additional resources to ensuring as many requests as possible were
dealt with prior to dissolution. I have not seen any evidence of
this.
(2) Requests for information that could include environmental
information [e.g. requests for copies of internal newsletters] should
of course be considered with reference to the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004 ("EIR"). EIR would apply to the House of
Commons Commission which exists even during the period of
dissolution[3]. EIR would also apply to the the Corporate Officer of
the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords
(corporations with perpetual succession established by the
Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992. Requests received by
officials during dissolution cannot be received by those officials in
their capacity as agents of a public authority that does not exist so
arguably the requests for information are requests received by one of
the corporate bodies which continue to exist during dissolution.
(3) UK law includes explicit time extensions for schools recognising
the difficult of responding during school holidays legislators would
have made explicit provision for a time extension during the
dissolution period had this been their intention.
(4) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was clearly intended to
provide a general and uninterrupted right of access to documents held
by public officials and public bodies an section 3(2)(b) of the Act
states that a public authority is deemed to hold information if the
information "is held by another person on behalf of the authority."
This adds further weight to the argument that Parliament's records and
documents should remain accessible regardless of which legal body has
control of them at any given time.
(5) According to the dissolution guidance published on the Parliament
website: "The House of Commons Information Office's services for the
public will operate as usual. [during the dissolution period]" [4]
This statement seems at odds with what is actually happening.
(6) Section 77 of the Act is clearly intended to prevent public
officials from destroying records to avoid disclosure under the Act.
[5] If the House of Commons really ceases to exist as a public
authority during the dissolution period for the purposes of the Act
then officials would be able to destroy records "with the intention of
preventing the disclosure" without committing a offence under that
section. It seems very unlikely that this would be what the
legislators intended.
(7) (a) According to the Parliament website: "Members of the House of
Lords are appointed - not elected - so during dissolution they remain
Members." this suggests that perhaps the House of Lords does exist
during dissolution.[8]
(7) (b) According to the Parliament website: "When Parliament is
dissolved every seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant." this
suggests that perhaps the House of Commons does exist in some form
after dissolution as it refers to the seats being vacate rather than
the seats ceasing to exist but this may just be a poor choice of
wording.[8]
(8) My person view is that the best way to interpret the law is that
the officials of the Palace of Westminster are required to continue to
respond to requests under the Act during the period of dissolution.
(9) Even if the ICO has no legal powers to intervene in this matter
please can you at least write to the relevant officials and remind
them of "The Seven Principles of Public Life" in particular:
"Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and
actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny
is appropriate to their office." [7]
and
"Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for
their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public
interest clearly demands." [7]
Notes appear at the foot of this email. Thank you for your time and
consideration in this matter
John
----------------------
John Cross
[1] http://www.mysociety.org/2010/04/13/parliament-foi-delay-dissolved/
[2] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/newsletters#incoming-79897
[3] "On a dissolution of Parliament the person who is then Mr. Speaker
shall continue in office as a member of the Commission until a Speaker
is chosen by the new Parliament." Schedule 1 3(1) of the House of
Commons (Administration) Act 1978
[4]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/dissolutionarrangements.pdf
[5] "any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an
offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals
any record held by the public authority, with the intention of
preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of
the information to the communication of which the applicant would have
been entitled." Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
[6] A request I made - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/crowned_portcullis
[7] http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/About/The_7_Principles.html
[8] http://news.parliament.uk/2010/04/dissolution-of-parliament-12-april-2010/
--
John Cross
Dear ICO
I am writing to complain about the general approach taken by public
officials to those requests addressed to the House of Commons and the
House of Lords to:
(a) requests received prior to dissolution but not yet answered; and
(b) requests received during dissolution.
I am also complaining specifically about the approach taken to a
request I made myself. [6]
I fully accept that Parliament has been dissolved however there are a
number of other factors the Information Commissioner should consider
in dealing with this complaint. I am sure you will appreciate that
a general election is a time of increased awareness of politics and
that it is very damaging for democracy if questionable technicalities
are used to avoid disclosing information to the public.
The standard response being used by officials is [1][2][6]:
"When Parliament has been dissolved there is no ‘House of Commons[or
Lords]’ for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, and
there is therefore no ‘public authority’ to which the 20 day deadline
under section 10 of the 2000 Act is capable of applying. The time
limits do not, therefore, apply during the period of Dissolution.
The effect of the 2000 Act, including its time limits, resumes when
the new House of Commons/Lords first meets. "
(1) Under Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ('the
Act') public authorities must reply to requests "promptly". If the
House of Commons considered that it would cease to be a public
authority on dissolution it ought to have interpreted the word
"promptly" in that context. This would mean applying significant
additional resources to ensuring as many requests as possible were
dealt with prior to dissolution. I have not seen any evidence of
this.
(2) Requests for information that could include environmental
information [e.g. requests for copies of internal newsletters] should
of course be considered with reference to the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004 ("EIR"). EIR would apply to the House of
Commons Commission which exists even during the period of
dissolution[3]. EIR would also apply to the the Corporate Officer of
the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords
(corporations with perpetual succession established by the
Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992. Requests received by
officials during dissolution cannot be received by those officials in
their capacity as agents of a public authority that does not exist so
arguably the requests for information are requests received by one of
the corporate bodies which continue to exist during dissolution.
(3) UK law includes explicit time extensions for schools recognising
the difficult of responding during school holidays legislators would
have made explicit provision for a time extension during the
dissolution period had this been their intention.
(4) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was clearly intended to
provide a general and uninterrupted right of access to documents held
by public officials and public bodies an section 3(2)(b) of the Act
states that a public authority is deemed to hold information if the
information "is held by another person on behalf of the authority."
This adds further weight to the argument that Parliament's records and
documents should remain accessible regardless of which legal body has
control of them at any given time.
(5) According to the dissolution guidance published on the Parliament
website: "The House of Commons Information Office's services for the
public will operate as usual. [during the dissolution period]" [4]
This statement seems at odds with what is actually happening.
(6) Section 77 of the Act is clearly intended to prevent public
officials from destroying records to avoid disclosure under the Act.
[5] If the House of Commons really ceases to exist as a public
authority during the dissolution period for the purposes of the Act
then officials would be able to destroy records "with the intention of
preventing the disclosure" without committing a offence under that
section. It seems very unlikely that this would be what the
legislators intended.
(7) (a) According to the Parliament website: "Members of the House of
Lords are appointed - not elected - so during dissolution they remain
Members." this suggests that perhaps the House of Lords does exist
during dissolution.[8]
(7) (b) According to the Parliament website: "When Parliament is
dissolved every seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant." this
suggests that perhaps the House of Commons does exist in some form
after dissolution as it refers to the seats being vacate rather than
the seats ceasing to exist but this may just be a poor choice of
wording.[8]
(8) My person view is that the best way to interpret the law is that
the officials of the Palace of Westminster are required to continue to
respond to requests under the Act during the period of dissolution.
(9) Even if the ICO has no legal powers to intervene in this matter
please can you at least write to the relevant officials and remind
them of "The Seven Principles of Public Life" in particular:
"Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and
actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny
is appropriate to their office." [7]
and
"Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for
their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public
interest clearly demands." [7]
Notes appear at the foot of this email. Thank you for your time and
consideration in this matter
John
----------------------
John Cross
[1] http://www.mysociety.org/2010/04/13/parliament-foi-delay-dissolved/
[2] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/newsletters#incoming-79897
[3] "On a dissolution of Parliament the person who is then Mr. Speaker
shall continue in office as a member of the Commission until a Speaker
is chosen by the new Parliament." Schedule 1 3(1) of the House of
Commons (Administration) Act 1978
[4]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/dissolutionarrangements.pdf
[5] "any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an
offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals
any record held by the public authority, with the intention of
preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of
the information to the communication of which the applicant would have
been entitled." Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
[6] A request I made - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/crowned_portcullis
[7] http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/About/The_7_Principles.html
[8] http://news.parliament.uk/2010/04/dissolution-of-parliament-12-april-2010/
--
John Cross
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Government Wine costs up to £132 per bottle
If you have ever wondered about the Government Wine Cellars, you should probably read this response to an FOI request:
"The five most expensive wines currently in stock in the Government Hospitality cellar are:
Château Lafite 1998
Château Cheval Blanc 1996
Château Haut-Brion 1996
Château Trotanoy 1998
and Vieux Château Certan 2005."
"the wines listed ranged in cost from £78.00 per bottle to £132.00 per bottle."
"The five most expensive wines purchased for the cellar during 2009 were:
Château Pichon-Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 2006
Château Lynch-Bages 2005
Château Pichon-Longueville Baron 2005
Château Léoville-Barton 2005
and Vieux Château Certan 2005"
"the wines listed ranged in cost from £57.00 per bottle to £132.00 per bottle."
It would appear that the "Vieux Château Certan 2005" is the most expensive as it appears on both lists so it is probably £132 per bottle.
I found a website selling 8 bottles for £1,050 which works out at £131.25 each.
"The five most expensive wines currently in stock in the Government Hospitality cellar are:
Château Lafite 1998
Château Cheval Blanc 1996
Château Haut-Brion 1996
Château Trotanoy 1998
and Vieux Château Certan 2005."
"the wines listed ranged in cost from £78.00 per bottle to £132.00 per bottle."
"The five most expensive wines purchased for the cellar during 2009 were:
Château Pichon-Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 2006
Château Lynch-Bages 2005
Château Pichon-Longueville Baron 2005
Château Léoville-Barton 2005
and Vieux Château Certan 2005"
"the wines listed ranged in cost from £57.00 per bottle to £132.00 per bottle."
It would appear that the "Vieux Château Certan 2005" is the most expensive as it appears on both lists so it is probably £132 per bottle.
I found a website selling 8 bottles for £1,050 which works out at £131.25 each.
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Copper content of a 2p coin
"I am the head of Chemistry in a Scottish Secondary school. One of my senior pupils is investigating methods of determining copper and iron in 2p coins."
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copper_content_in_a_2p_coin#incoming-20865
The answer supplied ten days later was 7% Copper and 93% mild steel (with tolerances also disclosed).
This is a really good simple example of the benefit to the public from Freedom of Information laws in general and WhatDoTheyKnow.com in particular.
I have incorporated the Royal Mint's response into this Wikipedia article:
Two pence (British decimal coin)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copper_content_in_a_2p_coin#incoming-20865
The answer supplied ten days later was 7% Copper and 93% mild steel (with tolerances also disclosed).
This is a really good simple example of the benefit to the public from Freedom of Information laws in general and WhatDoTheyKnow.com in particular.
I have incorporated the Royal Mint's response into this Wikipedia article:
Two pence (British decimal coin)
Thursday, 4 February 2010
How many public bodies are there in the UK?
Recently, a WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer was answering a query from a user of the site and was surprised to learn that the site already had the Deer Commission for Scotland listed. It was noted that Whatdotheyknow.com has quite a lot of public bodies as of 12:30pm today there are 3,303 public authorities sites on the site although 74 of these authorities are now marked as defunct. You might also want to exclude the 27 Water Companies, although these are 'public authorities' for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations. That still leaves about 3,200 active public authorities. So the next question for me is: how many public bodies are there in the UK?
The answer is no-one knows.
"We discovered early on that there are no precise figures for the very large number of people who are appointed to this great variety of public bodies and positions, nor even for how many public bodies exist."
Select Committee on Public Administration Fourth Report (2003)
So if no-one has a complete list how does Whatdotheyknow.com's list of about 3,200 compare to other lists and directories - who has the most comprehensive list?
The Cabinet Office's best effort is probably Public Bodies 2008 which puts the number of non-department at 790 (sometimes called Quangos). Added to that there are around 24 Government Departments listed bring the total to 814. These numbers exclude schools, colleges, universities, local government, the police, the NHS, and devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in other words this list of public bodies excludes more than it includes. The Tax Payers' Alliance put the number of Quangos at 1,162.
What is almost unique about Whatdotheyknow.com's list of public authorities is that it covers the whole lot (central, regional and local government, Parliament, the NHS, the Police, educational institutions, housing associations, publicly owned companies etc)
I say almost unique because buried in a dark corner of the Office for National Statistics website that is actually quite useful, it is called MA23 or to give it its full name the Sector Classification Guide. In order to prepare 'National Accounts' for Europe the Government has to have some kind of list of public sector bodies and MA23 contains that list.
The classification is not decided based on the political considerations of the current government but on internationally agreed definitions e.g. central government s1311, Public non-financial corporations and for this reason is more comprehensive than all the other lists the Government publishes.
MA23 lists the following rows:
The COINS database is less comprehensive and perhaps more influenced by UK politics but it does contain over 1,700 public authorities.
The answer is no-one knows.
"We discovered early on that there are no precise figures for the very large number of people who are appointed to this great variety of public bodies and positions, nor even for how many public bodies exist."
Select Committee on Public Administration Fourth Report (2003)
So if no-one has a complete list how does Whatdotheyknow.com's list of about 3,200 compare to other lists and directories - who has the most comprehensive list?
The Cabinet Office's best effort is probably Public Bodies 2008 which puts the number of non-department at 790 (sometimes called Quangos). Added to that there are around 24 Government Departments listed bring the total to 814. These numbers exclude schools, colleges, universities, local government, the police, the NHS, and devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in other words this list of public bodies excludes more than it includes. The Tax Payers' Alliance put the number of Quangos at 1,162.
What is almost unique about Whatdotheyknow.com's list of public authorities is that it covers the whole lot (central, regional and local government, Parliament, the NHS, the Police, educational institutions, housing associations, publicly owned companies etc)
I say almost unique because buried in a dark corner of the Office for National Statistics website that is actually quite useful, it is called MA23 or to give it its full name the Sector Classification Guide. In order to prepare 'National Accounts' for Europe the Government has to have some kind of list of public sector bodies and MA23 contains that list.
The classification is not decided based on the political considerations of the current government but on internationally agreed definitions e.g. central government s1311, Public non-financial corporations and for this reason is more comprehensive than all the other lists the Government publishes.
MA23 lists the following rows:
- 1,018 central government bodies
- 42 central government funds
- 3 central banks
- 369 public corporations
- 5 public insurance corporations and pension funds
- 377 local government bodies
- 3 local government funds
- Dorneywood Trust
- Eblex Limited
- Jebwill
- Orford Town Trustees
- World Poultry Science Association
- Yorkshire and Humber Regional Aggregation Body
The COINS database is less comprehensive and perhaps more influenced by UK politics but it does contain over 1,700 public authorities.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Parliamentary Topics page
EDM 589 is included on Parliament's topical issues webpages:
Freedom of Information topic
Please write to your MP and ask them to sign if they have not already done so:
That this House notes that section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with certain exceptions, makes companies wholly owned by the Crown or by a single public authority subject to the Act; further notes that a company wholly owned by two or more public authorities or 95 per cent. owned by a single public authority will be outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and calls for the closure of this loophole and for companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities to be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Freedom of Information topic
Please write to your MP and ask them to sign if they have not already done so:
That this House notes that section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with certain exceptions, makes companies wholly owned by the Crown or by a single public authority subject to the Act; further notes that a company wholly owned by two or more public authorities or 95 per cent. owned by a single public authority will be outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and calls for the closure of this loophole and for companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities to be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
