91Èȱ¬

If your children were among those who have just received their GCSE or A level results, you might be interested in this. It's an extract from a briefing prepared by civil servants for the higher education minister Bill Rammell.

"The relentless examination focus in schools means that the purpose of education is seen as passing the examination, not the developing of knowledge, skills and understanding for their own sake, or for the broader development of the ‘whole person’."

But just in case any of you think this reflects your children's experiences, I should point that the briefing was actually about China, which Mr Rammell visited in May. The briefing went on to say:

"This has recently been acknowledged by the Ministry of Education, and a new initiative to promote ‘quality oriented’ education as opposed to ‘examination oriented’ education is underway. This new focus will involve a fundamental attitudinal change, not only among teachers and students, but among parents and society as a whole, which will be a slow process."

The full briefing given to Mr Rammell about the Chinese education system was obtained by the 91Èȱ¬ through a freedom of information request.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

There is some useful and amusing material in the latest edition of , an ejournal edited by .

A shrewd analysis of the in New Zealand contains one particularly nice nugget for all students of the tricky relationship between government and media.

Papers released under the Official Information Act seem to have a certain cachet. Journalists apparently suspect that the government sometimes releases papers stamped 'Released under the Official Information Act', as if someone had requested them and forced their disclosure, whereas in fact no one has - the aim being to get journos interested in material they would otherwise ignore. Well, we wouldn't fall for that, would we?

There's also a report of a recent conference of academics interested in using FOI. I enjoyed their suggestion that FOI charges should be waived for members of the academic community. Personally I've always thought that FOI charges should be waived for people called Rosenbaum.

A former state official in Ontario explains how he coped with the Canadian FOI law, by keeping no records or emails. His motto: 'Carry all your information in your head, that way no one can get at it.' (I have to say however that in my experience people's heads are not reliable receptacles for long-term storage of information).

There are also some useful articles by solicitors specialising in FOI about case decisions so far and the precedents they have created for future use of FOI.

Ibrahim Hasan describes why these mean that 'public sector employees ... can no longer expect total confidentiality' on what they might previously have thought was their personal information.

Marcus Turle summarises how FOI decisions have poked numerous holes in the notion of commercial confidentiality. He is sympathetic to public sector suppliers who are uncomfortable about the level of disclosure of their information which they now face. He describes their environment as 'perilously rocky'. However he doesn't refer to the point that FOI applies just as much to their competitors. Or to mix metaphors, does it matter if the landscape is perilously rocky as long as it is also a level playing field?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Three Gorges Dam in China is the world's largest hydro-electric power project, and .

The 91Èȱ¬ used the Environmental Information Regulations to get three reports from the British Embassy in Beijing on the dam's environmental impact.

A 91Èȱ¬ environment correspondent described these reports to me as 'a wonderful synthesis of research'. Given this, it seems like a good idea to put them into the public domain for those who are interested in the subject:

• Three Gorges Dam - June 2003 egram

• China's Hydro Energy Policy - December 2005

• Scenery and Sturgeon Make Way for Concrete - December 2005

It's good to know that our people in Beijing are capable of top-quality work. However the Foreign Office has decided not to give us all of their words of wisdom from the third document, since that 'would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and China'.

But the Foreign Office did leave in this final concluding and evocative (if not perfectly grammatical) detail: 'And at the Dam itself, described in the official promotional video as an example of harmony between man and nature, gardeners were resorting to painting the grass green for the benefit of the tourist's cameras.'

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As I've noted before, sometimes the surprising thing with freedom of information is the extent of what does get disclosed.

Ever wanted to know the most common first names for criminals in Liverpool? The Merseyside Police have of offenders' first names and the offences committed.

This was part of their remarkably helpful response to an FOI request which, according to their , contained the following plea: "Any help regarding women and crime in Liverpool would be great." I spotted it mentioned on .

So the top ten criminal names in Liverpool are:
1. James
2. Michael
3. John
4. Paul
5. Stephen
6. Anthony
7. David
8. Thomas
9. Lee
10. Christopher

On the other hand, first names attached to just one offence include Chelsea, Clinton, Dylan, Eric, Norbert and Tracey.

It all raises some interesting questions:

Do all forces collect this data and if so why?

How much does your name influence your behaviour, a topic discussed for example in the bestselling (and quite interesting) book ?

Is this what they mean by profiling? Do people called Anthony tend to commit crimes, while Gordons it seems do not (well, not in Liverpool, anyway)?

And are the Merseyside Police fully trained-up to relate to the recent wave of Polish migration to Britain, given that they record the name of one offender as Wdjciech, a version which even by Polish standards would be a little difficult to pronounce?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There was an excellent freedom of information on The World at One this lunchtime, about the National Audit Office weakening (or should that be 'sexing down') its draft criticisms of the huge NHS IT programme Connecting for Health.

The , published in June, was much less critical of Connecting for Health than generally anticipated.

Using FOI, The World at One obtained an earlier draft of the NAO report, dated 26 January.

This criticised the Department of Health for being 'slow to demonstrate clear and effective leadership'. It also stressed how the NHS lacked sufficient IT skills to support the delivery of the programme. These were among criticisms which were either deleted or weakened for the final version.

So which report paints a more accurate version of the position of Connecting for Health? The advantage of FOI is that those who are interested can now read both and make up their own mind.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Some more on John Prescott. He gets a hard time because of his self-confessed difficulties with the English language, but to be fair to him he's a model of clarity compared to some much more incomprehensible attempts at communication - for example in research which his own officials have commissioned.

Back in March the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (as it then was) responded to a 91Èȱ¬ freedom of information request for copies of unpublished research.

They sent two draft reports on regional assemblies policy which had been commissioned from Salford University. Here is one report's first 'key recommendation':

'Analysis of the strategic fit of policy involves examining regional needs in relation to emerging policy from the centre. It also concerns the central analysis of the tensions between vertical improvement and horizontal integration in terms of the cross-cutting impact of policy and effect of variable commitment between OGDs.'

The reports carry on in much the same way:

'Successful policy making links context and interpretations to organisational problems and the proposed solutions embedded in the policy itself'.

They draw attention to problems caused by officials who are 'internally focused on processual issues', and stress the need for 'varied intelligence being incorporated into policy responses', 'foresight processes', 'the role of interpretive flexibility', and 'a sense of provisional orientation'.

And by the way, 'policy making is often characterised by misalignments and duplication rather than identifying overlaps and interrelationships.'

It sometimes falls to journalists to have to read through apparently impenetrable reports in the search for stories. I have to confess that in this case these reports defeated me, and I gave up. If you fear I might have missed anything interesting, you can check for yourself - the ODPM on their website (now part of the Department for Communities and Local Government).

So what did John Prescott's officials make of all this? The ODPM told the 91Èȱ¬: 'The contract for the research that produced these projects was terminated early in September 2005. ODPM considers parts of the material in these draft reports to be of poor quality in terms of their use of evidence and the style in which they are written.'

But back to the Salford University reports for one last moment of illumination. If you don't know the difference between 'frameworks for action' and 'frameworks in action', all is now explained:

'Frameworks for action refer to those understandings that can be read off from formal policy prescriptions and the intentions of policy-makers in terms of how they anticipate they will transform actions at a distance in different locations. Frameworks in action, on the other hand, are concerned with the practicalities of making policy work in particular local and regional contexts. A failure to understand the relationship between these two frameworks leads to a significant reduction in the effectiveness and efficiency of both policy conception and execution.'

So please don't get them confused again.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

We know that 91Èȱ¬ Secretary John Reid has been busy for the past few days chairing meetings of COBRA, the government's emergency response committee.

But what has John Prescott been up to for the past few weeks? What meetings has he been chairing?

That, however, is a secret. The 91Èȱ¬ put in a freedom of information request for this information, but the Cabinet Office has refused to release it.

Following the last government reshuffle, Downing Street's media briefers were keen to stress how many cabinet committees are chaired by Prescott, to show that he still had a full-time job despite all the criticisms once he was no longer in charge of a department.

According to the , the Deputy PM chairs nine committees, on topics ranging from Local and Regional Government to Animal Rights Extremism.

But how often have these committees actually met? How many meetings has he actually chaired?

A Cabinet Office official has rejected the 91Èȱ¬'s request for this information, on the grounds that "If Ministers and officials suspected that this information would be released, they would be less likely to make use of the Cabinet Committee system, and this would significantly undermine its effectiveness."

The letter also argued (see relevant extracts here): "If Ministers and officials suspected that once a decision was reached, information pertaining to the process by which they had reached that point was to be released (such as the timing and sequencing of meetings), they might be less willing to engage in full and frank discussion of the available options."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A little off topic, but since freedom of information is only part of my work at the 91Èȱ¬, this is to show what I do with the rest of my time. I've just produced a Radio 4 documentary, , about the work of emergency planners, which is broadcast this evening at 8.00 pm and repeated on Sunday, 20 August, at 5.00 pm.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

One of my complaints has been at the Information Commissioner's Office for over a year now without the ICO even starting on the process of considering it.

On 31 July 2005 I complained to the ICO about a decision by the Department for Education and Skills not to let me see the full information I had asked for in an FOI request.

Since then I have had the following communications with the ICO relating to this case:

• On 16 August 2005 they sent me a standard acknowledgment. This stated "in the early days at least, we may not be able to resolve complaints as quickly as you or we would like." Prophetic words.

• On 22 October 2005 I sent an email asking for an update on progress. No reply received.

• On 4 December 2005 I sent another email complaining about the delay (naive or what?).

• On 5 December 2005 the ICO sent me an apology and told me "we will start work on your complaint as soon as we can".

• On 21 February 2006 I phoned them and was told the case had still not been assigned to a case officer.

• On 6 June 2006 I sent an email asking for an update on progress. No reply received.

• On 21 July 2006 the ICO sent me a letter stating "it may be up 3 to 6 months [sic] before your case is considered".

Still, mustn't grumble, as one thing is going to improve, so they say. They now state they will write to me "every six to eight weeks until your case is opened".

In fairness to the ICO, I should say that other complaints I have sent to them have been dealt with more quickly (well, not quite so slowly). But funnily enough this complaint was one that I sent from my home address, whereas in all the others I have stated that I am a 91Èȱ¬ journalist. This is the complaint with the worst delay - just coincidence?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Does the release of documents under freedom of information help to create a better-informed public debate?

Sometimes, certainly, as was made clear on Newsnight last night. The programme disclosed emails from the British embassy in Warsaw which showed the changing attitudes of officials to the migration of Poles to Britain over the past couple of years. The 91Èȱ¬ obtained these emails from the Foreign Office through an FOI request.

Those taking part in the discussion included the Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart, who thought the emails were 'interesting' for what they revealed about the change in official thinking. And that's interesting in itself - because she was actually a 91Èȱ¬ Office minister throughout the relevant period.

Perhaps FOI can help ministers become better informed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?