Now, here's an (from California) that would save time and effort for hard-pressed FOI officers:
"Every time a city employee produces a document, the computer system should automatically send a back-up copy to a public web server. That way nothing would get lost or erased, and anyone looking for public information could simply go to that site and search for it him or herself."
Suppose you want to know how much your local council spends on certain training courses?
Well, on the path to enlightenment you may face many obstacles, especially perhaps you're dealing with Rother District Council.
The site may or may not be 'amateurish' in the view of local authorities who seem to find it irritating, but there's undoubtedly a value in such exchanges being on public display. This one reminds you of the following important truth, which all conspiracy theorists and the rest of us should never forget: just because they're behaving as if they've got something to hide, it doesn't mean they actually have.
(HT: David Banisar)
Making a freedom of information request is the right of every citizen - even, so it seems, a for research for pay negotiations.
But it's not only in Britain that the Police have found freedom of information to be a useful investigative tool. Earlier this month the El Paso Times in Texas reported that the FBI had put FOI requests to school districts as part of a probe into corruption in local government contracts.
So for those of you who receive FOI requests, just remember next time - it could be the Police who are asking.
Have you made a freedom of information request and now want to tell someone about how it was for you?
If so, the (based at University College London) would like you to take part in a research survey they are conducting to help evaluate the success or otherwise of the Freedom of Information Act.
If you want to take part, go to .
I should have commented earlier on the eventual outcome of the unprecedented High Court decision in the Sakhalin case which I have written about in the past.
A few days ago the Independent on Sunday on the content of the internal government documents that the has eventually been forced to disclose to .
And what is the shocking truth that has now been revealed? That government departments sometimes disagree with one another.
In 2003 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it had substantial concerns about the 'potentially devastating effects' of the , a huge and highly oil and gas development in the Russian Far East, because it would be bad for the local whales.
On the other hand the Department of Trade and Industry, as it was at the time, had no concerns. And ECGD then decided to proceed with financial support for the project.
There's an intriguing story today about a fake set of emails apparently intended at smearing Peter Hain. It was reported initially in the , and there's some interesting further detail from , who says he was passed the emails and spotted the forgery.
Of course it's not the first time that Hain has been said to be the intended victim of alleged dirty tricks.
So who's this?
The answer is that, whoever it is, it's not Peter Hain. It's a Police photofit picture of a man who allegedly robbed a branch of Barclays Bank in Putney, south-west London, in 1975, at a time when Hain was a noted activist campaigning against the South African apartheid system. Hain was prosecuted for the robbery but acquitted after various anomalies in the Police case became clear.
It was later claimed (in his book 'Inside BOSS') by the former South African agent Gordon Winter that the South African security service BOSS had arranged for the bank to be robbed by a double of Hain in order to get him framed for the theft.
This picture was released to the 91Èȱ¬ by the Crown Prosecution Service in response to a freedom of information request for material about the case.
The 91Èȱ¬ has implemented a new system for commenting on its blogs - it's explained and discussed here.
To comment you will now have to register (just once). Sorry if that's a nuisance, but it should keep out the spam which was clogging up the system.
From now you won't be able to add further comments to the old threads, although you will still be able to read the comments on them.
This may solve my gas meter problem, even if unfortunately it won't help other people with theirs.
The French President's wife, when she accompanied her husband on his state visit to the UK, was particularly interested in visits to do with contemporary social issues, such as schools, hospitals or housing schemes for the disadvantaged.
If you didn't notice this in the extensive coverage of Carla Bruni's contribution to Nicolas Sarkozy's trip here last month, that's because this is actually a reference to the previous 1996 French state visit, of Bernadette and Jacques Chirac.
Madame Chirac's interests are revealed in documents released to the 91Èȱ¬ following a freedom of information request for material about the 1996 state visit.
The papers are heavily redacted and it looks like the more contentious political content has not been disclosed because the Foreign Office fears it would damage Britain's relations with France. However the material released does provide intriguing insights into the protocol arrangements for a visit of this kind from another head of state.
President Chirac invited himself to tea with the Queen Mother. His wish was granted.
The British sought to cater for Chirac's enthusiasm for military machinery, primitive art and 'frequent refuelling stops'.
The British government wanted to provide Chirac with 'fifteen minutes in a photogenic pub' for some '"man of the people" publicity'. But they appeared to have difficulty finding a pub in the run-down area of Easterhouse in Glasgow (to be visited by Chirac) which was suitable for the French president to drop in on.
The French ruled out Chirac taking the royal train to Scotland or going on a farm visit (this was at the time of the row over the EU banning exports of British beef due to fears over BSE).
British officials worried about taking him to visit the Cabinet War Rooms because of 'German sensitivities'.
One running theme is the concern of British civil servants that events laid on in the City of London would emphasize traditional ceremony and undermine their attempts to present a modern image of Britain. So they told the Corporation of London to scale back on the level of the planned ceremony for an event in the City. Diplomats wanted 'less formality than the City normally lays on', and one official even wrote plaintively 'can't we keep the Lord Mayor and his flunkeys out of it?'
Asked by the then Prime Minister John Major for some 'eye-catching wording' on France and NATO to use at a press conference, officials swayed between describing NATO without France in it as like a party with good wine but no champagne ('French rapprochement means that the party will in future have added sparkle') or as like a television set which is not connected to its satellite dish ('an excellent service but we have known that an even fuller range of programmes could be made available').
The British government had to give the Chiracs a rhododendron because 'the clematis people have said no - for future reference they need at least one year's notice'.
Despite several expressions of intent from the Foreign Office, this material (requested in January) did not arrive in time for the Sarkozy visit. However the Foreign Office were at least cooperative about discussing what information could be supplied within the cost limit and diligent about keeping us informed about the progress of the request. This is in contrast with the Cabinet Office which has been much less helpful in attittude and has not yet responded substantively to a similar request.
On Friday the overturned an important that the government should release early of the ID cards programme. The request to publish these documents came from .
But this was not on the substantive issue of whether it's in the public interest for this material to be revealed. Instead the High Court has decided that the Tribunal had wrongly relied on a parliamentary report, in conflict with the 1689 Bill of Rights. It looks like the case will now have to be heard again by the Tribunal. The wheels of justice are grinding at their normal speed.
My colleague Nicola Beckford will be doing a regular 'freedom of information slot' on 91Èȱ¬ Radio 5Live's new investigative journalism programme, presented by Donal Macintyre.
The show started last Sunday, when Nicola revealed new data gathered under FOI about how often police officers have been accessing police records for their own personal purposes. It will continue its run on Sunday evenings at 7.00 o'clock.
I would have blogged this last week but I was away. That meant I also missed , which stemmed from freedom of information requests from the 91Èȱ¬ and others. (Note to self: remember not to book a holiday for a date three years after the 91Èȱ¬ has put in an important FOI request).
It looks like the Information Commissioner is getting tough with those government departments with the worst records on handling freedom of information requests.
Having heavily criticised the National Offender Management Service last month, he has today the Department of Health for its failure to assist FOI applicants and for extending the internal review process unreasonably.
His specific complaints in his include the following:
'The Department repeatedly applies blanket exemptions to requested information with the effect of withholding entire documents from release. This suggests that rather than considering requests on their own merits, exemptions have been applied on a general principle. The Commissioner is concerned that the application of exemptions in this way may have the effect of suppressing non-exempt information from release.'
'The Department repeatedly fails to establish the full extent of information held before responding to a request, resulting in the application of exemptions to information which is not held in its entirety.'
As in the case of NOMS, the Commissioner's criticisms of the unhelpful and slow approach of the Department of Health are in line with the 91Èȱ¬'s experience of making FOI requests to the Department.
According to data released by the Information Commissioner's Office, until a few weeks ago he was still investigating 75 complaints made to him as long ago as 2005. The ICO has revealed this table in response to a freedom of information request from the 91Èȱ¬.
The oldest complaint still being examined dates back over three years to 21 March 2005 and concerns Leeds City Council.
The public authority which has the most 2005 cases still outstanding is the Cabinet Office. Two other bodies with several cases in the list are the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the 91Èȱ¬. For all three organisations this may at least partly reflect the detail and complexity of legal arguments under consideration.
A few of the cases listed have been closed since this table was compiled at the end of January, such as decided last month, but the vast majority of the 75 are still working their way through the ICO's processes.
In yet another case the has today again overruled the House of Commons on the disclosure of MPs' expenses.
This case concerns spending by seven Welsh MPs on 'circulars and reports to their constituents'. The Commissioner has decided that this information should be revealed following an FOI request.
The Commissioner's ruling is not yet on his website, but is notable for a couple of points. He rejected the Commons assertion that the House did not 'strictly speaking' actually hold the information at issue. The ruling states: 'The fact that the information requested in this case is held by the House in various documents does not mean that the information requested is not held.'
And he also dismissed the House's argument that it did not have to release the material because it did not necessarily provide an accurate or full breakdown. On this the ruling states; 'the House would have been able to address its concerns about the context, completeness and potentially inaccurate nature of the information it holds by providing the complainant with an appropriate explanation of what it holds.'
It remains to be seen whether the Commons will comply or appeal. MPs have got a lot to think about on their expenses system, and this decision adds one more item to that agenda.
Jump to more content from this blog
A blog about freedom of information, written by the 91Èȱ¬'s Martin Rosenbaum.
For the latest updates across 91Èȱ¬ blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
You can stay up to date with Open Secrets via these feeds.
Open Secrets Feed(RSS)
Open Secrets Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
91Èȱ¬ © 2014 The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
