91Èȱ¬

Does government need a 'private space' for policy formulation? Do public authorities need the ability to explore the pros and cons of different policy options in private before choosing between them?

It's accepted by many that there is some need for this, not least by the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas. In (about House of Lords reform) he argues that the fact that a policy making process is 'live' may increase the public interest in disclosing information, but it also strengthens the countervailing case for secrecy.

This issue is raised by yesterday's Politics Show on 91Èȱ¬1, which that the SNP government in Scotland is considering changes to its proposals for a local income tax.

The initial plans that there would be 'exemptions for savings and investment income'. However the Politics Show discovered that Scottish ministers are now considering including such income under the tax. This was thanks to a which discovered that the Scottish Government had been asking HM Revenue and Customs to help calculate how much money could be raised in this way.

Interviewed on the programme, Scotland's Finance Minister John Swinney confirmed that this option is indeed now under consideration. So in this case FOI has poked a hole in the secrecy covering the policy formulation process.

It's interesting to note that the information was released not by the Scottish Government itself, but by Revenue and Customs, for whom it is a much less sensitive issue.

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

According to the , laid down by Harold Wilson as prime minister in the 1960s, the phones of MPs should not be bugged by the security services.

Other prime ministers have broadly maintained this line since, and it's been extended to other forms of communication (although last year Gordon Brown limited it to preventing surveillance requiring authorisation by ministers).

This issue, of the monitoring of MPs, hit the headlines some months back when it turned out that some conversations involving the Labour MP Sadiq Khan and a constituent in prison had been .

So under what circumstances might the police and the security services have been monitoring the political activities of the nation's democratically elected representatives?

The sort of MP likely to have been regarded as 'subversive' by some parts of the security establishment is Terry Fields, the former Labour MP for Liverpool Broadgreen who in June. was a member of the Militant Tendency, the Trotskyist group formed from the Revolutionary Socialist League which adopted a policy of 'entryism' into the Labour party.

Both the Metropolitan and the Merseyside Police have recently refused to tell the 91Èȱ¬ what information their Special Branches (which monitor political subversion) may have held about Fields. Merseyside Police confirmed they had collected some material relating to him for the purpose of investigations but declined to release it. The Met refused to confirm or deny whether Special Branch held records about him (although it did confirm that no other part of the force had information on him).

The Police turned down our FOI requests for such information on the grounds that it would allow requesters to deduce what subjects (and which of their activities) the Police have an interest in: 'This could potentially undermine national security, any on-going investigations and any further investigations as it would draw individuals/groups attention to areas of Police interest.'

So we don't know how the Police might have been keeping track of Fields' political activities. However, if they hadn't been monitoring him extensively then I would be very surprised - and so too, I expect, if he were still alive, would be Terry Fields.

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

Many public authorities have that they should answer freedom of information requests which appear to come from cartoon characters with email addresses.

However the need for this may soon be clarified. I understand that the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas is currently considering a number of complaints which turn on the issue of whether an obviously pseudonymous FOI request should be answered, and may issue his decisions shortly.

Right now there's an interesting if possibly pointless dispute on between someone calling himself or herself 'Colwyn Resident' and a public authority entitled the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

The Ombudsman's office won't answer a freedom of information request from 'Colwyn resident' on the basis that they suspect this is not the applicant's real name.

The FOI Act does lay down that a request must state 'the name of the applicant', so the Ombudsman's stance may be legally correct, although whether it's a good use of time and effort is of course another question entirely. They would certainly have to answer a request that came from a more plausible pseudonym, or from one of those services which make FOI requests for you .

Whatever the law strictly says, the from the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas is discouraging to authorities who won't reply to Mickey Mouse.

It says: 'A better starting point is the assumption built into the FOIA that public authorities must generally ignore the identity and circumstances of the requester ... This approach recognises that although requesters cannot gain any advantage by using a pseudonym, they may have reasons for not wishing to draw attention to themselves by using the names under which they are normally known.'

The Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion, however, is less sympathetic to anonymous requesters. His states: 'You must give your real name ... The Commissioner will not be able to carry out an investigation if he finds out that you have used a false name.'

In another issue which relates to the anonymity of requesters, I also understand that Richard Thomas has been considering whether to change his practice of issuing decision notices which do not identify the complainant publicly and instead adopt the SIC's approach of naming complainants unless they have requested anonymity.

So we may soon have decision notices referring to the case of, say, 'Colwyn Resident' vs the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, or perhaps Donald Duck vs the Cabinet Office. But if you're tempted to impersonate a leading animated personality, always remember this: .

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

The Ministry of Justice likes different government departments to handle freedom of information requests consistently, but it doesn't always happen.

Back in January I put FOI requests to both the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office for documents relating to the 1996 state visit to the UK of the then French President, Jacques Chirac. This was ahead of the state visit of the current President Nicolas Sarkozy at the end of March.

The Foreign Office's material arrived a week after Sarkozy had gone home. But at least they were apologetic about it, helpful in tone, keen to communicate and diligent about keeping me in touch with progress while I waited for the information.

In contrast, the information from the Cabinet Office has only recently arrived, five months later. All their communications have been unapolegetic in tone and purely formulaic. And they've provided less than the Foreign Office did.

Sadly the information they've sent has little in the way of important political or diplomatic details which would really shed light on UK-France relations. But they did include the briefingprepared for John Major, then prime minister, about Madame Chirac's birthday and the sporting success of Paris Saint-Germain.

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

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has abandoned its policy of keeping its inspection reports secret following a complaint by the 91Èȱ¬ to the Information Commissioner.

The protects the welfare of workers in industries such as agriculture and food processing by monitoring labour providing companies. It was set up the death of 23 cockle-pickers at Morecambe Bay in 2004.

When the 91Èȱ¬ asked last year for copies of its reports on individual firms, the GLA refused on the grounds that it would hamper its ability to carry out its duties and could damage its relationship with the companies it oversees. The 91Èȱ¬ then complained to the Commissioner, and the GLA has now overturned its stance without the Commissioner needing to issue a formal decision.

The 91Èȱ¬ has now obtained copies of inspection reports which detail how the GLA has found some companies failing to meet minimum standards.

A company called Jark Recruitment based in Dereham, Norfolk was found by the GLA earlier this year to be 'systematically failing' to ensure workers received their full holiday pay. The report says there is evidence that at least 37 workers did not receive what they were entitled to on leaving Jark.

The GLA inspection also found that the company was charging workers too much for accommodation and threatening some of them that they would lose their accommodation immediately if they left their job. It also could not provide gas safety certificates for some properties used to house workers.

Jark has so far failed to provide the 91Èȱ¬ with its response to these criticisms. However the GLA says that it is now licensed as Jark Industrial, having 'successfully reapplied after correcting the non-compliances which led to the licence revocation'.

In April the GLA revoked the licence of a company called Gurkha's UK, based in Sevenoaks, Kent, which had failed to provide holiday or sick pay and had employed workers for excessive hours. The firm's spokesman told the 91Èȱ¬: 'We need to improve so I'm seeking advice and may reapply for a license in the future.'

An Ipswich-based firm Gateway Recruitment Solutions was found to be failing to provide its workforce (which included Lithuanian, Bulgarian and Nepalese labourers) with the required overtime pay, holiday and sick pay entitlements, and was deducting too much for accommodation. Gateway's licence was revoked, but it has since successfully reapplied for another licence from the GLA. The company said: 'We have taken their suggestions on board and have worked to make everything right.'

UPDATE: Jark has now got in touch. The company says: 'We will continue to work closely with the GLA and remain wholly supportive of its aim to safeguard the interests of workers.'

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

This is the most scathing report I have read of an official inspection into a public authority's work.

It's a report written by inspectors from the and it's about the .

The inspectors accused the SPS of ignoring their responsibility to comply with the law, lacking strategic direction, a lamentable lack of progress on implementing recommendations, and failing to train prison governors well enough for them to carry out instructions on covert surveillance.

The OSC monitors the use of covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources (such as informants), which is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act (RIP(S)A).

The inspection was in 2006 (and the SPS says its procedures have improved since then), but I have just obtained a copy following a freedom of information request.

The stark criticisms then made by the OSC inspectors included the following:

• The SPS has 'ignored their responsibility to comply with RIP(S)A'
• The SPS is 'complacent in the use of unauthorised CHIS' (covert human intelligence sources)
• Staff in Edinburgh prison had 'little understanding' of the law
• 'The lack of progress' in addressing recommendations from previous inspections 'is lamentable'
• RIP(S)A awareness training 'appears to have been perfunctory'
• The lack of suitable training 'places both individuals and the organisation in an exposed and precarious position'
• 'The absence of strategic leadership' is having a 'detrimental impact' on the SPS
• Prison Governors 'are unable to carry out' instructions on covert surveillance 'through a lack of personal training'

The report has been released following a by the Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion, who overruled the initial refusal of the SPS to release it. I then made an FOI request for it myself.

The SPS has acquired a new since the OSC report in 2006. The service now says that another OSC report earlier this year was 'much more favourable and recognised the efforts the SPS had made to address criticisms', stating 'the SPS has made commendable measured progress'.

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

It's now over three years since I complained to the Information Commissioner in September 2005 about the Cabinet Office's refusal to send me the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting during which Michael Heseltine famously resigned back in 1986.

I wondered if perhaps my complaint might be the oldest one still being considered by the Commissioner, but it turns out I can make no such claim to fame. I've just obtained a list from the Information Commissioner's Office of all their cases which date back to 2005 - and my appeal is only the fifteenth oldest.

The ICO is still processing 30 cases dating back to 2005. The oldest two were submitted on 29 April 2005 and concern West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Police.

Six months ago the ICO had 75 open cases which originated in 2005, so it has cleared 45 of them since then.

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