Your Right To Know

Tuesday, 6th May, 2008

CCTV - billions of pounds of failure

Filed under: — vaci @ 9:08 am

Even the police now admit that CCTV is a complete waste of money.

This quote from Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville of the Metropolitan Police says it all:

“CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure. Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It’s been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There’s no fear of CCTV. Why don’t people fear it? [They think] the cameras are not working.”

Of course, if private companies and individuals want to waste money on preventative measures that don’t actually work, then that’s their business. What is disgraceful is the amount of taxpayers’ money that has been handed out by the Home Office on this useless and invasive technology.

Saturday, 5th April, 2008

Details of MPs’ Additional Costs Allowance

Filed under: — heather @ 11:46 am

Some details of MPs’ Additional Costs Allowance have been released to me and are available in spreadsheet form here.

Thursday, 3rd April, 2008

Not bloody likely, mate!

Filed under: — heather @ 9:12 am

When making a Freedom of Information request, I always ask for the response to be sent in electronic format if possible. It’s cheaper, more convenient, and usually the form in which the information is being held anyway.

So imagine my disappointment to receive the following response from the Parliamentary Archives of the House of Commons, regarding their records management policy. A stack of paper nearly three and half inches high!

Government in action

Why, you might ask, is such a waste of paper justified? Even if the documents are not available online, surely it would still be cheaper and easier to run them under a scanner rather than churn out reams of photocopies?

Fortunately, the cover letter explains all. It turns out that:

Some of the keywords used to classify Parliamentary records […] are used under licence […] from the State Records Authority of New South Wales. The licencing arrangements do not enable us to publish this information on the Internet.

Clearly this is dangerous stuff, because they continue (my italics):

In order to mitigate the risks associated with disclosing this information and in view of the fact that in some cases the information is now only held in hard copy, we are sending the information to you in hard copy.

They are also careful to warn me against infringing the copyright of New South Wales by reproducing the documents - even though these are papers which any member of the public has a right to request.

So there you have it. Important information about how Parliament is run, created at public expense, and the only people not allowed to see it are the general public, because a small part is now owned by the Australian government!

Tuesday, 1st April, 2008

Article: PR is taking over our public institutions

Filed under: — heather @ 6:58 pm

So what if the truth is inconvenient?
The Times, April 1, 2008
By Heather Brooke

A senior police worker is facing a disciplinary hearing for “damaging the reputation” of West Yorkshire police. Philip Balmforth is in trouble for granting an interview to The Times last month on Asian girls going missing from Bradford schools. Bradford City Council complained to the force claiming his high-profile work was damaging the city’s image and was “bad for regeneration”.

Now, I thought the police’s role was supposed to be about solving crime, not engaging in “reputation management”. Obviously I’m behind the times: clearly PR has taken over our public institutions.

Public sector bodies should not be in the business of reputation management. The reputation of a private company has value because it is by reputation that customers choose to buy goods and services. But most public institutions are monopolies; we have no choice but to buy, if not use, their services. In the absence of competition it is only through public scrutiny - and whistleblowing - that some level of accountability is gained. To try to restrict this is wrong.

Yet many public institutions forbid staff from speaking to the public or press without clearance from the all-powerful press offices - and permission doesn’t come easy unless you’re peddling a saccharine story. The fine line between co-ordinating communication to provide the public with clear information and propaganda used to push an agenda has been crossed by many bodies.

Mr Balmforth is a national expert on forced marriage. Why should he have to clear everything he says with a press officer? He was giving facts about crimes and should not be used as a pawn to sell a particular political policy. Bradford council’s wish to airbrush out ugly realities comes at the direct cost of the happiness, even the lives, of young girls.

We think it absurd that Thailand has a law against insulting the King. We are shocked by Turkey’s prosecution of Orhan Pamuk, the award-winning novelist, under Article 301 of the penal code for the offence of “denigrating Turkey’s national identity”. We might laugh at Brunei’s constitution which declares: “His Majesty the Sultan can do no wrong in either his personal or any official capacity” and further admonishes that “No person shall publish or reproduce in Brunei or elsewhere any part of proceedings. that may have the effect of lowering or adversely affecting directly or indirectly the position, dignity, standing, honour, eminence or sovereignty of His Majesty the Sultan”.

Now just replace “His Majesty the Sultan” with Bradford council or West Yorkshire Police and you get an idea of the thinking in some of our public institutions.

Saturday, 29th March, 2008

Profiled in the Guardian

Filed under: — heather @ 6:45 pm

I was profiled in today’s Guardian ‘Interview’. I rule! hee hee. The online photo is a bit dodgy but there is a much better one in the full-page newspaper version so I suggest you rush out and get a copy while supplies last.

I’m very pleased to know that I’m “one of the country’s most influential voices against secrecy in government.” Hooray for me!!

Oh - and on a side note. There’s another story in today’s papers about our friend Michael Martin.
Refurbishing the home and garden of the Speaker of the House of Commons has cost the taxpayer £1.7 million.

Could this be the reason he’s so keen to block my requests for a breakdown of MPs’ expenses? Surely not!

Thursday, 27th March, 2008

A Commons lack of reasoning

Filed under: — heather @ 11:51 am

The farce continues!

In their attempt to avoid disclosing details of MPs’ expense claims, the House of Commons Commission and Speaker Michael Martin took the last-minute decision on Tuesday (March 25th 2008) to appeal the Tribunal’s ruling to the High Court. When angry MPs yesterday tried to find out the exact nature of the appeal, Speaker Martin gagged them, claiming the matter was ’sub-judice’ and could not be discussed. The plain fact is that the Speaker has the discretion to allow this discussion on the House floor, and I can only assume he tried to stifle MPs’ queries because he knows that the reasoning behind the High Court appeal will not stand up to legal (or even public) scrutiny.

He might have refused to disclose the details to MPs but as a party in the case he cannot refuse to serve the appeal notice on me. I received it this morning and so, in the spirit of public service, here it is:

House of Commons Notice of Appeal to High Court

Thursday, 6th March, 2008

First Ministerial ‘head to roll’ from FOI

Filed under: — heather @ 1:34 pm

The Freedom of Information Act has claimed its first minister in the UK - Ian Paisley Jr.

Investigations correspondent David Gordon at the Belfast Telegraph (who I’m honoured to say came on my FOI course a few months ago) used the law to dig into Paisley Jr’s lobbying for a private developer. This was followed late Tuesday, by his father Ian Paisley Sr dramatically announcing his departure as First Minister and DUP leader. Though he denied he had been forced to go, the impact of his son’s fall from grace obviously contributed to his decision.

Just a few months ago, Ian Paisley Jr looked invincible and his father (Ian Paisley Sr) was the First Minister and head of Ian Junior’s department. As David writes:

His resignation followed months of scrutiny over his lobbying for north coast developer Seymour Sweeney on a proposed Giant’s Causeway centre development and other schemes. It came after weekend revelations concerning the Ballymena constituency office he and his First Minister father rent through their Stormont allowances.

After days of speculation, the Assembly yesterday issued the Belfast Telegraph with official figures for MLA rental claims. The disclosure, following a freedom of information request, stated that the Paisleys are each receiving £28,600 per year for the Church Street office. This combined total of £57,200 for one property is almost three times higher than the next highest MLA claim.

Gordon writes how the Freedom of Information Act played a key role in bringing down the junior minister. Could this by chance be the reason for Ian Paisley Sr’s repeated attempts to curtail FOI in Northern Ireland while angrily attacking the use of the Act by “lazy journalists” ?

Obviously, David Gordon is quite the opposite and it is politicians’ fear of the public getting hold of raw source material that is always at the root of such complaints.

I’m offering another course 18 March 2008 if you’re interested in learning how to use FOI, though I can’t guarantee another ministerial head. You can book through the National Union of Journalists website

Friday, 29th February, 2008

Article: MPs just don’t get it

Filed under: — heather @ 12:43 pm

Witch-hunt? MPs don’t get it
The Times, February 28, 2008
My battle to make MPs’ expenses more transparent met with obstruction and mystification
By Heather Brooke

Nearly 15 years ago I found myself in a small office digging through boxes of receipts looking at the expense claims of local politicians. Everything was laid bare: all the trips, all the meals, all the hotel bills, all the contracts. I was a young trainee reporter covering the Washington State government, and my editor had suggested I look at these claims to see if there were any instances of corruption or personal enrichment.

The laws of the state required that all expense claims and receipts be open to the public. And do you know what I found? Nothing. Not one instance of an improper claim or misuse of money. That is the result of transparent government.

Fast forward to 2004 and I find myself in London. I decide to replicate the exercise in the Mother of Parliaments. I ask the House of Commons for a detailed breakdown of MPs’ expenses. So unusual is this request that the officials greet my question with stunned silence. The public aren’t even allowed in the Commons Library to access official documents paid for with public money, so there’s no way they’re getting anywhere near expense records.

Later, the officials tell me they’re publishing annual bulk figures. But that’s no good, I tell them. A myriad of sins can be hidden in bulk totals. An MP can claim £23,000 for a second home but there’s no way to see if it is a legitimate expense without a detailed breakdown. Is it for mortgage payments or a new kitchen? Food or a new flat-screen TV?

When the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2005 I used it to ask for a detailed breakdown of MPs’ travel expenses, staff allowances and finally their second-homes allowance. I encountered relentless opposition from the Commons authorities and Michael Martin, the Speaker. Andrew Walker, the House of Commons’ director of finance and administration, said with a straight face that he believed the transparency I sought was bad for democracy. He thought it mere “public curiosity” rather than “public interest” and that it would impinge on MPs’ jobs to have to account to the public.

Finally, this week, my three-year battle culminated with the Information Tribunal ruling that MPs must disclose all documentation associated with their second-homes claims. But many MPs are angry about this. They think it’s an invasion of their privacy and that my campaign is some sort of witch-hunt. They just don’t get it. In a democracy MPs are supposed to be directly accountable to the people they represent; not accountable to other politicians, or officialdom, but to us.

As I listened to Mr Walker testify, the scale of parliamentary arrogance became clear. He didn’t even try to hide the fact that there were little or no checks on MPs expense claims. Why should there be? They are honourable members. I could just imagine Mr Walker as Lady Bracknell. The public? As though the very idea of an MP being accountable to the public was so beyond the pale it could barely be allowed in polite conversation.

Thursday, 28th February, 2008

Decision coverage

Despite the late hour of publication, the Tribunal decision was picked up by most of the main papers and I’ve been making the rounds across various TV news programmes. But lest you think I’m getting big-headed about the publicity, I discovered today while sharing the Green Room at BBC Breakfast with Steve Redgrave and ‘Sporting Giants’ that they’re booked onto four times as many shows as myself. Redgrave is publicising the first anniversary of an appeal to find young athletes to train for the 2012 Olympics. It’s a PR-driven operation and not really news in my book yet he managed to bag the prime 8.30am slot on the Today Show. Being neither a celebrity nor fluffy, I clearly have my work cut out to break into the mainstream!

Times
MPs to be told they must come clean about allowances for second homes

Daily Mail
MPs WILL have to reveal expenses after campaigners win fight for ‘transparency’

Guardian
Information tribunal rules that MPs should disclose details of expenses for second homes

Press Gazette
New expenses blow for MPs after landmark FoI victory

Tuesday, 26th February, 2008

Tribunal orders full disclosure

Champagne all round - I won my case!

Late today the Information Tribunal published its decision ordering the House of Commons to provide full disclosure of MPs’ second home expenses claims. The decision is not yet on the Tribunal’s website but you can download it here (PDF 2MB).

The House is ordered to publish every claim and receipt for the MPs specified in the requests filed by myself and also the Sunday Times’ Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas and Sunday Telegraph reporter Ben Leapman.

My solicitors have issued a press release which highlights the main points. The only omissions allowed are for ’sensitive personal data’ such as MPs’ health matters; bank, loan and credit card statements; individual numbers on itemised phone bills and details of contractors who had regular access to MPs’ homes. Security details will also be kept private, as will addresses of MPs who have a good reason - for example a known stalker, terrorist or ‘other criminal threat’.

The Tribunal criticised the way the self-certified expense system was administered:

“The laxity of clarity in the rules for ACA is redolent of a culture very different from that which exists in the commercial sphere or in most other public sector organisations today.”

It stated that the system constitutes “a recipe for confusion, inconsistency and the risk of misuse” and is both ‘deeply unsatisfactory’ and with a ‘shortfall both in transparency and in accountability (that) is acute.”

My only criticism of the ruling is the manner in which it was published. I knew about this decision last week but was under a strict embargo not to speak about it to anyone while additional submissions were taken on the Tribunal’s seven categories of redaction. None of the parties were told when the final decision would be released and it just appeared in my inbox at 4.30pm this afternoon - with no notice. Fortunately, I happened to check my email at 5pm. But by then the Tribunal staff had left for the day - without putting the decision online - so I had to forward it to the media and then rush around town giving interviews!

BBC Online News picked up the story and they also provide some footage from the broadcast news report.

Powered by WordPress