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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

MySociety built the site and I’m working with the developers to add more contacts lists and guides for making requests and dealing with obstructive or unhelpful officials.

It’s always been my belief that FOI is for everyone not just journalists or MPs or professionals. It is an important tool for maintaining democracy. How can we be an informed electorate without information? This site gives everyone an equal opportunity to get that information. You shouldn’t have to be in Whitehall, or a member of the media or an elite to find out how public officials are spending your money.

MySociety is a project of the registered charity UK Citizens Online Democracy. If you like what they’re doing, then you can make a donation.

8 February 2008

Why there’s something fishy about MPs’ food allowance

The Times

MPs can claim for fishtanks and iPods on their expenses, the head of Parliament’s finance department has admitted.
Andrew Walker, director general of resources since 1997, told a tribunal yesterday that until 2003 MPs may have been able to “write their own cheques” from their taxpayer-funded allowances. In an unprecedented glimpse into the backroom workings of the House of Commons, he said the system was overhauled in 2003 after Michael Trend, then the Conservative MP for Windsor, claimed £90,000 for a second home he did not have.

Expenses details ‘intrude’ on MPs lives

BBC News

In which my lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC is quoted very nicely!

The Daily Mail covered the Tribunal hearings and the resulting fall-out:

• Tax campaigners attack MPs who refuse to reveal how they spend £11.8m housing perk
• Now MPs hound Speaker because of the way he is handling expenses row

MPs’ expenses should remain secret “for democracy”, says Commons Fees Office chief

Press Gazette

Give a man enough rope and he can hang himself - Andrew Walker, director of the House of Commons Fees Office testifies that public accountability is bad for democracy. Honestly, you couldn’t make this up.

9 February

MPs remortgaged their homes for cash in hand at taxpayers’ expense

The Times

The man in charge of administering expenses in the House of Commons has admitted that he thinks MPs are willing to exploit the system.
Andrew Walker, the director of finance and administration, also conceded that until 2006 MPs had been able to remortgage their house if they wanted cash in hand — even though the taxpayer meets the cost of the mortgage. He said that now MPs could only remortgage if the move was sanctioned by the finance department. Valid reasons include wanting to carry out building works on the property, he said.
A former MP alleged yesterday that his colleagues had routinely put in for the maximum allowances by claiming for “food”, a category that does not need receipts.

‘John Lewis’ list kept from MPs

BBC News

A list of guide prices for items commonly claimed by MPs on expenses is to remain secret, a tribunal has ruled. The “John Lewis” list is used by Commons clerks to check maximum prices deemed reasonable for items like TVs.

Come clean on family salaries or prepare to be investigated

The Times

• Journalist’s battle could force MPs to declare every pound to press

Ever since 2004, I’ve battled to get MPs to fully account to the public for how they spend their expenses; making a series of Freedom of Information Act requests seeking a detailed breakdown of the names and salaries of MPs’ staff, their travel, and Additional Costs Allowance.

It has always been my contention that it is not only in the public interest but the Parliamentary interest to release information through the legitimate mechanism of the Freedom of Information Act. In this manner, information is shared democratically with everyone. It is to the constituents that MPs should be held accountable and so it so to them that details of expense claims must be disclosed.

The current annual breakdown by categories is useless in terms of holding MPs to account. None of the current abuses of MPs’ expenses can be seen in such bulk figures. It isn’t right that the only way the public can uncover the detail necessary to ensure against corruption is through leaks, gossip and rumour. I am fighting for MPs to publish a full breakdown of their expenses by claim and receipt.

The hearing is scheduled for Thursday February 7th and Friday 8th beginning at 10.30am. It will be held at the Finance and Tax Tribunal building, 45 Bedford Square. I’m fortunate to be represented by the wonderful Hugh Tomlinson QC at the hearing along with Simons Muirhead & Burton, solicitors. Wish me luck!

• Taking The Mick

In his first five years, Kevin received more than 1500 appeals and issued over 550 decisions, including surgical mortality rates for all surgeons in Scotland; sex offender statistics; and an entire PFI/PPP contract.

29 January 2008
RATS FIRM SUPPLIED 150 SITES
South Wales Evening Post - Swansea,Wales,UK

A Rat-infested warehouse supplied food to children and the elderly at more than 150 establishments across Carmarthenshire, it has been revealed.The county council was forced to release a list of schools, care homes and leisure facilities supplied by Pembrokeshire-based Skelfayre after a Post reporter requested details under the Freedom of Information Act.

28 January
A free and just society needs whistleblowers
ic Wales

The Freedom of Information Act, which became operational three years ago, has moved things forward but not nearly enough. Civil servants and ministers who wish to halt embarrassing disclosures have a plethora of exemptions within the Act at their disposal.

26 January

He wrote ‘Money’. But is Martin Amis really worth £3000 an hour?
Independent - London,England,UK

This work earns him a salary of £80,000, according to the Manchester Evening News (MEN), which discovered the details of his salary using the Freedom of Information Act.

BBC bids to suppress study on Middle East ‘bias’
Independent

The freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke suggested the BBC has become an unfair target for FoI requests. “My real issue is secrecy of the government rather than media organisations,” she said. “I almost feel the BBC has taken the brunt of these disclosures. It’s the vulnerable organisation and not the Cabinet Office or the Treasury, which will fight everything.”

BBC accused of wasting licence fee in battle to suppress ‘Mid-East
Daily Mail - UK

The expensive saga was prompted by a member of the public who has repeatedly tried to force the document’s release under the Freedom of Information Act.

24 January
Department stalls over Freedom of Information requests
Health Service Journal - London,UK

The Department of Health has been failing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Two requests regarding senior DH civil servants made by HSJ last year have been delayed.

The House of Commons Commission led by the Speaker has rejected all my FOI requests in which I sought a breakdown of not just staff names and salaries but also travel expenses and additional costs allowances. The Commons has spent thousands of pounds on internal and external lawyers to appeal decisions ordering disclosure made by the Information Commissioner and in one case they are even appealing a decision made by the Information Tribunal to the High Court. The Speaker also signed the certificate banning disclosure of staff names.

Is this really the best use of public money? Spending tax pounds to stop the public knowing how MPs spend public money?

There is an obvious conflict of interest when the person deciding on the disclosure of MPs’ expenses is himself receiving quite a substantial amount of this public money himself.

Clearly the system must change and if it does, this will be the first real victory for the Your Right to Know campaign.

In my new request submitted to the House of Commons Commission today I wrote:

As you will be aware this is a repeat of my original request made 2 January 2005 which was blocked by the Speaker of the House Michael Martin who overruled the Information Commissioner’s decision to order disclosure of all names of MPs’ staff.

It should be crystal clear now why my request should have been answered in full back in 2005. It was not only in the public interest but the Parliamentary interest to release information through the legitimate mechanism of the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, as is typical with the outdated bureaucracy of Parliament, the Speaker preferred to allow rumour, gossip and innuendo to inform public debate. The recent scandal is the inevitable result of his commitment to secrecy.

The House of Commons now have 20 working days to answer my request.

Way back in January 2005 I filed a freedom of information request seeking a full breakdown of the names and salaries of all MPs’ staff. Initially, the Commons refused the request by claiming it did not hold the information. The Information Commissioner found that in fact it did. Commons officials then claimed that publishing the names of staff would be an invasion of staff privacy and breach their ‘health and safety’.

The Information Commissioner Richard Thomas ruled that publishing the names of MPs staff did
not violate the privacy of MPs. However, he was powerless to order disclosure after the Speaker of the House issued a certificate in May 2006 claiming publication was ‘prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs.’

Now the taxpayer will be forced to pay for yet another sleaze inquiry or police investigation into politicians’ misuse of public funds when all this could have been avoided simply by providing full disclosure of MPs’ expenses when I asked three years ago. Local constituents are best placed to monitor their MPs’ performance. They are the ones who will know if those claiming to be staff are actually doing any work. Surely, it is to their constituents that MPs must be accountable?

If the House of Commons had not banned disclosure of staff names and salaries in 2006 then the current scandal would have been stopped in its tracks: saving thousands of pounds of public money. Instead, MPs continue enjoy a carte blanche system in which the only people they have to account to are faceless Whitehall bureaucrats. If MPs are to have any credibility with the public they must disclose a full breakdown of ALL their expenses.

David Farrer, deputy chairman of the tribunal, said in the ruling that publishing the identity of ASBO recipients, even when the order was still in effect, could cause “unjustified humiliation” and may violate the Data Protection Act.

The Tribunal’s main concern was not about the rights of the law abiding public to live free from fear of vandals or open justice but that disclosure might be “unwarranted by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the ASBO subjects.”

I’m all for protecting the privacy of individuals but when we’re dealing with sentences given out in a so-called open court that is funded entirely by the taxpayer, it cannot be right to keep secret the results of the criminal justice system from the people who pay for it and in whose name it operates.

Another surprising circumstance of this case is that the original requester of the information - David Leigh of the Guardian - was not even informed of the Tribunal hearing despite much of the argument being about the reason for his request and what he planned to do in his investigation.

The fact is that every ASBO is made in public in the sense that any adult can supposedly attend court proceedings. But of course no one does anymore and as a citizen has no rights to use the information he witnesses in court, effectively courts are now becoming the secret cloisters of legal professionals. If councils can now also keep secret their use of ASBOs then we really are moving toward a system of secret justice.