Parliament's take on Freedom of Information

We'll tell you - if you promise not to tell anyone else


The House of Commons was due last week to explain why, unlike the hundreds of organisations that regularly respond to Freedom of Information Requests through charity website whatdotheyknow.com, it has refused to do so.

It didn't, and said it will now offer an explanation later this month. Maybe.

Whatdotheyknow is one of a cluster of websites sponsored by online charity mysociety. Other sites include theyworkforyou and writetothem. The aim of mysociety is to foster democratic debate by demystifying the processes by which the public can interact with government and their representatives.

Whatdotheyknow provides a simple and easy to use mechanism for submitting Freedom of Information (FoI) Requests. Would-be users find the organisation they wish to quiz, type in their FoI request, then sit back and wait for a reply. In most cases, there is no charge – although where the costs of complying with the request would exceed £450, an authority can either refuse to fulfil it or levy a charge.

The saga begins back in January of this year when mysociety founder and director, Tom Steinberg, sent in an FoI request to the House of Commons asking for "electronic copies of any documents produced by PICT discussing or evaluating the possible deployment of electronic petitioning systems in Parliament".

The answer was a fairly definite 'no' or 'yes', depending on your point of view. The official response was that the information requested was "subject to Parliamentary copyright which restricts the reproduction of Parliamentary material - this would mean that the material could not posted to the GovernmentSpy web pages without breaching copyright".

There then followed a request for an alternative email address for correspondence "that does not automatically republish responses and attachments onto the internet". So no joy.

Mysociety tried again in August, when mysociety developer and publicwhip founder Francis Irving submitted the same request. Same reply. The House of Commons is happy to provide the information requested, even in the knowledge that the requester intends to republish the information, but it won’t deliver it to an address which automatically republishes.

Once again, issues of Parliamentary Copyright are cited. This time, however, the requester would not let the issue go. The last exchange between Mr Irving and the House of Commons resulted in a series of questions for the Commons FoI department to answer, and an undertaking by the Commons to "endeavour to provide... a response no later than Thursday 9 October 2008".

Come Thursday.... no response. In fact, it seems the deadline for a response has now been pushed back to October 23.

That's not to say the issue isn't being taken seriously. On Tuesday a spokesperson for the Commons did explain to the Reg that this "is the subject of a careful internal review, in which all options are being explored".

We await the result of those deliberations with interest. On the surface, if there are no objections at all to the release of the material, or to its subsequent re-publishing, then the Commons objection looks frivolous.

Speaking to the Reg, Mr Irving said: "My personal interest is in seeing parliamentary ICT being done better. They could benefit a great deal from allowing others to see and comment on their plans.

"Their refusal to release a response on a legal technicality could be seen as misuse of public funds, since it could result in duplicate requests being made by others with an interest in the same issue."

On the Parliamentary front, interest is stirring. Jo Swinson, MP for East Dunbartonshire, who has already shown a strong interest in open government, is investigating the matter.

Full marks, however, to Cabinet Office Minster and major player in the field of e-governance, Tom Watson. His recent blog on the issue is succinct and to the point: "Oh Good Grief". That about sums it up. ®

Bootnote

The only other organisation to refuse, as far as we know, was Rother Council – and they were promptly slapped back into line by the Information Commissioner.

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • UK watchdogs ask how they can better regulate algorithms
    We have bad news: you probably can't... but good luck anyway

    UK watchdogs under the banner of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) have called for views on the benefits and risks of how sites and apps use algorithms.

    While "algorithm" can be defined as a strict set of rules to be followed by a computer in calculations, the term has become a boogeyman as lawmakers grapple with the revelation that they are involved in every digital service we use today.

    Whether that's which video to watch next on YouTube, which film you might enjoy on Netflix, who turns up in your Twitter feed, search autosuggestions, and what you might like to buy on Amazon – the algorithm governs them all and much more.

    Continue reading
  • UK criminal defense lawyer hadn't patched when ransomware hit
    Brit solicitor fined after admitting it took 5 months to install critical update

    Criminal defense law firm Tuckers Solicitors is facing a fine from the UK's data watchdog for failing to properly secure data that included information on case proceedings which was scooped up in a ransomware attack in 2020.

    The London-based business was handed a £98,000 penalty notice by the Information Commissioner's Office under Article 83 of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation 2018*.

    The breach was first noted by Tuckers on August 23 2020 when part of its IT system became unavailable. On closer inspection, resident techies found a note from the attackers confirming they had compromised part of the infrastructure. The Microsoft Exchange server was out of action and two days' worth of emails were lost, as detailed by the company blog at the time.

    Continue reading
  • Brit watchdog fines financial services biz £80k for text spam
    Company changed address to avoid probe after sending 378,553 messages

    Britain's data watchdog has issued an £80,000 penalty to a financial advisor that dispatched hundreds of thousands of unsolicited text messages during lockdown.

    H&L Business Consulting, based in Penrith, Cumbria, was found by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to have sent 378,553 texts between January and June 2020, resulting in more than 300 complaints [PDF].

    The spam promoted the debt management scheme devised by UK government as the outbreak of the novel coronavirus morphed into a pandemic. This is despite the fact that H&L Business Consulting was unauthorized by the Financial Conduct Authority to sell regulated financial products or services.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022