Gmail - Thank you for taking part in the consultation

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1238c5f980&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1511adb...

Jenny Shepherd <changingmorethanlightbulbs@gmail.com>

Thank you for taking part in the consultation

1 message
Rebecca Falcon - 38 Degrees <action@38degrees.org.uk>
To: changingmorethanlightbulbs@gmail.com

18 November 2015 at 13:49

Hi,
Thanks so much for taking part. Your answers have been submitted to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information's call for evidence.
38 Degrees is funded entirely by thousands of people across the UK. To chip in so we can keep campaigning to protect Freedom of Information together, please click
here:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/foi-campaign-donate
Thanks for being involved,
Rebecca and the 38 Degrees team
---------- Your responses ---------Subject: Submission to call for evidence by Commission on Freedom of Information
To: foi.commission@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Why do you think Freedom of Information should be protected?
The public needs to know that public services are well managed both for staff who do the work of keeping them going and for the public who use them. Public services
managers need to be directly accountable to the public and the elected politicians who represent us. When so many public services have been outsourced/privatised,
the public needs to know exactly how the public services were procured, on what terms and conditions, at what cost, and how central & local government and the
various quangos that procure public services (whether from public or private providers) make decisions about what public services to commission and how they
commission them. Without FoI it would be impossible to know what's going on. In fact FoI needs strengthening because too often both public bodies (eg NHS
Foundation Trusts, local authorities) and private companies (eg Locala) hide behind commercial confidentiality and refuse to release information that belongs by right
in the public domain
How do you think government transparency could be improved?

1 of 3

18/11/2015 14:01

Gmail - Thank you for taking part in the consultation

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1238c5f980&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1511adb...

FoI should definitely cover private companies that provide public services. As a reporter I rely on FoI to do my job of letting the public know what is going on in their
name and thanks to their paying taxes and NI. So many public services are now privatised that much of what the public needs to know is virtually unobtainable
because private companies are exempt from FoI.
Question 1: What protection should there be for information relating to the internal deliberations of public bodies? For how long after a decision does such
information remain sensitive? Should different protections apply to different kinds of information that are currently protected by sections 35 and 36?
(Note: Sections 35 and 36 of the Act cover policy formulation, communications between ministers, and information that would affect the free and frank
giving of advice or expression of views.)
Why should the internal deliberations of public bodies be considered "sensitive"? Why should the public not know about the advice and views expressed in the process
of formulating policy? Surely being aware of the underlying assumptions and motives/drivers of decisions is fair game in a democracy? If ministers and others are
saying things they are ashamed of being public knowledge, maybe they should rethink what they're saying and how they go about their work.
Question 2: What protection should there be for information which relates to the process of collective Cabinet discussion and agreement? Is this
information entitled to the same or greater protection than that afforded to other internal deliberative information? For how long should such material be
protected?
The public should have access to cabinet discussions and decisions. These should not be privileged above other deliberative information. Apart from anything else,
free public access to cabinet deliberations would stop the tedious leaks and sniping by Cabinet members who use the press to try and win arguments and discredit
their Cabinet opponents, when they've failed to win their arguments in Cabinet.
Question 3: What protection should there be for information which involves candid assessment of risks? For how long does such information remain
sensitive?
Covering up the candid assessment of risks can only be seen as desirable when the people assessing the risks are up to shady business. There should be no
protection for the candid assessment of risks when the government is making big decisions. We're all adults so stop treating us like infants. The government & NHS
England are already hugely corrupt, as the privatisation of commissioning support units shows. This process was led by the Commissioning Support Industry Group,
chaired and funded by the UK's lobbyist for United Health - the previous employer of NHS England's boss Simon Stevens. The CSIG membership was the cabal of
management consultancy companies that have been making NHS policy since New Labour invited McKinsey consultants in to devise its privatisaing NHS policy.
Surprise surprise, the commissioning support lead provider framework which lists approved suppliers of privatised commissioning support that Clinical Commissioning
Groups can buy advice and info from has UNited Health/optum heading up 7 of the 9 lead providers, and the other usual suspects liberally represented in the supply
chains of almost all the lead providers. Worse still, United Health/Optum bids for NHS clinical services contracts so the privatisation of commissioning support is
basically to total stitch up by United Health - Simon Steven's ex-employer. This stinks of corruption.
Question 4: Should the executive have a veto (subject to judicial review) over the release of information? If so, how should this operate and what
safeguards are required? If not, what implications does this have for the rest of the Act, and how could government protect sensitive information from
disclosure instead?

2 of 3

18/11/2015 14:01

Gmail - Thank you for taking part in the consultation

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1238c5f980&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1511adb...

No the executive should not have a veto over the release of information. What's that Latin phrase about who will oversee the overseers? It applies here and to all
positions of power. The people must have oversight of their rulers.
Question 5: What is the appropriate enforcement and appeal system for freedom of information requests?
We need the Info Commissioner to have much stronger powers
Question 6: Is the burden imposed on public authorities under the Act justified by the public interest in the publics right to know? Or are controls needed
to reduce the burden of FoI on public authorities? If controls are justified, should these be targeted at the kinds of requests which impose a
disproportionate burden on public authorities? Which kinds of requests do impose a disproportionate burden?
There should not be charges to make FoI requests. Public authorities should not see FoI as a burden and if they do they easy way to remove the burden is to put all
their information automatically in the public domain. All they are paying for is their bad practices of secrecy and underhandedness.
Sincerely,
Jenny Shepherd
changingmorethanlightbulbs@gmail.com
HX7 8HQ

3 of 3

18/11/2015 14:01