--- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:28:34 +0100 To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> From: Simon Davies <s.g.daviesat_private> Subject: dirty tactics by the UK Hi Declan, I hope all is well with you. Thought this may interest you. It's a legal newsletter piece on our press release (below) on how the UK government has been serially lying over the consultation responses to the proposed ID card. Quite a convoluted mess :( Best wishes Simon http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=governmentaccusedo1054808657&area=news PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL MEDIA RELEASE GOVERNMENT DECEPTION DEEPENS OVER ID CARD STATISTICS Home Office flouts the Open Government Code by refusing to disclose consultation information 5th June 2003 For immediate release The Home Office has rejected an Open Government request for statistics and related information concerning responses to the Entitlement Card consultation. On May 2nd, in an attempt to determine how and why almost 6,000 consultation responses inexplicably "disappeared", Privacy International (PI) lodged a formal request to the Home Office under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The request was submitted following repeated claims by government ministers that had gravely underestimated both the number of responses and the extent of opposition to the government's proposal. On April 28th, in a repetition of a similar statement made previously by Lord Falconer, junior Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes informed the Commons that the government had received only 2,000 responses to the consultation. But Internet and telephone portals established during the consultation by Privacy International and stand.org had resulted in an unprecedented 5,820 responses from the public, the overwhelming majority of which were opposed to the proposal. Together with an estimated 2,000 other responses, the total response figure was in the range of 8,000. Privacy International had previously been informally notified by Home Office officials that a decision had been made to "collapse" the 6,000 responses into one or two by treating them as a single petition. See http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/9BDD7713ACE6E76680256D39005693E7?OpenDocument for more background. Despite a clear undertaking by civil servants to provide a response to PI's request by June 2nd, a Home Office official telephoned PI's director, Simon Davies yesterday to advise that the request had been rejected outright. The justification given was that Conservative MP Anne McIntosh had lodged a Question on Notice relating to a part of PI's Open Government request. The Home Office claimed that to provide PI with information would amount to a breach of Parliamentary procedure. The Open Government Code contains no mention of Parliamentary procedure constituting grounds for exemption from the Code. http://www.lcd.gov.uk/foi/ogcode983.htm "The government's refusal to provide this information makes a mockery of its commitment to Open Government, and it makes a mockery of this consultation" said Mr Davies. Anne McIntosh's question (which was scheduled for reply on June 3rd, but which appears to remain unanswered) involved only one element of the PI request (see the letter below). The MP had asked only for the number and preferences of responses sent through the stand.org portal. PI had requested an overall and much wider spectrum of information relating to: - The method by which the number of responses has been calculated. - Any analysis of the responses. - Whether the Home Office had received and registered the 798 telephone responses to the consultation. - A justification for any refusal to count particular communications as individual responses. "To reject our request for information in these circumstances is as justifiable as refusing data on the national birth rate because an MP had lodged a question about empty beds in a maternity ward" said Mr Davies. "The Home Office has arbitrarily and improperly rejected this legitimate request", continued Mr Davies. "The government knows that eighty percent of the responses had opposed an ID card, yet it continues to use deceptive and duplicitous tactics to perpetuate the myth that the consultation was a victory for the proposal". "Throughout this entire process the conduct of the Home Office has been disgraceful. They materially breached the code of conduct on consultations, they lied about the figures, and now they have shamelessly flouted the Open Government code. In terms of barefaced arrogance I have never seen anything quite like it." See PI's complaint on the consultation breaches at http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/omb-complaint-103.html Notes to editors: - Privacy International (PI) is a human rights group formed in 1990 as a watchdog on surveillance by governments and corporations. PI is based in London, and has an office in Washington, D.C. Together with members in 40 countries, PI has conducted campaigns throughout the world on issues ranging from wiretapping and national security activities, to ID cards, video surveillance, data matching, police information systems, and medical privacy, and works with a wide range of parliamentary and inter-governmental organisations such as the European Parliament, the House of Lords and UNESCO. - Simon Davies can be reached at simonat_private and on 07958 466 552 (+44) 7958 466 552 from outside the UK. PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL John Hughes Open Government Co-ordinator Records Management Services Home Office Room T151 50, Queen Anne's Gate London, SW1H 9At 2 May 2003 Dear Mr. Hughes, This is a request for information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We would like to know the method by which the number of responses that the Home Office received as a result of the "Entitlement Card and Identity Fraud" consultation paper released in July 2002 has been calculated and any analysis of the responses. As reported in Hansard, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration Beverley Hughes on 28 April 2003 [Col. 16] told the House of Commons in response to an oral question, "We published a consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud on 3 July 2002. We are at the moment making a detailed assessment of the 2,000 responses received to the consultation exercise, which ended on 31 July. Many organisations and individuals have expressed support for a card schemeŠ.the 2,000 responses that we have received from individuals show that ordinary members of the public generally do not share his [MP Chris Mullin] concerns. The responses have been about 2:1 in favour of introducing a scheme." We would like this information as there appears to be a discrepancy in both the number of requests received and the analysis of respondents' opinions. Stand.org.uk reports that 5,029 individuals submitted comments to the Entitlement Cards Unit using the stand.org.uk website consultation service between 10 January and 31 January 2003 and another 798 individuals submitted comments (257 in favour, 541 against) using a voice mail system. Were these email and voicemail responses received? If so, why are they not included in the numbers cited by Ms. Hughes? I look forward to hearing from you within 20 days as provided for under the Code. If you wish to discuss this request, you can reach me at 07958-466-552. Yours sincerely, /sig Simon Davies Director ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 02:59:32 PDT