On corresponding with politicians...

****

The other week the people who make sure Bradford Council complies with data protection rules and regulations popped along to talk to the Conservative Group. Not specially as they'd planned visits to other groups too with the aim of explaining what we could and couldn't do, what permissions we needed and how we should keep stuff (electronically and otherwise).

The discussion raised a few splutterings - we were told that, without the person's permission, we couldn't share a constituents letter with our ward colleagues or, technically, with an officer, which until you think about it seems a little daft. But, as anyone dealing with the public's interaction with politicians knows, people do not always behave rationally or indeed contact us with wholly benign purpose.

And, as I'm sure all the journalists and such like know, data protection trumps freedom of information - the letter that Mrs Smith wrote to me isn't governed by those rules, it's governed by data protection rules. And unless she has given me permission to share your FOI request will fall on stony ground.

Indeed why should you believe you have some sort of right to see a private exchange of correspondence between me, as a politicians, and a person who chooses to write to me? It really is - in the true meaning of the phrase - none of your business. It seems reasonable for me to say, if asked, that I have corresponded with Mrs Smith but the content of the letters is a matter between me and Mrs Smith not between me, Mrs Smith and the whole of humanity.

And this is as it should be. Those who believe that every last exchange that every single public official has with anyone and everyone should be made public are not only wrong in law but damage the proper delivery of public service, whether it's the MP or councillor responding to the concerns of a resident about her noisy neighbour, a minister fielding letters from people who think they're more important than they are, or indeed a public official dealing with a complaint about his department.

There's a debate to be had about transparency but it isn't about private correspondence but about the manner in which policy decisions are made and the information on which those decisions are taken. At no point does private correspondence between the politician or official and someone outside government come within the scope of that transparency.

....

Regeneration, development and FoI requests...

***

Southwark Council, in the spirit of openness and cooperation is refusing to comply with a Freedom of Information request about the deal done with Lend Lease to 'rescue' the Elephant & Castle regeneration scheme:

Fiona Colley, Southwark’s cabinet member for regeneration, went on record to say: “There is nothing I would like more than to publish this document and show the world what a fantastic deal we negotiated for the people of Elephant and Castle. However, we entered into those negotiations with Lend Lease on a confidential basis, and I am not willing to break that agreement because a handful of people wrongly think the document contains something sinister. Moreover, the ICO’s decision has huge implications for councils wanting to enter into commercial partnerships with developers across the country.

“We could find ourselves sleepwalking into a situation where developers refuse to work with councils for fear their commercially sensitive information will be forced into the public domain. That wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests, and that is why we’re appealing the ICO’s decision.” 

This is a pretty big deal - I've no issues with the Council seeking to protect commercial arrangements and it will be very interesting to see how the Courts view Southwark's argument. It seems to me (and Jackie Sadek from UK Regeneration seems to agree) that the content of contracts between private companies and public bodies should be in the public domain. I can see the need for confidentiality during a negotiation especially where there is competition for the business. But once the deal is done the contract should be published.

The alternative is that people - in this case the opposition on Southwark Council - will see bogie men, corruption and scandal where there probably isn't any. And simply saying 'the Council refuses to publish they must be hiding something' makes the point eloquently. If that Council replies with 'no we're not hiding anything' then the response is 'publish'.

....

Fiona Colley, Southwark’s cabinet member for regeneration, went on record to say: “There is nothing I would like more than to publish this document and show the world what a fantastic deal we negotiated for the people of Elephant and Castle. However, we entered into those negotiations with Lend Lease on a confidential basis, and I am not willing to break that agreement because a handful of people wrongly think the document contains something sinister. Moreover, the ICO’s decision has huge implications for councils wanting to enter into commercial partnerships with developers across the country.
“We could find ourselves sleepwalking into a situation where developers refuse to work with councils for fear their commercially sensitive information will be forced into the public domain. That wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests, and that is why we’re appealing the ICO’s decision.”
- See more at: http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/jackie-sadek/2013/09/southwarks-silence-raises-interesting-issues/#sthash.Y0ZwXeog.dpuf

It seems the police don't know whether CCTV works!

****

I raised a Freedom of Information request for information about the effectiveness of Bradford's CCTV as a means of detecting crime in the City Centre. I asked what I thought was a pretty simple question:

How many individuals have been charged with assault, robbery or other violent offences as a result of evidence from CCTV cameras within Bradford City Centre.

It seems that the police don't know the answer and, more importantly, don't intend to find out the answer! Here's part of their response:

In order to obtain the required information would involve an in-depth search of each offence to establish whether CCTV contributed to the charge. For the 2010/2011 financial year there were 308 crime records for violent offences and robbery detected by means of a charge in the Bradford City Ward. At an estimate of 5 minutes per record it would take in the region of 26 hours to conduct this search. In addition, it has been estimated that it would take a further hour to provide the total number of crimes in Bradford City ward.

Now two important points stand out here - firstly my question didn't related to City Ward (which includes much more than the City Centre itself) but to the City Centre. And secondly I asked (as a supplement to the question above) for the total number of offences recorded - the police have chosen not to respond.

 I shall follow up - perhaps by asking a question of the Bradford Council leader at full council as well as through getting the police to actually respond to the question I asked.

However, I find it surprising that the police are simply not interested in whether the very expensive investment in CCTV is of any value. Or maybe they know it's useless?

....