More Open but Not More Trusted? The Effect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the United Kingdom Central Government

Governance ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
BEN WORTHY
2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-599
Author(s):  
Jon Burnett ◽  
Fidelis Chebe

Abstract Charging regimes and the extraction of revenue are integral components of immigration control in the United Kingdom. However, while these have been analysed in their individual guises, to date, there has been little substantive analysis bringing these regimes together and locating them at the centre of its enquiry. Drawing on data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this paper consequently examines the functions of charging regimes as a distinct form of statecraft, focussing its attention on UK Visas and Immigration fees and charges, carrier sanctions, charges related to accessing services and civil penalties administered though immigration enforcement. Analysing their historical roots and their contemporary prevalence, it suggests that they contribute to the political economy of financial power, which has significant implications for understandings of criminalization and immigration enforcement.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calum Liddle ◽  
David McMenemy

AbstractIn this tenth anniversary year since freedom of information came into force north and south of the border, the authors, Calum Liddle and David McMenemy, undertake an in-depth comparative evaluation of the parallel cost exemptions found in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Does Scottish FOI indeed afford a more generous disclosure entitlement? And are applicants, in turn, employing comparatively weaker rights when requesting information from analogous English and Welsh authorities? A statutory analysis of the home nation provisions is complemented by case law and a nod to contemporaneous events.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Taylor

AbstractThe National Archives has an important role in providing access to records of crime because of its role as the national archive for the records of the higher law courts and central government departments. Because of its status as the national archives for the United Kingdom, it has a pivotal role in shaping and influencing the developing freedom of information and data protection issues concerning records of crime. As Nigel Taylor describes in this short article, it has also created internal structures to cope with the increasing workload, complexity and need for transparency when dealing with these matters.


2011 ◽  
pp. 1977-1990
Author(s):  
Philip Leith

Public information presumes that the information is somehow public and, presumably, that this can be utilized by members of the public. Unfortunately, things are more complex than this simple definition suggests, and we therefore need to look at various issues relating to public information which limit access and usage, for example, the nature of privacy, sharing information within government, court records, ownership of public information, and freedom of information. The exemplars dealt with later in the article will demonstrate the legal constraints upon the usage of public information in a digital environment and help raise awareness of such limitations. Public information cannot be formally defined (as a list of items, say) except to indicate it is that information which has historically been available to the public in print form and/or through some generally open process. No formal definition is possible because this depends to a very large extent upon cultural differences. For example, tax returns are viewed as private documents in the United Kingdom open only to the tax authorities (unless otherwise authorized, e.g., in criminal proceedings) whereas in Sweden they can be accessed by any member of the public. Furthermore, the source of public information may also vary: what information is produced by a public authority in one country may not be so carried out in another. The legal constraints upon access and use of public information include the following: • Privacy/confidentiality of public data • Sharing and processing of public data collected for divergent purposes • Freedom of information rights to public data • Copyright and database rights in public data Access to public information may be enabled through a formal public register, through statutory mechanism, or other less formal means. Note that being accessible does not necessarily mean that users are free to use this information in any way they wish: copyright licenses in particular are not always passed along with access rights, so that the public may inspect a document but may not use it in other ways (such as republishing). Reasons for this are obvious: the collection of data by government can be expensive and there can be opposition to subsidising commercial activity from the public purse. In the United States, federal materials are explicitly excluded from copyright protection, but this is rarely the case in Europe (see www.hmso.gov.uk for the UK situation). Another example is that it is possible in most countries to attend local criminal courts or peruse local newspapers and draw up a database of prosecutions in the local area. The database could include information on drunk drivers, sexual offenders, and burglars, and it would be possible to include a wide variety of information—all of it, clearly, of a public nature. Indeed, such activities have been common for many years where credit agencies have collected information from courts on debtors and made this available on a commercial basis. But there are questions: Is all court-based information public? What limitations might be found in some countries and not in others to the dissemination of this information? See Elkin-Koren and Weinstock Netanel (2002) for the general tendency toward commodification of information and Pattenden (2003) for professional confidentiality where it impinges upon public service. On a more mundane level, judgments from most European courts are copyright of the relevant government or agency. In the United Kingdom, differing again, there is some dispute over whether the judge or Court Service owns the judgment, and frequently the only text version of a judgment is copyright of the privately employed court stenographer. Thus the publicly available information which is being discussed here is that which emanates from a public authority and can be accessed by members of the public, but will usually have some constraint and limitation on how it can be reused by the public. We are interested in outlining these constraints.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 89-104
Author(s):  
Elena M Egawhary

This paper explores the various surveillance practices involved in the use of social media for communication and investigation purposes by UK police forces. In doing so, it analyses internal policy documents and official guidance obtained through freedom of information (FOI) requests sent to 46 police forces in the United Kingdom. This analysis finds that UK police forces advise their staff to simultaneously engage in both surveillance and counter-surveillance strategies in their use of social media as a policing tool.


1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 609-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Smith ◽  
R Walker

In this paper an evaluation of the housing management performance indicators regime in the United Kingdom is provided. First, the context in which performance measurement in the housing service in the United Kingdom has developed is set and lessons are drawn from the use of statutory indicators following the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. By examining the performance indicator regime in Wales it is suggested that the regime is flawed because it provides information which points towards the economic efficiency of service provision rather than explaining the effectiveness of services. This is compounded by the multiple audience that the performance indicator regime is targeted at: tenants, local government, and central government. The conflict arising from the multiple target groups results in the regime being unable to serve properly its primary audience, that is, tenants. To conclude the paper, some alternatives are suggested, and the need for performance indicators to be seen as tools for evaluating the relative efficiency and effectiveness of local authority housing management over time is highlighted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document