government | ukwatch.net

FOI: Scotland to explore extending its reach

tim — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:28:04 +0000

The Scottish Government has raised the prospect of extending the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act to cover more organisations carrying out certain public functions.

Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford said the Government is committed to fully exploring the issues around coverage but stressed that a final decision on extending coverage would be taken only after consultation with interested parties and those organisations potentially affected.

As a first step, Mr Crawford will have discussions with interested parties about bringing within the scope of the Act the following organisations:

> Registered social landlords
> Contractors who provide public services that are a function of a public authority (for example, contractors providing prison services)
> Local authority trusts or bodies set up by local authorities (for example, bodies set up by local authorities as limited companies to run leisure facilities)

At the start of a week when the Minister will be in London and Cardiff to discuss FOI policy in the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly, Mr Crawford said:

“The Scottish Government is committed to the principles that underpin Freedom of Information legislation. Principles of openness and transparency, essential parts of open democratic government and responsive public services.

“We’ve taken steps within the Government to publish more of our material proactively. For example, we recently revised our Publication Scheme which describes the vast range of Government information we routinely publish. The First Minister also recently announced a pilot scheme within an area of the Scottish Government, which will see an increase in the amount of information made public.

“And we are committed to continually assessing whether the scope of the Act can be improved. I believe it has served the people of Scotland well but it is still a relatively new piece of legislation and many people and organisations are still getting used to both its real and potential impact.

“The organisations we are looking at in terms of coverage have not been chosen at random. They are bodies about whom concerns over a lack of coverage have consistently been raised with us. The concerns may have arisen because of changes in the way public services are delivered – for example the contracting out of services traditionally provided directly by a public authority.

“Discussions will take place before any decision is taken to formally consult. But formal consultation is not a rubber-stamping exercise. Any extension of coverage needs to be measured and appropriate.

“For example, we will look closely at the issue of the proportional impact on smaller organisations particularly in the voluntary sector.

“I am aware there are differing arguments and there is a need to balance those. But I believe it is only right to give serious thought to extending FOI coverage in Scotland.

“Later this week I will discuss FOI with the relevant UK and Welsh Ministers and share our experiences. I am keen to ensure that Scotland continues to build a reputation for greater transparency and accountability”.

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act) provides significant and important rights allowing access to recorded information.

The Act came into force on January 1, 2005 and provides a statutory right of access to information held by Scottish public authorities. These include, for example, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, local authorities, schools, colleges, NHS Scotland and the police. The Act also requires the proactive publication of certain information. Compliance with the Act is promoted and enforced by the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Along for Fluoride

Ellie Keen — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:55:48 +0000

AS BRITAINS FACE MASS MEDICATION OF TOXIC WATER ADDITIVE

If you knew that someone was putting poison into your water supply, what would you do? Call the authorities? Well don’t bother cos it’s the government wot’s doing it!

If you live in the West Midlands or the North East, the chances are that you already have a fluoridated water supply – and comments earlier this year from Health Secretary Alan Johnson made it clear that he is keen to see this toxic industrial waste added to everyone else’s water as soon as possible. Why? He believes that it is a ‘key means of tackling tooth decay’ – despite the fact that no scientific evidence bears this out, and much other evidence has emerged linking fluoride ingestion to bone deficiencies, cancer, joint pain, skin rash, damage to thyroid glands and even IQ deficits.

So what’s going on? Well, Alan Johnston has swallowed the arguments put forward by the dental and pharmaceutical lobbying groups, all of which have been exported here from the US where, since the 1940s, they have managed to get over 70% of water fluoridated. It’s just science they say – fluoride was shown in the mid-1930’s to have a beneficial effect on the incidence of children’s tooth decay, so why not add it at source and protect everyone’s teeth without them having to do a thing?

But this mass medication argument has more holes in than my sugar-addled teeth. Number one is obviously, er, mass medication? Unknown dosage level (everyone’s water consumption is different) and without the patients’ consent? Since when was that normal practice? You don’t forcefeed people aspirin because one of them may be experiencing a headache… it’s illogical and wasteful – not to mention people’s rights to refuse medication.

In fact, a dip in the scientific fluoride literature is like diving into a very muddy pool, reminiscent of the ‘smoking is not really bad for you’ or ‘climate change isn’t really happening’ debates of recent decades. This alone should be ringing the alarm bells. Many studies do suggest that ‘topical’ application of fluoride, i.e. applying it to the teeth directly by way of toothpaste etc does have some beneficial effect on cavity rates, although these don’t attempt to separate out all the other factors which may play a part in tooth health, like diet, or attempt to discover other ways of achieving the same benefits. While fluoride is proven (and accepted by all) to cause dental fluorosis (pitted or mottled tooth enamel) – now widespread in American mouths – little high quality study has been done on other side effects like bone deterioration or cancers, which may mean a slightly healthier smile is far outweighed by a shorter diseased life.

And the story with applying the fluoride by drinking it in water is even cloudier. There is no unequivocal proof that it works. In fact, since large parts of America started sipping it in the 1950s, numerous studies have shown that, all else being equal, tooth decay rates for fluoridated and non-fluoridated water areas are, er, exactly the same – or in some cases even higher in fluoridated areas! This has led to nearly all of Europe long since abandoning the practice – but it seems that governments in the UK (10% fluoridated) and Ireland (72%) just can’t resist the persuasive American connection.

If you were of a slightly cynical mind (who us?!), it would almost seem that nobody at the top wants to hear any evidence contradicting the fluoride dogma. The approved studies are designed (and funded) purely to decide whether adding fluoride for teeth can be considered ‘a good thing’. This is the result demanded by big business eager to turn an expensive-to-get-rid-of toxic industrial waste product (left over in pesticide production, aluminium processing and nuclear uranium enriching, amongst other things) into a ‘miracle’ health ingredient to be boxed up, re-branded and sold back in small amounts to the general public in return for a handsome profit. Well you can see their logic. Two birds with one stone and profits up. No wonder that the many more recent long term-studies and peer-reviews of past data showing no provable benefits (and many possible negatives) are swiftly discredited or ignored.

CLOSE TO THE BONE

And there are other (presumably weakened, deteriorating) skeletons in the closet. In 1997, two American journalists dug out previously classified documents revealing how fluoride policy and research was shaped by atom bomb making at the end of the Second World War. The first court cases against the government from people affected by living near to the bomb making facilities were not for the effects of radiation, but for damage to crops from fluoride pollution.

The secret ‘Manhattan Project’ memos – the group of government and industrial capitalists running the development of the nuclear option – show that they knew about the problems and commissioned pro-fluoride research merely to help fight these and future possible court cases. Despite editorial approval and full referencing, the damning article was dropped by the Christian Science Monitor and never widely published.

Despite Birmingham and other areas’ water being contaminated, no new UK regions have joined them since the mid 1980s when the rollout was put on hold. But the threat is back. In 1993, despite no demand, the government passed an act giving regional strategic health authorities (SHA) the power to compel water to be fluoridated. It must have been frustrating for them and their corporate sponsors that, to date, not one of them has done so. So it seems like a whole new round of propaganda and pressure is about to be applied. Anti-fluoride action groups have sprung up around the country (see www.hampshireagainstfluoridation.blogspot.com and www.freewebs.com/keepwatersafe for example) who are working to try and ensure that nobody else is unwillingly force-fed this harmful toxic poison for no health benefit. As recent studies in China and Mexico have shown a link between fluoride consumption and lower IQ scores, maybe they’re just out to keep us all dumb…?

There’s tons more info to get yer teeth into at www.freewebs.com/keepwatersafe and www.fluoridealert.org

Rats Loose in the Granary

Ellie Keen — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Put rats in charge of the granary and, without doubt, you will get cereal thieving, and haven’t Gordon Brown and his Chancellor Alistair Darling found the truth behind that rather feeble joke.

Not even waiting 24 hours after the deadly duo hurled £50 billion their way, the pack of merchant bankers who style themselves Britain’s finance industry, but ought more accurately to be known as the country’s top predators, have stuck two fingers up at them and gone their own merry and profiteering way.

Despite all of Mr Brown’s sanctimonious pleading on Monday that the £50 billion windfall to the bankers was to stabilise the mortgage industry and give back a chance to first-time buyers to enter the housing market, Britain’s second-largest lender Abbey announced on Tuesday that it is to screw customers who can’t stump up at least 25 per cent of the price of their home as a deposit.

With lower rates and its tracker mortgage only being made available for those with a large deposit, the first-time buyer is, as one City source put it, “stuck, unless they have parents who can help.”

So, home-buyers who cannot afford a large initial deposit or don’t have a rich mummy and daddy behind them will be forced to take less competitive rates and pay more on their monthly repayments.

Once again, as with the 10p tax rate abolition, it’s the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what takes the blame.

And is there any clearer way for Abbey to let Mr Brown know just who is in charge in the City and underline that it isn’t him?

Well, other bankers clearly think that there is.

Not content with access to £50 billion to defray its risks, the boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland is asking shareholders to pump in £12 billion of new capital, diluting their existing holdings by a hefty percentage unless they fork out again, given that the new rights offer is in the ratio of 11 new shares for every 18 existing shares that they hold.

According to RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin, whose £4.2 million pay package included a £2.9 million bonus last year, the bank’s financial position was “satisfactory” less than two months ago.

Does anyone seriously believe that things have changed so much in just eight or nine weeks?

And, if they have, should people who did not even foresee it be left in charge of the banking industry?

It should be noted that the bank, which claims to have lost another £5.9 billion recently, spent nearly £50 billion last year on the acquisition of Dutch bank ABN Amro, so it certainly isn’t down to its last few bob.

And other banks are expected to jump on the rights issue bandwagon, including Barclays and Halifax Bank of Scotland. Both banks are denying this, but they would, wouldn’t they?

The result of all this would seem to be that £50 billion of taxpayers’ cash has vanished into the banks’ black hole and many billions more are going to be raised by rights issues, all to correct the absolute dog’s breakfast that a pack of avaricious speculators have made of the banking system that they are still to be left in charge of.

Meanwhile the lower paid are screwed on their tax, cut out of the housing market, the government is giving away their cash, and no attempt is being made by central or local government to supply social housing in anything like the amounts needed.

And they say that socialists are the impractical and unrealistic ones!

Jobs are used to justify anything, but the numbers don't add up

JamieSW — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:22:06 +0000

There is no nonsense so gross that it cannot be justified by the creation of jobs. The Ministry of Defence has just announced that it’s spending £13bn of our money – via a fantastically complicated private finance scheme – on a fleet of refuelling planes. Do we need them? Only if we intend to attack another defenceless country. But it’s worthwhile, because the new contract will “create up to 600 jobs at AirTanker Ltd, and will safeguard up to 3,000 jobs directly at British sites, with thousands more sustained indirectly.”(1)

John Hutton claims that new nuclear power stations will generate not only the energy we need, but also 100,000 new jobs(2). When and how? Here or in France? Northumberland County Council has revealed that it is spending £3.6 million on one new roundabout, at Haltwhistle. A staggering waste of public money? No, “it will both attract new jobs to the town and secure existing employment.”(3)

It is true that investment creates employment. But jobs are used to justify anything and everything. If recession strikes, the political value of any scheme which boosts them will rise. Projects which in more prosperous times might have been rejected by planners or ministers will suddenly find favour. Anyone who stands in their way – however daft the schemes may be – will be walloped as an anti-social Luddite.

But the big question is asked very rarely in the press: how reliable are these promises? Whenever a new defence contract or superstore or road or airport is announced, the papers and broadcasters repeat the employment figures without questioning them. They rarely return to the story to discover whether the claims were true.

The Guardian’s research service was able to find only two stories which challenged individual claims about job creation. One, from 2003, covered a National Audit Office investigation into the government’s grants to companies in deprived areas(4). The grants cost the taxpayer £1.4bn and were meant to have created or protected 300,000 jobs. But the auditors found that only 45% of these jobs were additional: the rest would have been saved or created if the grants hadn’t existed. Of these, 11% displaced other jobs in the same region, even when the multiplier effect (jobs creating further jobs) was taken into account(5). The schemes had worked, but not as well as the government had claimed.

The other story, in February this year, reported an odd but quite common phenomenom: a private equity boss attacking his own industry. Jon Moulton, the founder of Alchemy Partners, berated his own trade body for using “very dodgy statistics”(6). The British Venture Capital Association had claimed that jobs at private equity firms have risen by 8% a year over the past five years, while in publicly-listed companies jobs have grown by only 0.4% a year(7).

Speaking at the industry’s SuperReturn 2008 conference, Moulton pointed out that the association’s figures excluded the private equity firms that had gone out of business. “If you use an adjusted figure, the number should be more like zero. We’re putting these things out as fact and we shouldn’t.”

Many of the published figures have to be wrong. At the beginning of his nuclear speech, John Hutton praised the efforts of Dougie Rooney, the energy officer for the trade union Unite, for his “unique contribution to nuclear’s renaissance in the UK”. But they can’t get their story straight. Rooney has claimed that the nuclear programme will generate 10,000 new jobs: one tenth of Hutton’s figure(8).

Ten years ago, a research organisation called the National Retail Planning Forum – financed by Sainsbury, Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Boots and John Lewis – published a report on the superstores’ impact on employment. It found that there is “strong evidence that new out-of-centre superstores have a negative net impact on retail employment up to 15 km away.”(9) The 93 stores the forum studied were responsible for the net loss of 25,685 employees: every time a large supermarket opened, 276 people lost their jobs. This is hardly surprising. The New Economics Foundation has calculated that every £50,000 spent in small local shops creates one job. You must spend £250,000 in superstores for the same result(10).

But the press – especially the local papers – reports Eldorado every time a new store opens. In the past few days the Telegraph and Argus claimed that Marks and Spencer will create 2,500 new jobs in Bradford(11); the Halifax Evening Courier announced that the local B&Q will hatch an extra 60 jobs by moving to bigger premises(12); the BBC published a story headlined “Morrisons site creates 1,000 jobs”(13). Seldom is there a word about the employment these schemes will destroy.

To produce a definitive account of the gap between the claims made by companies promoting new schemes and the jobs they really deliver would take years. Instead, I asked a researcher, Nicola Cutcher, to conduct a rough sampling exercise. She took the latest year for which job figures are broken down by the size of employer are available – 2006 – and selected the middle week of each quarter. She then went through all the stories that mentioned the word “jobs” in a press database(14), selecting those which reported new openings or closures by large enterprises (over 250 staff) that were definitely taking place. She ensured that each claim was counted only once. To produce a rough average for the year, she multiplied the four weeks by 13.

The government reports that the number of jobs among large enterprises rose by 189,000 between 2005 and 2006(15). Our rough sample suggests a net gain of 1.4 million, or 7.4 times the official rate. If the same exaggeration applied to the whole economy, there would be 218 million workers in the United Kingdom(16).

This exercise has severe limitations. Job figures tend to be quite lumpy. Some of the posts take several years to create, so they won’t show up in the 2006 figures; though 2006, of course, harvested the jobs announced in previous years. But the gains among large employers this decade have fluctuated between 160,000 and 330,000(17): in no year has anything like 1.4 million net jobs been created.

Should we be surprised by such exaggerations? Of course not. Though the papers are generally good at reporting job cuts, they rely for the good news on companies and government departments that have an interest in talking up the benefits of their schemes. There is also plenty of confusion, often cunningly sown in corporate press releases, about whether the new jobs are being created directly or indirectly. When claiming wider benefits for their schemes, employers use the most generous possible multiplier effects. The indirect employment claimed by one company is the direct employment created by another. As they all declare responsibility for work created elsewhere, new jobs in this wacky world are generated several times over.

We need some reliable research into the reporting of employment claims. We need journalists to start asking questions about the figures they are fed; perhaps to refuse to print them unless they have been independently audited. And we all need to make a simple demand whenever a shiny new scheme promises to solve the community’s problems: prove it.

References:

1. MoD, 27th March 2008. £13 billion deal for new Tanker Aircraft signed. Press release. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/13Bi…

2. John Hutton, 26 March 2008. New Nuclear Build: How do we make progress?
http://www.berr.gov.uk/pressroom/Speeches/page45417.html

3. No author, 28th March 2008. £3m road scheme to aid jobs. The Cumberland News.
http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=820414

4. David Hencke, 17th June 2003. £100m jobs subsidy scheme is poor value, say auditors. The Guardian.

5. National Audit Office, 17th June 2003. The Department for Trade and Industry: Regional Grants in England. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/02-03/0203702.pdf

6. Siobhan Kennedy, 27th February 2008. High-profile buyout chief turns on his peer group. The Times.

7. The British Venture Capital Association, 13th February 2008. The Economic Impact of Private Equity in the UK 2007. http://www.bvca.co.uk/pdf.php?id=842&filename=the_economic_impact_of_pri…

8. No author, 26th March 2008. ‘Thousands of jobs’ in nuclear design licences
The Herald. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/other/display.var.2145944.0.Thousands_of…

9. Sam Porter, Paul Raistrick, January 1998. The Impact of Out-of-Centre Food Superstores on Local Retail Employment. The National Retail Planning Forum, c/o Corporate Analysis, Boots Company PLC, Nottingham.

10. Emma Hallett, New Economics Foundation, April 1998, pers comm.

11. Jo Winrow, 27th March 2008. D-day looms for massive jobs project. The Telegraph and Argus.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/newsindex/display.var.2149091…

12. Carmel Harrison, 28th March 2008. DIY superstore prepares to open. Evening Courier.
http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local-business/DIY-superstore-prepares-t…

13. No author, 19th March 2008. Morrisons site creates 1,000 jobs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7305548.stm

14. UK News.

15. http://stats.berr.gov.uk/ed/sme/smestats2005.xls

and

http://stats.berr.gov.uk/ed/sme/smestats2006.xls

16. The latest total figure is here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0307.pdf

17. All the tables are here: http://stats.berr.gov.uk/ed/sme/index.htm