DOCSLIB.ORG

City Research Online

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by City Research Online Brooke, H. (2016). Citizen or subject? Freedom of information and the informed citizen in a democracy. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) City Research Online Original citation: Brooke, H. (2016). Citizen or subject? Freedom of information and the informed citizen in a democracy. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) Permanent City Research Online URL: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/15961/ Copyright & reuse City University London has developed City Research Online so that its users may access the research outputs of City University London's staff. Copyright © and Moral Rights for this paper are retained by the individual author(s) and/ or other copyright holders. All material in City Research Online is checked for eligibility for copyright before being made available in the live archive. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to from other web pages. Versions of research The version in City Research Online may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check the Permanent City Research Online URL above for the status of the paper. Enquiries If you have any enquiries about any aspect of City Research Online, or if you wish to make contact with the author(s) of this paper, please email the team at [email protected]. Citizen or Subject? Freedom of Information and the Informed Citizen in a Democracy Heather Brooke A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by prior publication Department of Journalism City University London May 2016 2 3 Contents CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. 5 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 9 PART ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 1. WHAT IS TRANSPARENCY? ................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER 2: THE ORIGINS OF TRANSPARENCY ....................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 3: WHY TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORTANT ................................................................ 39 CHAPTER 4: PRIVACY ............................................................................................................ 51 CHAPTER 5: SURVEILLANCE ................................................................................................... 63 PART 2: MY CONTRIBUTION .................................................................................................. 71 CHAPTER 6: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 73 CHAPTER 7: YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW ...................................................................................... 91 CHAPTER 8: THE SILENT STATE ............................................................................................ 105 CHAPTER 9: MPS’ EXPENSES ............................................................................................... 115 CHAPTER 10: THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION ............................................................................. 131 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 143 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 147 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 161 SUPPLEMENTARY PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................................ 163 4 5 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr Ben Worthy for his invaluable guidance, suggestions and support during the writing of this dissertation, Professor Howard Tumber for steering me through the process and Professor Michael Schudson for his inspiring scholarship on the people’s right to know. Also thanks to my colleagues at City University who provided advice and support along the way, specifically Associate Professor Barbara Rowlands and Dr Julie Wheelwright. 6 7 Abstract Information is the essence of democracy and the lynchpin of power-ownership. Possession and control of information allows us to demarcate who controls or influences the political system. Freedom of Information (FOI), rooted in Enlightenment values, contains within it a key principle of democracy that there must be access to information (and knowledge) for all equally. My approach in my 25-year journalistic career has been to use FOI as a means of testing the promise and practice of democracy. It serves here as a ‘canary in the coalmine’ to measure how well citizens can access the political system. 8 9 Introduction The purpose of this exegesis is to reflect on my published material resulting from reporting and investigating the public’s right to know. Specifically it uses a lens of power and democratic theory to think about a body of work that includes articles from the author’s 25-year career; three books: Your Right to Know (2004, 2007), The Silent State (2010, 2011) and The Revolution Will Be Digitised (2011, 2012), and a year-long investigation as a member of the Independent Surveillance Review Panel that led to our report, A Democratic Licence to Operate (RUSI, 2015), on state surveillance. The published works I have put forward for this PhD by prior publication detail my investigations into the state, particularly the secret state, and the ways in which access to information impacts power relations between citizens and those entrusted with governance. Additionally I explore the way technology affects information flows between citizen and state both as a means of opening up government but also as a tool for surveillance. This exegesis will examine these issues in two parts. In Part One, I explore the existing academic literature on democratic theory, political science and information theory. Part Two is a summary of my work including detail on the methodologies I used and my unique contribution in the fields of politics and journalism. I demonstrate that access to information is an intrinsic value, essential for the fulfilment of human potential and the proper functioning of democracy, and that investigative journalism plays a crucial role in testing and ensuring that democratic rhetoric is matched in reality. Investigative journalism plays a vital democratic role as a “tribune of the commoner, exerting on her or his behalf the right to know, to examine, and to criticise” (de Burgh, 2000: 315). While there are several themes in my work they all revolve around a central interest: the relationship between citizen and state, specifically looking at the inequality of power between the two. I link democracy, freedom of information, privacy and surveillance through this central organising principle as they all reflect the power dynamic in action. I see transparency as “essentially a power-reducing mechanism”, 10 (Grimmelikhuijsen, 2013: 583), a means for citizens to hold the powerful to account if the powerful are transparent, or to control citizens when they are made transparent. I used mixed methodologies in my work, primarily research and reporting. In particular I made extensive use of the UK's new Freedom of Information Act passed in 2000 but in force only in 2005. From that date until mid-2010, I filed approximately 500 FOIs and wrote more than 60 newspaper and magazine articles (approximately 45,000 words) about democracy and/or FOI. My approach has been to use FOI as a means of testing the promise and practice of democracy. It serves here as a ‘canary in the coalmine’ to test how well citizens can access and participate in the political system. My method has been to focus on those with and exercising power and hold them to account for the power they wield. An important mechanism for this accountability is transparency, but perhaps more accurately described as the ‘right to know’ which holds within it the added aspect of accountable and democratic culture. Information is the essence of democracy and the lynchpin of power-ownership. Possession and control of information allows us to demarcate who controls or influences the political system. Freedom of Information is rooted in Enlightenment values, and contains within it a key principle of democracy that there must be access to information (and knowledge) for all equally. Too often freedom of information is looked upon in a utilitarian way - a means to an end - and the end is defined not by citizens but by those in power. I use and conceptualise FOI in a different way. First, as a research tool it is a symbolic and 'political' act, a form of empowerment, and I used it as such to enlighten both myself and society. It may exist in “the humdrum world of administrative laws” but it is a “foundational element of democratic participation and accountability” (Fenster, 2015). Secondly, FOI is an indicator of democratic reality
Recommended publications
  • Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit ‘A Windfall for Social and Environmental Justice’

    Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit ‘A Windfall for Social and Environmental Justice’

    cDIREoCTIONmFOR THE pass DEMOCRATIC LEFT February 2009 Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit ‘A windfall for social and environmental justice’ By Gemma Tumelty & Jenna Khalfan Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit Introduction & Contents Rising energy and fuel prices are affecting everyone but it's the poorest and those on fixed incomes who are paying the heaviest price for the essentials of life - light and heat. This situation is unsustainable and should be challenged. Compass believes that the moment is right for the government to levy a sensible one off windfall tax on the energy and oil companies to guarantee social and environmental justice for the common good of people living today and for future generations. The government can move quickly and decisively now - but it needs to know that this is what the people want. We have developed a toolkit to help you campaign locally and nationally to have your say in this important debate. Contents 1. Briefing questions and answers 2. Key statistics 3. Campaign aims and actions 4. What you can do locally a. Get local Labour Party, Students’ Union and trade union support b. How to Lobby your MP c. Local media d. energy companies 5. Building a local coalition: pensioners groups, anti-poverty groups, church groups, fuel poverty groups, single parent networks etc Appendix 1. Who supports a windfall tax 2. Model letter to MPs 3. Model letter to the Chancellor Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 1 1. Briefing questions agreed to raise this to a £150 million a be particularly targeted at families in or and answers year by 2010, with the rate of price rises facing fuel poverty.
  • By-Elections 2005 - 2010 RESEARCH PAPER 10/50 4 August 2010

    By-Elections 2005 - 2010 RESEARCH PAPER 10/50 4 August 2010

    By-elections 2005 - 2010 RESEARCH PAPER 10/50 4 August 2010 This research paper provides the results of the 14 by-elections held during the 2005-10 Parliament. Since 2005, 9 of the 14 by-elections have been won by the incumbent party. There has been a net gain to the Conservatives of two seats, after wins in Norwich North, and Crewe and Nantwich; a net gain of one seat to the Liberal Democrats, following a win in Dunfermline and West Fife; and a net gain of one seat to the SNP after victory in Glasgow East. All of these seats were previously held by Labour. Thus, after accounting for their win in Glasgow North East (previously held by former Speaker Michael Martin), Labour saw a net loss of three seats over this period. Kathryn Keith Social and General Statistics Recent Research Papers 10/40 Sudan: peace or war, unity or secession? 02.06.10 10/41 Identity Documents Bill [Bill 1 of 2010-11] 04.06.10 10/42 Progress towards nuclear disarmament? 15.06.10 10/43 Unemployment by Constituency, June 2010 16.06.10 10/44 Local Elections 2010 22.06.10 10/45 The ‘AfPak policy’ and the Pashtuns 22.06.10 10/46 Economic Indicators, July 2010 06.07.10 10/47 Unemployment by Constituency, July 2010 14.07.10 10/48 Academies Bill [HL] [Bill 57 of 2010-11] 15.07.10 10/49 Economic Indicators, August 2010 15.07.10 Research Paper 10/50 This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual.
  • Appendix: “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament”

    Appendix: “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament”

    Appendix: \Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament" August 8, 2017 Appendix Table of Contents • Appendix A: Wordscores Estimation of Ideology • Appendix B: MP Membership in Ideological Groups • Appendix C: Rebellion on Different Types of Divisions • Appendix D: Models of Rebellion on Government Sponsored Bills Only • Appendix E: Differences in Labour Party Rebellion Following Leadership Change • Appendix F: List of Party Switchers • Appendix G: Discussion of Empirical Model Appendix A: Wordscores Estimation of Ideology This Appendix describes our method for ideologically scaling British MPs using their speeches on the welfare state, which were originally produced for a separate study on welfare reform (O'Grady, 2017). We cover (i) data collection, (ii) estimation, (iii) raw results, and (iv) validity checks. The resulting scales turn out to be highly valid, and provide an excellent guide to MPs' ideologies using data that is completely separate to the voting data that forms the bulk of the evidence in our paper. A1: Collection of Speech Data Speeches come from an original collection of every speech made about issues related to welfare in the House of Commons from 1987-2007, covering the period over which the Labour party moved 1 to the center under Tony Blair, adopted and enacted policies of welfare reform, and won office at the expense of the Conservatives. Restricting the speeches to a single issue area is useful for estimating ideologies because with multiple topics there is a danger of conflating genuine extremism (a tendency to speak in extreme ways) with a tendency or requirement to talk a lot about topics that are relatively extreme to begin with (Lauderdale and Herzog, 2016).
  • The 2009 British Mps' Expenses Scandal: Origins, Evolution And

    The 2009 British Mps' Expenses Scandal: Origins, Evolution And

    The 2009 British MPs’ Expenses Scandal: Origins, Evolution and Consequences Jennifer vanHeerde-Hudson and Orlanda Ward This chapter introduces the British MPs’ expenses scandal; its origins, evolution and consequences. We argue that despite some early predictions, the scandal was limited in its impact: the purported ‘revolution’ never occurred. We briefly review the comparative literature on political impact of scandal, which illustrates why the effects of scandals are usually limited and reasons why voters may choose not to punish malfeasant politicians. We situate this scandal against other, international scandals, highlighting similarities and differences in the effects of scandal depending on cultural contexts. The chapter illustrates the mediated nature of the scandal and how it is best understood as comprised of not only the acts of politicians themselves, but a series of moves and counter-moves by the press and other actors. Introduction On 8 May 2009 the Daily Telegraph began publishing un-redacted expenses claims made by British MPs. The revelation of parliamentary expenses showed how, and the extent to which, some MPs took advantage of an unregulated expenses system—a system designed by, and vigorously protected against outside interference, by MPs themselves. The expenses regime was intended to cover the costs of performing parliamentary duties: operating costs for running constituency offices (including staff salaries, rent, computers, etc.) and communications and travel as part of their parliamentary duties. The regime also included Additional Costs Allowances (ACA)1, worth up to £24,000 annually, to reimburse MPs for the expense of staying away from their primary home while performing their parliamentary duties.
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer

    Edinburgh Research Explorer

    Edinburgh Research Explorer A Catenaccio Game Citation for published version: Mitchell, J & Van Der Zwet, A 2010, 'A Catenaccio Game: The 2010 Election in Scotland', Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 708-725. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsq019 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1093/pa/gsq019 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Parliamentary Affairs Publisher Rights Statement: © Mitchell, J., & Van Der Zwet, A. (2010). A Catenaccio Game: The 2010 Election in Scotland. Parliamentary Affairs, 63(4), 708-725. 10.1093/pa/gsq019 General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 29. Sep. 2021 A Catenaccio Game: the 2010 election in Scotland James Mitchell and Arno Van Der Zwet At the Scottish Conservative conference following the 1979 general election, Margaret Thatcher thanked the party for its contribution to victory. The Scottish Conservatives had won 31 per cent of the vote, up almost 7% on the previous election. With 22 of Scotland’s 71 seats, Mrs Thatcher commended the six new Tory MPs who had gained a seat for the party.
  • Weekly Information Bulletin

    Weekly Information Bulletin

    Contents House of Commons • Noticeboard ..........................................................................................................1 • The Week Ahead..................................................................................................2 • Order of Oral Questions .......................................................................................3 Weekly Business Information • Business of the House of Commons 10 – 14 November 2008 .............................4 Bulletin • Written Ministerial Statements.............................................................................6 • Forthcoming Business of the House of Commons 17 – 21 November 2008........7 • Forthcoming Business of the House of Lords 17 – 21 November 2008.............11 Editor: Mary Durkin Legislation House of Commons Public Legislation Information Office • Public Bills before Parliament 2007/08..............................................................13 London • Bills - Presentation, Publication and Royal Assent ............................................24 SW1A 2TT • Public and General Acts 2007/08 .......................................................................25 • Draft Bills under consideration or published during 2007/08 Session ...............26 TEL: 020 7219 4272 FAX: 020 7219 5839 Private Legislation [email protected] • Private Bills before Parliament 2007/08.............................................................27 www.parliament.uk • Draft Provisional Orders as at 14 November 2008.............................................30
  • Living Former Members of the House of Commons

    Living Former Members of the House of Commons

    BRIEFING PAPER Number 05324, 7 January 2019 Living former Members Compiled by of the House of Sarah Priddy Commons Living former Members MPs are listed with any titles at the time they ceased to be an MP and the party they belonged to at the time. The list does not include MPs who now sit in the House of Lords. A list of members of the House of Lords who were Members of the House of Commons can be found on the Parliament website under House of Lords FAQs. Further information More detailed information on MPs who served between 1979 and 2010, including ministerial posts and party allegiance, covering their time in the UK Parliament and other legislatures, can be found in the Commons Library Briefing on Members 1979-2010. Association of Former Members of Parliament The PoliticsHome website has contact details for the Association of Former Members of Parliament. Parliament: facts and figures • Browse all briefings in the series This series of publications contains data on various subjects relating to Parliament and Government. Topics include legislation, MPs, select committees, debates, divisions and Parliamentary procedure. Feedback Any comments, corrections or suggestions for new lists should be sent to the Parliament and Constitution Centre. Suggestions for new lists welcomed. www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Living former Members of the House of Commons Note: Does not include MPs who are now sit in the House of Lords Name Full Title Party* List Name Mr
  • Brooke, Heather.Pdf

    Brooke, Heather.Pdf

    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Brooke, H. (2016). Citizen or subject? Freedom of information and the informed citizen in a democracy. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/15961/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Citizen or Subject? Freedom of Information and the Informed Citizen in a Democracy Heather Brooke A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by prior publication Department of Journalism City University London May 2016 2 3 Contents CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................
  • 2. the Scottish Parliament 25

    2. the Scottish Parliament 25

    DEVOLUTION MONITORING PROGRAMME 2006-08 Scotland Devolution Monitoring Report January 2007 Peter Jones (ed.) Honorary Senior Research Fellow The Constitution Unit www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit ISSN 1751-3855 The Devolution Monitoring Programme From 1999 to 2005 the Constitution Unit at University College London managed a major research project monitoring devolution across the UK through a network of research teams. 103 reports were produced during this project, which was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number L 219 252 016) and the Leverhulme Nations and Regions Programme. Now, with further funding from the Economic and social research council and support from several government departments, the monitoring programme is continuing for a further three years from 2006 until the end of 2008. Three times per year, the research network produces detailed reports covering developments in devolution in five areas: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Englsh Regions, and Devolution and the Centre. The overall monitoring project is managed by Professor Robert Hazell and Akash Paun at the Constitution Unit, UCL and the team leaders are as follows: Scotland: Peter Jones Honorary Senior Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, UCL Former political correspondent for The Economist Wales: Dr Richard Wyn Jones & Dr Roger Scully Institute of Welsh Politics, University of Wales, Aberystwyth Northern Ireland: Professor Rick Wilford & Robin Wilson Queen’s University, Belfast English Regions: Martin Burch & James Rees, IPEG, University of Manchester Alan Harding, SURF, University of Salford The Centre: Professor Robert Hazell, The Constitution Unit, UCL Akash Paun, The Constitution Unit, UCL The Constitution Unit and the rest of the research network is grateful to all the funders of the devolution monitoring programme.
  • To Read the Full Book Online

    To Read the Full Book Online

    A Crisis of Trust Stuart Wheeler © The Bruges Group 2010 ISBN: 978-0-9564614-0-7 Published in February 2010 by The Bruges Group, 227 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street, London W1B 5TB www.brugesgroup.com Bruges Group publications are not intended to represent a corporate view of European and international developments. Contributions are chosen on the basis of their intellectual rigour and their ability to open up new avenues for debate. Acknowledgements It is not secret corruption which is the danger in politics. The forms of corruption to be feared are not those which would be denied, or would be a cause of shame, if they were publicly exposed. The really dangerous forms of political corruption are those which are open and acknowledged, which, if hon. members like, are part of the system. – Enoch Powell (20 December 1971) My thanks go to the Bruges Group for publishing this pamphlet. And to Professor Tim Congdon, Ruth Lea, Ewen Stewart, Dr John Adamson, Chris Mounsey, Dr Lee Rotherham, Yvonne Carlton, Clare Steiner, Richard Thoburn, Amelia Bauerly and Barry Legg for their assistance. The opinions expressed are my own. Much of my treatment of the expenses scandal consists of my disagreement with the cross-party support for the recommendations in the 12th Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life [CSPL, 12th Report, Cm 7724]. The Committee is currently chaired by the distinguished public servant, Sir Christopher Kelly, and I refer to the Committee’s findings throughout as Kelly. Sir Christopher’s sincerity and manifest hard work are in no way to be questioned.
  • From Suez to Iraq 63

    From Suez to Iraq 63

    Debate 8/3/05 4:11 AM Page 62 62 From Suez Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, and I inform the House that I have selected the to Iraq amendment in the name of the Prime Minister … Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (Plaid Cymru – the Party of Wales): I beg to move, That this House believes that there should be a Adam Price MP select committee of seven honourable Members, Margaret Beckett MP being members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council, to Jeremy Corbyn MP review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq Alex Salmond MP and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath. It is an honour to move this motion on behalf of my hon. Friends and of right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House of Commons. It is the culmination of a long campaign, and it is a debate that is long overdue. The motion has cross- party support because the issue at its heart is far bigger than one of party politics. It is about accountability. It is about the monumental On 31 October 2006, the catastrophe of the Iraq war, which is the worst House of Commons foreign policy disaster certainly since Suez, and discussed the Iraq war in the possibly since Munich. It is about the morass in first formal (albeit very brief) which, regrettably, we still find ourselves. It is also debate since the invasion of about a breakdown in our system of government – 2003.
  • The Power Gap an Index of Everyday Power in Britain

    The Power Gap an Index of Everyday Power in Britain

    the power gap an index of everyday power in Britain DANIEL LEIGHTON Open access. Some rights reserved. As the publisher of this work, Demos wants to encourage the circulation of our work as widely as possible while retaining the copyright. We therefore have an open access policy which enables anyone to access our content online without charge. Anyone can download, save, perform or distribute this work in any format, including translation, without written permission. This is subject to the terms of the Demos licence found at the back of this publication. Its main conditions are: · Demos and the author(s) are credited · This summary and the address www.demos.co.uk are displayed · The text is not altered and is used in full · The work is not resold · A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to Demos You are welcome to ask for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by the licence. Demos gratefully acknowledges the work of Creative Commons in inspiring our approach to copyright. To find out more go to www.creativecommons.org 2 contents Acknowledgements 4 Summary 5 Introduction 10 1 Defining power and powerlessness 14 2 Measuring power as capability 27 3 The Power Map 37 4 The power scores 42 5 Power Map constituency rankings 54 Appendix 65 Notes 73 References 76 3 acknowledgements There are a number of people and organisations that contributed to this research project and report. I would like to thank the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for their generous generous funding of this project.