If you’re interested in this Guardian article about a leaked document on NHS websites, you might also be interested in seeing the list of 4,282 websites I recently received from the department. Have a look through and let me know what you think of the best and worst!
The document that the Guardian have been leaked was produced under the last government. I asked Conservative Health Minister Simon Burns to publish it last month. He refused.
More and this after my Michael Gove meeting!
The fanfare around coalition claims for greater transparency in Whitehall has not yet been met in reality. Let’s be honest, most people knew the salaries of the very top civil servants. The interesting information is in the the detail, the granular figures for the middle orders.
I’ve recently asked a number of FoI questions to see how many civil servants are paid as much, or more than an MP. The answer, in the list below, is that there are 3000.46 (full time equivalent) civil servants earning more than £65,738 per annum.
Francis Maude set up the Transparency Board to allow the public to “hold politicians and public bodies to account”.
I don’t think it unreasonable for the public to know the title and job description of every civil servant matching an MPs salary. So come on Francis, pull your finger out and get this committee to make a little more progress.
Speakers Martha Kearney Simon Hughes
Thank heavens for Simon, that’s all I can say.
SH: Council house allocation has always been controversial and it’s very important that if we’re going to debate any changes to the fundamental issue which is that if you’re given the tenancy and you pass the probationary period, you have it for life, then we do it very sensitively and carefully and mindful of all the difficulties. The fundamental reason why council property is so desirable is because you have security. You know that you can have affordable housing for the rest of your life and for people in many walks of life, out of work, retired, on low incomes, that’s fundamentally important.
MK: But at the moment, given that I mean this time of financial constraint so it may be a while before we get a big influx of new houses, if someone stays in a larger property when they don’t need it they’re denying it to somebody else who might really be in need of it because they’ve got young children, they need more space?
SH: My experience is that if you engage with those people in good time, you engage their families, you talk about what the options are, you explain that they can have somewhere that would be smaller, easier to manage, less expensive – people will normally be persuaded to move. The question is do you make it compulsory to move. And the danger then again is you start breaking up communities. One of the great things abut council property is, or secure tenancies, is that it keeps communities together, keeps families together. It allows, just as you would if you have your home when you pass away or I pass away we can pass it on to our relatives so there is a great benefit in being able to say, this is my family home and my daughter, who has lived with me all my life and cared for me in my old age should be able to continue in the same home when I go and she tackles over. So we’ve got to be sensitive about the whole set of issues and remember that suddenly proposing, or suddenly floating an idea is not any more than that. It’s not a policy, it’s not been agreed, it’s not come to the coalition for formal discussion but floating an idea that we should go to limited fixed-term tenancies would change the whole nature of public sector housing in England and, if we’re going to even look at that we need to have a debate involving everybody carefully and thoughtfully and listening above all to the views of the people who arte the council tenants of today and maybe the council tenants of tomorrow.
MK: So what do you think about the prime minister floating such an important idea without getting agreement from the coalition. How’s that going to go down in your party?
SH: Well, prime ministers are entitled to float any ideas they like but we just have to be clear it is not a Liberal Democrat policy, it is not a coalition policy, it was not in the election manifesto of either party, it was not in the coalition agreement. So the message just has to get out, this is an idea floated by the prime minister, if he wants to pursue it then there are the proper channels to do so. We’re very happy to have the discussion. The Labour Party floated this idea before; they fairly quickly withdrew it because they saw the pitfalls. I’m not against radical ideas coming from progressive prime ministers but it’s no more than that, it’s a prime ministerial idea, it has no more validity yet and I think our party would need a lot of persuading that it has merit or could work and that’s something that clearly if he wants us to talk about we’re happy to talk about.
“There is also an additional security risk in the form of a Denial of Service attack.” Classic. A good result though.
JC: Mr Grayling is this a priority, are we talking about a lot of jobs being advertised in Job Centres for this kind of thing?
CG: There has been a steady stream over the years, when I first spotted this problem a couple of years ago and looked through Job Centre websites I found numerous adverts for pole-dancers, for lap-dancers, for web cam operators, since then there has been a public consultation, the general view that has come back to the department is that most people feel this is a bad thing and I feel strongly, we as a government want to get people off welfare and into work, there is going to be a lot of effort to get people into jobs, I don’t want any woman who goes to a Job Centre to feel that after their interview, they go across to the job point, they look at the list of vacancies and if there is an adult vacancy there I don’t want them to feel any sense that they have to apply for that, I think it is better that those adverts just don’t happen in Job Centres at all.
JC: And so this was seen as a priority for you coming in at this job to deal with this was it? Or as far as you are concerned.
CG: Well as far as I am concerned it is necessary I think to make sure that if we are putting people under-pressure to look for jobs we are trying to get people off welfare and into work, we shouldn’t be putting any woman into a position where she feels any kind of obligation to apply for a job like this, no they are not banned in this country as a whole, these clubs and licensed, but what I don’t want is vulnerable people in job centres, after long periods of time on benefits, feeling any kind of sense that they have to apply for this kind of role.
JC: Now that doesn’t mean as we said in the introduction that you are banning jobs related to working in those sorts of places does it?
CG: No, I mean you can still apply as a night-club bouncer, you can still apply as a cleaner but it is very much about jobs that actually involve direct sexual stimulation, somebody taking their clothes off for the amusement of others in a public arena and that is what we want Job Centres to stop advertising.
JC: So what is going happen from today, you have instructed all the Job Centres have you, to basically rip down those ads?
CG: We are today instructing the Job Centre Plus network to stop advertising those vacancies and you know in future the only industry related adverts that will be acceptable will be things like bouncers, things like clearers.
I don’t normally post by-election results but this one is significant. Lynda Leach won the Bilston North By-Election last night for Labour on a massive 13.1% swing from the Tories since May 6th. The Lib Dem vote collapsed (their vote was down over 90% since May 6th) and the Conservatives were roundly beaten by more than 800 votes.
The victory gives Labour our 30th seat of 60 on Wolverhampton Council and puts us a whisker away from overall control.
Lab 1292
Tory 460
BNP 131
Lib D 52
UKIP 55
I sit on the Department of Culture Media and Sport Select committee. We’ve just announced a new inquiry and have issued a call for evidence on Funding of the Arts and Heritage. We’re inviting written submissions and requesting views on the following issues:
What impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level;
What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;
What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;
Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;
What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;
Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;
The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm’s-length bodies – in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council;
Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;
Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.
The Committee will also examine other areas of interest that are raised during the course of its inquiry. A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to cmsev@parliament.uk and have ‘Funding of the Arts and Heritage’ in the subject line. Submissions should be received by Thursday 2nd September 2010.
It assists the Committee if those submitting written evidence adhere to the following guidelines:
Each submission should:
1. State clearly who the submission is from, i.e. whether from yourself in a personal capacity or sent on behalf of an organisation
2. Be about 3,000 words in length / run to no more than six sides of A4 paper; as far as possible comprise a single document attachment to the email; begin with a short summary in bullet point form; have numbered paragraphs; and
3. Be in Word or Rich Text format (not PDF) with as little use of colour or logos as possible. Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
4. You should also be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
5. Though there is a strong preference for emailed submissions, those without access to a computer should send a hard copy to:
Committee AssistantCulture, Media and Sport Committee
Committee Office
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
Please also note that:
· Committees make public much of the evidence they receive during inquiries. If you do not wish your submission to be published, you must clearly say so. If you wish to include private or confidential information in your submission to the Committee, please contact the Clerk of the Committee to discuss this.
· Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed submission, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
· Evidence submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
· Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the Internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
For up-to-date information on progress of the inquiry visit: http://www.parliament.uk/cmscom
Committee Membership is as follows:
Mr John Whittingdale (Chair) (Con) (Maldon), Ms Louise Bagshawe (Con) (Corby), Paul Farrelly (Lab) (Newcastle-under-Lyme), Dr Thérèse Coffey (Con) (Suffolk Coastal), Alan Keen (Lab Co-operative) (Feltham and Heston), Damian Collins (Con) ( Folkestone and Hythe),Jim Sheridan (Lab) (Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Philip Davies (Con) ( Shipley), David Cairns (Lab) (Inverclyde), Mr Adrian Sanders (Lib Dem) (Torba) and me, Mr Tom Watson (Lab) (West Bromwich East),
Specific Committee Information: cmscom@parliament.uk/ 020 7219 6188, Media Information: Laura Humble humblel@parliament.uk/ 020 7219 8430, Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/cmscom ,Watch committees and parliamentary debates online: www.parliamentlive.tv
Publications / Reports / Reference Material:Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk
The BBC’s public nature and its objects
1. The BBC exists to serve the public interest.
2. The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.
3. In addition, the BBC may maintain, establish or acquire subsidiaries through whichcommercial activities may be undertaken to any extent permitted by a FrameworkAgreement. (The BBC’s general powers enable it to maintain, establish or acquiresubsidiaries for purposes sufficiently connected with its Public Purposes…..
4.The Public PurposesThe Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b)promoting education and learning;
(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;2
(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;(f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking aleading role in the switchover to digital television.
5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes: the BBC’s mission to inform,educateand entertain
(1)The BBC’s main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment, suppliedby means of—
(a)television, radio and online services;
(b)similar or related services which make output generally available and which may bein forms or by means of technologies which either have not previously been used bythe BBC or which have yet to be developed.
The White House, Washington D.C., April 9, 1963. (Awarding of honorary citizenship of the United States of America to Winston Churchill)
President John F. Kennedy said:-
“We meet to honour a man whose honour requires no meeting – for he is the most honoured and honourable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live. Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty. Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past. Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men’s freedom and dignity. In the dark days and darker nights when Britain stood alone – and most men save Englishmen despaired of England’s life – he mobilised the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen. Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was ever vigilant to protect their rights. Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others. A child of the House of Commons, he became in time its father. Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure. Now his stately Ship of Life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage and faith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts for all time.
By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honour him – but his acceptance honours us far more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich his name — the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.”
There’s a by-election in Walsall tomorrow. The Conservative candidate has either reproduced a leaflet from May, or misprinted the leaflet and bodged two important amendments. If you look at the black blotches on the page you will see two things.
1. The date of the election was originally printed as Thursday 6th May. An amendment added in black ink to put the new date.
2. This is the bit that simply takes the biscuit. In the section headed “Together building a better town” you see the line “investment in schools”. Above, clearly visible for all to see through the black ink are the words “200 million”!
The Tories cut the Building Schools of the Future programme last week so they just blocked it out. As well as the bare faced cheek of it, it’s politically inane.
Investment in schools
Tom Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for health, if he will publish the KPMG report on the effectiveness of the NHS Choise and NHS Direct Websites.
Simon Burns: We are not able to publish the requested report as it is central to the formulation of government policy. The KPMG report on NHS Choices and NHS Direct is informing the Department’s Information Strategy.
Time for the Freedom of Information Act: NHS Choices/NHS Direct
Tom Watson esq.,
Dear Mr Watson
Wine purchases by HM Government
I have followed this news item and I would like to offer you my comments. Let’s establish, at least, that bottles of wine are not warheads.
Leaving aside for a moment the specific points they raise for denying you access to their database, I don’t see why the FO can provide any grounds for declining to make available overall figures for acquisition costs, increases in values, stocks held etc etc.
Now to the specifics. I don’t intend to mince my words because arguments put forward in the letter you publish on your site dated 28th June from Robert Alexander contains a number of false suppositions. My own conclusion is that these statements were made intentionally to mislead you and were made in the full knowledge that they would mislead anyone who read them.
1.’Releasing information would hurt suppliers, thus ending discounting and prejudice the future dealings with GH to obtain cheap prices’. The wine market is a transparent market. Prices on wines, retail, wholesale and at auction are available in an instant and as a result the market is highly competitive. Certainly, some discounts may be given for larger orders. It is however wrong, in my view, to suggest that GH’s discounts might be curtailed and in any case for the more expensive wines, which presumably make up the bulk of the department’s investment, their statements regarding discounting would not be applicable. Additionally, the overall size of the government cellar is rather small and would have no impact on the wine markets as a whole.
2.The question as to providing detailed information – they are prepared, in some cases, to reveal the name of the wine, but not the vintage – because it might affect the ‘volatile wine market’ and indicate an endorsement of specific producers, presumably affecting the discounts the GH might obtain and values. This too is a completely false picture (someone should tell them this isn’t ‘Yes Minister’). Everyone in the wine market, producers, suppliers, critics, consumers (if sufficiently interested) know perfectly well what is a good wine, a good year, and, yes, a good price. I think it more likely, for example, they probably don’t want you to know that they may have bought 23 cases of Margaux 1993 at a high price.
3. The wine market is far from ‘volatile’ or is this a reference to the fact it is a liquid? All research shows that it is one of the best performing and most consistent investments.
4. It is suggested that the GH considered its position following consultation with its suppliers. Were I a supplier and was asked by the GH in a way which suggested they did not want to publish information about their activities, I wouldn’t want to dispute it with them either. Would you? I have already explained in (1), (2) and (3) above why this is a false premise.
A copy of a meeting of the Committee which advises the GH is published on the web –http://foi.fco.gov.uk/content/en/foi-releases/2010/158-243. This seems to me a highly negligent way to be proceeding.
There are serious issues pertaining to this subject which might form a paradigm for other government departments. I recently wrote an article which was published in the Drinks Business (June 2010) and which was based upon a Quality Price Index for the new Bordeaux vintage (2009). I attach it to this email. As you can see, very clearly, there are wines which might be purchased by any government and which would provide good value for money even in an exalted year for Bordeaux such as 2009.
Further, the FO or any government department might adopt a strategy of careful investment which might provide drinking wines for its functions at little or no cost to the taxpayer by periodically divesting itself of wines it owns – I am sure Christie’s/Sotheby’s would be only too happy to help.
A combination of acquiring wines at the right prices at the right time, buying high quality wines which are relatively inexpensive, seeking sponsorship for certain events could probably reduce the cost considerably.
I would not be content with the lists of the wines themselves, costs etc but also I would like to know their strategy and objective for their wine acquisitions, how they put out a tender for the wines, etc etc.
Perhaps if you could make it all sound a little less like sour grapes you might get a little further?
Kind regards,
Fabian Cobb, http://www.finewinejournal.com
New age of transparency? “The information that has been supplied to you continutes to be protected by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1998.”
Here’s the information in full:
Copyblogger theme design by Chris Pearson | Hosted by ENTANET