Environment Agency Chief Admits Regulator Buries Freedom of Information Requests (theguardian.com) 39
The head of the UK Environment Agency has admitted that freedom of information requests have been buried by the regulator because the truth about the environment in England is "embarrassing." From a report: Philip Duffy, the body's chief executive, told an audience at the UK River Summit in Morden, south London, this week that his officials were "worried about revealing the true state of what is going on" with regards to the state of the environment. The regulator holds information including about pollution, the state of England's waterways, the meetings its bosses have with water company CEOs, and other data about the state of nature in the country.
The Information Commissioner's Office, which oversees the law on the Freedom of Information Act, has warned the regulator that the public have a right to have their requests answered and that transparency should be taken seriously. An ICO spokesperson said: "People have the legal right to promptly receive information they're entitled to and we take action when they don't. We've been clear that public sector leaders should take transparency seriously and see the benefits it brings, including scrutiny of processes and approaches that can then benefit from improvement."
The Information Commissioner's Office, which oversees the law on the Freedom of Information Act, has warned the regulator that the public have a right to have their requests answered and that transparency should be taken seriously. An ICO spokesperson said: "People have the legal right to promptly receive information they're entitled to and we take action when they don't. We've been clear that public sector leaders should take transparency seriously and see the benefits it brings, including scrutiny of processes and approaches that can then benefit from improvement."
Why would they admit this? (Score:3)
It's tantamount to admitting that everything is as bad as you think it is, in your most fevered dreams. How is that possibly helpful?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty fast jump to conclusions.
Unironically, also why people are so skeptical of the 'movement'.
Could it not also be the gov would be embarrassed to reveal the cost and resources expended with no meaningful result?
Re:Why would they admit this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why wouldn't they? There's no consequences. If you want FOIA to be taken seriously, put a prison sentence on violating it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK because the idea of a Republic that you have a voice in is only a means of control you fell for.
Are you anti-republic, anti-democracy, or something else? I get the "you have no real voice" part, but what are you really blaming that on?
Re: (Score:2)
And more to the point, let's hear his alternative.
I'll get the popcorn.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You wanna suck his what? You pervy hobbit fancier, you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't they? There's no consequences. If you want FOIA to be taken seriously, put a prison sentence on violating it.
Not to ask a dumb question but does the UK have an equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act? What obligations are UK public agencies under to disclose information they don't want to disclose?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, they do, since it's referenced by that name in the summary.
Whatever they call it, whatever it's actual requirements, if there's no consequences, it's irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They're worried about getting fired by the conservative government for making them look bad. They have the data, and they also know it's damning to the people in power. Being personally embarrassed is not the problem if you are doing you job with any integrity. But working for conservative MPs, integrity gets you fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Politics. The PM just called for a general election in the UK for July 4th.
It is time for a bloodletting. "Quick, blame everyone else!"
There are two reasons for this (Score:2)
1) The environment is worse than you thought
2) The taxpayers are getting screwed worse than you thought.
#1 would be a good thing to admit to because it means they get more funding and more power.
#2 is probably something they really don't want to admit to because it means investigations, funding cuts, and possible criminal indictments.
Re: (Score:2)
Or #3) it's really #2, but they want to believe it's #1, because, as you say, they'll get a lot more money that way.
The most effective way to hide corruption is more corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it all depends on the details now doesn't it.
One way to look at might be the agency lacks the resources and regulatory authority to accomplish its mission to the degree the public desires.
The other way to look at it might be that despite the agencies considerable cost, and price in dollars, freedom, and time imposed on the public nothing is being achieved; and perhaps investment in the agency should be reduce or a radically different approach is required that would entail a painful (for the people empl
No surpris from the only country to exit the Euroz (Score:2)
Does this surprise anyone, really?
Isn't that the entire point of a FOIA? (Score:2)
To prevent the government from trying to bury important data from the public?
"When we passed this regulation I had no idea it would be used against us!"
Also probably time to update FOIA, it's been around long enough that certain agencies absolutely know how to slow walk the process. Hell if anything the agencies themselves should not have sole responsibility for requests, it should flow through a 3rd party agency similar to the GAO who has access to other agencies records but their mission goal is fulfill
Re: (Score:2)
1. Ignore a request, go to jail
2. Redact anything, go to jail
3. Delete the source, go to jail
4. Delay one second longer than needed, go to jail
5. Classify the source to dodge the request, go to jail.
We need a massive number of perp walks starting with the NIH [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1. Ignore a request, go to jail
This already happens, the agency has to respond in some way with a timetable but agreed this needs better enforcement (thus my call for 3rd party management)
2. Redact anything, go to jail
Not usually up to the agency in question, if it's classified then it's classified, you have to take it to court to challenge the classification.
3. Delete the source, go to jail
Agreed 100%
4. Delay one second longer than needed, go to jail
This is tricker than said. We have to increase agency FO
Re: (Score:2)
Not usually up to the agency in question, if it's classified then it's classified, you have to take it to court to challenge the classification.
I get that some things might be classified, but I'm mostly thinking of the NIH. They basically have no reason to classify or redact anything, ever. They do it anyway. They've also clearly destroyed evidence involving CV19 etc.. We need perp walks to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Well every government agency has the ability to classify materials, that is how the law is written. If NIH classified materials improperly thus that's why Congressional oversight is doing it's thing since Congress (specifically certain subcommittees) can access classified documents and challenge that.
If they did it improperly or with intent to deceive then I agree, indict them and give them their day in court. I know this is happening right niw so we just gotta keep up with proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything the Tories haven't screwed up? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ever want to see how naked, unabashed corruption looks, you can't do better than examine the behaviour of the Conservatives since they took power. Having pet bureaucrats slow-walk FOI requests to hide how they've devastated the environment is the least of their evil. If you want to get really, "I wanna break something" angry, watch the committee hearings relating to how innocent local postmasters were wrongly convicted of theft and fraud based on the lies and deceit of top-level Conservative appointees. Some served jail time, some have had their health ruined and at least one took his own life.
I don't expect much from Labour, but the sooner these vile bastards are swept from power, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it?
Re: (Score:1)
Is it?
Yes. They are corrupt and mendacious.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha, so you can support that with a reason citation?
Re: (Score:1)
It's called the news.
If you spent more time reading and less time trying to score points in the internet you would know this.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh.
My apologies, it's the funny way slashdot nests posts so that if you don't quote the parent, it looks like you replied to the grandparent. My answer made sense in that context, but turns out it was way off base for your post!
Surprise! (Score:5, Interesting)
The EA's board, who appoints the agency's head is appointed by a conservative MP - the Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was a corporate lawyer before getting into politics. Previously the MP was in charge of scrutinizing government spending, a popular topic among conservatives.
Seeing as how all these appointees are chosen by people who fight for privatization and deregulation, it's no surprise that the waterways and the ocean around the UK has become an embarrassing disaster, and that the FOI requests are being buried. The questions the NGOs and others are asking are definitely things the agency needs to answer for. The answer is they've been bending/collaborating with the private companies hired by the government to treat water and sewage. These companies are losing money, asking for government loans/bailouts while increasing rates on consumers, continuing to operate old combined storm/sewage systems that need more maintenance and development than they're willing to shell out for, while at the same time paying executives the typical undeserved salaries for failing.
"The FoI emails reveal that the Ofwat and Environment Agency chiefs discussed topics including “navigating the coming months, particularly to manage perceptions”."
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Managing perceptions - not managing water treatment, pollution, rising costs for consumers. They're trying to figure out how to tell people that feces, chemicals and garbage in the water is good for them. It's not likely a conservative government will do anything about this kind of regulatory capture, because it's everywhere and it's business as usual. Those who vote conservative are saying they want corporations to run the government. That goes for any country, not just the UK.
Re:Surprise! (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, there is not one case where privatising monopoly utilities has either lowered costs and/or increased quality of service.
The water privatisation in the UK has been particularly terrible, paying huge dividends to shareholders while spending nothing on maintaining and expanding systems.
They lived up to half the bargin (Score:2)
While on one hand they are failing by not responding to the FOI requests, they are succeeding by treating them all equally.
BTW when I first saw the article, I assumed this was from the Onion, but once again reality trumps parody,