THE Manchester Evening News today tests the new Freedom of Information Act by asking ten key unanswered questions.
We are challenging every major public body in Greater Manchester to observe the letter and spirit of the law and prove - as the government insists - it will create "a new culture of openness".
The M.E.N. is demanding that Bury council finally comes clean on how much it spent on the case of Anthony McNally, the former teacher who was suspended for nine years over allegations, that were never proved, of inappropriately touching a pupil.
We also want Greater Manchester Police to tell us how much taxpayers' money it spent arguing vainly in court that it was right to let DCI Kenny Caldwell retire on a pension after he was blamed for the collapse of a major murder trial.
There are other questions for transport bosses about whether they have drawn up any secret plans for congestion charging, and health chiefs about the scale of superbug MRSA in our hospitals.
Other issues include bullying in the Army, plans for countering terrorist attacks, fines for the private company running Manchester's new magistrates court and racism in the police force.
Shredding
The Act, which came into force on Saturday, gives everyone the right to ask public authorities for information.
But those requests can be turned down for a variety of reasons, including fears they will affect national security or be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs.
Liberal Democrats have claimed the Act could prove "extremely weak", although many reasons for withholding information are subject to public interest tests. Some councils, including Manchester, have ruled they don't have to answer queries costing more than '450 to process.
In general, public bodies have 20 working days to answer questions. Government departments and some councils are believed to have already been snowed under with post-dated inquiries.
Disputes about whether information should be released can be settled by a new information commissioner, Richard Thomas, who has insisted there is "no hard evidence" that government files are being shredded because of the openness law.
He has poured cold water on Tory claims that systematic shredding was under way, but Shadow Cabinet Office minister Julian Lewis discovered that the Department for Transport and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister destroyed 53,232 documents last year, more than the estimated figure for the two previous years, and planned to destroy 23,400 more.
What do you think of the new culture of openness? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
I would like to comment on this article but my thoughts may be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs.
Forget your report on local issues what about the questions we all want answering
1.What real evidence was there for the War in Iraq.
2.When it is scientifically proven that fluoride only works systemically and NOT by ingestion what is the real reason the government want to put fluoride in our water supplies.
3. If as claimed Dr Kelly used his right hand to cut his left wrist why was it not reported by the paramedics there were no signs of spraying of blood on his right hand or wrist.
4. Why was it reported that Dr Kellys body was found in several different positions when no one is supposed to have touched him?
5.Where did Dr Kellys Dental records go missing for two days forcing the police to do DNA testing to make sure it was him?
6. How will joining the EU really affect our pensions? Will they be obliterated and is it why the goverment are trying to get us all to save more?
i will be facinated to hear the outcome of the manchester police case as i,am currently researching how the foia will affect the publics approach to authorities such as the police.
once the cost has been given will the public accept that (especially in area's where crime is an everyday problem) police are limited due to financial constraints when x amount is spent on securing the future of an officer whose conduct has already wasted vital funds?