Censorship in South Lanarkshire
Here's a previous post from 17 May 2011 - which explains the background to the ongoing row about censorship in South Lanarkshire Council.
The Scottish Information Commissioner upheld my appeal (see post dated 14 July) - and has ordered South Lanarkshire Council to disclose the information previously withheld - by no later than 2 September 2011.
But you can see for yourself just how long this Labour-led council has managed to delay and frustrate - a perfectly reasonable FOI request.
So the question is this - 'If the council has nothing to hide, why does it behave in this way?'
No doubt the very same question was asked of the House of Commons - over MPs' expenses claims - and look what happened there.
"Censorship in South Lanarkshire"
"The MPs' expenses scandal at Westminster introduced many people to a new word - redacted - which means to censor or obscure.
The House of Commons authorities took this quite literally and zealously - at the time.
And in response to very reasonable and sensible FOI enquiries about MPs' expenses - the bureaucrats blanked out all the embarrassing references - to items like duck houses and dog food.
As you do.
Now it turned out that many MPs believed such items to be essential to doing their jobs - and made claims for years on the public purse.
Which was of course complete baloney - even according to their own rules.
But we only know this through the persistence of FOI campaigners - and the Daily Telegraph newspaper, of course.
Which leads me on to censorship closer to home.
Because the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) - Kevin Dunion - recently confirmed that SIC will investigate an FOI appeal I lodged recently - in connection with South Lanarkshire Council.
The council has provided me with minutes from a meeting of its Corporate Management Team - which have to do with Single Status and Equal Pay.
But the council has blanked out - redacted - the juicy bits which they find embarrassing and inconvenient - presumably because this will let the cat out of the bag.
I'll have much more to say about this in the days ahead - as this is truly scandalous behaviour on the council's part - in my opinion.
I expect that many MSPs will agree - so watch this space for further details.
In the meantime, let my letter to SIC speak for itself - I am happy to send readers copies of all the background correspondence - if anyone would find that interesting.
"Dear Scottish Information Commissioner
South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) – FOISA request
I enclose an exchange of correspondence with South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) regarding a FOISA enquiry which I initiated on 17 February 2011.
I asked South Lanarkshire Council to review its initial decision, but I am dissatisfied with their response in relation to Document 1 – a written report to a meeting of the Council’s Corporate Management Team – which the Council has redacted to avoid public scrutiny. As a result, I would like to register the following appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
1. In my view the council have produced no evidence to show that the release of this information would be prejudicial to the conduct of public affairs; quite the opposite in fact, because it would have the effect of holding senior officials and elected councillors to account.
2. The information relates to the introduction of a non-discriminatory Job Evaluation Scheme as required under the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement.
3. Unusually South Lanarkshire Council decided not to implement the tried and tested Gauge JES – which had the national approval and backing of the Scottish local authority employers and the trade unions.
4. Instead South Lanarkshire Council implemented its own ‘in-house’ scheme which is the subject of considerable controversy amongst council staff – and the wider public.
5. The redacted information relates to decisions of the Corporate Management Team in deciding how to implement the 1999 Single Status Agreement which came into effect in July 1999.
6. The underlying issue is whether South Lanarkshire Council was saying one thing in public and a different thing in private. In other words was the advice given to the Corporate Management Team thorough, professional and in accordance with good practice - in terms of job evaluation and equal opportunities?
7. In my view the release of this information would demonstrate whether the council acted properly at the time and, as such, there can be no prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs in 2011.
8. I attach a separate letter to South Lanarkshire Council dated 18 April 2011 regarding an Equal Pay Review instructed by the Council’s Personnel Services Committee in July 1997. The results of this ‘comprehensive review’ were never made public and discussion of the issue effectively disappeared from Council committees between July 1999 and March 2003 – as the minutes show.
9. In my view, this was a deliberate tactic by the Corporate Management Team to avoid proper public scrutiny on a matter of strategic importance. In choosing to deal with the matter in this way South Lanarkshire Council prevented the wider body of elected councillors, the council workforce and the general public from understanding what was going on – in particular the scale and extent of pay discrimination against female council jobs which was kept ‘under the radar’.
10. I believe that the redacted section of the Corporate Management Team minute of 18 November 1999 contains important information regarding South Lanarkshire Council’s attitude towards the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement and the Council’s use of public money.
11. Instead of delivering on its public commitments towards the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement, South Lanarkshire Council secretly decided to maintain the higher bonus related earnings of traditional male jobs - thereby continuing the widespread pay discrimination which existed at the time against predominantly female council jobs.
12. In my view, therefore, there is a compelling case that this information should now be published in the wider public interest and that is the basis of my appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
I look forward to hearing from you soon and if I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
List of enclosures
1. Original FOISA request to SLC dated 17 February 2011
2. Initial SLC response to Mark Irvine dated 16 March 2011
3. Review request letter to SLC dated 23 March 2011
4. Final response letter from SLC to Mark Irvine 20 April 2011
5. Background letter to SLC dated 18 April 2011 – regarding SLC’s Equal Pay Review"
The Scottish Information Commissioner upheld my appeal (see post dated 14 July) - and has ordered South Lanarkshire Council to disclose the information previously withheld - by no later than 2 September 2011.
But you can see for yourself just how long this Labour-led council has managed to delay and frustrate - a perfectly reasonable FOI request.
So the question is this - 'If the council has nothing to hide, why does it behave in this way?'
No doubt the very same question was asked of the House of Commons - over MPs' expenses claims - and look what happened there.
"Censorship in South Lanarkshire"
"The MPs' expenses scandal at Westminster introduced many people to a new word - redacted - which means to censor or obscure.
The House of Commons authorities took this quite literally and zealously - at the time.
And in response to very reasonable and sensible FOI enquiries about MPs' expenses - the bureaucrats blanked out all the embarrassing references - to items like duck houses and dog food.
As you do.
Now it turned out that many MPs believed such items to be essential to doing their jobs - and made claims for years on the public purse.
Which was of course complete baloney - even according to their own rules.
But we only know this through the persistence of FOI campaigners - and the Daily Telegraph newspaper, of course.
Which leads me on to censorship closer to home.
Because the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) - Kevin Dunion - recently confirmed that SIC will investigate an FOI appeal I lodged recently - in connection with South Lanarkshire Council.
The council has provided me with minutes from a meeting of its Corporate Management Team - which have to do with Single Status and Equal Pay.
But the council has blanked out - redacted - the juicy bits which they find embarrassing and inconvenient - presumably because this will let the cat out of the bag.
I'll have much more to say about this in the days ahead - as this is truly scandalous behaviour on the council's part - in my opinion.
I expect that many MSPs will agree - so watch this space for further details.
In the meantime, let my letter to SIC speak for itself - I am happy to send readers copies of all the background correspondence - if anyone would find that interesting.
"Dear Scottish Information Commissioner
South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) – FOISA request
I enclose an exchange of correspondence with South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) regarding a FOISA enquiry which I initiated on 17 February 2011.
I asked South Lanarkshire Council to review its initial decision, but I am dissatisfied with their response in relation to Document 1 – a written report to a meeting of the Council’s Corporate Management Team – which the Council has redacted to avoid public scrutiny. As a result, I would like to register the following appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
1. In my view the council have produced no evidence to show that the release of this information would be prejudicial to the conduct of public affairs; quite the opposite in fact, because it would have the effect of holding senior officials and elected councillors to account.
2. The information relates to the introduction of a non-discriminatory Job Evaluation Scheme as required under the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement.
3. Unusually South Lanarkshire Council decided not to implement the tried and tested Gauge JES – which had the national approval and backing of the Scottish local authority employers and the trade unions.
4. Instead South Lanarkshire Council implemented its own ‘in-house’ scheme which is the subject of considerable controversy amongst council staff – and the wider public.
5. The redacted information relates to decisions of the Corporate Management Team in deciding how to implement the 1999 Single Status Agreement which came into effect in July 1999.
6. The underlying issue is whether South Lanarkshire Council was saying one thing in public and a different thing in private. In other words was the advice given to the Corporate Management Team thorough, professional and in accordance with good practice - in terms of job evaluation and equal opportunities?
7. In my view the release of this information would demonstrate whether the council acted properly at the time and, as such, there can be no prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs in 2011.
8. I attach a separate letter to South Lanarkshire Council dated 18 April 2011 regarding an Equal Pay Review instructed by the Council’s Personnel Services Committee in July 1997. The results of this ‘comprehensive review’ were never made public and discussion of the issue effectively disappeared from Council committees between July 1999 and March 2003 – as the minutes show.
9. In my view, this was a deliberate tactic by the Corporate Management Team to avoid proper public scrutiny on a matter of strategic importance. In choosing to deal with the matter in this way South Lanarkshire Council prevented the wider body of elected councillors, the council workforce and the general public from understanding what was going on – in particular the scale and extent of pay discrimination against female council jobs which was kept ‘under the radar’.
10. I believe that the redacted section of the Corporate Management Team minute of 18 November 1999 contains important information regarding South Lanarkshire Council’s attitude towards the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement and the Council’s use of public money.
11. Instead of delivering on its public commitments towards the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement, South Lanarkshire Council secretly decided to maintain the higher bonus related earnings of traditional male jobs - thereby continuing the widespread pay discrimination which existed at the time against predominantly female council jobs.
12. In my view, therefore, there is a compelling case that this information should now be published in the wider public interest and that is the basis of my appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
I look forward to hearing from you soon and if I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
List of enclosures
1. Original FOISA request to SLC dated 17 February 2011
2. Initial SLC response to Mark Irvine dated 16 March 2011
3. Review request letter to SLC dated 23 March 2011
4. Final response letter from SLC to Mark Irvine 20 April 2011
5. Background letter to SLC dated 18 April 2011 – regarding SLC’s Equal Pay Review"
