 |
 |
It works both ways: I have been trying to get hold of some statistics, collected in 2003, from Flintshire County Council. We were told they would be ready late in 2003, then January 2004, February 2004, summer 2004, October 2004, 'by Christmas' 2004, early in 2005. We were told the data were delivered in January 2004 but officials had not had time to read them, so wait until February, in February we told they did not have them at all (and that a public meeting had misunderstood the statement that 'we only had them last night and have to read them first'), in the summer they only had an executive summary but we couldn't have it until councillors had seen it in October. In October they were 'validating' the data - checking the work of consultants, so councillors hadn't yet seen them ... and so it went on. On the first working day of 2005 I invoked the FOI Act to get the data immediately. I was refused under Section 22 of the Act covering 'information intended for future publication'. Section 22 is well-named and will, I guess, be know as 'FOI Catch-22' Robert --On 01 February 2005 15:16 +0000 Mike Brewer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear List > > Although not strictly about statistics, I thought others would be > interested in how the new rights we have since January 2005 under the > Freedom of Information Act are changing things. > > In 2004, I twice asked the Treasury what assumption had been made about > the level of the child tax credit when they made their forecast of > spending on tax credits in 2006-7 and beyond (or, alternatively, what had > they assumed about the annual uprating). Both times, they ducked the > question. > > In particular, in July 2004, they said: > > "Uprating the child element of CTC is covered in a paragraph 3.67 (page > 35) of the Child Poverty Review which says: `The Government is committed > to increasing the child element of the CTC at least in line with earnings > until the end of this Parliament [ie 2005]. Rates for future years will be > based on careful monitoring of the effects of current policies on both > employment and child poverty, recognising that work is the best long-term > route out of poverty for most families. Future rates will be announced at > the time of the Pre-Budget Report, to take effect in the following > financial year.'" > > In December 2004, they said: > > "The Government has committed to uprate the child element of Child Tax > Credit in line with average earnings for the rest of this Parliament; > decisions for the next Parliament will be for the manifesto. The Child > Poverty Review, published alongside Spending Review 2004 set out > (paragraph 3.67, page 35) the Government's general approach to decisions > on uprating the child element of CTC: > > `The Government is committed to increasing the child element of the CTC at > least in line with earnings until the end of this Parliament. Rates for > future years will be based on careful monitoring of the effects of current > policies on both employment and child poverty,recognising that work is the > best long-term route out of poverty for most families. Future rates will > be announced at the time of the Pre-Budget Report, to take effect in the > following financial year.' > > The Government is committed to reporting to Parliament on the uprating of > tax credit rates and thresholds each year, and in particular stating > whether the rates and thresholds have maintained their value in real > terms. Section 41 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 states that: > > The Treasury must, in each tax year, review the amounts specified in > subsection (2) in order to determine whether they have retained their > value in relation to the general level of prices in the United Kingdom as > estimated by the Treasury in such manner as it considers appropriate. > (subsection 2 refers to the sections of the Act which specify the tax > credit rates and thresholds)." > > As you can see, neither response answered my question. > > Having asked again, on 5 January 2005, citing my rights under FOI, I got > the answer: > > "Consistent with usual forecasting conventions the assumption underlying > the forecast of tax credit costs in financial years 2006-7 to 2007-08 > (the end of the 2004 Spending Review period) reverts to the policy-neutral > assumption that the child element of Child Tax Credit is uprated in line > with prices (the increase in the RPI in the year to the previous > September). Decisions on the actual uprating of all elements of tax > credits are taken as part of the annual Budget process." > > Hooray! > > Mike Brewer > > ****************************************************** > Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your > message will go only to the sender of this message. > If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's > 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically > to [log in to unmask] > ******************************************************* Professor Robert Moore Department of Sociology,Social Policy and Social Work Studies University of Liverpool L69 7BZ 44 (0) 1352 714456 ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] *******************************************************