Tag Archive for GLA

When Boris was my boss

FOIMan recounts his own experiences of working for the likely new Prime Minister.

City Hall, London

London’s City Hall

So Boris Johnson has been elected leader of the Conservative Party and, as a result, will (probably) become Prime Minister. What do civil servants in Whitehall have in store for them?

I have some insight, because in 2008, when Boris was elected Mayor of London, I was working in City Hall as the Greater London Authority’s (GLA’s) Freedom of Information and Records Manager.

The 2008 election was a close-run thing and allied to that, Ken Livingstone had been the first Mayor of London. It was hard to imagine anyone else being Mayor. So in the face of polling to the contrary, I think most staff at City Hall (and most Londoners) expected Ken to receive a scare but to scrape home, and life would continue much the same as before. Not that all staff would necessarily have seen that as a good thing: there was a feeling that change was overdue. It wasn’t always a pleasant experience working in Ken’s City Hall at that time.

As records manager I had assumed responsibility for the creation of a historical archive. The Act of Parliament establishing the GLA had been silent on the need for this, and in an organisation only 8 years old, nobody else had given it much thought. In addition, since everybody had assumed Ken was Mayor for life, there didn’t seem to be well-developed transition arrangements. In the civil service there are clear rules around what happens when a new administration takes power. They are not permitted to see certain records created by their predecessors. In 2010 and 2015, the unusual circumstance of coalition government reportedly complicated matters, but nonetheless there were principles and procedures to follow. My recollection is that this was not the case in 2008 in City Hall. The sense – from my perspective at least – was that we were making it up as we went along.

A few weeks before polling day, my colleagues in Facilities Management had told me that in the event of Boris winning the election, I would need to come into City Hall on the Saturday after the result was announced and remove any records from the Mayor’s Office (both the Mayor’s actual office and the wider department that supported it). This was the extent of transition planning in regards to records of the Mayoralty, and it didn’t extend to provision of facilities to house removed records. I was told that I’d have to find a way to remove the physical records to off-site storage. That this was impractical (if not actually impossible) didn’t appear to sway anyone’s thinking – they had, in their minds, other, more important, fish to fry.

The election took place on Thursday 1 May 2008, but the results weren’t announced until late on Friday, possibly even after midnight (so early on Saturday). I watched the results announced over a pint in a local Wetherspoons pub with a colleague who lived near me. And headed home immediately so I could get at least some sleep.

The story of what happened that bright sunny morning when I arrived at City Hall is for another time. Suffice it to say that it’s a good one. My memory is of an eerie silence throughout the building, but since it wasn’t usual for me to be there on a Saturday, that could have been normal.

Eventually (after the most embarrassing, if interesting, hour or so of my professional life) my Facilities colleagues saw both sense and reality and provided staff and crates to help remove records from the Mayor’s Offices. There were stories at the time of City Hall shredders going like the clappers. I can’t say whether political advisers were doing this, and our attempts to collect and manage digital records were at an early stage, but certainly all the physical files from the Mayor and his Chief of Staff’s offices were crated up and moved to a locked meeting room a few floors below. My colleague and I spent the next three weeks carrying out rough and ready appraisal and listing of those records before they were transferred to the London Metropolitan Archives. Unless a decision was subsequently taken to remove them (the GLA had to pay for the LMA to preserve them so there is a risk that someone in City Hall at some point will have cut the purse strings), there they still reside waiting for future historians to explore.

Back to that Saturday. As we were clearing the last items from the Mayor’s inner sanctum, an announcement sounded across the building that the newly elected Mayor would address staff and anyone else in the building. Any staff in the building were urged to go to London’s Living Room, the space at the top of City Hall that is used for assemblies of the great and good (and the occasional staff party).

I sat down on one of the few empty seats in the room. The lady I was sat next to asked me where I’d been campaigning. I looked around the room. It was packed with cheerful Boris supporters, whilst a sprinkling of City Hall staff, many looking pensive, stood around the fringe. My memory is that the Chief Executive, Anthony Meyer, introduced the new Mayor of London. There were wild cheers. I felt nervous as not all City Hall staff would have been happy about the situation. Some jobs were on the line. But if I looked too unenthused, how would that be seen? Should I stand for the impromptu standing ovation he received? If I stay seated will it be noted? It was an awkward moment.

Then Boris took to the podium, tripping over the base as he did so. Cue more cheers from his many supporters in the room. This may be my perception since, but I remember being suspicious as to how accidental his trip was. I can’t recall his actual words but it was much as you’d expect if you’ve ever seen Boris give a speech.

The Saturday and the following week have become confused in my memory. I remember walking through the building on either that Saturday or the following Tuesday when we returned (it was a bank holiday weekend). There were men and women in suits seemingly positioned at regular intervals throughout the office areas on each floor. It felt like an occupying army.

In that first week (probably the Tuesday), there was an all staff meeting in the Assembly Chamber where Boris was officially introduced to us by his acting Chief of Staff, a certain Nick Boles (who I always saw as Boris’s Conservative Central Office handler, intended to keep him under some semblance of control). Later Boris toured the building, shaking hands with every member of staff he met (including me and my colleagues), and deploying the famous Boris charm. This went down well with many of us, since Ken had become increasingly distant and remote in the last few years of his Mayoralty.

There was mutual suspicion. I recall having a drink in a pub with a friend and discovering that the couple of people at the next table were part of the new team. We got chatting and they admitted there was a lot of suspicion of City Hall staff – specifically that they were all pro-Ken and resistant to any change. We actually sought to reassure them by saying that most staff were just there to do their job and in some cases welcomed the change. After all, morale in City Hall after months of Ken in his bunker had not exactly been high before the election.

Then though, the changes began. They did not appear always well-informed. I was based in the GLA’s research library, which provided much the same function to the Mayor and Assembly Members as the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries provide to MPs and Peers. The department was clearly square in the sights of those who Boris charged with trying to reduce staff numbers at City Hall (something he had promised in his manifesto). They seemed determined to dramatically cut the service, and my colleagues were not encouraged in early meetings by the use of phrases like ‘why do we need a library when we’ve got Google?’. Boris’s City Hall had clearly had enough of experts. Part of the library’s role was to order newspapers both for reference in the library and for delivery to public relations and political offices. An early battle was over our purchasing of The Morning Star newspaper. We were ordered not to procure it any longer. Arguably, it was easy to comply with this missive (whatever our views) in relation to the Library’s own copy. But Labour Assembly Members weren’t particularly impressed at having their reading censored by the Mayor. So the research library found itself stuck in the middle of a battle over freedom of speech. It was not a comfortable position for my colleagues to be in. Eventually the library staffing was considerably reduced and is virtually non-existent now. Research services as required are bought in. Whether this leaves the Mayor or Assembly Members sufficiently informed is another matter.

There were other changes. The Chief Executive was seemingly forced out, and a new (more highly paid) one brought in. Eventually the new Chief Executive abolished his own role to save money, arguably leaving the staff he was supposed to be leading even more exposed to the whims of the Mayor.

The new Mayor was a fan of eye-catching if meaningless changes. During the campaign, Boris had criticised ‘Ken’s cronies’ – his ‘unaccountable’ special advisers. When elected, Boris – as he was allowed to do under the GLA Act – appointed his own political advisers. But now many of them were to be ‘Deputy Mayors’. Technically there is only one Deputy Mayor allowed under the GLA Act, and they are supposed to be an elected Assembly Member. Suddenly Boris’s SPADs could be Deputy Mayors. The ‘statutory’ Deputy Mayor was effectively sidelined. It was a gimmick, but it set the tone: the people with the real power were Boris’s ‘cronies’. He just did it with more bravado than Ken ever had.

I continued to manage FOI. I had been optimistic when Boris was elected as his manifesto had shouted loudly about the importance of transparency. Spending was to be published monthly. But as with David Cameron a few years later Boris’s administration was only interested in pro-active transparency of their choosing. And despite my best efforts, it proved impossible to get involved in discussions about how to improve openness and develop an open data programme. They had their own agenda and would achieve it through their own means. When it came to FOI, whilst I don’t recall overall performance suffering considerably aside from an initial dip caused by the disruption of a new Mayoralty, the job became considerably harder. I had to be even more persistent than I’d had to be with Ken’s Mayor’s Office. And they weren’t interested – in fact I would go as far as to say that they were often actively hostile. One of Boris’s senior appointees once told me that they were going to become an MP and make sure FOI was abolished. They weren’t joking on either point (though they have so far failed on both).

The key difference between Ken’s Mayoralty and Boris’s as I saw it was that Ken’s advisers were often pretty unpleasant to deal with. But ultimately they would follow advice most of the time, especially if the law required something to happen. Boris’s leadership team were initially charming. All smiles, handshakes and ‘come and take a seat’. But once they decided you weren’t useful to them, or said inconvenient things – they became utterly ruthless. I’ve written a little about this previously, and it is my overall perception of that time: Boris’s team were nicer to your face but would stab you in the back (or front for that matter) without hesitation if it suited them.

I didn’t have much to do with Boris directly, aside from seeing him appear in the cafe wearing his cycle helmet and a ruck sack post cycle ride into work. I heard stories about him larking about in formal meetings, making staff uncomfortable and visitors uneasy or amused depending on their attitude. But I didn’t see any of that myself.

I didn’t stay in Boris’s City Hall for too long. Almost my entire department was made redundant within 18 months. My job was safe but there was a lack of clarity about where it was moving to. It was the most traumatic period of my professional career, watching friends lose their jobs. Perhaps the process was necessary to shake things up and save money (though watching Boris throw money at unbearably hot buses, unbuilt garden bridges, unused cable cars and unusable water cannon over the following years made it harder to see the point). But it was horrible to go through and I chose to move on around the same time as many of my colleagues departed.

Does my experience tell us anything about a Boris premiership? Impossible to be sure, but I think we can expect gimmicky gestures; reliance on a trusted caste of SPADs behind and perhaps in front of the scenes; ruthlessness; implementation of the leader’s agenda often against the advice of officials; and many twists and turns. Good luck my civil service friends. You’ll need it I suspect.

FOI and the Olympics

FOI Man recalls how the successful Olympic and Paralympic Games bid affected the management of FOI requests at the Greater London Authority.

This coming Friday the London 2012 Olympic Games open. And it seems like only yesterday that my jaw dropped open as, surrounded by similarly dumbfounded GLA staff gathered in the London Assembly chamber of City Hall,  I heard Jacques Rogge utter the name of our capital city instead of the expected “Paris”.

City Hall staff applaud success of London bid for Games

City Hall staff applaud the naming of London as Host City for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games on 6 July 2005

The successful 2012 bid created a whole new challenge from an FOI perspective. Firstly, as with anything that attracts media coverage, it resulted in a significant volume of additional FOI requests which had to be handled within existing resources (both in my team and the team responsible for coordinating the GLA’s involvement in the Games’ planning). Secondly, the politics of FOI handling became more complex. It was always complicated negotiating the rather odd configuration of the GLA and its associated bodies. But the Olympics meant that several Government departments and agencies, on occasion local authorities, LOCOG and, as we’ll see, the IOC itself, could have a stake in the way that the GLA responded to a request.

To give credit to my former colleagues in the Olympic team, who were under immense pressure from various quarters all of the time, they were unfailingly polite and managed to look pleased to see me, even when we were discussing the most difficult FOI requests.

One request in particular sticks in my mind, especially in light of more recent controversy over the Games. It was a request for copies of the Olympic Technical Manuals. The manuals form part of the Host City Contract with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), setting out the requirements imposed by the IOC on the host city. They are updated after every Games to take into account lessons learnt. There’s a lot to them as they cover every aspect of Games management that you could possibly think of – one set filled two photocopying paper boxes. And I had to read them from cover to cover. They were largely very dull. They did give me the first hint of the level of commercialism involved – with significant detail on how much floor space should be given to McDonalds outlets in the Olympic Village, for example. And for those concerned about restrictions on branding imposed by LOCOG, one manual specifically covers Brand Protection.

My view at the time was that, save for a few details of concern from a security perspective, the manuals should all be disclosed. But the decision was taken to withhold them in their entirety.

The issue, as so often in circumstances where information subject to a request has been provided by a third party, was not so much that anyone at the GLA had any strong opinion, but that our Olympic partners – especially LOCOG – were strongly against disclosure. With a long way to go before the Games, there was concern over damaging the Mayor’s relationship with LOCOG in particular.

The requester asked for an internal review. Further discussions were had with LOCOG and we even consulted the IOC. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the IOC insisted – in strong terms – that the manuals should not be disclosed. As ever, their letter failed to provide useful details such as what harm would arise from disclosure aside from the fact that it would incur their displeasure. Following further debate, the internal reviewer upheld the decision to withhold the manuals.

Our determined requester pursued his request to the Information Commissioner. And when the Commissioner came knocking at my door, I spoke to LOCOG again. It was clear that the lawyers at LOCOG had no understanding of the obligations that public bodies – which they, of course, are not one of – are under in a country that has freedom of information laws. They appeared affronted to be even asked to explain what their concerns were, let alone to be asked to consider disclosure of the manuals themselves. My conversations with the Commissioner’s staff were difficult, not least because I entirely disagreed with the line my own organisation was taking. That’s a tricky situation for an FOI Officer to find themselves in. And the lack of cooperation from LOCOG didn’t help.

Sometime after my (entirely unrelated) departure from the GLA, I assume that the Commissioner gave the GLA an ultimatum, as despite the fact that there is no decision notice on the ICO website, the GLA eventually disclosed the manuals, save for, you guessed it, a few redactions to mitigate security concerns. Thanks to the Games Monitor website, you can now read the manuals for yourself.

I tell this story as firstly it is a topical but useful case study of the life cycle of a difficult FOI request within a public body, especially one where there are strong external interests involved. And secondly, it demonstrates that the Olympic movement has, at least at times, failed to grasp the implications of the fact that more and more nations who might host Olympic and Paralympic Games have laws that require those nations’ public bodies to operate transparently.

Of course, the last summer Games were held in Beijing, and I’m sure that inconvenient freedoms were not a problem in China. But surely the Games should reflect the best of the host nation – and in this country, freedom of speech and the right to hold public authorities to account are amongst our proudest attributes. Anybody seeking to do business in this country – whether it be putting on an event such as the Olympics, or running a bank – should accept that or be sent packing. And our politicians and leaders should be very clear about that in their dealings with multinational organisations of all kinds.

Despite these reservations, and other concerns that have been raised about the Olympic and Paralympic Games and their impact on London over the last few years, I remain excited about the next few weeks. A little disillusioned, yes, but maybe that’s a natural consequence of living in the host city. But I’m still proud of the fact that the city I make my home in has been chosen to host the Games, and convinced that we’ll do a great job of it, a few niggles aside.

And perhaps, just perhaps, one of the legacies of these Games might be a realisation that the reputation of the Olympic movement could actually be enhanced through greater openness and accountability. Maybe the Rio 2016 organisers will receive a manual entitled Transparency and Accountability? That would be worth a medal for someone.

Number crunching: Who’s better – Boris or Ken? Only one way to find out…

FOI Man looks at what FOI performance statistics tell us about the attitudes to openness of the rival Mayoral candidates in London

Even if you’re not a Londoner (and I wasn’t always), and possibly even if you don’t live in the UK, you are probably aware of the colourful personalities that have inhabited the ‘glass testicle’ (or motorbike helmet if you’re of a more gentle disposition) as London’s Mayor.

For 8 years, City Hall was the domain of Ken Livingstone, who before its abolition in 1986, had been the Leader of the previous pan-London authority, the Greater London Council (GLC). He claimed credit for increases in police numbers in the capital, improvements to the transport infrastructure, and winning the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games for London.

Many were surprised when a combination of voter fatigue, corruption allegations and a backlash from the outer borough residents saw him fall to the eccentric but charismatic figure of Boris Johnson in 2008. Boris claims to have cut staff numbers across the GLA Group, is proud of the city-wide ‘Boris-Bikes’ scheme that has been introduced by his administration, and has used London as the guinea pig for many of the ideas that the Coalition Government has begun to roll out nationally in the last year. In particular, he claimed to be bringing in a new transparency to City Hall.

So is Boris really more transparent than Ken? Some of his initiatives are undoubtedly a move in the right direction. Two years before Eric Pickles took on local authorities and insisted that they published all expenditure over £500, the GLA was publishing its expenditure over £1,000 (radical at the time). You can now access that data, together with much else, in the pioneering London Datastore.

It’s probably a little unfair though to compare this with Ken’s record. Nobody published datasets until very recently, and there was little pressure to publish all expenditure until Boris’s campaign team came up with it. So points to Boris for keeping up with (and slightly ahead of ) the Jones’s on pro-active disclosure. But the GLA (especially City Hall) was always rather good at pro-active disclosure on its website – it’s just the methods that have changed.

A fairer fight can be based on FOI statistics. Who is quicker at answering requests? How ready are they to use an exemption? Courtesy of a WhatDoTheyKnow requester, the figures for 2007 to 2010, and the GLA’s internal request log, can now be found online (links below so you can do your own analysis).

A caveat. I’m not a statistician, so don’t expect too much from this analysis – it’s just my impression gained from playing around with the numbers. But what do I think the figures tell us?

Well, London’s journalists regularly complain about the speed of response to FOI requests from the GLA. So has that got worse or better since Boris’s election in May 2008?

First thing to say is that the GLA Group consists of five main bodies. There is the Greater London Authority (GLA) at the centre, which supports the Mayor and the London Assembly on a day to day basis. Then there is Transport for London (TfL), the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA – which oversees the Metropolitan Police Service, what we know as ‘The Met’), the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and finally the London Development Agency (LDA – which used to be known as ‘the Mayor’s piggy bank’ and is being abolished as we speak as part of the Government cuts).

Across the Group (excluding TfL), it may surprise you to hear that there has been little change over the last four years in the speed of responses. Approximately 14% of requests are answered later than 20 working days. And that was the same in Ken’s last full year (2007). It also should be borne in mind that this performance has been maintained in the face of rising volumes of requests, and job cuts. In 2007, the whole group received 1,662 requests. By 2010 that had risen to 2,807.

One glaring exception stands out. It is no surprise that TfL were investigated by the Information Commissioner for their performance. In 2007, only 17% of requests were answered late (still a significant figure). In Boris’s first full year of 2009, 35% of requests to TfL were answered late. The situation is clearly improving from more recent figures, but it remains a mystery as to why there was such a sharp rise in the rate of late responses following Boris’s election.

So what about use of exemptions? Well, again, proportionally, not much has changed across the group as a whole. The exception, this time, is the GLA itself at City Hall. In 2007, exemptions were only used in 6% of cases. This has risen in every year since and in 2010 15% of requests were fully or partially refused. The GLA’s detailed log indicates which exemptions were used, and this suggests a rise in the use of exemptions for commercial and policy information. To be fair, the biggest rise has been in the use of the section 40 personal information exemption, which could well just be the entirely reasonable redaction of private individuals’ names and contact details.

So, on balance, there’s not much between Boris and Ken on FOI and openness. And that’s not to be sniffed at in the light of rising volumes of requests and cuts to staff answering them. But the figures do perhaps suggest some worrying trends, in punctuality and use of exemptions, in the first half of Boris’s first term of office.

Here are the links to the WhatDoTheyKnow data – see what you can make of it.

GLA FOI statistics

GLA FOI Log

TfL FOI statistics

LDA FOI statistics (watch out for their exemption stats – I think they’ve provided total numbers of exemptions used as opposed to numbers of requests where exemptions were used, which is a subtle, but important, difference)

LFEPA FOI statistics

MPA FOI statistics