2018 Archives - Page 26 of 37 - Accountability Initiative: Responsive Governance

Transparency and Access to Information key to realising the MDGs

With only five years to go to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, 2010 is a critical year for countries around the world. While many countries have made significant progress towards reducing extreme poverty and hunger, providing access to clean water, improving maternal and child health, combating HIV/AIDs etc, such successes have been uneven across regions and countries. If countries are to achieve the 8 MDG targets by 2015, much more needs to be done. According to the UN MDG Goals Report 2010 “unmet commitments, inadequate resources, lack of focus and accountability…” are responsible for the shortfalls in the progress of many countries.

Prioritising and promoting transparency and the free flow of information may just be one way of fast tracking countries efforts to achieve the MDGs. This was the theme at a recent conference on “Transparency, Free Flow of Information and the MDGs” organised in London from 24-25 August 2010. Organised by Article 19 (an international human rights organisation promoting the freedom of expression and information), the conference brought together leading experts on the MDGs, development, access to information and transparency to brainstorm about how countries, donors, civil society organisations and activists can integrate transparency and access to information into global debates and efforts on the MDGs.

“The UN does not require countries to say how much they are spending on reaching the MDGs. Without budget transparency, recharged efforts to win the MDG race will fall short. We must recognise that there are two problems: not enough money is being spent on achieving the MDGs, and resources that are allocated are being spent in an ineffective or inefficient way”.

But, in what ways can encouraging the free flow of information really help?

Today there is a substantive body of literature which recognises the critical importance of access to information in enhancing citizen voice and people’s participation in government. Think about it: people need information in order to make informed decisions – whether it’s deciding who to vote for during an election or determining which government policies to support or resist. Access to information is also critical for strengthening accountability relationships between citizens, service providers and policy makers. The World Development Report (WDR) 2004 highlighted the importance of access to information in accountability relationships stating that:”….Better information – that makes citizens more aware of the money allocated to their services, the actual condition of services, and the behaviour of policymakers and providers – can be a powerful force in overcoming clientelist politics”. Put simply, if you know what your local MP is up to – how much money he received as part of his MP local area development fund and how he did (or did not) spent that money – you are better placed to decide whether or not to vote for him in the next election. Recognising the importance of access to information, countries around the world have enacted laws guaranteeing their citizens the right to access information held by the government.

So access to information is important. But how is it relevant to the MDGs?

For one thing there are a lot of people out there who simply don’t know about the MDGs or the fact that their countries have signed up to them. For instance, how many of us know about India’s progress on the MDGs? Setting in place systems at the country level to ensure that there is greater access to information about the MDGs is key to ensuring that there is public interest and oversight of a country’s efforts. Speaking at the London conference, NAC member and MKSS activist, Aruna Roy said: “My neighbours do not know what the MDGs mean. If they don’t know what the MDGs are, how can there be a demand for accountability? So the first demand is communication and information.”

Furthermore, there is not only a lack of awareness in many countries about the MDGs but a paucity of information about how countries are investing and spending to achieve these goals. This has been underscored by the preliminary results of the 6 Question Campaign. Launched in 2009, the 6 Questions Campaign is a first ever effort to test public access to budget information in different countries. From February – June 2010, civil society organisations in 86 countries asked governments a series of 6 questions on their budgets for the MDGs.

The results are quite astonishing: out of 79 countries, 20-40% ignored the requests and refused to provide information; 10-20% said they did not have any information; 40% gave some information and less than 30% gave a proper answer. These results highlight the urgent need for budget transparency to determine how MDG funds are being utilized. According to Helena Hofbauer of the International Budget Project: “The UN does not require countries to say how much they are spending on reaching the MDGs. Without budget transparency, recharged efforts to win the MDG race will fall short. We must recognise that there are two problems: not enough money is being spent on achieving the MDGs, and resources that are allocated are being spent in an ineffective or inefficient way”.

Till date, discussions on transparency, access to information and accountability have been fairly peripheral to the debate on the MDGs. However, given the scale of challenges that need to be overcome by 2015, it seems clear that transparency and access to information are likely to be high on the agenda of the UN Millennium Summit next month.

Mandakini Devasher Surie is a Research Analyst with the Accountability Initiative.

Coming soon – A privacy law in India?

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, has become the nodal agency for drafting laws on privacy and data protection in India.

Recently suggestions were invited from people on what such a law should contain. It appears that very few civil society organisations and even fewer RTI users and activists responded to this advertisement. Perhaps this is why the recentWorkshop on Legal Framework for Privacy, Data Protection and Security hosted by the DoPT had barely two or three civil society representatives, with a large majority of participants from government departments and agencies. Senior officers of the RTI Unit of the DoPT constituted the remainder of the delegation.

The summary of the proceedings and the power point presentations from the Workshop make for an interesting read. The absence of a clear and comprehensive legal framework for data protection and safeguarding privacy of individuals is a major theme. In the era of growing digital databases containing information about individuals and their transactions in both private and public sectors, this lack of clear regulation on data protection and privacy is an obstacle.

Two of the Workshop participants, the Registrar General, Census of India and the Chief Legal Advisor Indian Banks Association (IBA) called for amendments to the RTI Act to protect the data that was gathered while conducting sample surveys or banking operations. The Registrar General noted that the Central Information Commission did not allow access to information about private individuals that was collected during the census. Nevertheless he was in favour of amending the RTI Act to immunise such data from disclosure. The IBA representative held that the existing laws governing secrecy of bank transactions were adequate and no separate law on privacy and data protection was necessary. However he demanded an amendment of the RTI Act to protect banking secrecy.

The proceedings show that one participant asked the big question: “Is the right to privacy a fundamental right?” (Someone has to ask such a question at some point, especially if nobody does it at the beginning!). There is however, nothing in the proceeding to indicate if this question was satisfactorily answered. Neither is there any reference to the jurisprudence developed in India on the subject of the fundamental right to privacy. One may perhaps assume that this issue was not discussed at all and this is ample reason for concern.

There are several cases where the Indian Courts have stated the scope of the right to privacy. The kind of information for which disclosure may be denied on grounds of privacy, instances when the claims for privacy do not apply (i.e. when the personal information is contained in public records), the status of medical records and data regarding financial transactions have been discussed several times by the Supreme and High Courts.

Some High Courts have even stated when the right to privacy must yield to the people’s right to know in the era of the RTI Act. There at least two cases that spring to mind, one of them being the celebrated as the “Supreme Court Judges Assets case”. Perhaps the DoPT may elect to consult other experts on this important subject in future!

It is high time that all RTI users and activists start to engage with the DoPT to ensure that a sound law for protecting privacy and data is drafted without curtailing the RTI Act.

Government releases the first ever Civil Services Survey

The Government of India has released the findings of the first ever survey of the Indian Civil Services. The report titled “Civil Services Survey – A Report” surveyed officers from all 3 India Services (The Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Indian Forest Service (IFoS)) as well as officers of 7 Central Services. In total, the Survey covered 18432 officers belonging to the ten selected services. Out of the total questionnaires sent, 4808 officers responded to the survey which is 26% of the total universe.

The survey was conducted to assess the perceptions of civil servants on 11 major thematic areas including work environment, transfers, postings, integrity to harassment and discrimination. Click here to read the full report online or scroll down to download the pdf version of the report.

Secrecy over the draft Whistleblower’s Bill

Efforts to bring in legislation to protect whistleblowers in India have been on-going for some years now. In 2001, the Law Commission of India studied the laws that protect whistleblowers in the UK, USA and other developed countries and had submitted a report to the Government. Along with the report the Law Commission submitted a weak draft bill to protect whistleblowers. Meanwhile in the absense of a specific law on the subject, the Government of India created a mechanism for its employees and those employed in central public sector enterprises to blow the whistle on wrongdoings.

The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution was notified by the Government of India in 2004 to enable public sector employees to make disclosures of wrongdoing to the Central Vigilance Commission in confidence. This mechanism only covers employees working in the Government of India or any of its agencies. It does not cover the employees of State Governments. However, a law to protect all whistleblowers may be a reality in India very soon following the Cabinet’s approval of the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010 on 9th August. The draft Bill aimed at protecting whistleblowers is a welcomed move. However the lack of public debate and consultation on the Bill is not.

Secrecy over the draft whistleblower Bill and lack of public consultation:

In recent months the media has published reports about major disagreement within Government over the contents of this Bill. However the Government of India has not made any attempt to place the draft Bill in the public domain and consult with the people. Instead people will have to wait for the Bill to reach Parliament before they can comment on it. This secrecy is in clear violation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act

“4. (1) Every public authority shall—

X X X

c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;”

The draft whistleblower Bill is an important legislative policy whose contents the Government ought to have disclosed while formulating it. However the age-old practices of undue secrecy observed by the bureaucracy, while drafting legislation, continues to hamper the effective implementation of the RTI Act. Even here there is no consistency of practice. While other Ministries go through elaborate processes of public consultation on draft legislations such as the Draft Direct Taxes Code Bill and amendments to the Companies Act, the whistleblower Bill does not get the same treatment.

Given the tremendous importance of this legislation it is essential that the public have the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on its provisions – else there is a very real danger of it becoming another “paper tiger”.

Venkatesh Nayak is the RTI Programme Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (www.humanrightsinitiative.org)

The Process of Lawmaking in India

This post is an attempt to explain the process of law making in India. It also explains how citizen groups can participate in the process of lawmaking.

Who makes laws?

In India, at the central level, laws are formulated by the Parliament and at the state level by Legislative Assemblies and Councils.

How is a law made?

The process of enacting a new law can be broadly divided into four steps:

Step 1: The need for a new law, or an amendment to an existing piece of legislation, is identified. This may be done either by the government or by citizen groups who can raise public awareness regarding the need for the law.

Step 2: The concerned ministry drafts a text of the proposed law, which is called a ‘Bill’. The Bill is circulated to other relevant ministries for inputs. Comments from the public on the proposed draft may also be invited. For example recently, the UIDAI has invited public feedback on the Draft National Identification Authority Bill. Following this, the draft is revised to incorporate such inputs and is then whetted by the Law Ministry. It is then presented to the Cabinet for approval.

Step 3: After the Cabinet approves the Bill, it is introduced in Parliament. Under the Indian political system, the Parliament is the central legislative (or law making) body. Every Bill goes through three Readings in both Houses before it becomes an Act.

During the First Reading the Bill is introduced in Parliament. The introduction of a Bill may be opposed and the matter may be put to a vote in the House. In August 2009, the Law Minister withdrew the motion to introduce the Judges (Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities) Bill as many MPs were opposed to the Bill, on grounds that it violated the Constitution.

After a Bill has been introduced, the Presiding Officer of the concerned House (Speaker in case of the Lok Sabha, Chairman in case of Rajya Sabha) may refer the Bill to the concerned Department Related Standing Committee for examination.

The Standing Committee considers the broad objectives and the specific clauses of the Bill referred to it and may invite public comments on a Bill. For example, the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests has invited suggestions on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010.

Bills which come under the ambit of a number of different ministries, may be referred to a Joint Comittee.

The Committee then submits its recommendations in the form of a report to Parliament.

In the Second Reading (Consideration), the Bill is scrutinized thoroughly. Each clause of the Bill is discussed on the floor of the House and may be accepted, amended or rejected.

During the Third Reading (Passing), the House votes on the redrafted Bill.

If the Bill is passed in one House, it is then sent to the other House, where it goes through second and third readings.

During the second reading, the Government, or any MP, may introduce amendments to the Bill, some of which may be based on recommendations of the Standing Committee. However, the Government is not bound to accept the Committee’s recommendations.

Step 4: After both Houses of Parliament pass a Bill, it is presented to the President for assent. She has the right to seek information and clarification about the Bill, and may return it to Parliament for reconsideration. (This may be done only once. If both Houses pass the Bill again, the President has to assent.)

Step 5: After the President gives assent, the Bill is notified as an Act. Subsequently, the Bill is brought into force and rules and regulations to implement the Act are framed by the concerned ministry, and tabled in Parliament.

Do bills get passed even without any discussion in the parliament*?

Parliament passes about 60 Bills every year. It devotes 20-25% of its time on legislative business. The time spent on debating each Bill varies widely.

In total, the Lok Sabha passed 30 non-financial Bills in 2009.
In 2009, 8 Bills were passed in less than 5 minutes (27% of the Bills passed by Lok Sabha in 2009). These included, The Legal Metrology Bill, The Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, and the Trade Marks Amendment Bill.
Only 5 Bills were debated for more than 3 hours.
In 2008, 16 out of 36 Bills (excluding finance and appropriation bills) were passed by Lok Sabha in less than 20 minutes, most of these without any debate.
In 2008, Lok sabha worked for 46 days, the lowest ever in a calendar year.
Things are worse, for Legislative Assemblies. Delhi assembly worked for 20 days in 2007.

Number of Working Days in Legislative Assembly

Year	2006	2007
Delhi	23	20
Mizoram	19	18
Rajasthan	30	25
Chhattisgarh	41	35
Madhya Pradesh	43	29
Kerala	51	56
Karnataka	56	34

* Source: PRS Legislative Research

Sruti Bandyopadhyay is a Research Analyst with the Accountability Initiative.

Obama’s speech to the UN: US support for Open Govt

On September 23, President Obama spoke before the UN General Assembly highlighting his administrations’ open government initiatives and continuing commitment to transparency and open governance globally. Click here to read President Obama’s speech.

Here is a brief summary of the success of these initiatives, adapted from the Fact Sheet: U.S. Support for Open Government available on The White House website:

• Data.gov has democratized access to data, with hundreds of thousands of datasets in a common format housed in a central location. Approximately 270,000 datasets have been posted, providing the public with unprecedented transparency about such diverse matters as automobile safety, air travel, air quality, workplace safety, drug safety, nutrition, crime, obesity, the employment market, and health care.

• Numerous dashboards – from information technology (IT) to health care to forthcoming regulations – now give the public information with which they can hold both private and public institutions accountable. Through Recovery.gov and the information technology dashboard, the public can track how and where Recovery Act funds are spent, down to specific zip codes.

• About 30 agencies have developed Open Government web pages and Open Government Plans, announcing new steps to disclose information that has never been public before and new ways to encourage public participation in agency activities.

• The SAVE (Securing Americans’ Value and Efficiency) Award, allowed Federal employees to submit ideas on how to make government more efficient and effective. The Administration has also launched Challenge.gov to enable all government agencies to tap the creative and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and collaborate to solve our nation’s problems. • The White House has established a clear presumption in favor of openness by posting visitor records, staff financial disclosures, salaries, and ethics waivers on the White House website for the first time and by reversing prior limits on access to presidential records and ordering Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform. The Department of Justice’s FOIA dashboard will enable users to assess FOIA compliance across 92 Federal agencies and over time. We are also holding ourselves accountable by putting Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), and stimulus lobbying records online.