As transparent as possible?

JR

The Irish experience was exactly this and they warned the British before they introduced the system that the incentives in the system were for journalists and the general public to send in swaths of requests, there would be a long and painful experience of finding the boundaries of what should be released within the code, that the overused phrase "disproportionate" cost becomes a reality because the weight of requests would likely cost around £50m to deal with (most requests required detailed work on data, searching of email systems and diaries etc). Their system was near collapse in 2003 as I remember.

The trick of using '*' or initials to conceal names of those outside the oprganisation is used across the wider public (and indeed bits of the private) sector now because of the data protection act. If you're going to tell the truth about how someone is an idiot, or potentially corrupt generally the rule is do so verbally.

Chuck Unsworth

Had there been greater frankness, integrity and honesty there would have been no need for a FOI Act. It's clear that FOI has modified the workings of government - at all levels.

That's the problem. But at the root of this is the great misjudgement that somehow law and legislation can replace personal standards (morality, if you will). It simply cannot. It is impossible to legislate for every eventuality and it is time that we allowed people to act and be judged on the merits of their ability and probity.

Frankly all this 'openness', 'transparency', 'accountability', 'answerability' etc is trendy claptrap. It means precisely nothing. Those who use such terms are merely perpetuating a convenient illusion for their own unprincipled ends.

Anonymous

A little experience at a distance, but...

The problem is that it's difficult to draw very fixed lines which would stop trivial enquiries because that would allow anything uncomfortable to be called trivial. That said, I do think some things (especially related to Ministerial advice) should be subject to specific exclusions, for the reasons set out above. I also wonder if foreign policy and national security shouldn't be subject to a blanket exemption; but the Government's managerial functions, in delivering services, should be subject to the full writ of FoI.

Outside of those areas, the real problem is that Civil Service culture simply hasn't adapted to the wholesale change implied by FoI. An FoI-ready Civil Service would be much more open about its knowledge base, making it accessible to the public. Research reports wouldn't languish on shelves but would be on the web, on a fixed timescale after completion. Policy decisions would be communicated more specifically and explicitly.

Most Departments and Agencies are still some distance from this - not only in their information-sharing practices, but also in their decision-making cultures. The early hopes of FoI were bound up with the ideal of evidence-based policymaking. This positivist model may be a little naive (what counts as evidence rather depends on your value judgements), but is no bad thing. We want public services managed by fact, and we want management decisions to be question on fact, after all. The problem here isn't FoI but a Civil Service which can't deal with the change in openness and transparency, and the challenge to its judgement, that it involves.

Instead, the Civil Service is still blinkered by a 1950s-style Man-in-Whitehall-knows-best view, which keeps all information to the centre, because Knowledge Is Power, don't ya' know. But even if that culture could be changed, other parts of our Civil Service model would be exposed - that a generalist Civil Service designed to manage an Empire and co-ordinate services for the Proletariat simply can't cope with a complex networked society where class structures have broken down.

The Wilted Rose

Labour is so wicked that if we knew ALL they are up to we wouldn't sleep at night!

http://thewiltedrose.wordpress.com

D M

c/f Anonymous
The problem is, if foreign policy or national security are given blanket exclusion, then the government classifies anything embarrassing under those headings. After all, it was officers from the anti-terrorism unit that raided DGreen's offices, so I suppose they could then feasibly argue that that subject of off limits for inquiries under Freedom of Information.

John Page

Her article is important only for missing the point. The gee whizz examples could and should be dispensed with in a few minutes and are the trivial price you pay for democracy.

Rather than supping at the establishment's table, she would have been better exercised asking why it was acceptable for the Home Office to keep secret the information that Mr Galley leaked.

You bet FOI is inconvenient. This case shows just how important it is.

Anomymous

D M: indeed, which I guess was the point I started from... That any exemption will be interpreted as widely as possible.

Hereford

Peter,

I undertook a contract recently in one of the Government Departments. My job supposed to be managing a programme amalgamating operations from two departments.

I never got much of my project management work done. Why? Because I spent all of my time answering not only FOI requests but Parliamentary Questions too.

When you read them, they are all intended as Gottcha's and they take up an inordinate amount of time, because every answer is a hostage to fortune and has to be crafted very carefully. Add to that the fact that Government data systems are so atrocious, invariably requiring much cleansing of inaccurate data and the whole process uses up massive amounts of time.

I left the job to go on to a more permanent role; called my replacement for a catch-up a few months later to learn the he also had spent all his time answering these requests and no time doing the project work.

I was not the only person in the Department doing this either. I only covered questions to do with my specialism. There were at least 3 or 4 other people spending all their time answering these.

Richard Holloway

Totally agree with John Page. Why was it that these documents had to be leaked in the first place?
If more documents were put into the public domain automatically then they wouldn't need to be leaked, journalists wouldn't have to make so many FOI requests and they could get on with doing a decent job in the first place, rather than covering up their mistakes and embarresing decisions.
It sounds very nieve, but wouldn't it be wonderful if government actually was 'transparent'?

Ray

The answer is money.

Make people pay the true cost of civil servants' time involved in retrieving information and the desire to know how many Ferrero Rocher chocolates are consumed will disappear.

Verity

Richard Holloway makes a good point.

BTW, did they ever answer how much British Embassies dos spend on spoiling us with Ferrero Rocher chocolates?

Deborah

"it is time that we allowed people to act and be judged on the merits of their ability and probity." - Chuck (9.52)
A nice thought but unfortunately ability and probity are not as common as they used to be. Spin has been embedded, the civil service has been politicised and many of the most senior people have shown a lack of integrity. As they recruit and promote in their own image, merits such as ability and probity become less and less common.

A grand clean-up is required, but are there any senior politicians with sufficient integrity, ability and probity to do it?

Deborah

Ray - nonsense. "FOI at a price" is a contradiction in terms.

David Tomlinson

It is at the lower level (local govt, police etc) that FOI requests are so important. e.g. Lambeth Police claimed shortage of resources i.e. insufficient money to maintain a senior operational officer post, but refused to say how much they spent on language translations and interpreters pre-charge and therefore not a legal obligations. The Borough Commander recommended I use an FOI request, to which I got the prompt response that Lambeth Police alone spend over £1 million per year on language translations and interpreters, of which over £200,000 per year is on Portuguese. None of this would have come out without FOI. I am sure many others across the country could give similar examples.

Cogito Ergosum

I have no sympathy with officials who complain that FOI is a burden.

I agree with Richard Holloway 12:09pm: "If more documents were put into the public domain automatically then they wouldn't need to be leaked, journalists wouldn't have to make so many FOI requests and they could get on with doing a decent job in the first place, rather than covering up their mistakes and embarresing decisions."

We need a culture change: a positive attitude to publishing the facts.

Ex Civil Servant

@Herefored
"When you read them, they are all intended as Gottcha's and they take up an inordinate amount of time, because every answer is a hostage to fortune and has to be crafted very carefully. Add to that the fact that Government data systems are so atrocious, invariably requiring much cleansing of inaccurate data and the whole process uses up massive amounts of time."
Your response is indicative of the endemic problem in the Civil Service - An FOI request is not a request for a careful spun piece of prose from a Civil Servant it is a request for information. Whilst a little more care is with the PQs, too much time is spent evading the questions rather than quickly and efficiently answering them.
As to the reliability of Government information systems - well that is self-evident, despite the fortune that has been spent on them. And yet the Government wants us to trust them to hold even more personal data, e.g. ID Cards, Contact Point, etc. Perhaps they should get their house in order on data quality and management before they squander further public funds on new systems.

George Laird

Dear All

In Scotland, we have an idiot, well there is more than one but I wish to flag up this character.

He is an MSP and member of the House of Lords. So some of you may see him down at Westminister if your unlucky in your travels.

His name is George Foukles and he is an absolute disgrace.

Here are some of the questions that this witless individual bombards the Scottish Parliament with.

Scottish Parliament written answers — Ministerial Meetings: Ministerial Meetings (26 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive what meetings have taken place since May 2007 between ministers and representatives of individual private schools and bodies representing private schools and what subjects were discussed at those meetings.
Scottish Parliament written answers — School Meals: School Meals (26 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has regarding the number of school meals provided in each school in each of the last three years.
Scottish Parliament written answers — National Conversation: National Conversation (24 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive when it proposes to report to the Parliament on the outcome of the National Conversation.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Organ Donation: Organ Donation (24 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to receive the report of the Organ Donation Taskforce, chaired by Elizabeth Buggins, in relation to changing the presumption on organ donation.
Scottish Parliament written answers — First Minister: First Minister (21 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive what meetings the First Minister has had with (a) Sir George Mathewson, (b) Sir Tom Farmer, (c) Brian Souter and (d) Crawford Beveridge since May 2007; what subjects were discussed, and who else was present in each case.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Ministerial Costs: Ministerial Costs (21 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive in what circumstances it meets dry cleaning costs incurred by Cabinet ministers and whether it will detail any such costs met since May 2007, broken down by Cabinet minister.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Ministerial Meetings: Ministerial Meetings (21 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-17101 by Stewart Stevenson on 12 November 2008, whether it will list each occasion on which Scottish ministers have met the British Transport Police since May 2007, also showing what topics were discussed and who was present on each occasion.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Parliamentary Questions: Parliamentary Questions (21 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will outline its policy on publishing answers to parliamentary questions, with particular regard to the media.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Post Offices: Post Offices (21 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken to examine whether Essex County Council’s scheme of support to post offices might be replicated in Scotland.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Voluntary Organisations: Voluntary Organisations (21 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has received since May 2007 from charities and voluntary organisations regarding the operation of charity law in relation to private schools.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Burial and Cremation: Burial and Cremation (20 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has received from funeral directors since May 2007 regarding disposal of unclaimed ashes and what action it has taken.
Scottish Parliament written answers — First Minister: First Minister (20 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive which race courses the First Minister has visited since May 2007 and on how many occasions.
Scottish Parliament written answers — First Minister: First Minister (20 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive which hospitals the First Minister has visited since May 2007.
Scottish Parliament written answers — First Minister: First Minister (20 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive what official journeys have been undertaken by the First Minister by train or bus since 1 September 2008.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Parliamentary Questions: Parliamentary Questions (20 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive when it will provide substantive answers to questions S3W-15852 and S3W-15851, which received holding replies on 29 September 2008.
Scottish Parliament written answers — Scottish Government: Scottish Government (20 Nov 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive which members of the Scottish Government have received the services of a stylist since May 2007.

It can only be a matter of time before the noble Lord asks what is the policy regarding hot tea being transported around Holyrood and has a risk assessment been done.

And this clown can claim the public purse twice both at Holyrood and Westminister.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Ray

Deborah - the unspoken intention was that the FOI Act should primarily be a tool of journalists and newspaper editors, who have both the money to pay for, and the necessary research skills to be able to pick apart the often voluminous trail of data that is required to get to the bottom of what goes on in government.

Whilst ordinary citizens can and should be able to access this data, never forget that it still costs taxpayers' money to retrieve and process FOI requests. What else except charging a realistic price for it will act as a deterrent to people making frivolous requests?