Bishop Hill Education Secretary used private emails
Sep 20, 2011 FOI Education Secretary Michael Gove is accused of having used private email to conduct government business.
The information commissioner has written to the permanent secretary at the Department for Education to raise concerns about the department's handling of FOI requests. A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner's Office said it was still making inquiries and had not launched an investigation.
The FT reports that Dominic Cummings, Gove's chief political aide, wrote to colleagues shortly after he was appointed stating he "will not answer any further emails to my official DfE account …"
The email continued: "i will only answer things that come from gmail accounts from people who i know who they are. i suggest that you do the same in general but thats obv up to you guys – i can explain in person the reason for this …"
Tut tut.
What I don't understand is why this is unacceptable for government ministers but not for other state functionaries, such as academics.
Reader Comments (27)
I wonder what penalty these creeps will pay?
This could be another example of the moral corruption that is pervasive of our elected representatives following the expenses scandal. Hide the decline in accountability, don't put anything in official correspondance that could come back to haunt you.
'It wasn't me gov' or in parliamentary terms ' I think you will find that there is no factual evidence of the claims being made and it is just a fishing exercise by journalists to create a story to sell newspapers'.
LB - I'm afraid it isn't "could be" but it "is" another example of the pervasive moral corruption that infests our government and institutions. I don't think it follows the expenses scandal either - that was just a visible symptom of the disease.
Ah - looks like they could be up for a £5k ticket. I wonder who pays it?:
From the FT story: "Gove faces probe over private e-mails":
//It is not against the law for ministers and officials to use private e-mail for government business so long as they disclose it. However, it is illegal intentionally to conceal information concerning government business from those seeking public documents using the FOIA.
As part of its inquiry, the FT saw or obtained from third parties e-mails discussing government business circulated through private accounts. It then sought disclosure of all or part of seven of them using targeted FOIA requests. The requests explicitly asked for checks on named private accounts. In each case, the department said the information was not held.
Some of the contents of these e-mails, which were also circulated to Henry de Zoete, another special adviser at the DfE, could be politically embarrassing to Mr Gove as they discuss replacing personnel within the department.
One FOIA request sought to retrieve details of a specific e-mail related to government business written by the education secretary. The e-mail, seen by the FT, was sent in December through a private e-mail account, known to advisers as the Mrs Blurt account, long used by Mr Gove but registered in the name of his wife, Sarah Vine, a journalist at The Times. The department said it did not hold the information.
When the education secretary and his two special advisers were asked whether they used their private accounts to evade the FOIA, all declined to answer.
Section 77 of the act states that officials must not conceal or destroy information to prevent its disclosure. Breaches of the law carry a fine of up to £5,000.//
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc4b8272-e2c4-11e0-897a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YTYWqjEz
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc4b8272-e2c4-11e0-897a-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1YTZ7SjoI
(not sure if those links are good - couldn't get the FT "share button" to work)
I suspect that it there were ever a headline regarding Gmail being hacked, there would be emergency meetings in every establishment and academic department in the UK.
Regarding FOI, is it not the substance of communications that is relevant, rather than the classification of email account?
Hmmm This may be a bit more tricky than is porrtayed in the MSM (what a surprise). Private e-mail systems should not be used for government business - that is a clear statement. Similarly Government e-mail systems should not be used for private business - also a clear statement. However, party political business is private and not government business and the question then becomes where is the somewhat murky line to be drawn between party and governement.
For example correspondence between a minister and his PPS is clearly Governemnt business but what about correspondence between a Minister and his SPAD (Special Adviser) a political appointee who is charged with some party activity.
I fear tis is not as simple as it looks. Just think of the spin that could have been used for the reverse situation - Minister uses Government facilities for party political purposes
"i will only answer things that come from gmail accounts from people who i know who they are. i suggest that you do the same in general but thats obv up to you guys – i can explain in person the reason for this …"
If that's an accurate quotation from a 'chief political aide' at the DfE, it does help explain the state of our schools. How on earth did he get the job?
There seems to be more to this story than meets the eye. It would seem it has more to do with private 'party political' skulduggery than Governmental FoI
http://order-order.com/2011/09/20/gove-mail-g-mail/
At the Guardian debate on Climategate last year, I stated that some university researchers were resorting to gmail to avoid FoI requests. That statement got the attention of some people in the media, who brought it to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO then contacted me. I replied to the ICO on 19 July 2010, as follows.
I telephoned the ICO a few times afterwards, but did not hear anything back.
Note that e-mails are not always required to be disclosed pursuant to an FoI request; rather, there is a Public Interest Test, which must be passed in order to require disclosure. I believe that my FoI request to QUB would pass the Test, as the request was based on the case that Reimer committed research fraud (the case had nothing to do with global warming). Indeed, I was really only making the request because the UK does not have an effective means of pursuing research fraud.
Additionally, the FoI Act, Section 36, subsection 2, states the following.
I am not an expert in FoI law, but I assume that would pertain to academic researchers’ e-mails. More generally, I think that there are legitimate reasons for academic researchers to prefer gmail. Weighing those reasons against the benefits of FoI is a judgment call.
It is appropriate that Gove is the Minister of/for Education; when I fist began teaching in UK Comprehensives, I discovered that if I chided boys for talking in class, they would look me in the eye and stoutly announce
"Wasn't me, Sir."
Obviously, the principle 'deny everything' is learnt early in UK state schools.
mmmm so how did the FT get hold of the emails? With all the fuss about hacking that's a reasonable question i think.
Ah the FT is a "serious" paper like the Grauniad and therfore doesn't have to plauy by the same rules as the Tabloids.
Arthur - it is worth seeking out today's FT and reading the front page story first hand. If not that then the online version gives more details.
Re: the £5k - I was wrong! Silly me, I forgot they'd get the "HMClubCard" 75% minimum discount:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8776160/Expenses-MPs-and-their-sentences-how-long-each-served.html
"i [sic] can explain in person the reason for this [using personal gmail vs. official email account]"
It seems self-evident what the reason is, namely avoidance of FoI. This is an obvious and natural step, which I'm sure has already been taken by others in government, or those in academia who have been subject to FoI disclosures. In the back-and-forth battle between transparency and its obstruction, the next step will be acceding to the letter of the regulation, admitting that one is using private email for official business. But those who wish to hide will still be ahead, because gmail has no archive -- delete an email and it's gone. [Well, your end of it, anyway.]
Any government which is serious about transparency would require its personnel to use only official accounts for government business. Plus, it would maintain full backups of those email accounts for, say, 10 years. I suspect there isn't a government in the world willing to operate on that basis.
Not Banned Yet - I read the article before I wrote my comment. The picture of Gove is shown against the e-mail in question - This is adressed to a Special Adviser and copied to two more together with officials of the Conservative party. These are all party officials not civil servants and it is quite possible that the intent ofthe e-mail was concerned with party (not government business) matters which can be confidential and are not (nor should be) subject to FoI.
Arthur Dent:
Doesn't appear to be party matters. But you are quite correct to draw that distinction.
Arthur - the picture shows the email as you describe but the article refers to others seen (in hardcopy?) by the FT which apparently discuss departmental staff arrangements. My understanding is these are the items that the FT have FOI'd and which can't be found.
Dear Bishop,
I thoroughly agree with most of your sentiments, but, as an academic of an independent mind at a university where most of our income comes from other sources than the state, I strongly repudiate the description "state functionary". I would add that, surely it is the subject matter, rather than the medium, which makes a communication open to an FoI request.
I still think this may be a storm in a rather mischievous teacup, just look at Guido who is more on the ball than many political bloggers.
http://order-order.com/2011/09/20/gove-mail-g-mail/
http://order-order.com/2011/09/20/spads-unrecorded-private-email-network-includes-ministers/
It is of course also human nature than when anyone invents a law people will try to find ways around it
"i [sic] can explain in person the reason for this [using personal gmail vs. official email account]"
Well I dont know the total story but as anything on the offical email account is seen and leaked by every civil servant around I can see why the minister might prefer something less flakey.
(On related matters what merits the '[sic]'.)
Eddy -
"what merits the '[sic]'." -- I prefer to see the word "I" capitalized. Certainly others don't bother, at least in informal contexts such as emails. All the "[sic]" meant was that it wasn't I who left the "i" in lower case.
"i [sic] can explain in person the reason for this [using personal gmail vs. official email account]"
Well I dont know the total story but as anything on the offical email account is seen and leaked by every civil servant around I can see why the minister might prefer something less flakey.
(On related matters what merits the '[sic]'.)
Especially when the said civil servants are dead against everything the minister wants to do to reverse the decline in education standards.
The 'state functionary' bit bugs me as well. There's much bigger discussion here, but I will just write a sentence or two in a comment box. It seems to me that much of the complaint at this site is that academics are primarily motivated by chasing grant money and are therefore are bound to follow the political winds rather than where scientific curiosity or inspiration takes them.
There is more than a grain of truth to this, and many scientists are unhappy. They feel that they spend their time on bureaucratic paperwork and making up 'policy relevant' justifications on grants for work they feel is important on scientific terms.
But how did this come about? Not paint a picture of a golden age, but prior to the 1980s scientists were much more given money and left to their own devices (as I say, the whole story is too complicated to fit in a comment box). During the Thatcher years academics, like all civil servants, fell under the suspicion of Public Choice Theory - the idea that government employees would work not for the good of the nation but rather for their own interest. Yes, Prime Minister was a good popularisation of concept. It seems to me that much of the criticism of climate scientists at this site is in this vein.
The result was to demand accountability. If scientists were to get public money they must justify it. What will the public get in return? For various reasons politicians, the public and even scientists themselves no longer accepted the notion that long term, open ended, blue-skies research would pay unforeseen dividends. Rather, every experiment had to have a measurable outcome that could be written down bench marked and audited. How else to stop the scientists defrauding the taxpayer while living high on the hog!?
Of course, this was particularly destructive to science. The results, let alone the broader social consequences, of a scientific experiment cannot be predicted ahead of time. The bureaucratic justifications often became stretched. More importantly, they were inevitably addressed less to the interests of taxpayers as a whole (leaving aside the question of what that would mean) as to government policy. No doubt this has also introduced a selective pressure in favour of scientists who are good at playing this game.
In a sense I fear that the criticism of scientists as venal grant chasers has become something of a self fulfilling prophecy. If the consequence of relentlessly criticising the motives of scientists is that they must justify themselves more to the state in order to get funds I don't think that will help.
I'm open to the argument that there should be no state funding of science. But then I would like to see very serious discussion about philanthropic funding on a large scale, because I think that science which cannot yet promise a definite commercial return is still hugely valuable both economically and culturally.
But in any case, I think that simply handing out money to scientists who have proved themselves competent researchers - whatever their politics - and letting them pursue what they see as interesting and important would be a better strategy than trying to engineer policy outcomes. I think those who want to abolish state funding of science altogether, if they want to convince me, could start with explaining why, broadly speaking, the system of science funding in the first half of the 20th century doesn't offer some good models. (Yes, I know that covers a huge range, but I have to finish this comment somewhere...)
I should say I only left out New Labour because the comment was so long, but I'm sure the reader can fill in some blanks.
Toby Young tries to clear it up - it may be a non story
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100106034/yet-another-attempt-to-smear-michael-gove-by-his-nemesis-on-the-ft/
to my mind, it is more the case that law/practise has not caught up with electronic comms. In the old days, if an MP replied to a constituent, they could use Hoiuse of Commomns stationery. As a member of government, how do they then respond? Probably on HoC stationery, because our constitution is so fuck-witted that we make no distinction. On private matters, an MP or member of the government should respond on his/her own paper.
Surely the same goes for email?
This is a non-story by a hack with a grudge. He used to work for Gove's rival, and was upset when his boss was sidelined then replaced.
This email was actually sent by Gove's Special Advisor in order to comply with the rules. Government resources (including email accounts) are not allowed to be used for party-political reasons! Since a SpAd's main role is political, it is hardly surprising he does not want people using their government email accounts to contact him, is it?