Bishop Hill Unequal and opposite reaction
Jul 19, 2012 FOI A week ago, Simon Jenkins took a swipe at the Freedom of Information Act in the pages of the Guardian.
Blair made almost all public documents discoverable, down to the contents of every laptop, the first draft of every email, every text message, every scribbled note. It was, he now says, "utterly undermining of sensible government". Jack Straw and the former cabinet secretary, Lord (Gus) O'Donnell, agree with him. Total disclosure, they say, has damaged honest civil service advice and stifled confidential debate among ministers. Stupid amounts of official time and money are spent conserving archives and responding to FOI requests. There must be some limit.
The similarities to Paul Nurse's misrepresentation of the FOI Act are striking, and the result has been identical: a slapdown from the chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Maurice Frankel:
The act exempts information where disclosure is likely to be harmful and/or contrary to the public interest. It permits a ministerial veto over any order to disclose in the public interest. Some information is exempt regardless of harm or public interest.
Jenkins claims the level of disclosure extends to "even the most personal communication between individuals". It does not. Personal information, about family matters for example, is vigorously protected. But officials cannot circumvent FoI by discussing government business via personal email accounts.
Reader Comments (25)
Of course governments hate it. Of course the Civil Service fear it. That's rather the point.
"...officials cannot circumvent FoI by discussing government business via personal email accounts."
Unfortunately, it appears that they can, as the Bishop's "Mandarin" post of 17 July indicates.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
I have agreed with both sides for a very long time and it has become very uncomfortable. The fence is forcing its way into my exterior orifice.
What is strange is that Blair put this act into law. It has reduced, to some extent at any rate, the ability of the ruling classes to misgovern, lie, cheat and otherwise defraud the rest of us. That was its apparent intent in the first place, so why did Blair support it? He was no more taken with honest government than any other prime minister.
Did he think that the legislation would be ineffective? Was it supposed to be nothing more than a sop to satisfy public disquiet?
Labour campaigned for it for years in opposition. It was in their manifesto. For some inexplicable reason they actually enacted it early on in their rule. Daft buggers. Didn't they remember 'We are the Masters now'?
Bish "But officials cannot circumvent FoI by discussing business via personal email accounts."
Just in the same way that they cannot (in theory) circumvent FOI by copying material onto memory sticks and "taking it home for safe-keeping"
A certain organisation, well known to this blog, seems to be able to do these things with impunity.
David C said:
What is strange is that Blair put this act into law. It has reduced, to some extent at any rate, the ability of the ruling classes to misgovern, lie, cheat and otherwise defraud the rest of us. That was its apparent intent in the first place, so why did Blair support it?
If I remember correctly, Tony Blair and New Labour adopted the idea of freedom of information when they were in opposition. It is easy to advocate policies that reduce the ability of the ruling classes to misgovern when you are in opposition. It sounds good and it helps to get you elected. Blair was also a lawyer and passing laws to create remunerative work for members of your profession is what lawyers in politics do.
Furthermore New Labour probably thought that only Guardian reading types would make much use of FOI requests. They lacked the imagination to realise that FOI is a two edged sword.
"Blair made almost all public documents discoverable": and is now a discovery denialist!
Simon Jenkins and Peter Oborne : what a mixed bag their views are, sometimes so sensible and sometimes cloud cuckoo! I have a theory that they are both split-brain experiments gone awry!
And who gets to decide ? The people involved ? Probably.
Translation:
If you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to fear is the line they usually use on the plebs isn't it?
Accountability, honesty and "public trust" are fine words but we see that there's not much appetite for actually practicing these things at the moment - so by inference Mister Jenkins champions autocracy, deceit and venality - ah yes ... The Guardian.
The time consuming nature of FOI requests can be reduced by making things public as a matter of course, say, three months after it was written or received.
"...so why did Blair support it?"
The elites are at the very top - are not stupid, and are not monitored. They set what the laws are: the laws are that which is corrupt - it would not do to have the corrupting thing corrupted in turn.
The bureaucrats (incl puppets like Blair) are their executors, nothing more. This gave them the direct ability to monitor (and hence control) every single bureaucrat. The public will even help them do it.
The purpose was to fully enslave the bureaucrats. It tightened the control of the elites.
Simple. Obvious.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Hill is an idiot who believes that all Stalin needed was someone (as awesome as Hill, of course) to talk to him, and explain how he was wrong, and all would have been super. Because debate will solve, like, everything, dude. Yeah, baby!
Dolt.
A summary of cb the dolt:
Since openness and debate won't solve everything, we should not be concerned about suppressing it.
As an ex-civil servant I can appreciate the argument that FOI makes it more difficult to have properly set out grown up pros and cons of policies set out clearly in documents. In reality most polices have both pros and cons, but with our media most politicians find it difficult to say "well we weighted things up and on balance this is what we thinks it best - though there are downsides". Instead they say "there is no alternative", which is fatuous but much easier to defend in the recording studio. My expectation is that FOI will allow interesting records of discussions prior to the FOI Act, but after that most discussions will be off the record, briefings will be verbal rather than written and we won't find much out.
There must be a reason why criminals fear the police. There must be a reason why Simon Jenkins fear FOI act
Like Ecclesiastical Uncle I am of two minds on many issues relating to Freedom of Information. I believe it is important for people to be able float ideas without newspapers or blogs picking them up and saying "the government is planning..." or "he does not accepts so-as-so's conclusions". After all look what happened to 'hide the decline'.
With regard to climate science I think something along the lines of Gareth's suggestion, a 3 month (I would suggest a year) moratorium on release of data after publication (to allow time for other papers) followed by full release.
What is ironic in all of this is that if the CRU had responded to legitimate requests for data in the first place Climategate would not have happened and the subsequent requests for casual but work-related emails would not have been made.
It's my government, they're my servants, and I'm paying the bills. Publish everything, record their meetings and inspect their underwear on the way out the door.
Why is it that when a journalist writes an article about a topic on which you know something, they usually seem to write rubbish? There are exceptions, but not many.
Will you lead us in prayer, Your Grace, entreating the Almighty to save us from whatever O'Donnell, Straw, and Jenkins think constitutes "sensible government?"
"Sensible Government" ? When did that happen?
My expectation is that FOI will allow interesting records of discussions prior to the FOI Act, but after that most discussions will be off the record, briefings will be verbal rather than written and we won't find much out.
Except when someone deliberately sets out to oppose a strategy.
If a civil servant is concerned that there will be consequences of some action, they can write a paper out-lining their fears. If they are told to shut up about it and follow policy, then that is what they have to do. But their paper will be discoverable under FOI.
My experience is that in many cases the pros and cons arguments are discussed for their legal aspects, with a lawyer. That in NZ law is then covered by legal privilege and will always be withheld.
That was from Ian E, whose bag for me has never been mixed. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.
I remain in two minds on FoI, like Eccles Uncle, Simon Jenkins, Tony Blair and many others. It has already had a deleterious effect in driving important discussions off the record, of that I have no doubt. But there are positives too. We still don't know how Popper's Open Society work out in the internet age. I wouldn't rule out that George Soros may have things to teach us on that. His funding of Cameron Neylon on open science sounds to be highly intelligent. As for taking on Ross McKitrick and his ideas on more rational, evidence-based taxes, superb.
Treating every issue as black and white is as mikep says the curse of our age of instant, 24-hour news. Genuinely good thinkers (and there still are some among MPs) are reduced to peddling lines that they know are crap. But at least we know the names of such men and women and they have the accountability of needing to seek to be elected as individuals and parties next time. When I consider this I find I can almost cope with the resultant hypocrisy in public life.
The certainty of the angry, pseudonymous black-and-white brigade on threads like this is a different matter. If I didn't have to wade through it to reach folks like Eccles Uncle life would be sweeter. But hey, they're never a mixed bag. There's nothing to learn at all.
Richard, if decisions we previously had no information about are driven underground what have we lost? The fact is that the powers that be have to leave a record justifying their actions and if there is the possibility of public access to anything they have to get the story straight. Same as they always did, but now more difficult. No problem presents itself.
You do yourself no favours by representing those who disagree with you as a 'brigade'. It is puerile. It is an indicator of a mindset of prejudice. You can engage with the substance of whatever you object to without this sort of bluster.
Quite. What is needed are very heavy and obligatory prison sentences for any offenders. If and when the first Prime Minister spends his premature retirement behind bars, information will doubtless start to flow more freely.