Evidence submitted by Fred J Perkins,
Chairman and Chief Executive, Information TV Ltd
I am pleased to present this personal submission
to the Committee.
I was CEO and COO of The Stationery Office Ltd
(TSO), from its privatisation in 1996 until I left in March 2003
to set up a new venture—Information TV—which is committed
to providing a conduit for public bodies to communicate with their
audiences through television. Information TV is an independent
television channel on Sky Digital channel 588 (News and Documentaries)
and simulcast on broadband via our website at www.information.tv.
My own interest in FoI is non-political, nor
am I involved with any special interest or lobbying groups relating
to FoI. In the course of my work, I followed the legislation,
and developed a strong interest in the implementation of the Act
and in the issues which have arisen. In the last several years
I have frequently presented at events and participated in discussion
fora on the implementation of the Act. These have tended to focus
more on local government than on central government, if only because
the Act appears to have raised more concerns at the local level
than at central government.
It is my personal belief that FoI could do more
to revitalise interest in the democratic process and political
involvement than all the other "initiatives" to encourage
citizen involvement and interest in government. It was a very
important commitment in the Labour government's manifesto for
the 1997 election. Fulfilment of the pledges given then would,
I believe, contribute strongly to a re-awakening of public interest
in political affairs, and if handled well by all sides, in a very
positive way. Conversely, weakening of the original pledges, whether
real or perceived, could be very damaging, and further encourage
public cynicism in our governmental processes.
It is thus my fervent hope that full implementation
of the Act will be embraced positively by government, the media
and the public. My faith in the benefits to be gained is based
on the fact that fundamentally, FoI seems to me to be simply good
"corporate" governance and open government. The already
high standards of our public sector are being, rightly, opened
up to wider visibility. The public sector has the opportunity
to demonstrate the accountability and openness which government
seeks to impose on private businesses. I believe the public sector
has little to fear, and can be exemplars of best practice. However,
there is great fear (and often misunderstanding), which coupled
with the traditional reluctance to accept change, makes this a
difficult and challenging transition for the public sector.
I would like to make the following points regarding
the questions posed under the terms of reference of the Committee:
"Big Bang" rather than phased
implementation: The implementation has been phased—over
four years from the passing of the Act into law. I, and many others,
have however been conscious that little attention was paid to
the implementation issues until the last 18-24 months, and even
then largely because outside bodies issued a "wake-up"
call.
We are not going to see a "Big Bang"
in January 2005. Another phase of implementation will occur. There
will be a flurry of press attention, and possibly a few headlines,
but it will be several years before the Act truly begins to deliver
its promises and benefits. The Committee would do well to examine
experiences from Countries like Canada (with a very similar FoI
regime). In the 20 years since Canada's implementation, the legislation
has gradually settled down and become a normal component of government.
Technology and the Internet will hasten the process here, but
it will be a gradual one.
The intermediate stages, such as Publication
Schemes, further exemplify the phased approach which has occured.
However, I feel that the Schemes are widely varying in quality
and effectiveness, and were approached overly much in a "box-ticking"
mindset. They were not generally seen as an important beginning
of the "opening up" process.
I would make one observation to the Committee:
it seems to me that preparedness in Scotland—which passed
legislation later than England, but which is adhering to the same
timetable—is considerably ahead of England. The degree of
understanding across the public sector appears to be much higher—and
the engagement of leaders (political and public sector) at a higher
level.
I do not consider that the original timetable
was "ambitious". The fact that we are perhaps dangerously
lacking in preparedness, a mere few months' from full implementation,
does, I feel, reflect only the approach to implementation.
Preparedness: I believe we are generally poorly
prepared. There is a real danger that a cynical media will seek
out opportunities to embarrass government, exploiting this lack
of preparedness. Too much of this at an early stage will endanger
the objectives of the whole Act.
Fundamental to preparedness is Awareness. I
believe that the public sector as a whole suffers a worrying lack
of awareness of the Act's intentions and implications. In a last
minute panic to "be ready", it is seen as something
which has to be defended against—a very negative approach.
We are generally suffering from a lack of leadership.
In too many areas, FoI is being positioned as the job of a small
group to look after, rather than a fundamental culture change
which must engage every public sector worker. There is very little
evidence of senior officials (or political leaders) committing
themselves to effective embracing of the Act's objectives.
Too much of the guidance which is—belatedly—being
issued seems designed to provide excuses for avoiding the very
objectives behind the Act. Thre is very little reinforcement of
the outcomes which were the Act's objectives.
My own TV channel has been regularly broadcasting
a 30-minute programme (sponsored by a private sector company)
which attempts to demonstrate, via an entertaining yet informative
docu-drama, how FoI might impact a local authority. We have continually
received positive comments from public sector workers, asking
if they can record the programme and show it to their colleagues,
"because it shows, better than all the `guidance' received
thus far, how FoI will actually work". This should be a cause
of serious concern, at this late stage.
A key area of lack of preparedness is at infrastructure
levels. The Act presents a fundamental requirement for efficient
records management. The civil service has very good historical
records management, but woefully lacking in fitness for purpose
under FoI. The Act should have been a justification for rapid
investment in new systems to bring the public sector up to date.
This has clearly not happened—and has led to one of the
fundamental causes for complaint from local government in particular,
that they do not have the resources to fund the investment required.
At the next layer of preparedness, it is the
processes in government which will be most subject to change if
FoI is to be delivered effectively. Again, there has been little
attention paid to this area until the eleventh hour. And it is
in this area that early causes of embarrassment are most likely
to arise—lack of communication across and within departments,
inconsistent responses to FoI requests, inadequately prepared
staff.
Only when infrastructure and processes are addressed
is it possible to properly embark on the training required—and,
again, this means training at all levels of government. It is
only in very recent months that training appears to have begun.
It is generally being addressed at only specialist areas. And—most
worryingly—it seems for the most part to be about "protecting"
the government unit, rather than embracing the intent of the Act.
In summary—I believe we are woefully unprepared
to deliver good "public service" under the FoI. However,
it is not too late, provided we act quickly and recognise (publicly)
that it will take some time to deliver the levels of service which
are (were) originally intended.
Role of the DCA: It seems to me that the DCA
is doing a pretty good job overall, but started far too late,
and will struggle to catch up. There are many areas where guidance
is desperately needed. Too much of the materials being made available
are little more than "interpretation" of the legislation,
and not nearly enough on "how to" actually manage implementation.
The many self-help groups, inside and outside government itself,
are doing much more to help critical areas of preparedness—but
with dangers of inconsistency (or even error).
There are significant areas where the DCA itself
is presumably handicapped, because the political leaders have
not set out basic elements of strategy—eg with respect to
fees. Equally, the silence from political leaders as to their
intentions as far as observance, interpretation, and application
of discretion, must surely severely constrain DCA's ability to
provide good advice or help.
Even amongst political leaders and the DCA,
there are areas of lack of understanding (or intent) on fundamental
aspects of the Act. It is inevitable that a wide-ranging and complex
Act throws up many implementation issues, which need rapid resolution
and clarification. For example, I was asked whether the files
held by elected representatives (and MPs themselves) came under
the Act. I have not yet managed to obtain a clear or consistent
answer!
Central & Local Government Issues: I believe
the issues I have outlined above apply equally to Central and
Local Government. However, the problems are especially severe
for local authorities, who are themselves "mini governments",
but without the resources or capabilities which a large central
department can apply. Further, local authorities in particular
are asking themselves the many broad-ranging questions regarding
implementation, in a way which doesn't apply at the centre—and
they need (and are not getting sufficient) guidance and resource.
The issue of the charging regime is crucial,
and the lack of policy (and preparedness) constitutes a major
threat to overall public confidence in FoI. An approach which
in any sense goes towards cost recovery will, I believe, cause
grave embarrassment—it will highlight inconsistencies and
flaws in public sector process. If I ask for straightforward information,
it is not my fault (nor should it be to my cost) if the department
cannot find information at what should be reasonable cost.
I believe there will be no great deluge of FoI
requests, and therefore no massive surge in resource costs, in
the early days of full FoI implementation. Better, I therefore
submit, to attach purely nominal costs to FoI requests—but
be prepared to revisit the situation in the light of experience.
And better, perhaps, to also ask whether it is necessary to invest
in better systems in order to subsequently reduce the costs of
future requests. Once again, I suggest the Committee looks to
experience elsewhere in the world.
Objectives: Finally, I would submit to the Committee
that in scrutinising preparations for FoI, it is surely essential
to have a clear (and restated, if necessary) position with respect
to the desired outcomes of the FOIA. Much has changed, in government
and in society, since the Act was introduced. It is difficult
to fully assess preparedeness if it is not absolutely clear just
what the objectives of the Act, and government's implementation
of its provisions, entail.
Fred J Perkins
Chairman and Chief Executive
Information TV Ltd
October 2004
| 
