Evidence submitted by David Hencke, Westminster
Correspondent, The Guardian
FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION—THE
GOOD, THE
BAD AND
THE INCONSISTENT
As a former member of the Lord Chancellor's
advisory committee on the implementation of the freedom of information
act I have been very keen to use the act as a journalist. My general
impressions have been positive, particularly over issues involving
the spending of public money and in retrieving historical material.
It is less effective in retrieving information exposing advice
to ministers and security issues even on historic matters.
THE GOOD
At national level
The best example of a bold decision taken soon after
the act came into force was to release payments made to farmers
in England and Northern Ireland and to industry from EU subsidies.
The decision was taken by a small agency, the Rural Repayments
Agency, on the advice of Defra. The ministry changed, with our
consent, the request from an FOI to an EIR request. We thought
that this would be advantageous since commercial secrecy provisions
under EIR are less restrictive than under FOI. The request took
longer than 20 days to process—it was nearer—but the
agency actually gave the paper more information than it had requested.
From my own sources I know that Defra ministers came under enormous
pressure from the Country Landowners Association and lawyers not
to release the information. It meant disclosing money given to
huge companies like Tate and Lyle and to the Royal Family.But
they stood firm putting into the public domain for the first time
billions of pounds of subsidies. The decision has had huge ramifactions
across Europe and since England released the information, Sweden,some
Spanish regional governments and Holland have followed suite.
Germany is now under pressure to release information and France
has already had to disclose some information. None of the fears
of farmers have been realised and claims that the figures were
a breach of privacy (an argument used for decades) have proved
unfounded. Scotland followed recently. The Forestry Commission
has since agreed to a similar request and released information
showing all the grants given to forests.
At local level
A good example is Nexus, the Tyne and Wear Metro.
A lobbying company employed by them declined to release its fee.
An FOI request to Nexus resulted in the information being released
in under 20 days.
THE BAD
The Office of Government Commerce
Last year I put in a request for the traffic light
indicators contained in over 400 Gateway reviews for government
IT projects totalling billions of pounds. Given the huge controversy
over wasted taxpayers money on these schemes, I thought this fell
well within the public interest.These tell Whitehall accounting
officers whether the proposed scheme is bad (red); indifferent
( amber) or good (green). I also asked for the release of letters
between the OGC and government departments after they had received
a double red warning. The OGC released a list of the reviews but
refused to release the indicators and it released the text of
the letters with the name of the project and permanent secretary
deleted—making the information useless. I have appealed
to the Information Commissioner but because of delays I gather
it is yet to be considered. I gather from other evidence given
to the Public Administration Committee it is almost impossible
to get information released on these projects from the government.
THE INCONSISTENT
The miner's strike
There is a total inconsistency over the release of
information. The DTI and National Archives released quickly nearly
all the files they held including those held by the old National
Coal Board. The Home Office has recently released some of its
files dealing with the policing of the dispute. But the Cabionet
Office has been delaying for over a year. The initial request
for a list of files was originally refused because the titles
of the files were regarded as confidential advice to ministers.
When it was pointed out that this was ridiculous—they amended
the ruling re,leasing some titles but using national security
reasons to withold others. They are still considering what to
release and it has taken a year after numerous extensions- and
they still cannot make up their mind.
Meetings with casino operators
The response suggested that the government clearing
house does not work. Similarly worded requests asking for correspondence
and documents were made to ODPM, the Cabinet Office, Downing Street,
DCMS and the Treasury. DCMS released a comprehensive list. ODPM
found one document. The Treasury requested more time and then
released a selection. Downing Street and the Cabinet Office decided
that nothing could be released at all as anything would be confidential
advice to ministers. Not all those judgements can be right.
David Hencke
The Guardian
March 2006
| 
