Wills defends the Queen
Five years - that's what we've had so far of freedom of information in the UK, since it came into force on 1 January 2005. And one person who's convinced that the law is working well is Michael Wills, the justice minister responsible for FOI policy.
"We're celebrating five years of what has been historic legislation," he told me a few days ago when I interviewed him at the Ministry of Justice. "It's a massive cultural change, and I've always believed it will be seen in retrospect as a huge shift in the way government does business."
Of course not everyone else is so positive. But half a decade into FOI, his message to civil servants is that they shouldn't worry about it; to local authorities that some of them need to take openness more seriously; to requesters that they mustn't be over-zealous; and as for the Queen, she can rely on the government to protect her constitutional position.
Mr Wills was also keen to counter the critics of freedom of information within government, many of whom regard it simply as a device that produces inconvenience and embarrassment without bringing any credit in return. For him, FOI releases often show how well government is working.
The publication in 2007 of the advice given to Gordon Brown before he changed the rules on dividend taxation in the 1997 Budget is, according to Mr Wills, "a very good example". It followed an FOI request from the Times, which the government initially resisted before giving in amid much publicity .
"I remember the Conservative Party being cock-a-hoop because they were absolutely sure this would reveal some sort of smoking gun," he said. "What it actually revealed were Treasury officials working through all the options extremely conscientiously and rigorously, and ministers making a considered decision on the basis of all the options and facts."
"Government is full of decent-minded people trying to do their best, and when that becomes transparent, actually people gain from that. There was no political damage to the government at all - people could see what their government was doing and that is one of the great advantages of FOI," he added. (Although from the reporting of this release, you can understand why some of his colleagues might have taken a different view).
Within the government machine, much of the unease about freedom of information has focused on the supposed "chilling effect" - the idea that the prospect of disclosure will deter the giving and recording of frank advice and opinion.
Mr Wills hasn't found this to be a problem. "I haven't noticed the chilling effect. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that it's not a risk that we have to be careful about, but the honest answer is 'no', as far as I personally am concerned."
While Mr Wills maintains that FOI has shifted the culture of central government, even if he accepts that it is still incomplete and developing, he argues that some local authorities have yet to adapt. "Outside central government the picture is patchier," he told me:
"There are really good local authorities that are able to put out almost everything the citizen could want quickly, cheaply and efficiently, because they see it as a core part of their relationship with those they serve. Others don't and those authorities are not providing the service that their voters expect. Some local authorities see this as an add-on but it isn't, and that culture has to change."
Mr Wills thinks that the new Information Commissioner Chris Graham has been making "significant progress" in tackling his office's backlog of complaints. "We've been providing extra funding in very difficult economic circumstances to help with that process, and that's an indication of how seriously we take the work of that office."
The minister couldn't make any promises about funding in the future, but did say that Whitehall would continue to assist the ICO's staffing by providing secondees.
Mr Wills also hopes that increasing the promptness and responsiveness of the FOI system will influence the behaviour of requesters.
"There's always a risk that a small number of people dig in and pursue things perhaps over-zealously. I hope that requesters will become more respectful of the spirit of the legislation rather than assuming wrongly they can have all the information they want. The quicker we get the responses out, the more chance we have of developing a culture like that. Most people are reasonable. If they get a reasonable explanation quickly, I hope they will be satisfied by that."
The minister told me that the government would soon be issuing its formal response to the Dacre review of the thirty-year-rule for the release in the National Archives of most official papers. "It's a very good report, commissioned by the prime minister, so we obviously feel there is a need to move in this area. 30 years is too long."
But this also raises the issue of whether cabinet and royal papers should have a period of absolute exemption from FOI. Mr Wills would not reveal the government's detailed position in advance, but did insist that the monarchy does need sheltering from FOI:
"One thing we have to recognise is the special position of the head of state, given that they last longer than 'here today, gone tomorrow' politicians. Particularly if we are to keep the specific constitutional role of the monarch inviolate, which I think the majority of the British people want, there has to special protection for the monarch."
On cabinet papers his answer was "wait and see". He argued that the government had been right to use the ministerial veto twice last year to block the release of cabinet minutes, maintaining that "cabinet collective responsibility is at the very heart of the government of this country and it's got to be protected", although every case would have to be decided on its own individual circumstances.
The Ministry of Justice will keep under review the question of whether to extend FOI to more private bodies with public functions beyond those already announced [226Kb PDF], and if the Scottish government wants to go further in this direction than the rest of the UK, that's fine with Mr Wills.
For Michael Wills, five years of freedom of information has meant that "huge amounts of information has been released which wouldn't otherwise have been available". He added: "Most requests are satisfied. Of course, it's uncomfortable and tough for government, but that doesn't negate the value of the legislation."
In his view, there's probably only one group of people which will give the government the credit he thinks it deserves for what he regards as this "landmark legislation" - historians. Their verdict, whichever way it goes, will come in later than that of the voters.
A 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Re: there has to special protection for the monarch
The question is should this be extended to institutions established by Royal Charter and as such need the permission of the Privy Council to change their articles of government.
The reason I ask is that I have finally obtained a copy of a report by consultants Haines Watts into the finances of University of Wales Lampeter.
While this report makes disturbing reading there are redactions which have been removed by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales HEFCW. I have complained to ICO that these redactions are not covered by s41 exemptions because there is no stated issue of confidentiality by people who are officers or council members of the same institution.
With regard to comments from other institutions MoJ guidelines state
"3.2.2 Whilst this exemption may apply where a duty of confidence is owed by one public authority to another, it will not apply where both of those public authorities are government departments."
This raises the question are universities seperate authorities if they come under the same government department and funded by the same quango?
Re: The Ministry of Justice will keep under review the question of whether to extend FOI to more private bodies
Would the MoJ please include private bodies who are closely linked to public bodies such as the Church of England and the Church in Wales.
Re: For Michael Wills, five years of freedom of information has meant that "huge amounts of information has been released which wouldn't otherwise have been available".
I agree, but that is not the point, why was it necessary to use the FOI to obtain the above report when HEFCW should have published it on its website in accordance with the ICO's concept of our right to know.
There is now the question of why nobody has held to account for this fiasco. Moreover, publication of this report shows the frightening gap between the perception that Ministers have with regard to the regulation and accountability of chartered institutions such as universities, and the reality that they are in effect accountable to nobody.
When preservation of reputation and the infallability of the establishment overrides public service, the rules breakdown, as a result deviant behaviour and suicide are more likely.
Why should they be able to hide behind the Crown in order to get away with it. If the same people ran a hospital, school or childrens services department there would be a political hanging.
Complain about this comment
We need to go much further if any confidence is to be regained in our political and govermental systems. All "information", documents, memos, e-mails etc. should be automatically available to the public unless there is an overriding reason not to release it. Personal or organisation embarassment should never be a valid reason for exemption. Commercially sensitivities should again not be used as a smokescreen for what happens with our money - I would not normally expect to give someone a £20 note and tell them to go grocery shopping without seeing the receipt afterwards, would you ?
I also strongly believe that this should also include all information where public money is used. Like in some other countries all academic, scientific and technology research produced with public money should become public domain - at the moment tax money is used to fund Universities and others who then spin off private companies and gain patents without anything ever coming back to the tax payers.
Complain about this comment
It doesn't help when some government departments refuse to release information for which there is reasonable demand, and then refuse the subsequent FOI requests on the grounds that it would cost too much. Had they just released the information in the first place then it would have cost them very little. In this respect I will name and shame DCSF.
Complain about this comment
When I saw your headline, Martin, I thought you meant that Prince William had defended the Queen, which would hardly have been surprising.
However, on reading your blog, I find that a minister called Michael Wills has justified “sheltering” the monarchy from FOI.
This is not really about defending the Queen; it’s more about keeping secret the incessant lobbying of Government by her eldest son.
At present the Monarchy is exempt from FOI but some correspondence with Government departments may be released if that is felt to be in the ‘public interest’. But last June the Government announced that it intended to remove this exception, meaning that all royal documents would remain confidential for at least 20 years.
Instead of increasing royal secrecy, the Government should remove completely the exemption of the royal family from FOI.
But Mr Wills justifies extending the royal cover-up on the dubious grounds that “if we are to keep the special constitutional role of the monarch inviolate...there has to be special protection for the sovereign”. This is, of course, disingenuous as Mr Wills is seeking “protection” not just for the monarchy, but for the entire royal family.
So what’s he ‘protecting’ them from ? The public’s right to know about the lobbying of Prince Charles, for example. And why ? Because when we find out what the Prince has been up to, we discover that it is he who is violating his constitutional role to remain politically neutral.
We have already learnt that he lobbies Government departments and others on his pet subjects such as architecture, the environment, complementary medicine, education and fox hunting. Most recently, it’s been alleged that he was opposed to the Iraq war, which he regarded as ‘madness’, and campaigned against the Blair Government at the time of the invasion.
The point is not whether or not we agree with Prince Charles on particular issues; the point is that he is not a neutral, but an opinionated campaigner on many political issues.
Moreover, it goes beyond that. Charles clearly lobbies for himself and his family. For example a gaffe by the Treasury resulted in the revelation that Charles had successfully lobbied to be able to claim various expenses incurred by Princes William and Harry against tax, thus cutting his tax bill considerably.
We live in a democracy. We have a right to know what is going on. That is the whole point of FOI. And the Royal Family should not be exempt.
Complain about this comment
Asking governments to be honest with the people is a diffcult thing for governments as they always fear the exposure of past lies. It will take forever to achieve an honest government, dishonesty is the nature of the beast. "The greater good" is always an available rationale...by definition of course.
Complain about this comment
"One thing we have to recognise is the special position of the head of state, given that they last longer than 'here today, gone tomorrow' politicians. Particularly if we are to keep the specific constitutional role of the monarch inviolate, which I think the majority of the British people want, there has to special protection for the monarch."
This is an outrageous comment which simply succeeds in demonstrating exactly WHY we need complete transparency with regard to the Windsor family under FOI. These people are given jobs for life (due not to their abilities or intellect or judgment or democratic mandate, but, of course, to their DNA). There is no opportunity whatsoever for the British people to hold them to account. The myth that the Windsors are politically impartial is exactly that: a lie. It can be no more adequately extinguished than by Mr Charles Windsor himself who persistently lobbies the government and meddles in a thoroughly undemocratic manner.
I wish the Windsor family were allowed to express opinions. I wish they were allowed to lobby ministers. But they should not be given means with which to influence government which are deprived to every other person in the country simply because they have passed through one particular womb. It is an insult to the British people to be told that they are not only not entitled to choose their head of state, be the head of state or even see what the head of state is getting up to. 2010 or 1610?
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately this Act can be used to give the appearance of openness without being open at all. There's a fine example on the www.hs2.org.uk site where they've published their refusal to provide information under the Act!
Complain about this comment
I used to work in a government department. Shortly before FoI came in, the shredders were working overtime and people were busying deleting computer files and e-mails. The unwritten rule was: If it doesn't exist, it can't be asked for.
After that, there was a culture change in the way information was handled: Phone calls were used a lot more (they weren't recorded and so weren't susceptible to FoI) and some staff signed up to hotmail/gmail e-mail accounts so their e-mails couldn't be released by FoI.
Having seen FoI from both inside and outside of government, I think the government are paying lip service to FoI and aren't committed to the spirit of FoI.
Complain about this comment
I find it interesting that this only applies to 'government' - although the definition of this seems to be quite wide.
How about applying the same law to people like greenpeace and friends of the earth?
Why not - they are funded by the public and have an enormous effect on the quality of life for millions of people. Surely if openness is good for government, then the same would be true for campaigners.
Lets have mandatory publication of their emails, internal discussions etc. Certainly the publication of the 'climate-gate' emails (though still not by the BBC) was very enlightening.
Complain about this comment
It doesn't go far enough.
ALL information within the public sector, where it does not directly impact national security, should be freely available. They work for us.
#9 jon112uk
Whilst transparency in all things is good, charities which people give to willingly are not on the same level as government, which helps itself to our wallets and claims to serve us all.
Complain about this comment
I have used FOI with my local councils regarding a major planning application which the councils support but the local population does not. I have found the County and the District Council considerably lacking in providing the information I request. Often times I find out the information elsewhere, only for the Council to tell me it does not exist! Invariably they do not respond within the statutory 20 days. I have asked for copies of emails only to be told they are not kept beyond 65 days and I have asked for a draft copy of a report only to be told these are not covered by the FOI act, even though a judge recently ruled that they are covered. I have complained to the FOI office only to be told it will be MONTHS before they even consider my complaints. I therefore do not consider the FOI act to have been a success.
Complain about this comment
FOI is a hot potato and Mr Willis is between a rock and a hard place as regards
FOI requests and historical information.
How about he sets a date (060610) InfoDay, from this date onwards all publicly paid for data is to be published unless it impacts upon national security (and this to be challengable in court).
FOI requests from that date forwards will be minimal as the data is already in the public domain.
Cheap and easy.
Complain about this comment
Zoe Kleinman has reports on your internet site today and the
diminishing domain of what can or should be "reasonable" in our
expectation of privacy. Personal freedom and free will are rights
we cherish in making choices, even choice with our privacy, but
his article is prescient in pointing out that collectively we,
as a society, do not consider the sanctity of life in our human
daily form. What is sacred is based on our experience and our
perception of that which is intangible and immeasurable in value.
Having used social media networks optimally to create my own
self sovereignty case as a terror crime victim/survivor in the
US where the so-called security industry creates criminal and
abusive profits through surveillance technologies available to
just about any civilian through their "recreational" drug network.
A superficial Google search reveals ads for "spy pens" on the
webiste of certain psychological professionals. The need for this
type of perverse power within civilian populations demonstrates
that the humans are their own worst enemies while looking, search-
ing and deceiving to fulfill their thirst for power and meaning.
Freedom of Information Act protects civilians against the abuses
known by agencies, however, our population has reached a point now
where our neighbors, our professional associates, our lovers and
even our closest allies all have to live with these operational
realities of surveillance technology. We have normalized that the
sacred in our intimate moments can and will be desecrated to the
demise of what is fundamental to any system' survival: a belief
in the basic decency and purpose of humans in our midst.
This trend has brought us to where we do not afford innocence and
knowledge becomes more and more a tactic for the denial of our own
humanity. My experience with having my privacy and intellectual
property sold, traded and bartered for over 8 years by those who
are barely human informs me that not all Americans are created
equal, and certainly, all Americans are not endowed with equal rights.
What has happened to me will happen to others and this symptom of
a larger problem will bring the end to any hope modern, civilized
societies have for deeper communion.
Karen Yukie Yamada
coffeeshopmonster.blogspot.com
politicalpoidog-contact.blogspot.com
compostpilecontact.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS