Gove in FOI avoidance scam

[Guest]

Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, former Times columnist and no 1 Murdoch fan on Planet Cameron appears to have taken a tip from News International's intended response to the phone-hacking scandal (they fortunately never got around to undertaking the planned mass e-mail deletions).

In a nice little 'sting' operation by Financial Times' Education Correspondent Chris Cook and Media Standards Trust, it has been revealed that staff in Michael Gove’s office systematically destroyed official government correspondence, leading to further questions about compliance with the Freedom of Information Act by the education secretary and his special advisers.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f70db1e0-6458-11e1-b50e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1o2ugNaSc

[MrGongGong]

The good thing is that one can't really "destroy" emails
so lets hope a bit of forensic computing gets this horrible man in deep trouble
and he gets put away where he can't do any more damage !

(but i'm not holding my breath ...........)

[teamsaint]

The good thing is that one can't really "destroy" emails
so lets hope a bit of forensic computing gets this horrible man in deep trouble
and he gets put away where he can't do any more damage !

(but i'm not holding my breath ...........)

where is such a place..they put archer in prison and it didn't stop him............!!

[Lateralthinking1]

This is complicated. In the 2000s, I worked to two heads of units - they were both fairly senior - with very different personalities from each other. Perhaps unusually given their grade and my earlier experience, I quite liked them both. Each in his own way was unusually civil. Their methods though couldn't have been more contrasting. The first kept copies of almost everything. His orderliness was to be respected. Drawers of papers amounting to a very well-organised library. The second, his successor, obtained large plastic bags on day one and threw almost everything he had ever kept out. It was in his opinion "in the past" and anyway he doubted that many of the papers were originals. We'd have them all "somewhere else" if they were important.

In parallel, our computer systems had limited storage. We were all given sudden deadlines from time to time to reduce our e-mails to a tiny number. For those of us more in line with strategy one, this could be a big task, especially if we wanted to ensure that there were adequate paper records. There could be a viewpoint that others saw it as a useful way to reduce the work involved in meeting future FOI requests. I don't put that forward as my view but will leave any reader to decide.

While the section I was in was meticulous in meeting FOI requests, I saw the other side to it when I left the Civil Service and tried to obtain answers via FOI from the Cabinet Office. Less pain could have been suffered by tearing large clumps of hair out. Then I discovered a report last summer from the Information Commissioner that was very critical of the Cabinet Office's record on FOI. There was also an agreement that he had insisted the Cabinet Office sign at the same time to improve its performance in this area within four months. In my case, which ran for the duration of those four months, and earlier, it didn't improve.

Ironically the Cabinet Office is responsible for FOI policy. It wags its finger at everyone else. When improvements were supposed to be happening, the Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude made a statement to the effect that a new phase of FOI would be rolled out soon. I explained to the Commissioner that this seemed premature given its apparent inability to cope with the current phase. Then another Minister from the Cabinet Office, Oliver Letwin, was filmed in one of the London parks ditching papers. As the end date for improvement arrived - 30 November 2011 - I submitted a report to the Commissioner explaining my experience, observing what still hadn't been done to my satisfaction, indicating the areas that still in my view needed to be addressed and asking him if he would take account of my comments in his next report. If he has written that report, I haven't seen it.

In December, Gus O'Donnell left the Civil Service. He had been Head of the Civil Service and also Head of the Cabinet Office. It seems to me that it was then we heard the truth of it. In his final comments to the newspapers, he was deeply critical of FOI. According to him, it had been a burden or some such on the Civil Service. He hadn't liked it. It made me question the level of commitment that there had been at the very centre. Given this story in the FT today, I still have that question in my mind.

[amateur51]

Interesting stuff, Lat. I gained the impression that Gus (now Lord) O'Donnell was a rather self-serving little git*, a pale shadow in comparison to his predecessor, Robin (Lord) Butler and what you have said does not surprise me.

Depressing it most certainly is

* I mean that in a caring way, of course

[Lateralthinking1]

Interesting stuff, Lat. I gained the impression that Gus (now Lord) O'Donnell was a rather self-serving little git*, a pale shadow in comparison to his predecessor, Robin (Lord) Butler and what you have said does not surprise me. Depressing it most certainly is * I mean that in a caring way, of course

Ams, his predecessors made little impression on me. When younger, I was more of a mind to accept things because of my age. The systems were rigid. Parts were closed off to the likes of us and that wasn't much of an issue. There was continuity in employment and in outside matters too. Little thought of even Ombudsmen. Services were provided. Mostly they seemed to be good enough.

From 1985 to 1997, I didn't dream of seeing Ministers. Then I was required to brief them face to face and so it felt more open. There was that access, not that I managed it easily. Elsewhere, privatisation led to systems in components. There were mechanisms for redress open to all. Then FOI, e-petitions - it seemed more democratic, more open to dialogue generally.

Problem is that the fracturing led to more reason to complain. When there are sub-contractors etc, they do that "it's not us, it's them". So services are more haphazard, no one takes responsibility, it becomes one thing after another. And because the powers of Ombudsmen aren't great and many Government initiatives like FOI aren't full hearted, the doors are open largely to brick walls.

Still, I have had a few results - the FSA, the power company and the phones. It is very hard work though and far easier just to be with the systems that feel right personally. I have a preference for the privatised versions of the original public sector providers, mutuals and co-operatives but sometimes there are only so many things you can do, particularly where Government is concerned.

[mangerton]

In December, Gus O'Donnell left the Civil Service. He had been Head of the Civil Service and also Head of the Cabinet Office. It seems to me that it was then we heard the truth of it. In his final comments to the newspapers, he was deeply critical of FOI. According to him, it had been a burden or some such on the Civil Service. He hadn't liked it. It made me question the level of commitment that there had been at the very centre. Given this story in the FT today, I still have that question in my mind.

I watched Gus O'Donnell appearing before the PAC just after HMRC's serial luncher Dave Hartnett last November. I think that was the same day Margaret Hodge told the solicitor Anthony Inglese to take the oath; it was around that time anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15630606

I was not impressed by the performance of any of them, and if they are representative of our Senior Civil Service, God help us.

Anyway, Gus's predecessor Sir Humphrey Appleby said it all thirty years ago: "If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong."

Reassuring to know that that culture still prevails.

[Lateralthinking1]

I watched Gus O'Donnell appearing before the PAC just after HMRC's serial luncher Dave Hartnett last November. I think that was the same day Margaret Hodge told the solicitor Anthony Inglese to take the oath; it was around that time anyway. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15630606 I was not impressed by the performance of any of them, and if they are representative of our Senior Civil Service, God help us. Anyway, Gus's predecessor Sir Humphrey Appleby said it all thirty years ago: "If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong."Reassuring to know that that culture still prevails.

Yes, quite, mangerton. What is happening is new but not that new. I'm pleased you mentioned Margaret Hodge. In my humble opinion, she made some lousy errors of judgement in earlier decades. However, all credit where it is due. As Head of the Committee she has really come into her own. Quite fearsome at times as in the mould of the late Gwyneth Dunwoody. Often a joy to see.

[Lateralthinking1]

......going back to am's original post, here is the BBC interview with O'Donnell of 29 January 2012 about FOI. In arguing for a review of FOI, and more confidentiality, he throws in references about the sensitivity of material relating to Iran and also the economy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/9689410.stm

However, this list of exemptions from the University of Sussex - those areas where information may not be provided - shows that they include defence (s.26), international relations (s.27), the economy (s.29) and the formulation of policy (s.35). It applies to Government as well as universities:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/records/1-2-10-6.html

Perhaps it is purely coincidental that this bee in his bonnet now is made public at the very time his record can be scrutinised and seen as less than hot in respect of the Cabinet Office's performance on FOI.

I never cared for his style. Something a bit Lampard to my ears. It was right to split his role into three when he went up to the Lords in my view.

[ahinton]

Ams, his predecessors made little impression on me. When younger, I was more of a mind to accept things because of my age. The systems were rigid. Parts were closed off to the likes of us and that wasn't much of an issue. There was continuity in employment and in outside matters too. Little thought of even Ombudsmen. Services were provided. Mostly they seemed to be good enough.

From 1985 to 1997, I didn't dream of seeing Ministers. Then I was required to brief them face to face and so it felt more open. There was that access, not that I managed it easily. Elsewhere, privatisation led to systems in components. There were mechanisms for redress open to all. Then FOI, e-petitions - it seemed more democratic, more open to dialogue generally.

Problem is that the fracturing led to more reason to complain. When there are sub-contractors etc, they do that "it's not us, it's them". So services are more haphazard, no one takes responsibility, it becomes one thing after another. And because the powers of Ombudsmen aren't great and many Government initiatives like FOI aren't full hearted, the doors are open largely to brick walls.

Still, I have had a few results - the FSA, the power company and the phones. It is very hard work though and far easier just to be with the systems that feel right personally. I have a preference for the privatised versions of the original public sector providers, mutuals and co-operatives but sometimes there are only so many things you can do, particularly where Government is concerned.

Which FSA, just out of interest - the Financial Services Authority, the Food Standards Agency or the Foundation for Sport and the Arts?

[MrGongGong]

Which FSA, just out of interest - the Financial Services Authority, the Food Standards Agency or the Foundation for Sport and the Arts?

or even the Finzi Society of Australia ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Which FSA, just out of interest - the Financial Services Authority, the Food Standards Agency or the Foundation for Sport and the Arts?

I could have phrased it better. Thought that when I wrote it actually.

The first. It wasn't against them. The FSA agreed that I had been misled in the selling of a mortgage endowment. There were two points. I won on one and recouped some significant losses but not all.

[Flosshilde]

I could have phrased it better.

No, just ahinton being himself. I think most people would have assumed that it was mostr likely to be the first.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The good thing is that one can't really "destroy" emails
so lets hope a bit of forensic computing gets this horrible man in deep trouble
and he gets put away where he can't do any more damage !

Oh, yes please!!!