The government also doubled down on the controversial practice of using special advisers to “clear” responses to requests for information. “One expected at least an acceptance that improvements could be made, but that expectation has been shown to have been naïve.” Doubling down He continued: “FOI in central government is in a parlous state, with poor compliance against statutory response times, low levels of disclosure and multiple instances of excessive sharing of requesters' details across departments. We are simply told ‘there is nothing to be concerned about, and nothing to be improved’, when the evidence unearthed and presented by the committee pointed so clearly the other way.” Jon Baines, FOI specialist at law firm Mishcon de Reya, who wrote about the legality of the Clearing House, said: “It's hard to imagine a more dispiriting response from the government to the PACAC's well founded concerns and recommendations. This response is a missed opportunity to engage with the committee’s modest recommendations and demonstrate it is serious about improving transparency.” As the committee stressed, tone from the top matters. Incredibly, it maintained in its response to PACAC that it was “fully committed to transparency”.Ĭampaign for Freedom of Information’s Katherine Gundersen said: “The Cabinet Office digging its heels in will do little to reassure FOI requesters or PACAC about its commitment to FOI. The Cabinet Office also said this week it would stick to its decision not to make its new scientific research body, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, subject to Freedom of Information law.
#Mps publishing full#
Denham’s successor John Edwards was less forthright, but urged the department to at least publish its full findings.Īfter a lengthy delay, the government has finally begun the review – but has rejected Edwards’ request, saying it will only publish a summary at the end. The Cabinet Office refused and attracted the ire of the then information commissioner Elizabeth Denham by opting instead for an ‘internal review’ of the Clearing House. MPs had already called for an independent audit of the Cabinet Office’s FOI practices to be carried out by the information rights watchdog, the Information Commissioner’s Office. Sheppard called for “a fundamental shake up of both in the administration of the Cabinet Office, but also I think time for a review of the Freedom of Information framework so that we limit the room for people in the Cabinet Office to just put two fingers up to the process”. He added: “It all makes for extremely bad government and it needs to change.” Sheppard, who has been battling the Cabinet Office for access to polling information, said the Cabinet Office was “behaving like a rogue department that really has no regard for transparency, no desire for open government, no concern about being in any way accountable to the public”.
The government said it would not publish data on the number of cases that are referred to the Clearing House, claiming it would be a “disproportionate use of resources”.
The committee urged the government to reverse its worrying “slide away from transparency” and made a number of recommendations. PACAC’s report in April followed a string of revelations by openDemocracy about the Cabinet Office’s “Orwellian” Clearing House, which has been accused of blocking FOI requests and blacklisting journalists. Get one whole story, direct to your inbox every weekday.
0 kommentar(er)
