Fabian View of the Need for Freedom of Information in Government and for the People

Fabian Book Pic

Peter Archer, in his paper on ‘The Constitution’ in Fabian Essays in Socialist Thought ed. Ben Pimlott (London: Heninemann 1984) 117-131 also strongly recommends the ending of information given only on a ‘right to know’ basis to ministers in government, the removal of part of the Official Secrets Act and the passage of a Freedom of Information Act.

But this has given rise to two problems which Dicey [19th century constitutional theorist] scarcely envisaged. One relates to freedom of information. Those who are entitled, and indeed expected, to make informed judgements, need the information on which to make them. And this is true not only of electors, but of those within government itself. The circulation of documents on a ‘need-to-know’ basis sometimes denies even to Cabinet ministers information on matters which are essential if they are to be more than departmental administrators.

For the general public, the inhibitions are even greater. The time is long overdue for a repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, which in a single sentence, bursting with alternatives and disjunctions, creates over 2000 separate offences, and would render liable to prosecution anyone who passes on information about the cost of a military uniform. Even the Society of Conservative Lawyers, in evidence to the Franks Committee in 1971, did not ‘consider it appropriate, in a free society, for journalists or other interested persons to face the prospect of criminal penalties merely because their investigations in the sphere of government activity proved to successful for the comfort of the governors’. But open government requires more than freedom to disseminate information. It requires an obligation upon government to make the facts available, except where there are specific reasons for concealing them. In 1982, the Fabian contributors to Making Government Work proposed a Freedom of Information Act, providing for a Director of Open Information. There would be ‘a presumption that all information of a factual and analytical nature available to government would be disclosed’. and where it was necessary to apply a criterion, it would be decided (subject in certain cases to a final government right of refusal) by the Director.

I don’t know whether documents are still circulated amongst ministers at Westminster on a need-to-know basis. However, I got the distinct impression that under the increasingly presidential system of British politics, the independence of Cabinet ministers is still severely circumscribed and they are pretty much departmental administrators, expected to do the wishes of the Prime Minister.

As for the Freedom of Information Act, this has indeed been passed, complete with an Information Director. However, this is another pillar of open government, which the government is reforming in order to curtail the public’s right to examine the operations of government and its decisions. As for ‘the presumption that all information of a factual and analytical nature available to government would be disclosed’, the government has consistently denied this view. Researchers asking for information on the government’s Workfare programme have been refused it on the grounds that it would generate opposition, make the policy unpopular, and stop it from working. Mike over at Vox Political and other bloggers, who have requested information on the number of people, who have died after having been assessed by Atos have had their requests refused, and then been denounced as ‘vexatious’ for daring to ask them. Mike is due to have his case heard by the Information Tribunal later. We wish him the best of luck. However, the operation of the Freedom of Information Act needs to be reformed so that there is a positive presumption in favour of releasing the information, regardless of whether or not such information will make the people’s governors uncomfortable.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Fabian View of the Need for Freedom of Information in Government and for the People”

  1. Mike Sivier Says:

    Reblogged this on Vox Political and commented:
    I agree. In fact, so does the Upper Tribunal: “It may be both annoying and irritating (as well as both dissatisfying and disappointing) for politicians and public officials to have to face FOIA requests designed to expose possible or actual wrongdoing. However, that cannot mean that such requests, properly considered in the light of all the circumstances and the legislative intention, are necessarily to be regarded as vexatious. The vexed issue of MPs’ expenses… is an obvious example that springs to mind.” (Judge Nicholas Wikely, IC v Dransfield). The current government is operating contrary to the intention of the FoI Act 2000.

  2. Colin M. Taylor Says:

    I used to be a Civil Servant, used to dealing with Highly-Classified documents.Under the Official Secrets Act 1911-1939, then Amended in the 1980s, it could even be an offence, under Section 2, to reveal how many sugars the Secretary of State had in his Tea. That section was a convenient ‘catch-all’ to silence anyone who stepped out of line as happened with Clive Ponting
    During my ‘Career’ it became clear that many of my Colleagues saw it as a measure of their importance to hold as many classified documents as possible.
    It also became apparent that many documents were classified solely in order to hide Ministerial or Official incompetence.
    As I see it, Information should be kept secret ONLY in the following areas:

    To prevent information on the UK’s Defence Capability falling into the hands of known or potential Enemy Nation States
    To prevent access to Technology, information or materials that could be exploited to produce Weapons capable of harming the people of the United Kingdom.
    To protect Intelligence sources that are used to protect the people of the United Kingdom.

    By hiding behind Official Secrecy, Governments prevent proper debate that would allow Proper governance of the country and Politicians to be properly held to account.

  3. stewilko Says:

    Reblogged this on stewilko's Blog.

  4. prayerwarriorpsychicnot Says:

    Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: