Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove was mistaken to respond to a letter from newspaper editors with a defence of the government’s transparency record, argues Grant Dalton
Michael Gove’s response to stern criticism from newspaper editors and OpenDemocracy over government handling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests[1] is misjudged. A letter, signed by the editors of the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Times among others, accused the government of undermining transparency by ignoring or rejecting requests and cutting the budget of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.[2]
Gove’s fierce reply accused OpenDemocracy of a "tendentious" approach, with the minister for the Cabinet Office defending the government’s ‘transparent’ approach to Covid-19, including releasing "more proactive publications than ever before". However, as the IfG showed in Whitehall Monitor 2021, this is not the case. The truth is that a lack of transparency during this crisis has undermined public confidence in the government, and prevented independent scrutiny of how money was spent.
The government’s key spending in the early stages of the crisis was not well-documented, and crucial details, on how decisions were made, were missing. This prompted a damning National Audit Office (NAO) report which complained of "a lack of transparency and adequate documentation of some key decisions".[3]
Contracts were often awarded without any competitive tender process, as the normal process of publicly advertising procurement opportunities was suspended in favour of directly awarding contracts.
And details of spending were rarely released to the public on time. Just 25% of Covid-19 contracts were published within the 90-day target.[4] Details of departmental spending over £25,000 during the early months of the crisis, which should be published within a month of the spending, were not published until February 2021 by Public Health England – a delay of nearly a year.[5] NHS England spending data from April 2020 onwards is still yet to be published.[6]
Just eight departments met the required threshold of responding to 90% of FoI requests within 20 days in the first three quarters of 2020, compared to 13 departments in the whole of 2019. These delays are understandable, especially as the ICO (rightly) told departments they were permitted to prioritise elsewhere in the early days of the crisis.[7]
But the increasing numbers of requests which are being rejected or exempted are less acceptable, especially as the number of FoI requests fell during the pandemic. Across the first three quarters of 2020, information has been withheld in the majority – 56% – of FoI requests. The percentage of requests being withheld has consistently increased over the last 15 years: the rejection figure was 36% in 2005.
It is understandable that the government wishes to defend itself against accusations of poor transparency – and positive steps, such as publishing the minutes from SAGE meetings, have been made since the start of the pandemic. But Gove’s robust language suggests that he sees no problem with the current transparency system. If so, he is wrong.
Gove’s defence of his government’s record of publishing information also jars with that of his own junior minister, with Julia Lopez recognising in December that the NAO was "absolutely right in identifying delays to publishing documentation". The Cabinet Office’s parliamentary secretary expressed "regret" at the damage done to public trust.[8]
FoIs are not just a way for journalists to get scoops. They allow the public to find out information about how their government operates, increasing public engagement and helping government improve, through scrutiny and feedback. And an open approach to tendering for contracts – and setting out how government is spending money – does the same. The National Audit Office should be able to properly examine contracts.
As previous IfG work has suggested, governments must learn from their own mistakes during crises rather than waiting for an enquiry. If it fails to reflect on its approach over the last 12 months, then it risks damaging its relationship with the public and weakening efforts to improve value for money in procurement.
Transparency is a key way for the government to maintain trust in its decisions and can deflect accusations of cronyism. Recognising its poor record is the first step to making improvements, and would give civil servants and ministers the impetus to improve flagging transparency processes. Michael Gove should accept that mistakes have been made.
