As fears grow that the Freedom of Data Act is under threat, ex-cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell discusses its strengths – and weaknesses – with campaigner Heather BrookeTony Blair described himself as an “irresponsible nincompoop” for bringing in the Freedom of Data Act; David Cameron says it ”furs up” the arteries of administration. Amid campaigners’ fears that the act is under threat, the Ministry of Justice this week released figures showing requests went up 7% at the end year. FOI campaigner and journalist Heather Brooke and former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell discuss what, if anything, needs to alter.Gus O’Donnell: The most vital body is excellent governance and for the public to get the fair decisions. That is helped by maximum openness. I’m a bit of a freak for evidence-based analysis. I strongly believe in data.Heather Brooke: Why don’t you like FOI then? That’s exactly the kind of journalism I try to do, however find impossible in Britain, since there are no public records or legitimate ways to access vital data, given that the FOI Act doesn’t employment in a timely path.GO: This comes back to how we handle openness. When you do legislation, particularly in an area such as data, it’s related to the circumstances of the age, however data and the modes of putting it outside there alter all the age. I’m a fan of getting as much data and data outside there as quickly as imaginable.HB: The cause human beings have to constitute FOI requests is since the data isn’t there – if I desire to get behind crime statistics, I can’t get the data I desire in enough detail and so I have to constitute an FOI.GO: If they have reliable data, why aren’t they releasing it? That’s the inquiry. It’s got nothing to do with legislation. We demand culture alter – a presumption, once you have data, to get it outside there.HB: The culture is that the human beings in ability know best for everyone else. FOI levels the playing field.GO: However that’s what is incorrect with it. If we changed it to a presumption, so the public servants saw it as their duty to get as much data outside there as early and complete as imaginable, that would transform things. It would be far more effective than FOI. We shouldn’t wait for an individual to request it. I am probably more radical than you on FOI.HB: We demand legislation – it is the only path to get the fair to know taken seriously by administration and public supply, with sanctions if it’s not obeyed.GO: The problems with a legislative route, you have a code that got through some age ago. Things have went on. I would like something principles-based, which would have a longer shelf-lifetime. I gave evidence to the justice select committee about revising the FOI Act and I reckon they could be quite radical in this presumption of openness and that would remove some of the uncertainties. The problems are also much uncertainty, and also there are certain things where you demand some safe hour for ministers to have disagreements.HB: They already have that.GO: It’s subject to a public interest check so you have absolutely no thought if …HB: There is a ministerial veto.GO: We have, however if you employ the veto lots of times, that’s a terrible outcome and would exhibit the original legislation was flawed. I would be radical in getting data outside, however would desire a safe hour for ministers to disagree with each other – for us to keep accurate records of that, however for it to be kept private for a certain age.HB: And would decisions be made in that hour? That’s the worry. Not everything is “data”.GO: You would allow cabinet a safe hour to consider the pros and cons of a particular policy.HB: Isn’t this the hour Jeremy Hunt found himself in, making the choice about BskyB? I could not have got those emails and texts from FOI, so there was a safe hour for that data. That’s a shame since the public demand to know about the lobbying that went on behind the scenes. FOI gives the human beings who control the data the ability to choose whether they’re going to release it or not. Outside human beings demand to be able to get into the heart of ability.Emine Saner: Do you reckon there should be any “safe hour”?HB: I do, however where you have an exemption, it quickly becomes abused. National security is the ultimate exemption, and sins and incompetencies can be hidden. The cause there is a abundance of distrust about the motivation of politicians to desire this safe hour comes from the Iraq war minutes [the cabinet meeting where the legal status of the war was discussed]. That was one of the first FOI requests I made, and a abundance of journalists made it, and we didn’t get it. Eventually the commissioner ruled it had to be released, however it was a ministerial veto that overturned it. That is why I feel nervous about giving carte blanche privacy, certainly when the administration has this escalation of spying on citizens. Don’t you feel there is a double average?GO: There may be areas where it is vital for intelligence agencies to be able to access certain data and, yes, you demand lots of safeguards for that. If we are going to revise FOI, I would like a very clear fresh piece of legislation that everybody knows applies. So when I inscribe a locate of cabinet minutes, I know if they are in a safe hour. Immediately, I don’t know. [In a cabinet meeting] if someone is courageous enough to capture on another secretary of state and disagree with something, if they reckon that data is going to become available, the risk is those conversations will end up being undertaken on mobile phones, not on any recordable method. There is a fantastic risk of unintended consequences.ES: Aren’t they using private email accounts and words messages?GO: I dread they are. Human beings find a hour where they conduct conversations. It becomes unrecorded, it could be based on misconceptions, quite often civil servants are not involved at all and I reckon it leads to really terrible policy.HB: A abundance of huge decisions were made without minutes before FOI when they didn’t feel they had to justify them to the public. I’m thinking of Blair’s choice on the NHS IT project, which we hear was chose on the sofa in the Cabinet Office. By making it clear the public can’t find outside how a choice is made, you risk a politician making a poor choice.GO: There are times when public policies aren’t as excellent as they should be and you and I share the desire to constitute them as evidence-based as imaginable, however it’s not FOI that is going to do that, it’s getting the fair human beings to do the analysis.HB: What about the FOI alter? Do you have a sense of whether they’re going to impose fees or roll it back?GO: This should be about improving openness and transparency. If you commence from a mindset that says, “let’s improve public policy” I reckon you come up with the fair legislation and it will be very different from the legislation we have immediately, with its grey areas. I would have complete exemption for cabinet minutes and it’s absolutely honest for you to affirm: “How do we constitute certain that’s not abused?” The body I attention about just as much is making certain we don’t propel policy into the non-FOI-able hour.Heather Brooke is author of The Revolution Will Be Digitised: Dispatches from the Data War published by William Heinemann, available for £10.39 at guardianbookshop.co.ukFreedom of informationEmine Sanerguardian.co.uk © 2012 Twitter News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Employ of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
DOWNLOAD: Colt Mccoy