Tag Archives: coalition

The illusion of transparency

A little more information a little less corruption please. (Image: Jamaican anti-corruption poster c/o freestylee on Flickr.)

Since the coalition formed in the spring of last year, transparency has been placed at the heart of government policy. Or at least, that is what the Cameron government have been keen to put across to the electorate. It has become a central plank of government policy and the coalition has repeatedly given its commitment to be the most transparent government in the world.

A couple of months ago, Cameron’s chief advisor, Steve Hilton, spoke at the launch of YouGov Cambridge. Underlining the government’s commitment to the transparency agenda, Hilton said he wanted to turn a Britain of “post code lotteries into a world of post code choices”. A Britain where crime data was easily and readily available, where negligent doctors were exposed and taxpayers were able to view data about contracts that exceeded budgets. Essentially, all public services would be made fully open and transparent so taxpayers could make ‘informed’ choices on a range of issues. So far, so admirable. But the extent of the transparency agenda leaves a lot to be desired.

Despite expressing the intention to make this government the most transparent (an admirable aim considering the UK government’s historic reputation as being one of the most secretive democracies), there are clearly aspects of government that are excluded from this transparency agenda. Take the recent storm over the private emails exchanged between Michael Gove and his advisers. It seems apparent that Gove and his advisers believed that by conducting discussions about sensitive policy issues, such as the school literacy programme, using private emails rather than the official government email address, they would not be subject to Freedom of Information requests and, therefore, provide an opportunity for more candid discussion.

Thankfully, and possibly much to the annoyance of politicians and civil servants, the information commissioner has declared that private emails are subject to freedom of information requests and must therefore be disclosed when a request is made. This ruling could now be subject to an inquiry by the public administration committee, chaired by Bernard Jenkin MP. Whilst Jenkin is, according to The Guardian at least, a supporter of the Freedom of Information Act, there are concerns amongst ministers and civil servants that it’s scope is being extended far beyond what they envisaged. Sir Gus O’Donnell, previously the UK’s top civil servant, is on record as claiming that the Act itself was a ‘mistake’ and it had a ‘negative effect’ on government procedures. Given Gove’s actions (surely he wouldn’t have used private emails if he thought they would be subject to the Act) it is clear that MPs will be concerned about the commissioner’s ruling.

All this suggests that whilst the government is keen to encourage an environment of transparency around outcomes, they are less concerned with transparent decision-making. If the government is truly serious about open government, this disparity needs to be addressed. It is not enough to simply have access to a range of information related to outcomes of government (either national or local) and yet not present the electorate with complete transparency in terms of policy. For any fully functional democracy it is essential that the electorate have access to information about the workings of government. Without such access it is difficult for the electorate to put trust in their representatives. As the recent corruption perceptions index has shown, the UK is still some way off the top ten. The revelations about News International, particularly in relation to Andy Coulson, will also have done much to undermine trust in our elected representatives. There has certainly been little in the way of transparency in terms of the Prime Minister’s relationship with News International, not to mention the extent of links between Coulson and News International when he was at the heart of government.

Transparency should be at the very heart of government operations, but it should infiltrate every aspect, not just those convenient for politicians and civil servants. If we truly want to have a fully transparent, effective democracy, we need more information about the operations of ministers and government departments as well as greater accountability and more power in the hands of the electorate to act on the information disclosed. Only then will we have a truly open and democratic government. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the coalition will truly fulfil those ambitions.

Information key to addressing corruption

5 Replies

Truly free information can curtail corruption (image c/o _cheryl on Flickr).

Transparency International UK (TI) recently announced the results of the 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) with New Zealand coming top and, unsurprisingly, North Korea and Somalia bottom. As for the UK, whilst it has fared better than France, Spain and the USA, it still sits outside the top 10 in sixteenth place.

According to TI:

The CPI ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, a combination of polls, drawing on corruption-related data collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI reflects the views of observers from around the world, including experts living and working in the countries/territories evaluated.

Given this methodology it is not hard to see why the UK continues to receive such a disappointing ranking. The revelations in terms of MP expenses and the ongoing phone hacking scandal have done much to encourage a perception that public officials, civil servants and politicians are corrupt (the definition of ‘corruption’ applied by TI is ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’). And even on a smaller scale, at local level, it’s not difficult to see how this perception continues to hold sway with pockets of the UK population. It would not be surprising, for example, for the people of Gloucestershire and Doncaster to perceive a degree of corruption in the way their local authorities have handled library closures.

In terms of the UK, the figures are particularly disappointing given the commitment the coalition has made to transparency. Chandu Krishnan, Executive Director of TI, explains:

“Given the Government’s promise to commit to transparency, the UK should have progressed enough to be achieving a top five ranking. However, practices that have been taken for granted for many years are still awaiting change, such as the willingness of politicians to accept corporate and media hospitality and ‘revolving door’ employment between major media companies, political offices and the police.”

Furthermore, TI suggests two ‘imperative’ changes need to be made:

1. Clean up politics – Recent scandals involving the movement of individuals between government and the private sector – such as the cases of Geoff Hoon and Andy Coulson – have highlighted the corruption vulnerabilities left open by the current system. Political party funding also needs reform, as recently highlighted by the Kelly report.

2. Adequately acknowledge UK corruption problem – There is no individual or institution with the remit to coordinate a robust response to corruption in the UK – although ironically the government has an ‘overseas anti-corruption champion’. This remit must be extended to cover domestic corruption.

There is no doubt that there is a serious lack of transparency in the UK, despite the introduction of legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, it would be fair to argue that such legislation has not really gone far enough. There is still a substantial amount of information that is not obtainable through FoI and the appeals process is far too long and impractical. Even now, after promises of transparency from the coalition, it is often necessary to commit a great deal of time and effort to obtaining information about even the most basic actions of the government and elected officials.

But what of those that lead the way in terms of low perceptions of corruption? According to the CPI, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland and Sweden have consistently ranked highest in the CPI and are perceived as the least corrupt nations. Marie Chêne, Senior Research Coordinator at Transparency International, notes a number of reasons for this:

Beside law enforcement, there is a broad consensus that fighting corruption involves public participation and transparency mechanisms such as disclosure of information.

Preliminary findings from upcoming country studies for Finland, Denmark and Sweden indicate that this “integrity system” function relatively well in these countries.

Recent studies show that freedom of the press is positively correlated with control of corruption in well established democracies. Finland, Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand all have high GDP per capita, low inequality rates, literacy rates close to 100 %, and prioritise human right issues (e.g. gender equality, freedom of information).

Crucially, they all perform well in terms of government openness and effectiveness.

There needs to be greater co-operation between the state and the people (image c/o watchsmart on Flickr).

Chêne also points out that these countries also enable greater citizen participation in the business of government (including assessing how government manages public funds), codes of conduct for public servants and a legal framework for criminalising a range of corruption related abuses.

Whilst it is fair to say that the UK’s standing isn’t exactly disastrous, it could be so much better and with this coalition’s supposed commitment to transparency it should be easy to address the concerns raised by Transparency International. The key to addressing these concerns is public involvement. Inform the populace to a greater degree on how government operates, create an environment of transparency that prevents corporate lobbying from being hidden from the public and deal robustly with any corruption conducted by politicians and civil servants.

As is so often the case, information is utterly key. We need a free press that holds government to account for its actions rather than, as is so often the case, acting as its mouthpiece. We need true freedom of information across the board rather than enduring lengthy appeals processes for information that gets to the heart of government business. Without information the guilty cannot be held to account for their actions. Create a truly transparent society where the government and the governed work in tandem and the perceptions of corruption will diminish. Such a society, however, is unlikely for as long as politicians believe that as the perception of corruption diminishes, so will their power and influence.

For the full results of the 2011 CPI, see the interactive visualisation below (scores are based on a maximum of 10):

It is the children who are paying for our ‘debt crisis’

Leave a reply

They may not be saddled with debt, but their future will suffer (image c/o Vince Alongi on Flickr)

Since the 2010 election, the coalition government have repeatedly underlined the need for the national debt to be cut. Never mind that the national debt has been proportionally higher for most of the last 200 years and cuts on this scale have not been attempted before. One of the arguments often put forward by the coalition and its supporters is that we must pay the debts now to ensure that we do not load that debt onto future generations. Take Fraser Nelson writing in The Spectator:

The Prime Minister was right: it is unfair. Debt is nothing more than delayed taxation. To saddle the next generation with billions upon billions of debt is not just an economic failure, but a moral failure.

Or David Davis at ConservativeHome:

Let me make it quite clear. It would have been immoral for the Government to load yet more debt on future generations to repay. And it would have been economically illiterate. David Cameron and George Osborne should be congratulated for having the courage to grasp this nettle so decisively and so immediately.

And from The Telegraph:

Mr Cameron has opposed Gordon Brown’s policies of borrowing billions to fund temporary tax cuts and continued public spending, arguing that it is “immoral” to burden future generations with huge Government debts.

The message is clear: deal with the debt or the next generation will end up paying. Whilst it is ‘immoral’ for future generations to be burdened with debt, it is not apparently ‘immoral’ for the next generation to pay for the errors of the financial sector and central government.

The Sunday Mirror has today revealed that around 250 SureStart centres are set to close due to budget cuts*, despite pledge from the Conservatives that they will be protected (this follows a previous study earlier this year conducted by families charity 4Children and the Daycare Trust). In Sheffield, home to Nick Clegg’s constituency, ‘more than 30 centres are facing the axe’. The revelations follow a Freedom of Information request by the newspaper that exposed that 90% of councils will reduce their spending on Sure Start in 2012. Sure Start is an important scheme because it is:

an investment in young children and their families, which is rather like an investment in education. Costs are incurred in the short term in the expectation that there will be a return on that investment in the longer term. One of the main reasons for investing early is that in the development of children’s potential, they need to have achieved lower level milestones before they can move onto higher ones.

Cutting investment in Sure Start centres is effectively cutting investment in the next generation’s education and curtailing their potential. Whilst they won’t be saddled with debt, their futures will be seriously compromised.

And it is not just through cuts to Sure Start that the next generation are paying for the economic policies of successive governments. There is, of course, the substantial rise in tuition fees which will mean that the average degree will now cost at least £27,000 to obtain (of course, this does not include the substantial material and living costs associated with going to university). There are already claims that there has been a significant decline in the numbers of students applying to go to university in the light of the substantial financial burden that will be placed on them. So much for placing the burden of debt on future generations as ‘immoral’.

This shifting of the burden can also be seen in the current situation for our public library network. As Public Library News has reported, over 400 public libraries across the country are in very real danger of closure. This will have a substantial impact on our children and their development. Earlier this year, the National Literacy Trust published a paper demonstrating the positive impact a professionally run library service has on our children’s development. According to their research:

…this new study of 17,089 pupils aged 8 to 16 finds that young people who use their public library are nearly twice as likely to be above average readers than peers who don’t visit their library (18% compared with 9.5%). The research also reveals:

Nearly half (44%) of the 8-16 year olds surveyed use their public library

Library users are more than twice as likely to read outside of class everyday (47% vs. 22%)

7-11 year olds are nearly three times more likely to use the library than 14-16 year olds (63% vs 25%)

Over a third (38%) of young people who use the library believe it will help them to do better at school

The most common reasons children cited for not going to the library were that their family does not go (52%) and that their friends do not go (40%)

It is also worth noting that despite the cut to book funding (see my post here for a fuller explanation) children’s borrowing is still increasing. In fact, children’s use of professionally run libraries has been perhaps the greatest success of the public library network in recent years. Furthermore, it is also worth noting that a number of libraries are co-located with Sure Start centres, such as Lindley in Kirkless. In this context it is not difficult to see the impact library closures will have on the educational attainment of the future generations.

Whilst the politicians and the commentators are happy to claim that it would be ‘immoral’ to load debt onto future generations, they see no problem with making the next generation pay for the profligacy of the bankers and the negligence of politicians of all shades. They may be relieved of the burden of debt by this coalition, but they will almost certainly pay for it. In the words of Fraser Nelson ‘this is not just an economic failure, but a moral failure’.

* The Observer also reports that 3,500 centres are under threat, but it is not clear on where this figure comes from.

What the coalition government can learn from Steve Jobs

We need information on ‘special interests’

2 Replies

David Cameron at the G8 Summit in Deauville (Image c/o Guillaume Paumier on Flickr)

Early last year, in the run-up to the general election, David Cameron gave a speech outlining one of his main objectives should he win the election. In his speech he declared:

It’s hard because there will always be people who want to preserve the status quo even when it isn’t working in everyone’s interests.

To maintain their privileges.

To maintain their position.

To make sure that the way things work suit them, rather than everyone else.

They’re called vested interests, they are the enemies of change and often they will use any means to block progress.

So any politician who thinks they can just sweep in and implement their plans is sorely mistaken.

You can’t bring about political change unless you confront those who want to protect the status quo come what may.

Political leadership means standing up for the people – and standing up to those who act against their interests.

What does that mean?

Put simply, you can’t change Britain unless you take on vested interests.

It would seem that these ‘vested interests’ did not include big business or special interest groups. The Guardian revealed today that, in the first ten months of the coalition, ministers held more than 1,500 meetings with corporate representatives. The paper goes on to claim that there were around 1,400 meetings with thinktanks and other interest groups. Workers representatives had only 130 meetings with ministers and charities around 800. Clearly certain ‘vested interests’ are not subject to Cameron’s attack.

It has also emerged that the outside interests of a number of MPs’ staff and researchers are also questionable. KPMG, for example, are listed as having links with parliamentary staff. It was KPMG who first floated the idea of libraries run by volunteers in a report published last year. With the current situation facing public libraries across the country, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that someone with links to KPMG is pushing this policy at the DCMS – something that should alarm and concern library campaigners everywhere. What chance any campaign if ‘vested interests’ are ensuring that ministers ignore the will of the people and push forward with their agenda? If only it were these ‘vested interests’ the government were trying to take on.

According to data gathered by The Guardian, there does not appear to be any evidence that KPMG have any links with anyone at the DCMS, but their data is not extensive – there are gaps. If anyone is able to see any links within their data set, I’d certainly be interested to hear about it. It seems highly unlikely that they have no links whatsoever when their report appears to form the foundation for library policy in local government. The fact that Ed Vaizey has taken no action whatsoever to defend the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, also appears to be consistent with KPMG’s report.

Whilst there are no obvious links at present, I would suggest that library campaigners keep a close eye out for potential links between the DCMS and KPMG. One way of doing that is by checking out the ‘Who Lobbying?’ website. The site is described as ‘a place to access data about lobbying activity in the UK without having to poke around through dense, difficult-to-navigate websites and hard to find PDF documents’. It provides links to data on ‘organisations in ministerial meetings’, meeting purposes and specific information related to particular lobbying groups. Personally, I think that bookmarking each of these links and checking on them regularly may prove to be useful to discover what is driving library closures across the country. Although it is interesting to note that there appears to have been virtually no ministerial meetings regarding libraries between May and December 2010 at the DCMS. Unusual at the very least considering the current situation.

There’s no denying that there is a real need for greater information about the inner workings of government. There should be transparency across the board and we should know the detail of every meeting held behind closed doors with these ‘vested interests’. Allowing this kind of activity only serves to create the impression that government isn’t working for the many but the few. Total transparency will make government more accountable and reassure the electorate that our system is not beholden to ‘vested interests’. It’s time for Cameron to make good with his pledge, edge it is business as usual for ‘old’ politics.