PLC Public Sector reports:
Aside from the promised frontal assault on the national deficit, probably the most frequent commitment being made by the new government, and in particular David Cameron, is to provide greater transparency to the general public about the cost and success (or failure) of government.
In his first podcast since becoming prime minister, he promised “to rip off [the] cloak of secrecy” and on 1 June 2010, we saw the first example of this drive, with the much-reported publication of a list that showed there are a lot of people in central government who earn quite a lot of money. Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude promises that this is “just the start of what we plan to do” and we can expect to see details of hospital infection rates and government spending (via opening up the, apparently somewhat unwieldy, COINS database) in the coming days.
Of more interest to local government, and the subject to a lower news profile, is likely to be the contents of a letter sent by David Cameron on 31 May 2010 to all central government departments which outlined what this new drive is likely to mean in practice.
The letter details two requirements that will impact directly on local government:
It will not suffice to publish summaries of this information, the letter makes it clear that the government’s commitment to a “right to data” means that the underlying data must also be available in a standard format so that it can be re-used with the minimum of difficulty.
Similar provisions will apply to central government spending (although the threshold for central government spending will be £25,000 for spending and £10,000 for tenders, rather than £500).
These new requirements have been widely-trailed in the period since the coalition was formed and will not therefore come as a shock to local government. However, those working in local government are likely to be pondering some unanswered questions, including:
Just what is meant by “new”? particularly with regard to details of spending that will have to be published. Does it mean a new spending commitment or just making a payment in respect of an invoice issued under a contract that has been running for years? Obviously, the latter would impose a more significant burden.
How is this information going to be disclosed? the section of the letter referring to central government talks of a single website that will make details of all central government tenders available free of charge. However, we assume that it will be left to individual local authorities to make all of their own information available themselves. Making this level of information available in a relatively short timescale will not be straightforward for many authorities and may require investment in IT infrastructure. It seems strange that, at a time where the value of sharing services is being extolled, at first glance every single local authority in the country appears to being left to their own devices to deliver part of what is clearly a key aspect of the government’s transparency programme.
Where does all this leave commercial confidentiality? it is not immediately clear if contracts will have to published in full, with no regard for any confidential information contained within them and if details of spending will need to be broken down giving details of the make up of suppliers’ charges. If the answer to either of these queries is yes, there will considerable opposition from the private sector and a significant body of case law on the Freedom of Information Act, the Environmental Information Regulations and the Audit Commission Act would be consigned to history.
The letter calls on its recipients to start taking steps to implement these new requirements as soon as possible. We hope that Eric Pickles at the DCLG will seek answers to the questions above on behalf of local government sooner rather than later, in the meantime local authorities will need to start looking into whether they have the IT capabilities to provide the general public with open access to this type of information.