EDITORIAL JANUARY 2006
Charlie Falconer The Guardian Saturday December 31, 2005
" power to the people"
 Following a seasonal lull around Christmas, readers who have followed my coverage of the Freedom of Information Act since its inception exactly a year ago may be fascinated by the hypocrisy apparent in the New Year's Eve statement by Lord Falconer. Only towards finishing perusing this curiously entitled article in The Guardian did I notice that it had been written by the Lord Chancellor himself!
It can be read in full on the newspaper's website, but meanwhile I offer our readers some extracts which relate to my own long-running quest for information carried by SCPNET prior to my becoming the Society's Editor, and updated since then.
In the absence of other pressing material, my contexts for returning to a topic of admittedly marginal concern to many doctors are:
1. Lord "Charlie" Falconer's encouraging statement marking the coming into operation of the Act:
"- - Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, said he expected that ministerial veto would be used only rarely - - The Lord Chancellor insisted that it would be used only under exceptional circumstances. He said: “That ministerial veto will be very rarely used.- -" The Times , January 1 2005:
as against
2. “ - - there is a tendency in some departments to use every argument that can be mounted, whether legally based, code-based or at times simply obstructive to prevent information being disclosed.- - Eventually, many people get fed up waiting for the information and go away." The Times 31 05 2005
Now, Lord Falconer writes to reassure readers of The Guardian:
- - From January 1 2005, we introduced a legally enforceable freedom of information regime. - - A year on, how is it doing? We have seen real change: the culture of secrecy in Whitehall, and beyond, is cracking open.
By seeing the factual basis on which decisions are made, the citizen can hold the public servant more fully to account. Our commitment was to openness, to transparency, to accountability. Always a central controversy in freedom of information is where to strike the balance between the public's right to know, and the legitimate retention of information. Good government is open government, but it is effective government too. While the act provides for a ministerial veto, as do almost all FoI regimes in the world - - boundaries will be set over the years on a case by case basis. The Information Commissioner has a backlog of cases. If he has concerns about his resources he should not hesitate to approach me. The numbers have now settled down. In the first quarter of 2005, central government answered 69% of requests for information within 20 working days; in the third quarter it was 81%. The vast majority of requests under the FoI Act have been about issues which have a real impact on people's lives. Freedom of information is about giving power to the people. We seek to achieve across the whole public sector a new culture of openness, fully embedded in each and every public authority, where information is made available to the widest possible audience at the earliest possible opportunity. · (Lord Falconer is the secretary of state for constitutional affairs)
Readers of SCPNET's Points of View will be under no illusion as to the realities of trying to obtain information from government departments, especially from Lord Falconer's own DCA, even about circumstances when patients' welfare or health had in no way been compromised. They will be aware of the irreconcilable nature of the statements I have highlighted, especially in the Editorials October/November 2005, and here again.
SCPNET, which has been noted for its persistent support for suffering of doctors coping with unwarranted suspensions, would be glad to hear of the experiences of any beleaguered doctors whether, in the new climate of openness celebrated by the Lord Chancellor, their requests for essential information have been met more expeditiously, with or without recourse to the Freedom of Information Commissioner?
Readers and their colleagues interested in medical law and ethics as it relates to politics, abuse of power, etc might see unnecessary governmental secrecy as it affects doctors being a topic to investigate, one offering an opportunity for an important and topical research area of potential interest? Politics attracts very little in the way of academic research and there is an ever increasing need for research into politically relevant topics (of which this is certainly one).
P G Woolf
|
