How the UK Government’s Culture of Secrecy Impacts Company Engagement
The UK government’s culture of secrecy poses a challenge for companies to engage with officials, advisers, and ministers. This culture was highlighted during Brexit negotiations, where secrecy was a consistent feature of British strategy. However, the public inquiry into the UK’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has shed some light on how this culture of reticence works. Heather Hallett, the judge presiding over the inquiry, has extensive powers to request documents and ordered the production of diaries, notebooks, and “WhatsApp communications recorded on devices owned or used by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson MP.” The Cabinet resisted, saying it had provided all relevant information to the investigation.
The Cabinet Office is the driving entity behind the UK’s culture of secrecy, working for the sitting Prime Minister and employing many securocrats who tend to avoid sunlight. The department regularly lies to Freedom of Information Act applicants because its priors are towards opacity and secrecy. However, the Cabinet Office revealed that it had no custody or control of Johnson’s data, resulting in the former prime minister deciding to hand over his documentation. Still, the government’s broader stance on non-corporate communication channels (NCCCs), such as private email, Whatsapp, and other messaging services, is problematic. The government’s view is that it is acceptable for civil servants to choose what communications are captured in government systems to support accountability, depending on what they consider significant.
The UK Government Views NCCCs as Acceptable for Civil Servants
The word “significant” is crucial as it leaves room for civil servants to decide arbitrarily which messages to archive, posing a problem for accountability and transparency. Nevertheless, there are enough reasons for the government to take a serious approach to this matter in Whitehall. It is impractical that people who gamble on onions or sell mortgage books are subject to stricter record-keeping rules than politicians who send people to their homes for months. The government’s avoidance of leaving behind documentation indicates a lack of trust, and it is essential to treat ministers, senior officials, and special advisers with the same suspicion as bankers.
Poll Results Show Lack of Unionism in Northern Ireland
One of the most critical subplots in the Brexit negotiations was Northern Ireland’s position within the union. A new poll from YouGov has indicated an issue for unionism because polls of people in Great Britain reflect that they do not think of Northern Ireland the same way they view Wales and Scotland. They would be more inclined to keep the Falkland Islands than Northern Ireland.
Summary:
The UK Government’s culture of secrecy poses a challenge for companies to engage with officials, advisers, and ministers. Heather Hallett, the judge presiding over the coronavirus inquiry, ordered Boris Johnson’s diaries, notebooks, and “WhatsApp communications recorded on devices owned or used” by Johnson to be produced. The Cabinet Office said it had no custody over Johnson’s data, and in response, Johnson decided to hand over his documentation, thus disarming Cabinet Office’s attempts to avoid disclosure. However, the broader stance on non-corporate communication channels (NCCCs), such as private email, Whatsapp, and other messaging services, allows civil servants to determine which messages to capture in government systems to support accountability, leaving room for ambiguity. A recent YouGov has indicated that the UK’s unionism is lacking in Northern Ireland.
The Impacts of the UK government’s Culture of Secrecy
The culture of reticence prevalent in the UK Government poses significant challenges for companies that want to engage with officials, advisers, and ministers. While officials, advisers and ministers may think they have better control over the flow of information, the truth is that it portrays their tactics as deeply irritating for journalists. This culture’s primary challenge is that companies have had a difficult time engaging with the UK government. The reason behind this challenge is that secrecy was a consistent feature of British strategy during Brexit negotiations, posing difficulties for companies’ interpretation of the government’s stance on Brexit.
The public inquiry into the UK’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has thrown light on how this culture of reticence works. Heather Hallett, the judge presiding over the inquiry, has extensive powers to request documents. In April, Hallett ordered the production of diaries, notebooks, and WhatsApp communications recorded on devices owned or used by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson MP. However, the Cabinet resisted, stating that it had already provided all relevant information to the investigation. Hallett disagreed and noted that the Cabinet had left out essential details, such as how lockdown rules were interpreted in relation to the police protest and how relations with decentralized administrations were handled.
The Cabinet Office is the driving entity behind the UK’s culture of secrecy and is the court for the sitting Prime Minister. With many securocrats, it tends to avoid sunlight and regularly lies to Freedom of Information Act applicants, stating its bias for opacity and secrecy. The Cabinet Office has no custody or control of Boris Johnson’s data, and the previous prime minister decided to hand over his documentation, disarming the Cabinet Office’s attempts to avoid disclosure. The government’s broader stance on NCCCs raises a red flag, and civil servants can decide which communications are significant and should be captured in government systems to support accountability. The word “significant” is crucial and leaves room for civil servants to determine which messages to archive, thus posing a problem for accountability and transparency.
Conclusion
At a time of global uncertainty and rapid change, companies must maintain a close relationship with governments to ensure they can operate in a conducive environment. However, when the government thrives on secrecy and prioritizes opacity over transparency, companies face enormous challenges trying to rationalize the message. While this culture of reticence has been prevalent in the UK Government, the public inquiry into the UK’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has shed some light on the situation. Nevertheless, the government’s broader stance on NCCCs is problematic, and civil servants can decide which communications are significant to capture in government systems to support accountability. This challenge underscores the need to treat ministers, senior officials, and special advisers with similar scepticism as bankers.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
This article is an on-site version of our newsletter on Britain after Brexit. Registration Here to receive the newsletter every week directly in your inbox
The British state is, for a journalist, a deeply irritating entity. Officials, ministers and advisers too often believe that the central power of government is its ability to control the flow of information. This is also one of the reasons why it is so difficult for companies to engage with the UK government.
This was shown on a large scale in the Brexit negotiations, where secrecy was the only consistent feature of British strategy. But this week she shed some light on how this culture of reticence works, thanks to the public inquiry into the UK’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The center of this story is Heather Hallett, a judge who presides over the inquiry and who, rather unusually, has extensive powers to request documents. In April she ordered the production of diaries, notebooks and “WhatsApp communications recorded on devices owned or used by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson MP”.
These messages were said to include “exchanges between senior government ministers, top civil servants and their advisers during the pandemic.” The Cabinet resisted: it said it had provided all the information to the investigation “relevant” messages (my italics). He had redacted the messages and said the missing messages were irrelevant.
Hallett disagreed, and noted that the department left out things that were clearly relevant, including how lockdown rules were interpreted in relation to the police protest and how relations with police were handled. decentralized administrations.
As lawyer and regular FT contributor David Allen Green has noted, Cabinet appears to be trying to shape the direction of the inquiry shape the evidence. But there’s something else here: the Cabinet Office is the driving entity behind Whitehall’s culture of secrecy.
The department is, after all, the court of the sitting Prime Minister. It works for him, not for you. He also has a lot of securocrats, people who generally don’t like sunlight. The Department regularly lies to Freedom of Information Act applicants because its priors are towards opacity and secrecy.
But this saga also showed something else. In the course of this correspondence, the Cabinet Office said it “has no custody or control” of Johnson’s data. He only saw her because the former prime minister was using government lawyers to prepare the inquiry. Johnson severed ties with the team after they reported him to police over another round of suspected lockout violations.
Johnson decided this week to hand it over, thus disarming the Cabinet Office’s attempts to avoid disclosure. Hallett has given the cabinet office until 4pm today to deliver the documents. At the time of writing, it was unclear whether the department was planning to do so or engage in a legal battle.
But just go back one step: did Johnson leave the government last year, yet the Cabinet had not obtained copies of this essential documentation? This is, somewhat surprisingly, in line with the government’s broader stance on the use of what it calls “non-corporate communication channels” (NCCCs): private email, WhatsApp, and other messaging services.
His ultimate guide to officials and ministers say, “Significant government information in NCCCs should be captured in government systems to support accountability.”
But he goes on, rather coyly, to tell the reader that he must judge what is significant: “You are responsible for deciding whether this applies to each communication . . .”
In short, the government’s view is that it is okay for Johnson, as a civil servant, to be normally charged with sifting, safeguarding and providing his messages to the government for archiving. This all relies on people being honest about what counts as work. The word “significant” is also important. As in: “Ah yeah, my beer with that guy bidding on this government contract era at work but no significant.”
I say how a veteran of the fight for access to public information: you can’t trust them. There is a strategy here. People at the top of government are allowed to use private messengers, are allowed to decide what gets disclosed or kept for archiving, and have a record of coming up with weird reasons to avoid ever revealing anything.
At the same time, WhatsApp has its effects. As the Institute for Government put it, “he emphasized . . . informal ways of working. This is a dream scenario for dishonest lobbyists and a problem for the conventional and honest business that makes a case thoroughly highlighted through approved channels.
However, it’s a problem we can fix. It might be worth, for a moment, to look into the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules for people in a wide range of regulated financial activity:
A company must take all reasonable steps to prevent an employee or contractor from making, sending or receiving telephone conversations and relevant electronic communications on privately owned equipment that the company is unable to record or copy.
This is, as anyone working in a regulated entity knows, taken seriously: a contact told me of the rampage of a senior colleague who, having failed to respond to inquiries about his systems of work, was contacted on WhatsApp to deal with a urgent matter. While colleagues were right to harangue him, that single message would spell annoyance as the FCA now has a legitimate interest in their phone.
There are more than enough reasons to take such an approach in Whitehall. It’s absurd that Britain is a place where people who gamble on onion prices or sell mortgage books are subject to much stricter record-keeping rules than politicians who have locked people up in their homes for months. Your guess should be a deep suspicion of the people who work so hard to avoid leaving behind any document trail.
It would be wise to start treating ministers, special advisers and senior officials with the same suspicion as bankers.
Brexit in numbers
One of the most important subplots in the Brexit negotiations was, of course, Northern Ireland’s position within the union. A new poll from YouGov points to a key problem for unionism: polls of people in Great Britain they show that they simply don’t think of Northern Ireland in the same way they think of Scotland and Wales.
They would, in fact, be a little more inclined to keep the Falkland Islands than Northern Ireland.
Britain after Brexit is curated today by Georgina Quach. Premium subscribers can sign up here receive it directly in their mailbox every Thursday afternoon. Or you can subscribe to a Premium subscription Here. Read previous editions on the newsletter Here.
https://www.ft.com/content/0c66e5e4-63a6-46cd-a65c-19091cc11e9e
—————————————————-