Open government is a sham, say MPs

CLAIMS by ministers that they are promoting "open government" are a sham and the whole policy is a farce, a powerful all-party group of MPs has concluded.

In a report due to be published this month, members of the Select Committee on the Ombudsman will highlight gaping holes in the Open Government Code of Practice launched with much fanfare by William Waldegrave, the then minister for open government, almost two years ago.

Its findings will be so negative, observers say, that it will increase substantially the pressure for a Freedom of Information Act.

The sharpest criticism will be directed against the failure of the government to put its money where its mouth is and back the policy with hard cash.

As a result, the public response - people taking advantage of their rights under the code and asking to see their Whitehall files - has been negligible. One MP says that the Government is guilty of "keeping open government a secret".

Figures obtained by the Independent on Sunday show that in its first year, 1994-95, only pounds 19,408 was spent on publicising the new code and in the current year only pounds 80,000 is earmarked. This compares with pounds 311,000 spent advertising the names of Charter Mark winners.

A breakdown of the figures has been compiled by the Labour MP Tony Wright, a member of the select committee. The Department of the Environment, he has learned, spent just pounds 170 on the Open Government code; the Department of Transport allocated pounds 1,338 and the Home Office only pounds 1,350. This money went on producing leaflets for branch offices and circulating staff with information - there has been no paid media advertising of any kind to tell the public of their entitlements under the code.

The Home Office, which runs prisons and oversees the police - and could be expected to give rise to applications by the public to see papers and make complaints - has distributed only 5,000 leaflets.

"These figures are pathetic," said Mr Wright. "The failure to publicise the new code makes a total mockery of any commitment to more open government.

"It's as though the Government does not want people to know about it. Sir Humphrey would be proud of the idea of keeping open government a secret."

Mr Wright added that the Government had also failed to introduce two promised pieces of legislation - new statutory rights of access to health and safety information, and the repeal of existing laws which suppress information.