Curb spindoctors and lift veil of Whitehall secrecy, says report
Rosemary BennettTony Blair will be told today in a hard-hitting report to overhaul the entire machinery of government communications and to lift the veil of secrecy that covers Whitehall business.
Bob Phillis, chief executive of the Guardian Media Group and author of the report, will recommend that more ministers brief the press and not leave the business of delivering the Government's message to spindoctors.The report, commissioned by Mr Blair to try to rebuild trust between the Government, the media and the public, will also say that the Freedom of Information Act passed by Labour is woefully inadequate for a modern democracy. An urgent review is needed if public faith in government is to be restored.
The Act was dramatically watered down by the Government before it became law in the last Parliament amid panic that Whitehall would become hamstrung if ministers and officials thought that their private papers could one day be made public.
The report will say that government departments must give the Act "the most liberal interpretation possible" and not constantly err on the side of caution.
However, to great relief of the Government, Mr Phillis stops short of recommending that the Act itself is amended. New guidance for departments will be a first step in opening up Whitehall, he will say.
The shortcomings of the Act, a manifesto pledge for Labour in 1997, were made clear by the Hutton inquiry, which unearthed vast quantities of information about government employees, policy and how ministers and aides conduct business.
Campaigners for more freedom of information said that it made the Act, with its lengthy list of exemptions over what can and cannot be released to the public, appear rather limp.
The Act places three hurdles in the way of publication of government documents. "Class exemptions" state that they cannot be published if that would damage commercial and security interests. Secondly, they cannot be published if it would harm individuals. If these two hurdles are overcome, ministers have a right to veto publication.
In his report, Mr Phillis makes clear that civil servants must have more power over the communications process. The powers formerly held by Alastair Campbell, who used to be Downing Street's communications director, should be given to a civil servant rather than to a political appointee.
Mr Campbell had ultimate control over communications in all Whitehall departments, and was able to tell them what to announce, when and how to do it.
Eager to show that Downing Street has changed before Lord Hutton makes his report next week, Mr Blair has pre-empted the Phillis report by offering to accept all his key recommendations. He has promised to appoint a civil servant to the job and has already advertised for the new post of "Permanent Secretary of Government Communications". David Hill, his new communications chief, has been given a much more clearly political function, with no powers over other departments.
Mr Phillis will say that communications need to be more central to the policy-making process and not just tacked on at the end in a panic when officials realise that aspects of an initiative may be unpopular.
He will also call for greater openness in the daily briefings to political correspondents. The report wants lobby briefings to be televised, to lose their reputation for secrecy.
Downing Street officials have accepted that White House-style televised briefings are now inevitable if new Labour is to lose its reputation for being obsessed by spin.
Lord Hutton may criticise some elements of the communications operation in relation to the death of the weapons expert Dr David Kelly.
However, the Phillis report was commissioned long before, when the row over unelected special advisers erupted after the Jo Moore affair. Ms Moore sent an e-mail on September 11, 2001, asking if any unfavourable announcements could be issued under cover of the terrorist attacks.
Officials then came forward with complaints that they were being asked to do too much political work, which ran counter to their pledge of impartiality.