It’s now eight months since the UK’s Open Government Partnership (OGP) 2013-15 National Action Plan was launched at the London OGP Summit. Over the 12 months before its launch, the action plan was developed collaboratively by the UK Government and members of the UK OGP civil society network. As well as securing a number of strong commitments, the process of developing the action plan itself sought to model an open and collaborative approach to policy making.
As coordinators of the civil society network, it has always been Involve’s ambition to push that process ever further. We’re proud of the level of collaboration we were able to achieve, but we’re not content with the open government conversation and movement being limited to the small portion of society it has been. And we want to continue to stretch and challenge what can be done within the framework of the Open Government Partnership – making the most of the opportunities and facing up to the challenges it presents us with.
With that in mind, since the publication of the last action plan, we’ve been working hard behind the scenes to secure funding for our coordination of the network to make a reality of these ambitions. I’m very pleased to be able to announce that Omidyar Network have agreed to fund our role for the next two years. Fantastic news, I hope you’ll agree.
As many of you will know, Omidyar Network have been a big supporter of the Open Government Partnership internationally, through both the financial and intellectual capital they have devoted to it. Indeed, Martin Tisné – director of policy at Omidyar Network – helped to found the OGP and is a civil society steering committee member. We are very excited to be working with a funder that has demonstrated such a commitment to establishing and developing the OGP and open government movement.
Our thanks must go to Laura Bacon, Martin Tisné and Andrew Clarke at Omidyar Network for working with us to secure this grant. We share the same ambition to innovate and stretch the operation of OGP at a national level, ensuring that it is an effective advocacy tool for civil society, creates new spaces and opportunities for reformers to collaborate and extends the dialogue deeper into government, civil society and beyond.
There’s a lot to do over the next couple of years, and I’m not going to outline it all here. We’ll be looking for advice and support at various points in the coming months in deciding how we go about achieving much of it. The key things we will be working towards are:
- Building a broader and more diverse network of open government reformers
- Ensuring delivery of existing open government commitments
- Supporting development of new open government commitments
- Prototyping new open and collaborative models of working with and within government
- Gaining political support for open government and OGP across parties
With the General Election now less than a year away, the latter is particularly pressing. We want to use this opportunity to crowdsource an open government manifesto, allowing us to both broaden the open government conversation and build understanding of open government and the OGP across all political parties’. We intend to use the manifesto to advocate for open government commitments to be included within election manifestos and programmes for government of the political parties’, giving us a set of ready made commitments to develop for the next OGP action plan.
One other exciting element of the work I’ll mention now is a challenge fund to provide small grants to CSOs who put forward an interesting and innovative proposal for working towards one or more of the above goals. In the coming months we’ll be working with the CSO network to establish the criteria and process for the allocation of these funds.
Lots of exciting opportunities and challenges lie ahead – I hope to work with many of you on tackling them. If you’re a UK based civil society organisation or citizen, please get involved: http://www.opengovernment.org.uk/engage/
Tim Hughes, Open Government Programme Manager, Involve
On 26 February 2014, members of the UK OGP civil society network met with Cabinet Office officials to discuss the implementation phase of the National Action Plan. The purpose of the meeting was to:
- Update the network on progress to date
- Run through the proposed implementation plan
- Determine roles and responsibilities for the next phase
Progress to date
Outline of approach
It was outlined that:
- The National Action Plan implementation has now been integrated into the ongoing programme of work of the Transparency Team – relationship managers would act as the link to departments to keep abreast of progress on commitments, feeding into a centralised coordination function.
- Involve is continuing to seek funding for coordination of the civil society network – and is currently performing the role unfunded.
- The OGP website has been updated with commitments from the new National Action Plan.
It was asked whether and how the collaborative approach to developing the commitments has carried through to the implementation of commitments.
It was reported that:
- The anti-corruption commitment is progressing well, with CSOs having been in contact with the Home Office and a workshop scheduled for the 7th March.
- Progress was being made on CoST internationally, though a lack of budget was still an issue. A list of potential options were being looked at for countries to get onboard.
- At a domestic level, not so much progress had been made due to other work. Those involved were looking to set up a meeting to start taking it forward.
- Conversations had taken place with the Cabinet Office on the open policy making commitment, but these have not to date been properly joined up. There needs to be better coordination of engagement with the different groups involved going forward.
- The beneficial ownership commitment was also highlighted as an area where more coordination was needed.
- A good start has been made on the open contracting commitment – with a roundtable having been held.
Outline of approach
The suggested implementation approach was outlined, with:
- Government and civil society leads continuing to work together to implement commitments against the agreed milestones
- Cabinet Office Transparency Team relationship managers keeping track of progress on their departments’ commitments and to provide support where needed.
- Regular progress updates produced in partnership between government and civil society, and published on the OGP website
It was clear from discussion that there was a need to ensure that CSOs interested in each commitment were properly coordinated, and invitations to any meetings were circulated around the full network by the lead CSOs on each commitment in advance to ensure that all who wished to be involved could be. It was also briefly discussed what principles should be applied to these meetings to ensure that they are open, perhaps including:
- Open meeting invitations
- Remote participation where possible
- Meeting notes
It was agreed that Tim Hughes (Involve) should develop a set of principles, based on those developed for the full group meetings, that would be discussed with the CSO network and government. It was highlighted that capacity to oversee the implementation process from civil society’s perspective was currently limited due to lack of funding for the coordination role. It was also proposed that the CSO network and Cabinet Office should revisit the open policy making principles developed for the process to check whether they needed updating.
It was also discussed that thought was needed on how to best capture progress and reporting from the CSO network’s perspective. Ideas discussed included an online wiki that allowed for exchange of information among civil society or a monthly circulation on the email list. Cabinet Office Transparency Team will also be providing informal feedback within government. Lizetta Lyster (Cabinet Office) agreed to explore options for tracking commitments.
Governance and leadership
Outline of approach
It was outlined that the proposal is to set up a steering committee with Nick Hurd (Minister for Civil Society) would be formed to provide strategic leadership and maintain momentum. It is envisaged that this committee would have bi-annual meetings, and have five members from government and five members from the CSO network.
The proposed committee’s role would be to provide strategic oversight: reflecting on the previous 6 months, identifying success stories and issues, and taking a forward look to spot opportunities.
It was discussed that civil society represents on the steering committee would need to be agreed by the CSO network. It was agreed that nominations and elections should take place online (coordinated by Tim Hughes, Involve) to select the representatives. The following criteria for nomination were proposed:
- Members (collectively) should have knowledge across the thematic areas covered in the National Action Plan
- Members (collectively) should cover a national and international focus
- Members (collectively) should have a spread of knowledge and expertise across the process itself (e.g. consultation, monitoring of commitments, wider networking, the international OGP, open policy making)
- Members (individually) should have demonstrated a commitment to the process over time
It was discussed that network members should nominate themselves (and be nominated by others) and that members should remain on the committee throughout the year.
The commitment expected of members would include:
- Collating progress reports and identifying issues
- Attending the meetings themselves
- Reporting back to the network
- Participation in six monthly review workshops
Outline of approach
It was reported that through the ongoing collaborative approach, new areas for commitments would be identified, including through bi-annual review workshops and through existing Transparency governance structures (e.g. the senior officials group).
The steering committee would review and sign-off new areas – identified mutually by government and civil society – for working groups to take forward and consider potential commitments in more detail.
It was discussed how the development of new commitments would be managed, and suggested that it should be done in the same way that commitments were developed for the current NAP. Government and civil society would jointly agree the area, nature, stretch and timeline of the commitment.
Implementation of commitments could start before a new NAP was published, with the idea being that how departments work on a day-to-day basis begins to change. The aim would be to develop a rolling conversation around the open government agenda, but the challenge will be to give it impetus. It was suggested that one way to do this would be to be opportunistic – identifying international opportunities that could be used to drive progress (e.g. G8 & G20 meetings, OGP international and regional meetings). It was agreed that the Cabinet Office Transparency Team would map these opportunities but would need others to highlight potential opportunities.
It was discussed that a key aspect of developing new commitments will be to conduct outreach and engagement with a wider group of civil society. It was questioned whether a budget could be set aside by government for events around the country, and to support organisations to engage who are not based in London and/or where open government is not part of their core work. It was suggested that the engagement of organisations in specific commitments needed to be seen as a way of drawing them into a conversation on open government. It was highlighted that there’s a danger that the development of new commitments is skewed by which organisations are currently engaged.
Cabinet Office and Involve to discuss in more detail.
Outline of approach
Key milestones of the process include:
- OGP requirements
- 12 month self-assessment – starts October 2014
- Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) process – starts April 2015
- Quarterly progress updates – starting April 2014*
- Published on OGP website
- Used to support self-assessment and IRM process
- Steering committee meetings – every six months from June 2014
- OGP UK 2015-17 NAP – due to be published October 2015
[NOTE: The quarterly progress updates were discussed in detail at the subsequent meeting with government commitment leads on 28 February. There was a concern expressed by a few attendees that progress updates with this regularity could prove overly bureaucratic. It was agreed that as reports would be due shortly on a 6 monthly timescale regardless, that the first updates would be produced now, and the future frequency reviewed subsequently.]
There was some discussion over the IRM timetable and how it fitted with the process. It was highlighted that not having the report before the development of the next NAP would be a shame as (as was the case with the previous IRM report) it would come too late to influence the process. It was suggested that a request should be made for early IRM findings to inform the process.
Roles and responsibilities
Outline of approach
The Cabinet Office Transparency Team will have responsibility for:
- Oversight and implementation of the NAP process
- Coordination of NAP commitment progress
- Secretariat for NAP steering committee
- Escalation point for blockers and issues with delivering commitments
The NAP commitment leads – departments and CSOs – will have responsibility for:
- Ongoing engagement on existing commitments and potential new areas of interest
- Joint production of progress updates
- Regular engagement with Cabinet Office Transparency Team on progress
- Feed into six monthly review meetings on progress and forward look
The CSO network will have responsibility for:
- Representation on the NAP steering committee
- Expansion of the civil society network to encourage engagement across all levels of civil society
- Coordinator role in having oversight of what is happening across the piece
There was some discussion over the roles of the different respective government groups, with confusion over the role of the Senior Officials Group.
The Senior Officials Group is still under development and its exact role and purpose is to be confirmed, but Cabinet Office are exploring other avenues, such as this potential group, to help determine new commitments. Linking back to earlier meetings and conversations, it was questioned what the role of SMEs and other private sector organisations should be going forward. It was suggested that this should be determined on a case-by-case basis, with some private sector being engaged in specific commitments rather than across the board.
- Funding for CSO network coordination (Involve)
- Dates for steering committee and review meetings to be agreed (CO & Involve)
- Options for tracking commitments to be explored (CO)
- Nominations and elections for CSO representation on steering committee (Involve)
- Get ministerial approval for process and establish committee (CO)
- Communication of approach to wider world (CO & Involve)
- Agreement of principles for working groups (Involve)
- Mapping of international opportunities to drive commitments (CO and CSOs)
- Explore potential of budget for outreach and engagement (CO and Involve)
- First progress reports to be published (CO and Involve)
With the end of the pause to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trades Union Administration Bill coming on Monday, members of the UK OGP civil society network have today written an open letter to ministers calling on the Government to redraft Part 1 of the Bill in order to enable proper public scrutiny of lobbying activity in the UK. Please share this letter (copied below) widely and sign this petition to call on the Government to put a stop to secret lobbying.
The Rt Hon Francis Maude MP
The Rt Hon Andrew Lansley MP
Cc: Deputy Prime Minister
12 December 2013
Dear Mr Maude and Mr Lansley,
Response to Mr Maude’s letter of 1 November 2013 to the UK OGP civil society network re the Government’s commitment to lobbying transparency
As campaigners for greater openness in decision making, we applauded the Coalition commitment in May 2010 to ‘regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency’. However, we are extremely concerned that the current plans, in Part 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trades Union Administration Bill, will fail to deliver the transparency promised. The proposed register is not fit-for-purpose. In the short time the Government has allowed for debate on the bill, it has been heavily criticised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee and Members of Parliament, as well as representatives of the consultancy industry and a wide range of civil society groups.
We urge you to redraft Part 1 of the Bill to:
- broaden the definition of lobbyist to include all third party consultants and in-house lobbyists, whether corporate, union or charity;
- extend the definition to include lobbying of mid-ranking civil servants and special advisors; and
- introduce fuller disclosure requirements to include the target, topic and estimated cost of lobbying activity.
Central to our concerns is the narrow definition of lobbyist. As drafted, the Bill excludes at least eighty per cent of the industry, notably in-house lobbyists. It will also exclude most key consultant lobbyists through a significant loophole: those who in the course of their lobbying do not make contact with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries will not be required to register. This, as lobbyists and the lobbied well know, is the majority of lobbying activity. The justification for such a narrow definition does not stand up to scrutiny. The Government has defined the problem as a lack of transparency about who an agency is representing when it meets with a Minister. Official meeting lists reveal that this would apply to only a handful of meetings. As many in Parliament have pointed out, if this is a genuine problem, it would be better solved with improved disclosure from Ministers.
Of equal concern to us is the lack of any meaningful information on lobbying activity to be included in the proposed register. It would require lobbyists merely to register their clients, but reveal nothing of their interaction with government (i.e. whom they are lobbying, and what they are seeking to influence). This information is essential if the government is to realise its laudable aim through the register of ‘increasing public accountability and public trust in the UK system of government and improving the efficiency of government policy outcomes’. Fuller disclosure would also bring the UK in line with international standards.
The fundamental purpose of introducing a register of lobbyists is to allow the public to examine and understand the activities of lobbyists, to improve government accountability and ultimately to rebuild public trust. It is imperative to have in mind the widely held public perception of how decisions are taken by government, a view summed up by David Cameron as ‘a cosy club at the top making decisions in its own interest’. This lack of trust must be of serious concern to Government. Proper disclosure rules for lobbyists would go a long way to dispel this perception. The reality of lobbying in the UK, which would be revealed in a robust register of lobbyists, would be far more mundane than is popularly imagined. A refusal to introduce genuine transparency, however, would only reinforce the perception that public scrutiny is something politicians would rather avoid.
The shortcomings of the current Bill are all the more surprising considering the leadership you have shown through the Open Government Partnership and your vocal support for greater transparency. The current proposals threaten to undermine not only your ambition to be ‘the most open and transparent government in the world’, but also detract from the OGP initiative. Civil society groups long ago identified a robust register as a key priority for the Partnership, yet we encountered a surprising reluctance from some Cabinet Office officials to engage with us during the development of the proposals. The result is a register that is wholly inadequate.
The Coalition rightly identified ‘secret’ lobbying as an issue of public concern, one which ‘goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics’. ‘We can’t go on like this,’ said David Cameron. We urge you to now fulfil your commitment with a proper register which will allow public scrutiny of lobbying activity in the UK.
Alexandra Runswick, Director, Unlock Democracy
Dr Andy Williamson FRSA, Founder, FutureDigital & Chair, Ivo.org
Anne Thurston, Director, International Records Management Trust
Anthony Zacharzewski, democracy campaigner
Gavin Hayman, Director of Campaigns, Global Witness
Graham Gordon, Head of Public Policy, CAFOD
Javier Ruiz, Campaigns Director, Open Rights Group
Jonathan Gray, Director of Policy, The Open Knowledge Foundation
Maurice Frankel, Director, Campaign for Freedom of Information
Miles Litvinoff, Coordinator, Publish What You Pay UK
Simon Burall, Director, Involve
Tamasin Cave, Director, Spinwatch
Thomas Hughes, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19
Download: UK OGP civil society network letter on lobbying transparency [PDF]
Contact: Tim Hughes, UK OGP civil society network coordinator, Involve (email@example.com)
Press Release from the Public Administration Select Committee:
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE
Select Committee Announcement
For immediate Release: 13 November 2013
PASC CALLS FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE ON STATISTICS AND OPEN DATA
The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) is conducting an inquiry into statistics and open data in Government, with a focus on the progress of the Government in implementing its Open Data strategy. This is part of PASC’s wider programme of work on statistics and their use in government.
The Committee has held three sessions of oral evidence on statistics and open data and has received a number of pieces of written evidence in response to an Issues and Questions Paper .
The Open Government Partnership Annual Summit was held on 31 October to 1 November 2013 in London. Among other things, this was the occasion for a number of Government announcements about open data. In order to ensure that the inquiry reflects all the most recent developments, the Committee is now inviting further evidence.
If you have any comments about recent developments on open data which are relevant to the inquiry, and in particular if you wish to provide any supplementary evidence in the light of the Open Government Partnership Summit and recent Government announcements, please submit your response by no later than noon on Friday 29 November 2013 through the web portal athttp://www.parliament.uk/pasc.
Committee Membership is as follows:
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair, Conservative, Harwich and North Essex), Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan), Paul Flynn (Labour, Newport West), Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East), Robert Halfon (Conservative, Harlow), David Heyes (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne), Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North), Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West), Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham), Lindsay Roy (Labour, Glenrothes) and Andrew Taylor (Isle of Wight).
Specific Committee Information: firstname.lastname@example.org 020 7219 5730
Media Information: Jessica Bridges-Palmer email@example.com 020 7219 0724
Committee Website: http://www.parliament.uk/pasc
Watch committees and parliamentary debates online: http://www.parliamentlive.tv
Publications / Reports / Reference Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Shop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on http://www.parliament.uk
Here are some of the responses to the UK’s second Open Government Partnership National Action Plan: