The dividends of the Treasury FOI disclosures
Is the major political row over the release of civil service advice to Gordon Brown on dividend tax credits the first of many such stories in which the publication under FOI of official advice will embarrass ministers?
Well, it probably won't be unique - but on the other hand this case does have some unusual features and may not often be replicated.
The new policy on dividend taxation in the 1997 budget was part of a complex interlocking set of changes to corporation tax. At the time the mechanics of these reforms - and their implications for pension funds - was grasped by few members of the general public and not many journalists either. The 'hullaballoo' expected by the Treasury largely failed to materialise. That's why this move became regarded as the emblematic 'stealth tax'.
The documents do show that Treasury officials had a better understanding of what was going on than most of the rest of us, which perhaps is as things should be. It's the fact that they made clear there was a downside as well as an upside to the change which has stoked the current fuss.
But most government decisions aren't quite like that. Mainly it's clear that policy options have an upside and a downside, and it's up to ministers to decide which of the factors on either side should sway the balance. The mere existence of official advice pointing out risks in a policy is unlikely to have so much impact in many other cases.
(Of course if these documents had been published at the time then the rest of us would have had a better chance of understanding the pros and cons of the 1997 budget than we then managed).
Another question: what is the pattern of incentives that civil servants will now face when writing advice for ministers? If freedom of information now means that they will sometimes write with a view as to how their work will be assessed by posterity and not just by their current political masters, does this give them an extra incentive to ensure they have set out fully the risks involved in ministerial intentions? In other words, could FOI mean that official advice will become freer and franker and therefore perhaps better (or should that be even better)?
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
"Could FOI mean that official advice will become freer and franker and therefore perhaps better (or should that be even better)?"
A move in the opposite direction is far, far more likely.
Martin, can you enlighten us whether in your opinion this FoI question would have been refused under the new rules proposed by Lord Falconer, which set a financial limit on the costs of processing FoI requests?
There already are financial limits on the cost of processing FOI requests. The point of Lord Falconer's proposals is to make them more restrictive. If these proposals were in force, would the Treasury have been able to avoid disclosing this information? I can't be certain, but the answer must be probably yes.
The Government have the eyes of Britain on them and they resist FOI requests that put them in a bad light. Which makes what Lord Falconer's intention even more transparent and reprehensible.
The other FOI request being discussed elsewhere on this site is not in the same country - let alone ball park. I thought it was very telling that even you haven't read it. And those complaining steamrollered over that salient fact.
Finances for FOI request to the 91Èȱ¬. How is it played if they are required to release it?
To everyone that asks or via a website where all those interested can get access?
The 91Èȱ¬ publishes its disclosures under FOI on this page -
/foi/docs/responses.shtml
Could civil servants advice become freer and franker? Surely it will be the opposite.
What was published under FOI was very frank and free advice, setting out the risks and options. But what is the incentive for civil servants to do this in the future - they will be far more likely to say their true thoughts in private, where it cannot be seen under FOI.
A shame, but then I think policy advice like should not be released under FOI.
Andrew's text - my answer to his first question from Martin's original blog would be yes it could.
Then Andrew says "What was published under FOI was very frank and free advice, setting out the risks and options". But my personal response would be how difficult a lot of it is to get published despite the FOI act.
My child care papers - 50 years old, nearly everyone then adult now passed on and yet and yet. What has caused this is embarrassment of things past - but only certain things past. If it was the now Oppositions' skeletons - out they tumbled from their cupboards.
That specific selection is where our present Government has fumbled the ball. I give you the current row over Gordon Brown and a decade old decision.