Government e-Communications in the UK: A Question of Trust?

Philip Leith

Queen’s University of Belfast

A tentative inquiry …

Issues are beginning to build in E-Gov which have political, legal and technical implications.

Yet they are seldom brought together – communications theorists, political theorists and lawyers don’t usually talk to each other.

Perhaps E-Gov is something which should bring all these groups together.

My talk is simply a rehearsal of some of the issues which are important.

And pedagogically

At the LLM level, we should perhaps be considering how our expertise in these matters can be transferred to other postgraduate programmes,

Or how other specialisms can be brought into our teaching so that law is taught in a more realistic context.

LEFIS allows us to do this.

E-Gov & Communication

Communication has been seen to be at the heart of E-Gov: both from, to and between government and citizen.

To date the discussion in E-Gov has focussed on general questions of access (FoI issues), reducing transaction costs, web site readability, implementation deadlines, etc. etc..

It is becoming clear, though, that there are political and other aspects of government communications which are relevant to wider discussion.

How will E-Gov Communication affect the political process?

Changing the nature of dialogue and communication must have an effect upon that communication process.

This must apply to the E-Gov situation. There has been a presumption that there will

be an improvement in the political process (in terms of democratic involvement etc.)

Is this actually true?

‘Trust’ as an indicator of success of communications

In E-Gov literature we see that those proposing it feel that better communications between citizen and government will improve the public’s level of trust in the process.

The underlying philosophy is of ‘inclusiveness’, response to citizen feedback, and the building of ‘Trust’.

‘Trust’

Has several meanings, but is used in E-Gov to mean that public trust the government to process their details and store only relevant information. This is a major part of the UK e-Gov strategy and involves technical measures.

This follows on from ideas in Bangemann Report that ‘trust’ was essential to encourage participation in the Information Society.

E-Envoy’s ‘Trust and Security’ Programme:

Ensuring security and resilience of the UK infrastructure

Enabling trust, authentication and secure transactions across government and the wider economy

Providing universal access, by enhancing take-up of, and trust in, electronic services

Working and coordinating with other bodies to ensure information security policy and guidance

Supporting Cabinet Office initiatives to introduce the information security standard BS7799

Sponsoring security technology research (CESG)

Providing security guidance for the OeE strategy of wider Internet access through new technologies and applications

But ‘Trust’ has a further meaning

A further meaning, though, is Trust that the information being fed through e-Gov can be ‘trusted’ as accurate, reliable and ‘spin free’.

In the UK, concerns have been particularly levelled at government which has seen to have undermined ‘trust’.

For example …

“However, if that encounter showed the Prime Minister at his best, we have also seen his Government at its worst in the highly damaging fiasco over Downing Street's dodgy dossier of 'intelligence' about Iraq. Blair told the House of Commons that the document demonstrated 'a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment' in Iraq. Powell even cited it at the UN. Yet a dossier presented as containing prime-cuts of fresh intelligence material turns out to be nothing of the sort - but rather an internet cut-and-paste exercise largely lifted from a Californian post-graduate thesis focused on evidence from the invasion of Kuwait 13 years ago. Even worse, while typographical errors were maintained, a sprinkling of unfounded exaggerations were inserted to strengthen the claims made in the thesis.”

Observer, 9/2/2003

“A LABOUR aide who advised the Government to use the attack on the World Trade Centre to distract attention from "bad" news stories was fighting for her job last night.

Jo Moore, who works for Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, was widely condemned for showing spin at its worst when her news management memo was leaked.

Miss Moore's memo, written at 2.55pm on September 11, when millions of people were transfixed by the terrible television images of the terrorist attack, said: "It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors expenses?"

The announcement she referred to related to a minor U-turn on pension rights for councillors.

Miss Moore, 38, apologised and Downing Street said that this would be enough to allow her to keep her job.”

Telegraph, 10/10/2001

The problem …

“Only four per cent of people in Britain trust the Government to keep it's word on pensions, according to a survey which was featured in BBC One's Panorama programme. …

When asked who people would trust to keep their word and not let you down when it came to private pensions - 59% of those asked said they trusted no-one at all.

Only 4% of people said they trusted the Government to not let them down when it came to private pensions, and only 14% said they trusted their actual pension company.” BBC Report

10 Completely - 1%

9 2%

8 7%

7 8%

6 10%

5 18%

4 12%

3 12%

2 9%

1 - Not at all 17%

Don't know 4%

Q8. How much do you trust the government to tell the truth about the European Union? - ICM, 2004

Political Scientists are certainly aware of the importance of trust

For example, Simmel says:

‘trust is one of the most important synthetic

forces within society’ * Yet why is this missing from e-Gov discussions when

it appears so central to the success or otherwise of improving communication between citizen and government – how can you communicate with someone you don’t trust?

* The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Illinois: The Free Press (1950, 326)

FoI is supposed to increase Trust through ‘openness’

For example, Lord Falconer suggested:

“Why do I think [FoI] has been worth fighting for? Three reasons, which are worth saying. Without openness we cannot hope to encourage greater participation in our

democratic life.And without openness we cannot hope to build public confidence in the way that we

are governed. And without confidence we cannot develop the credibility and effectiveness of

public authorities, both in Whitehall and beyond. We need that credibility to persuade the public of the need for progressive change and reform.

These objectives – greater democratic engagement; greater confidence in government; greater credibility and effectiveness - lie at the heart of our constitutional reform programme. They are not transient targets that we have invented on a whim. We have pursued them since 1997 and they inform the ambitious reform agenda we are currently pursuing.” March, 2004.

Yet …

The more information we get, the less trusting we appear to be.

FoI has, for example, been available in the US for some time but trust and confidence by the citizen in the US government wavers:

NES at U. Michigan

What is the problem?

In UK, Trust issues seen to be caused by communication problems.

Phillis Report recently looked into the relationship between Government, public, media and civil service.

Breakdown in relationships leading to loss of Trust

“the communications strategy adopted by the Labour administration on coming into power in 1997;

the reaction of the media and the press in particular to that; and

the response of the Civil Service to the new demands that were placed on it.”

Civil service problems

Traditionally seen to be independent of political parties, but now viewed as being part of the selling of government policy – that is, the public servants are no longer seen as ‘consistent, credible, reliable and accurate’.

Role of special advisors vs. civil service. But also problems over Secrecy:

– “Whereas media and public attitudes to official secrecy have changed markedly since the end of the Cold War, government and official attitudes have changed very little… The Official Secrets Act 1989 continues to exert a pernicious influence on the dialogue between officials and the public (including the media)… it induces in officials an attitude of ‘how little can I get away with saying?’ rather than ‘what must I really not say at the present?’… Without a change in this cultural attitude, no amount of organisational change will improve the quality of government communications, nor the public trust in them.” Nick Wilkinson, Secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee

The Media as ‘enemy’

– “There are some in government who fear that an effective FOI regime would worsen relations with the media by providing the national press with more ammunition with which to attack it. We do not think this argument can be sustained. Full disclosure allows context. It is a disincentive to spin (by both sides) as the public itself will have access to the material and will be able to form its own view of the accuracy of reporting.” (p23)

Phillis Report argues for …

Openness, not secrecy. More direct, unmediated communications to the public. Genuine engagement with the public as part of policy formation

and delivery, not communication as an afterthought. Positive presentation of government policies and

achievements, not misleading spin. Use of all relevant channels of communication, not excessive

emphasis on national press and broadcasters. Coordinated communication of issues that cut across

departments, not conflicting or duplicated departmental messages.

Reinforcement of the Civil Service’s political neutrality, rather than a blurring of government and party communications.

But is this really feasible

Politicians are frequently wary of being ‘truthful’ or giving views on the record – because the press looks for ‘stories’;

Idealistic view promulgated of harmony between government and governed.

Electronic media have changed the rules of political communication – more focus on personality, presentation, etc..

And politics is about persuasion …

Example of this even in legislating:– “The Minister in charge of a bill will often insist, and wisely insist,

on departure form logical arrangement …. He will have considered how he intends to present his proposals to Parliament, and to defend them before the public, and will wish to have his Bill so arranged and expressed as to make it a suitable text for his speech. If the measure is at all complicated, he will desire to have its leading principles embodied in the opening clause or clauses …” (Renton, 38, 1975)

And the use of Statutory Instruments is another example of this ‘political’ legislating.

Can Trust be rebuilt?

We presume that improved communication improves ‘rationality’ and ‘reason’– is this true?

Does more available information simply give more evidence to distrust more?

Is a lack of trust part and parcel of the new relationship between government and citizen in a world with more and more information?

Is it better to view E-Gov as simply a technical advance rather than a social advance.

Or is this the start of real democracy when ‘knowledge’ replaces ‘trust’.