Many readers will recall Dr Ivan Horrock's guest post last month in which he highlighted the government's plans to restrict academic freedom to comment on policy when public funding had been used to undertake research. Ivan, I and a great many others were alarmed by this proposal; it became one of the best read posts in this blog's history.
Ivan followed up on the post with a letter to the Cabinet Office seeking elaboration on the detail of its plans. I also published that letter.
To date Ivan advises me that no reply has been received.
We will keep you posted, but I think we share the feeling that you should not hold your breath.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
His letter is written as ‘Dear Sir/Madam’ which will probably end up in a big black hole somewhere. He may get a vague template reply eventually.
He needs to get the name of a senior lawyer in the Cabinet Office and write to that person. The main Legal job there is to write legislation rather than grant agreements, so they may not be the right people. You need the person who drafted the clause (or that person’s boss).
I’ve occasionally had my own drafting mistakes pointed out and have been happy to fix them.
But central government lawyers are a pretty arrogant lot, so I wouldn’t hold up much hope.
But this is the Courageous State at large – it likes to tie things like grants with acquiescence. This has been the case since ancient times. I’m not even sure why you’re surprised by this.
Adrian.
I subsequently resent that email via another Cabinet Office email address making clear that it should be directed to the relevant person and/or Minister (Matthew Hancock). That was on the 3rd March (my original email was sent on 24th February).
I find it disappointing that a department that sits at the heart of government, and from which we routinely hear that efficiency is at the core of what government does, cannot even organise a system that issues acknowledgement of receipt of emails/correspondence, much less actually have the decency and good manners to reply – in any form. Were I or my university to remain silent in the face of a perfectly resonable request for information I know what the degree of criticism would be.
OMG
Matthew Hancock!!
Ivan – forget it – honestly – Hancock is not a very nice man – he is the Norman Tebbit of his time. Or is it Nicholas Ridley? Whatever – he delights in offending people who don’t agree with him.
I’ve watched Hancock very closely in the media. He is supremely gifted at insulting opposing opinions (I’ll never forget how he dismissed Danny Dorling on channel 4 News and was allowed to get away with it).
Also, watch him when he starts to argue – his face gives away what he is thinking and how much he delights on pouring rude scorn on opposing views – or should I say uncomfortable truths that are consequences of his party’s policies. All I see is someone like Osbourne who just loves playfully abusing his position and power.
One gets the impression that he is supremely confident that he is absolutely right. He is a clear and present danger to democracy and to enlightened thinking.
You can either be persistent or give up Ivan but believe you me if Hancock is in charge you will get nothing. From what I’ve seen and read about him, there is more humanity in a grain of active yeast than in this man Hancock.
He is a thoroughly paid up modern Tory: arrogant, reactive, status maintaining, blind to the consequences of his ideology, no empathy at all with real people he is meant to serve and ready and waiting to jump onto the Board of one of the public orgs he may have help privatise. All the things you need to be successful these days it seems to be Government.
Good luck.
Ivan
Complain – that might get the blowtorch up the backside:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office/about/complaints-procedure
It may well be the person handling your queries doesn’t know the answers and is trying to find out (alongside his/her other duties). This may involve getting the response approved by superiors etc. They can expect their response to your questions to end up in the public domain so it is reasonable to expect it to be checked.
They may even say they recognise the drafting has flaws and is being redrafted.
But at least see if your complaint can get you the name of the person handling the case.
The answers to Ivan’s questions are already in the public domain. Those that are not can be answered by referring to how existing clauses in government contracts are policed. The Cabinet Office will ignore his enquiry.
This is utter rubbish
The change is without precedent
Some of the answers to the questions are in the guidance published by the Cabinet Office – https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498271/Implementation_Guidance_for_Departments_on_Anti-Lobbying_Clause.pdf – but they could at least write back saying so.
That is not all the answers – as many agree
I’ll have a look when I have time, Andrew, so thanks. But glancing at 1. I love the way “lobbying” is so loosely defined.
Things may be going even further than we think. I am basing this on staff understanding of my former University’s position, which is in turn based on the University’s interpretation of the Government position. Also, I am not sure how much is related to Prevent legislation, and how much to general clamping down on foreigners.
As I understand it, an outside speaker is not allowed to speak at a meeting on campus, unless permission is sought from the University at least three weeks in advance. The University will vet the speaker, and a balance of views must be presented at the meeting. Presumably, if Richard were invited, it would be necessary to have a speaker from the Institute of Economic Affairs. I am not sure whether a meeting on cancer chemotherapy would be obliged to include a speaker advocating pomegranate juice or homeopathy. In addition, a speaker from a non-EU country may not give a seminar, unless they are vetted by the University and special visa has been obtained. An academic in the country on a visitor’s visa would not be allowed to talk.
As a Quaker who voted for Jeremy Corbyn, I am clearly a non-violent extremist as defined by Prevent, so be careful not to be corrupted by this comment.
This is all becoming quite absurd
Actually a farce, Richard, and a seriously tragic one at that. Policies overlapping with policies with no thought to how one interacts with or impacts on the other. This is the outcome of neoliberal (ideology) driven policy making taken to its extreme and then mixed with an obsession (ie. instructions to all senior management) that we MUST, above all else, make “efficiency” savings. Any attempt at analysis of what the outcome might be is absolutely discouraged.
This is disaster capitalism taken to new levels: a created “disaster” used to create an actual disaster. We – by which I mean current and future generations of the UK (but England in particular) – will pay a very heavy price for this indulgent experiment of government handed to psychopaths.
Agreed