
'Nothing to do with the Freedom of Information Act coming in, honest...'
By Dan Ilett
Published: 20 December 2004 14:30 GMT
The Cabinet Office denied on Monday that millions of emails are being deleted in response to a law that will make government information available to the public from 1 January.
The Civil Service department insisted the move was part of an ongoing management policy to avoid wasting taxpayers' money and not a way of ducking the Freedom of Information Act (FoI).
A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office said: "This is about management of record systems. This is not about trying to quieten down or hide things before 1 January. It's nothing to do with FoI. It's about making sure that staff have been managing and deleting emails properly."
Civil servants have been ordered to delete 'unimportant' emails more than three months old, and to print out and archive 'important' emails.
The Cabinet Office (CO), which is the Prime Minister's right-arm department, said it would not monitor its 2,000 staff deleting emails because it was each employee's responsibility to judge the situation.
The FoI, which comes into force in 11 days, will allow public access to some government records, excluding confidential information or enquiries that would cost more than £600 in administration.
But many inside Parliament have criticised the Civil Service for acting irresponsibly.
Lord Erroll, member of European internet security lobbyist EURIM, said: "It's impractical and they're working on an idiotic time scale to do this. But the CO might think what they have is embarrassing. The time scale is unrealistic and there will be some miscarriages of justice. It's a knee-jerk reaction and will have an effect on useful information in cases. If they do purge emails that are only three months old, a lot of background information on things will be lost for good."
The move could make it tougher for independent inquiries, such as the recent David Blunkett enquiry or the Hutton report, to look into government records.
"We should be embracing data and storage," said Erroll. "If we'd only behave more seriously towards emails and realise they are more akin to people talking rather than official documents."
Financial regulations, such as Sarbanes Oxley and Basel II, stipulate that companies must store all emails for at least seven years. Although none have been convicted yet, chief executive officers found to have failed in such auditing regulations can face heavy fines and jail sentences.
Au contraire, deleted emails should be ARCHIVED.
...
Anonymous
Why should emails be archived? Are you going to in...
Ian J. Kennedy
What nonsense, since when has a government and par...
Charles Wood
exactly, and while it's unrealistic to try and rec...
Anonymous
Just before the Berlin wall fell in November 1989 ...
Steve Watkins
A Project Manager role for the NHS Care Records System has arrisen due to the continued efforts of the NHS to become electronically integrated ...
The candidate needs to provide a comprehensive and high quality information and performance management and interpretative service to the Provider ...
We have been developing web-based solutions for planning authorities since 2003 and have over 10 years' experience of working closely with planning ...
CIO50 2008
The silicon.com CIO50 2008 profiles the most influential and innovative tech chiefs in the UK across all industries and organisation size, from the biggest FTSE100 companies to high growth dot-com start ups and the public sector. The list was voted on by the UK CIO community and a panel of experts. Find out more in our latest special report.
Stories from the web...
Copyright ©1995-2008 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. Top of page
Jeremy Hore Beijing Olympics diary: Testing times… But what hurdles remain?
Naked CIO The Naked CIO: Going public about privacy What have we got to hide?