By Steven McGinty
In July, Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Lord Bridges, announced that there would be an independent cross-party review on Freedom of Information (FOI).
The UK’s FOI Act was introduced in 2000 (in Scotland, FOI legislation came into force in 2005). The Act requires public bodies to publish certain information about their activities and to respond to requests for information from the public.
Since its introduction, the FOI Act has facilitated the release of information from across government. The most high profile releases have involved MPs’ expenses and correspondence between British diplomats ridiculing the notion of a widespread increase in migration from Poland to the UK, once they joined the EU.
Lord Bridges explained that the review would focus on three main issues:
- whether there is an appropriate balance between having a transparent and accountable government and the need for sensitive information to be protected;
- whether the Act adequately recognises the need to have a ‘safe space’ for policy development and implementation;
- whether there is an appropriate balance between the need for public access to information and the burden on public bodies of providing this.
However, is this review really necessary?
Over recent years, a number of public figures have voiced their concerns over the Act. Even the man who introduced it, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, has stated that he was a “naive foolish, irresponsible nincompoop” to introduce it. He also suggested that it undermined “sensible government”.
Similarly, the former head of the Civil Service, Lord O’Donnell has argued that the requirement to release Cabinet minutes risked preventing “real discussions” between ministers.
There has also been discontent from local government, struggling to shoulder the financial cost of the Act. For instance, Ken Thornber, leader of Hampshire County Council, stated that:
“We spent £365,000 in 2010 answering freedom of information requests. What else could I do with that money? More social workers, more school inspectors, more spent on road maintenance.”
Although clearly frustrated by the Act, he doesn’t suggest withdrawing it. Instead, he proposes the idea of a £25 charge. His hope is that this would deter individuals from making ‘frivolous requests’.
In the 2010, University College London’s (UCL) Constitution Unit estimated that the cost of FOI requests for local government was £31.6 million. It also highlighted that civil servants spent 1.2m hours responding to nearly 200,000 requests.
Safeguards already exist
However, the review also has its opponents. For example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web, has attacked the government’s decision. In particular, he criticises the UK Government for using its position at the top of the World Wide Web Foundation’s Open Data Barometer (annual worldwide survey of open government) to justify the review.
Anne Jellema, Chief Executive of the World Wide Web Foundation, has also added her disapproval. She explains that the UK’s position at the top of the Open Data Barometer should not be an excuse to undo the progress that has been made. In addition, she claims that the government is behind European countries on other transparency and accountability issues, such as state surveillance and freedom of the press.
The Campaign for Freedom of Information has raised concerns over the review panel. It highlights that there are no panel members with a proven commitment to transparency. Currently, the five person committee consists of high profile political figures, such as former Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard and former Labour Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
The Act has been praised for holding public bodies to account. For instance, the Daily Telegraph discovered that local authorities spent £2m on hotel bills over just 3 years, including stays at the Four Seasons in New York.
There are also those who maintain that safeguards are already in place. For example, section 35 of the Act provides a qualified exemption, which limits the release of information to the public. This safeguard is explicitly aimed at protecting the policy-making process.
A key challenge for any state is to strike the appropriate balance between effective governance and public accountability. Yet, with so many differing views, universal agreement is unlikely. Therefore, no matter the outcome of the review, it’s likely that this debate will continue.
- Freedom of information: new Commission (GOV.UK, 2015)
- British pilots took part in anti-Isis bombing campaign in Syria (Guardian, 2015)
- Freedom of Information review to consider balance between open government and “frank advice” (Civil Service World, 2015)
- What price freedom (of information)? (Telegraph, 2015)
- FOIA 2000 and local government in 2010: The experience of local authorities in England (UCL, 2011)
- 10 things we found out because of Freedom of Information (BBC, 2015)
- Government review of FoI criticised as ‘a step back’ that could ‘water down’ the Act (Independent, 2015)
- Freedom of Information review panel criticised (BBC, 2015)
- Why are councils spinning against freedom of information? (Guardian, 2015)
- Councils spend £100m on taxpayer-funded credit cards (Telegraph, 2015)
You must be logged in to post a comment.