Lib Dem criticises Met Commissioner on FOI fees

In response to a report in The Guardian, that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson has lobbied the Home Secretary to introduce a fee for making freedom of information requests, the Lib Dem London Assembly policing spokeperson, Dee Doocey, has said:

It is appalling that the Met Commission is seeking to restrict freedom of information requests being made to the Met. Records already show that the Met has an appalling record in answering requests within the legal deadline, so instead of trying to improve their systems it seems the Met is just seeking to wriggle out of being held accountable.

Of course a few freedom of information requests might seem trivial, but overall such legislation goes a long way to demonstrating the openness and accountability of any public organisation.

Many freedom of information requests have also revealed wasteful expenditure, so often end up saving public money in the long term.

Sir Paul should think again.

ENDS

On the 1st October the Information Commissioner's office published a list of 30 public bodies that have been flouting the Freedom of Information Act. The Metropolitan Police Service was listed as one of these 30 organisations:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/notices/list_of_ico_monitored_bodies.pdf

See:
Keep to the law and stop complaining - Dee Doocey criticises Met proposals to limit FOI requests
Protect police from lawsuits, says Met chief - The Guardian, 10 October 2010

Straw: "large array of safeguards" against "petty" FOI requests

Responding to a recent question in the Commons from Norman Baker MP, Jack Straw confirmed the Government believes the FOI Act should be extended to the private sector. In response to a subsequent question about the need for amendments to guards against "repeated, petty and often exorbitant" requests, he replied that "there is already a large array of safeguards in the Act and within the practice of the Information Commissioner."
Hansard 29 Jan 2008 : Column 156

Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): What plans he has to bring forward amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [182471]

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has now been in force for three years and appears to be working well, although we keep it under continuous review. We are not proceeding with amendments to the fees regulation. However, we are consulting on whether to extend FOI coverage to a range of organisations that are in the private sector, but carry out public functions. An independent review of the 30-year rule is under way and due to report this summer.

Norman Baker: I welcome that response, and agree with the direction of travel that the Secretary of State is taking. Does he agree that it is a nonsense that the British Potato Council is covered by the 2000 Act but private water companies, which provide an essential and monopolistic service, are not? Furthermore, the British Railways Board, which simply exists in a cosy corner somewhere, is covered, but Network Rail is not. Will he sort that out?

Mr. Straw: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and thank him for his earlier remarks. As the boundary between the public and private sectors for the delivery of what are essentially public services has moved, so we believe that the arrangements should move as well. That is why we are consulting on the matter.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): Would the Secretary of State consider amendments to the 2000 Act that would protect the public’s right to the information but guard against repeated, petty and often exorbitant requests that are made frequently and do nothing to add to freedom of information?

Mr. Straw: There is already a large array of safeguards in the Act and within the practice of the Information Commissioner. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples of concern to him, I am ready to follow them up, including with the commissioner.

Comment on recent FOI announcements

A piece by Maurice Frankel on the recent FOI announcements by Gordon Brown has been published by Open Democracy on its OurKingdom site.

It can be read here.

Fees announcement

The government announced today that it has decided not to proceed with its proposals to amend the FOI fees regulations. Instead it has announced measures designed to make government more open including a review of the 30 year rule and consultation on extending the scope of the FOI Act.

In a speech on liberty the Prime Minister said:

"In the last ten years in Britain we have created a new legislative framework requiring openness and transparency in the state's relationships with the public. The Freedom of Information Act has been a landmark piece of legislation, enshrining for the first time in our laws the public's right to access information.

Freedom of Information (FoI) can be inconvenient, at times frustrating and indeed embarrassing for governments. But Freedom of Information is the right course because government belongs to the people, not the politicians.

I now believe there is more we can do to change the culture and the workings of government to make it more open -- whilst of course continuing to maintain safeguards in areas like national security.

When anything is provided without cost, it does risk being open to abuse. However the Government does not believe that more restrictive rules on cost limits of FoI requests are the way forward. And so Jack Straw has decided, and has announced today, that we will not tighten FoI fees regulations as previously proposed.

We do this because of the risk that such proposals might have placed unacceptable barriers between the people and public information. Public information does not belong to Government, it belongs to the public on whose behalf government is conducted. Wherever possible that should be the guiding principle behind the implementation of our Freedom of Information Act.

So it is right also to consider extending the coverage of freedom of information and the Freedom of Information Act. And we are also today publishing a consultation document to consider whether additional organisations discharging a public function - including in some instances private sector companies running services for the public sector - should be brought within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation.

Freedom of Information is not simply about current discussions within government but about the restrictions we place on the publication of historical documents.

It is an irony that the information that can be made available on request on current events and current decisions is still withheld as a matter of course for similar events and similar decisions that happened 20 or 25 years ago.

Under the present arrangements historical records are transferred to the national archives and are only opened to public access after thirty years or where explicitly requested under the FoI Act. It is time to look again at whether historical records can be made available for public inspection much more swiftly than under the current arrangements.

There are of course cost and security implications of a more open approach which we will need to examine thoroughly. So I have asked Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers and member of the Press Complaints Commission - working with Sir Joe Pilling, former Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office, and the eminent historian David Cannadine - to review this rule. And we look forward to receiving their proposals in the first half of 2008."

The Campaign for Freedom of Information welcomed the announcement in a press release. The Campaign's director Maurice Frankel said:

"We are extremely pleased that instead of restricting the Act the government is proposing to extend it. The original proposals would have severely undermined the legislation and suggested that the government regretted introducing the FOI Act. Now for the first time we are seeing signs that it is taking pride in it instead."

The Government's response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Report, 'Freedom of Information: the Government’s proposals for reform' has also been published today. Commenting on the Government’s response, Chairman of the Committee Rt Hon Alan Beith MP said:

“Obviously we greatly welcome the fact that the Government has seen sense and accepted our position - and that of the many people and organisations who have made good use of freer access to information - and not changed the charging regime as they had planned. To go ahead with their proposed changes would have been a great mistake – as the expression goes; it wasn’t broke, don’t fix it.

The government's response to the fees consultation and a summary of the responses is available here.

The consultation on extending the scope of the Act - 'Freedom of Information Act 2000: Designation of additional public authorities' is available here.

Information Rights User Group

The minutes of the seventh Information Rights User Group meeting held on 12th September 2007 have been published by the Ministry of Justice. The minutes confirm that an announcement on the outcome of fees consultation is imminent.

"The Government would announce its plans to take forward freedom of information, in the wake of the consultations on the Fees Regulations, in the autumn. There is enthusiasm for an iterative, non-adversarial and holistic approach to Information Rights generally, taking account of all aspects of publicly held information."

Read the minutes (Pdf).

Commons Committee rejects FOI restriction plans

Constitutional Affairs Committee press notice No. 35:

"An influential Committee of MPs has called on the Government to scrap its plans to restrict freedom of information and has criticized the Bill to exempt MPs from freedom of information rules.

In a report released today, Monday 25 June 2007, the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee says Ministers should take the opportunity afforded by their consultation on proposed changes to the charging regime for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to abandon the “unnecessary, unpopular and undesirable” reforms.

The Committee says Government has not adequately weighed up the balance of costs and benefits to public authorities and the public of providing greater access to information and openness.

The Committee concludes:

“There is no objective evidence that any change is necessary. The cost-benefit analysis provided with the Government's consultation papers is incomplete. There is clear evidence that the proposed amendments could be open to manipulation and abuse. There is no sign that any consideration has been given to proper funding of the independent review process. The proposed measures have the scope significantly to reduce the flow of information into the public domain. We recommend that the proposed new charging regime be withdrawn.

“The proposed regime could result in public authorities avoiding answers to embarrassing, contentious or high-profile cases as the number of internal consultees rises in proportion to the sensitivity of particular requests.“

The Committee says the Bill for an exemption from the FOI Act, passed by the Commons but currently stalled in the House of Lords, “would be contrary to the culture of openness which we have argued should prevail in the public service.”

Rt Hon Alan Beith MP, Chairman of the Committee, said:

“The Freedom of Information Act works. It enhances the rights of the public. Neither the Government nor MPs should be seeking to limit its effectiveness, and there is no evidence here to support either the Government's proposals on fees or the Bill. I am hopeful that both will now be dropped.”

The Committee also expresses concern that Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) does not have sufficient resources to deliver an effective FOI complaints resolution service - especially with the predicted increase in complaints if the proposed fees changes were brought in - and repeats its call for the ICO to be made independent of Government and instead funded by and accountable to Parliament. “We question whether it is appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to set the funding levels for the independent regulator and thereby directly influence its capacity to investigate complaints.” "

Read the Committee's full report:
HTML version
Pdf version

Brown to kill off fees regulations proposals

From The Telegraph:

"Gordon Brown is poised to kill off moves by the Lord Chancellor to water down the Freedom of Information Act, it became clear last night.
...
The Lord Chancellor's proposals would mean the cost of inquiries included the time that officials took to decide whether to accede to a request, not just the time it took to track down the information. Sources said last night that Mr Brown felt Lord Falconer's plans were unsustainable.

However, while the Chancellor is prepared to block them when he moves into No 10, he believes that Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, needs to beef up his response to genuinely vexatious inquiries."

Full story here.