A crucial debate is being held in the House of Commons this afternoon on the Freedom of Information Act which may result in charges being made for requests. The Act has, in effect, been a victim of its own success, government has had enough.
This excellent article by Heather Brooke warns that the proposed change
to the law will allow government to aggregate campaigners, journalists, lawyers and academics according to their “legal body� and refuse requests made by the same individual or organisation if the combined cost of answering their requests exceeds the limit of £600 for central government and £450 for other public bodies. This would ration requests to possibly just one per quarter to the same authority.
If the amendment is carried, I’m wondering if it can be appealed against under the Human Rights Act, or some other legislation.
Heather describes how FoI has been invaluable for getting factual data from government on issues like the number of school pupils expelled for drugs and violence, how many of those on probation have committed violent crimes, which restaurants are failing their hygiene inspections and the details of many private finance contracts signed by public authorities.
Locally, the Cambridge Evening News used the FoI to discover the number of staff attacked at Addenbrooke’s Hospital and how more than 2,000 children were excluded from Cambridgeshire schools. Regional Tory MPs Malcolm Moss , Jim Paice and Lib Dem MP David Howarth have condemned moves to restrict any access of information.
Jim Paice believes the government is trying to close down the supply of information to newspapers and campaigners because it has become embarrassing. David Howarth describes the proposed amendment as “outrageous”.
Let’s hope we can get enough cross-party support to nail this on the head. As Heather Brooke says, “if this dim beacon of democracy is extinguished, we will have to reconsider seriously whether we can call ourselves an informed electorate.” I think we know the answer to that.
According to todays Independent the Foreign Office has claimed exemptions for 70 per cent of all requests it has received. The Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is responsible for administering the freedom of information legislation, has provided full answers to only 39 per cent of all requests under the legislation.
But how typical that New Labour should abuse the freedom of ınformation act. In their 1997 election manifesto, they said that the freedom of ınformation legislation was ‘absolutely essential to good governance’ then they delayed and diluted the legislation and I think, if memory serves, they finally introduced the law in 2005. It looks like they now regret ever bothering…..they’d rather not have any checks on their power after all.
This is disgraceful – Labour dragged their heels over bringing in this ‘manifesto commitment’, had a ‘fast & loose’ approach to its implementation, where they always had the final say so. And now they are trying to condemn it to a slow death by asphyxiation.
Shocking – and for it to happen on the day that a coroner is showing a video which the British viewed as part of the American inquiry into the death of Matty Hull, and which they had denied to his widow existed, sadly ironic too.
Rats you have saved your best for last .
Good background IT I have been following this one as well.Of course this was all about “Transaparent Governement “..following Tory sleaze. How times change
The technical requirements of FOIA compliance (that’s what we call it here) can be a pain — I have colleagues who represent municipalities and they tell me stories about the burdens that compliance imposes — but transparency is necessary. Access and disclosure are necessary.
I am very interested in this one.
Curmudgeon, I will keep you posted and add any updated links from the press.
This is a very worrying post. They are tightening the noose bit by bit. Extremely worrying that they’re becoming less accountable.
Sounds a typicak government cop-out to me.
The prison service has been refusing to answer my request since November.
All I asked was:
“Can I have the following information for Holmehouse Prison?: How much is spent on digital TV (Sky, Freeview, NTL etc), and games consoles (Xbox, Playstation and games etc) between January 2002- October 2006.”
In Mid December they said it was causing problems and said they would have it done by january 16th. On january 16th they said:
“I had anticipated being in a position to reply to your request today, but unfortunately this has not been possible, as I am waiting to receive advice from our legal advisors. As stated previously, we are considering the application of the exemption contained section 43 of the Act, relating to information which may prejudice the commercial interests of the National Offender Management Service.
I have therefore extended the deadline to 1 February.”
That is government speak for telling me this information could show them in a bad light and they don’t want that.
On February 1st they said:
“We continue to consider your request and we apologise for not responding to you by 2nd February 2007, as previously stated.
As a result, we will not be able to provide a full response within the stipulated period. Your request is being dealt with as a matter of urgency and now aim to respond by 2nd March 2007.”
Though newspapers produce some awful things, they have exposed some things that the government and other bodies would prefer to keep quiet. It’s the public’s right to know.
The government that has splurged the most on public spending in 2 generations now says it has cost concerns.
[…] Freedom of Information Act at risk today […]
[…] Cross-party MPs were outraged about the proposed changes which would have limited access to the FoI Act , with many strong critics from Labour itself, which is probably why the Department for Constitutional Affairs extended its consultation, in effect, kicking it in the grass. […]