The end of FoI? Vital right to know is under threat

The case for strengthening the Act is not on the agenda in new 'review'

Maurice Frankel
Friday 17 July 2015 20:39
Comments
Prince Charles' 'Black Spider' letters were released under the Freedom of Information Act (Getty)
Prince Charles' 'Black Spider' letters were released under the Freedom of Information Act (Getty)

A new commission, set up by the Government to examine the case for restrictions to the Freedom of Information Act, indicates that the right to know is under major attack.

The brief is to examine if sensitive information is properly protected, the Government’s “safe space” to discuss policy is safeguarded and steps should be taken to reduce the Act’s “burden” on public authorities. The case for strengthening the Act is not on the agenda.

To the Government, a key problem is the Act’s policy formulation exemption. This catches everything to do with the development of a new policy, but allows disclosure if the public interest favours openness. In practice, if information is requested while options are still being discussed, the information commissioner and tribunal will almost automatically refuse to order disclosure.

But if the request is made after a decision, they consider if disclosure will undermine the frankness of future decisions. If recorded views are particularly frank, or reveal splits between officials and ministers, that usually trumps any case for disclosure. If information is old or the case for openness strong, disclosure might be ordered – but only if it is in the public interest. It is this public interest element which is under threat. Removing it would keep all internal discussion secret for 20 years, even if it showed serious mistakes. This would not be just turning the clock back; it would be pulling off the hands and chucking them away.

Another complaint concerns the Supreme Court’s decision that the government veto had been unlawfully used in the Prince Charles correspondence case. The Prime Minister and Jack Straw – a member of the new commission – have both said that the court’s decision overturns Parliament’s intention. But that veto was used against the Upper Tribunal, a body with the status of the High Court. During the FoI Act’s passage, ministers told Parliament the commissioner’s decisions could be vetoed, but no one suggested that court decisions could be cancelled. There would have been uproar if they had.

The cost of meeting FoI requests is another perennial complaint. But government rarely recognises how much wasteful spending is exposed or deterred by the threat of disclosure.

FoI is under threat: the Act provides a vital element of scrutiny which should not be weakened.

Maurice Frankel is director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, www.cfoi.org.uk

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in