IMPLEMENTATION
105. The White Paper says nothing about how the Act
is intended to be introduced; more detail is provided in the document
containing some of the background to the proposals. This argues
that by phasing in the Bill, it would spread and defer the cost
and effort of preparing for the Act; and provide more time for
training those who would have to operate the system. "The
main disadvantage" of phasing in, it says, "is that
the longer the phasing in period, the greater the criticism that
the Government is reluctant to abandon secrecy and face up to
the demands of openness".[166]
The paper reviews four main options for a phased introduction
of the Bill: by delaying the introduction of the rights for some
classes of records but not all; by delaying the right of access
to past records for a period; by delaying the right of access
to records in some sectors for a period; or by delaying the introduction
of the entire Act for a period.
106. A number of the authorities to which the Act
applies expressed a good deal of nervousness and uncertainty about
the implications of the Act for them. The DSS says that "under
the existing Code of Practice, DSS staff are used to letting people
know what information is contained in their files. But they have
very little experience of opening the actual documents. New procedures
will therefore need to be worked out, in particular addressing
such practical questions as: how to deal with a case where a person
wants to see a file that is stored in a central location many
miles from their home; what to do when there are several files
stored in different locations; how to help people find their way
through files that may be very bulky and contain a lot of official
forms and jargon".[167]
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions commented
that the proposals give rights of access to information of any
date. The department has a considerable task ahead in developing
and populating a single catalogue of archive information to facilitate
retrieval".[168]
The Medicines Control Agency say that they "hold many volumes
of records, dating back over a number of years, which will require
careful examination before they can be considered for release".[169]
107. Nevertheless, few of the bodies to which the
Act would apply are complete newcomers as far as Freedom of Information
is concerned. Government departments and agencies have been subject
to the Code of Practice since 1994; local authorities have been
subject to the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information)
Act 1985, as well as various other statutory provisions;[170]
and other legislation applies in certain other cases. There are
some, it is true, which are clearly unprepared: The Further Education
Funding Council says that it does not have record management standards.
"Without them compliance could be difficult in some cases.
To adopt such standards will involve considerable cost and time.
Computer systems have been designed to meet the specific information
needs of the Council and the substantial amount of information
in paper files may not lend itself to general purpose enquiries
without further refinement".[171]
If phasing in is eventually judged to be necessary, we regard
it as preferable that it is those bodies which are not presently
subject to a general set of access provisions which should be
permitted a period to prepare themselves for the Act. In the meantime,
existing statutory rights, where they apply, should continue to
apply as far as these bodies are concerned. These bodies should
be obliged to take steps during this period to prepare to open
up their files.
108. It will fall to the Information Commissioner
to act as a key proponent of greater openness within government,
as the White Paper explains.[172]
But it says that in general "the role of champion should
best be supplied by government itself.[173]
The White Paper refers to the small Freedom of Information Unit
in the Cabinet Office which "will be well placed to carry
forward much of this work". We agree that the Freedom of
Information Unit in the Cabinet Office should continue to act
as a champion of openness in government.
109. It will need to give a clear lead in a number
of areas in preparation for the introduction of the Act. Much
of the evidence given us has stressed the need for clear guidance
on a number of issues. The White Paper lists some of the things
that will be necessary:
- a user-friendly "How to use FOI" guide
for the public;
- public authorities need to be encouraged and
helped to pursue "active openness"—for
example publishing internal manuals, performance indicators, giving
reasons for decisions, etc;
- public authorities will need access to authoritative
and up-to-date guidance;
- there should be effective training for officials;
- there needs to be a central point within government
for liaison between Information Commissioner and the bodies to
which the Act applies.[174]
We believe that, if the Act is to work properly on
introduction, these activities need to be begun as soon as possible,
well before the Bill is passed.
110. Nor should it stop there. In some overseas Freedom
of Information Acts governments are obliged to report on the use
made of the exemptions as well as information published under
the legislation, and we would regard this as a useful and important
means of ensuring that there will be proper information available
on how the Act operates. The Government already produces its annual
report on the operation of the Code of Practice, and this would
be easily extendable into a report on the operation of the Act.
We recommend that the Government is obliged under the Act to
publish an annual report on its operation. This should include
details of the number of applications received by each department,
and how many were accepted. As a first step towards this, there
needs to be some indication of how much authorities need to do
in preparation for the introduction of the Act; authorities should
be required in their own Annual Reports to report on their existing
catalogues, websites and procedures for dealing with requests
and for internal review.
111. Above all, we recommend that the Cabinet
Office needs to place continuous pressure on departments to promote
the pro-active disclosure of information by public authorities,
and to create a general disposition to disclose; and to encourage
authorities to use to the full the possibilities of information
technology in the process. We note in passing the impressive
amount of information provided on the Internet by the BSE inquiry,
which has won an award from the Campaign for Freedom of Information
for its website.
112. While we accept that there needs to be a strong
central unit dedicated to promoting openness within government,
there needs to be external pressure as well. The Information Commissioner's
role will be central in forcing departments to open up. We hope,
as we have outlined above, that a Select Committee can cooperate
with him in that role. The Information Commissioner should be,
and should be seen to be, independent and tough minded. We endorse
Maurice Frankel's comment, that the Commissioner should be "somebody
who is on the side of the applicant, on the side of the purpose
of the Act in promoting accountability".[175]
The Commissioner should be appointed well before the Act comes
into force, to begin the process of setting up systems and indicating
a clear will to force departments to be more open. We recommend
that the Government should seek to appoint to the task someone
who has demonstrated the necessary toughness and independence.
We recommend that this Committee be consulted on the appointment,
and we would propose to take evidence from the Government's preferred
candidate.
113. The White Paper proposals, we are convinced,
will be a powerful pressure for openness within government. Dr
Clark gave an example: the fact that it is expensive to deal with
Freedom of Information requests gives departments an incentive
to release information pro-actively.[176]
He stressed the progressive aspect of the proposed Act: "what
this legislation will do will really get the snowball rolling,
and the whole progressive effect of Freedom of Information will
develop".[177]
As Maurice Frankel said, it will help the systems of accountability
to catch up with an increasingly sophisticated government: "The
public is always trying to catch up with more sophisticated ways
of withholding information. We are always behind. This will allow
us to take a few larger strides but it will not allow us to overtake".[178]
166 para. 226. Back
167 Ev.
p.9. Back
168 Ev.
p.5. Back
169 Ev.
p.25. Back
170 Unprinted
evidence (Local Government Association submission to the Cabinet
Office). It is not clear how the Freedom of Information Bill
will relate to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act
1985. Back
171 Ev.
p.63. Back
172 para.
7.6. Back
173 ibid. Back
174 para.
7.4. Back
175 Q.177. Back
176 Q.101. Back
177 Q.78. Back
178 Q.170. Back
| 
