Evidence submitted by Leicester City Council
Thank you for providing the Council with the opportunity
to give its views on this important matter. I appreciate that
I have missed your deadline, but hope our views can nevertheless
be taken into account.
The Council supports the Act and its objectives,
which reflect our commitment to maximum transparency and public
involvement in political processes. It would be a shame if these
important principles were frustrated by over hasty implementation
to meet an arbitrary deadline.
Preparing for the Act has been long and challenging
for all concerned. It is has involved setting up systems across
every Council service and every item of information. Every single
member of staff has to understand the procedure to some extent.
Something this complex takes time to put in place. The devil is
in the detail. It is very hard for something so complex to spring
into life fully formed on a single day.
It is understandable that the Department of
Constitutional Affairs has also found this a complex operation.
No doubt this is why its information and guidance have been slow
to emerge. The obvious example is the lack of guidance, let alone
regulations on charging options. However, this is not the only
area of late information. For example there is consultation in
train on who should take the role of "responsible person"
under section 36. Consultation is still underway on associated
changes to the access to information legislation. The Information
Commissioner and the DCA have only recently produced their detailed
guidance.
Authorities have a great of deal of work to
do if they are to respond effectively and implement changes still
being developed at national level. It is misleading to say that
authorities have had five years to prepare for the Act. They have
only had the time available since details have emerged of exactly
of what they are required to do.
It is unrealistic to expect that every authority
will be able to make a fist of it on the 1 January. Recent examples
have shown that administratively complex legislation takes time
to put in place and that rushing things creates confusion and
problems. Postal balloting for the recent Euro elections was not
a success because insufficient preparation time was allowed.
The important objectives of the Act would stand
a far greater chance of being achieved if the approach were tested
in a more limited area before being applied universally. This
would allow resources to be targeted on ensuring that there were
the right systems to achieve the objectives. The resources actually
needed to make the Act a success (which at the moment are anybody's
guess) could also be more realistically assessed and made available.
Details based on experience could be properly incorporated into
regulations and guidance. This is too important an area to move
forward with no more than a "best guess".
Tom Stephenson
Director of Resources Access and Diversity
Leicester City Council
4 November 2004
| 
