|
The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act came into force fully on 1 January 2005. It gives people the right of access to information held by over 100,000 public authorities across the UK. The new Environmental Information Regulations, which provide a separate access regime for environmental information, also came into force on the same date. We conducted this inquiry in order to examine the first year's experience of FOI and to consider the impact which it had made.
It is clear to us that the implementation of the FOI Act has already brought about the release of significant new information and that this information is being used in a constructive and positive way by a range of different individuals and organisations. We have seen many examples of the benefits resulting from this legislation. We are impressed by the efforts made by public authorities to meet the demands of the Act. This is a significant success.
The most commonly cited problem for requesters was delays in responding to requests. Published data show that there are many cases where the 20 day statutory response time is not being complied with. In addition, lack of interpretation in the code of practice as to 'reasonable' time limits enables public authorities to make indefinite extensions of many months in order to make public interest decisions and to conduct internal reviews. These delays undermine the effectiveness of the Act and reduce the benefits to the public. We have identified a number of areas where the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) could and should improve compliance. A culture change towards greater openness is the aim, but the immediate priority is a more assertive enforcement of the law.
Our overall impression is that the complaints resolution process provided by the Information Commissioner's Office during 2005 was unsatisfactory. We heard evidence from requesters and public authorities who had waited months for the Information Commissioner to start investigating their complaints. Witnesses also gave examples where the quality of investigation and the information provided in the resultant decision notices were inadequate. We are nevertheless pleased to note the efforts being made by the Commissioner's Office to learn from its first year's experience of a challenging workload in order to investigate complaints more efficiently. The Commissioner has told us he will publish a progress report in September 2006 and we will use this report to assess whether any more follow-up by us is needed.
We see considerable merit in the Information Commissioner becoming directly responsible to, and funded by, Parliament, and recommend that such a change be considered when an opportunity arises to amend the legislation.
We have another area of concern. The long-term preservation of electronic records is widely recognised as a serious problem. The National Archives has told us about the impressive range of guidance documents which it has issued but the evidence suggests that records management practices in some public authorities need substantial improvement. More proactive leadership and progress management of departments' records management systems is required.
When the DCA Minister, Baroness Ashton, came to give evidence to us about Government plans to ensure the long-term preservation of documents held in digital form, we were disappointed by her failure to recognise that this was a serious threat. Plans are needed to handle the rapid and significant changes in technology and the inevitable degradation of storage media. National Archives and the DCA must take the lead in developing such plans. Freedom of Information has no force without a proper commitment to ensure that the information held is in a retrievable form.
| 
