| 1. | We have no evidence to indicate that the Government has adequately reviewed whether the existing charging regime balanced public access rights with the needs of public authorities to deliver services effectively, before examining ways of reducing compliance costs. Furthermore we have not heard sufficient evidence from the Department to support the need for a radical change in the arrangements for charging for Freedom of Information requests. (Paragraph 18)
|
| | |
| 2. | The cost-benefit analysis used to support the proposed new regime is insufficient. The costs to the public of reduced access to information are ignored, the additional costs of the proposed new regime are omitted and alternative ways of making information provision more efficient are not considered. (Paragraph 27)
|
| | |
| 3. | The poor quality of information presented in the cost-benefit analysis, in particular the lack of information about the benefits of FOI to the public, suggests that little effort was made by the DCA to balance public access rights against the needs of public authorities to deliver services effectively. The focus of the DCA's work has been entirely on cost reduction, despite the absence of any evidence that such measures were necessary; there is no evidence that the DCA took steps to assess the benefits of the present regime. (Paragraph 28)
|
| | |
| 4. | We have not received any convincing evidence that the new regime would be sufficiently transparent and subject to adequate review. It is unclear how a framework for independent review would operate. We conclude that the proposed regime could result in public authorities avoiding answers to embarrassing, contentious or high-profile cases as the number of internal consultees rises in proportion to the sensitivity of particular requests. (Paragraph 37)
|
| | |
| 5. | There is no objective evidence that any change is necessary. The cost-benefit analysis provided with the Government's consultation papers is incomplete. There is clear evidence that the proposed amendments could be open to manipulation and abuse. There is no sign that any consideration has been given to proper funding of the independent review process. The proposed measures have the scope significantly to reduce the flow of information into the public domain. We recommend that the proposed new charging regime be withdrawn. (Paragraph 43)
|
| | |
| 6. | The Ministry of Justice should now focus on improving compliance with the existing provisions of the FOI Act and on reducing the delays encountered by requesters seeking information. Any future proposed changes to the charging regime must be supported by a firm evidence base and take proper account of the impact they would have on the benefits which the public derive from FOI. (Paragraph 44)
|
| | |
| 7. | A Private Member's Bill, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, has passed through the Commons and is awaiting debate in the House of Lords. Its effect would be to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In the course of our various inquiries into the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we have been sent no evidence indicating a need for such an exemption or that existing protections for constituents' correspondence were inadequate. We believe an exemption would be contrary to the culture of openness which we have argued should prevail in the public service. (Paragraph 45)
|
| | |
| 8. | We are not convinced that the funding of the ICO is sufficient to enable it to deliver an effective complaints resolution service. We question whether it is appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to set the funding levels for the independent regulator and thereby directly influence its capacity to investigate complaints. With regard to the proposed new charging regime, the cost-benefit analysis suggests that no significant additional resources would be provided to the ICO to enable it to manage the additional workload predicted in the Frontier Economics review. This suggests to us that the Government would be content to accept the consequentially slower complaints resolution process. (Paragraph 49)
|
| | |
| 9. | In our last Report on this subject we concluded that the relationship between the DCA and the ICO was not working as effectively as it might. We have not seen any improvement. We repeat our recommendation made in that Report that the Information Commissioner should become directly responsible to, and funded by Parliament. (Paragraph 50)
|
| | |
