Evidence submitted by the Society of Editors
LETTER SENT TO BARONESS ASHTON OF UPHOLLAND,
DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
OF THE
IMPACT OF
THE FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION
ACT
As you may have gathered from the last meeting
of the Information Users' group, editors would find it difficult
to accept your suggestion of merely providing practical objections
to the proposed changes in the working of the Act rather than
questioning the principles behind the proposals.
We believe that the proposals on charging and
attempts to reduce the level of information requests are fundamentally
flawed. They would undermine the ideas behind the legislation
and interrupt valuable progress.
We have always believed, and the Government
has previously shared the view, that the Freedom of Information
Act was simply an essential but relatively small step towards
a change in culture from one of pervading secrecy to one of openness
in public affairs.
Against that background, the sum of £24
million which the Frontier Economics "Independent Review
of the impact of the Freedom of Information Act" attributes
to the working of the Act in central government and the £11
million in the wider public sector, including local government,
represents a relatively small use of public funds. That is a surprisingly
low level of investment in what the Prime Minister once described
as the cornerstone of constitutional reform.
The society has always maintained a view the
government previously appeared to endorse, that greater openness
is crucial for greater public involvement, engagement in politics
and decision making at national and local levels. Achieving such
change need not be expensive but it does require adequate investment.
The proposals aimed at reducing the number of
requests for information under the Act are, therefore, also at
odds with stated policy aims. Encouraging participation in the
political process surely implies an increase in public questioning.
Indeed it should be welcomed rather than restricted.
You raised the issue of the cost to some public
bodies of answering requests for information and suggested that
answering questions interfered with their core activities. On
a practical level that may indeed be the case but, given the aims
described above, both the Government and those public bodies should
be ensuring there is proper investment in the system for dealing
with requests for information.
The Information Commissioner's own report provides
a useful model in this. One of the issues undermining progress
towards greater openness has been delays in decisions on information
requests by the commissioner. He reports that relatively modest
investment in extra resources has enabled his office to make significant
progress on this issue.
Public bodies generally could benefit similarly
by the allocation of modest extra resources to the provision of
information in response to FoI requests. That would enable them
to meet those requests without interfering with their important
work.
Again that would be an investment in public
participation that would bring direct but probably immeasurable
benefits to the public bodies themselves.
The Frontier Economics review referred to information
requests from commercial organisations. Such requests could be
specifically targeted where there is a clear and direct commercial
benefit to be gained. Requests by the media are made on behalf
of the public and while parts of the media are commercial organisations
it would be wrong to argue that there is a direct commercial benefit
from asking for information on behalf of readers, listeners and
viewers.
You may see all of this as an objection to the
proposals in principle. We would argue, however, that these comments
are aimed at the practical issues surrounding the working of the
Act and, more importantly, the sentiments and policy targets behind
it.
Bob Satchwell
23 November 2006
| 
