Appendix
COPY OF LETTER SENT TO LORD FALCONER, DEPARTMENT
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS IN NOVEMBER 2006
We are writing to express our concern at the
proposals by the Government to amend the fee schedules of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Centre is a voluntary organisation funded
by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. The Centre runs a "Work-Related
Death Advice Service" which provides free, independent and
confidential advice to families bereaved from a work-related death
on investigation and prosecution issues arising out of the death.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Centre's advice leaflet for
your information.
Should you wish to find out any more information
about our organisation and its advice service then do not hesitate
in contacting me.
THE PROPOSED
CHANGES
We understand that the Government proposes the
following:
(a) To allow the time spent considering FOI
requests to count towards calculating the cost limit;
(b) To allow authorities to aggregate FOI
requests from the same person or organisation and refuse them
all if the total exceeds the cost limit.
We are extremely concerned about these proposals
for a number of reasons.
First, we use the FOIA as a core part of both
our casework and our policy work. In casework, we use it to request
from investigatory agencies copies of relevant papers, particularly
after the cases are done, so that our clients can have the fullest
possible picture of how their case was investigated. We also occasionally
use it to access information on previous investigations/prosecutions/notices
served on companies currently under investigation, if this is
what our clients wish. This facility has been of real benefit
to our clients, who are bereaved relatives of those killed at
work. We can put in multiple applications at a time if we have
multiple clients who need this information. Our concern is that
the proposals to effectively limit the number of applications
we can put in would lead to us either having to discriminate between
clients (prioritising some over others, aware that there is a
limit we might reach which would result in an effective bar for
other clients) which of course we would never do, or risk having
an application for an equally distraught or needy family refused
simply because we had already sought similar information for others.
This would be a profound injustice and utterly unacceptable.
When we use the Act to support our policy work,
this can take many forms. For example, we might ask for access
to investigation/prosecution bodies' policies on dealing with
bereaved people, with a view to suggesting improvements, or we
might request data from the Health and Safety Executive on workers
killed in work-related road traffic accidents with a view to analysing
the Executive's work in this area. Because we specialise in worker
and public safety it is inevitable that sometimes we will make
multiple requests of a particular body in a particular period—such
as the HSE, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Police or
the Crown Prosecution Service. All of these requests are core
to our work and to have to cut back on them in order to remove
the risk of a vital request being refused under this new regime
will have a clear chilling effect on our work to protect safety.
Second, it is our experience that some bodies
can sometimes filter all requests, wrongly, through FOIA—meaning
that any potential requests would add up under the fees regulation
much quicker than is necessary or proper and effectively putting
an incorrect bar on further disclosures that should be covered
by the FOIA. For example, we had a dispute with the HSE in July
2005 when one branch started treating every request for any information
from a bereaved family as a FOIA request rather than something
that could be dealt with, as it always otherwise would be, by
an investigating inspector. This resulted in one case in a bereaved
daughter being told by an FOI officer that she could have no information
at all about her father's death. We challenged this situation
and got an apology and a change in policy from HSE, but we are
concerned that similar situations arise and then mean an effective
ban on any disclosure at all. This in our view would contribute
to a position on disclosure of information very much worse to
that in existence before the Act came into operation.
In summary, these proposed changes would have
the effect of preventing some bereaved families from being able
to access information about the investigation/prosecution into
the death of their relative, and would lead to an unacceptable
and undemocratic removal of their rights to access information
to assist in our work of protecting worker and public safety.
The proposals as currently constituted would quite possibly make
disclosure less possible than before the Act was implemented—worse
even than nullifying the legislation.
Please reconsider your proposals. We will look
forward to hearing from you.
Bethan Rigby
21 November 2006
| 
