Evidence submitted by the Newspaper Society
1. The Newspaper Society represents the
regional newspaper industry. Its members publish around 1300 local
and regional newspaper titles with around 40 million adult readers.
2. The regional press is seriously concerned
by the Government's proposals set out in its consultation paper
Draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate
Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007.
3. The regional press opposes the Government's
proposals to allow public authorities in future to take into account
the costs of reading the information, consulting other bodies
and considering whether to release it and to allow authorities
to aggregate unrelated requests from the same person or company
if reasonable to do so in making the costs calculations.
4. These changes will allow public authorities
to refuse requests simply on costs grounds, irrespective of the
absence of other grounds to refuse lawfully the request or the
public interest in the release of the information.
5. As the Government's partial regulatory
impact assessment and consultants' report recognised, these changes
will have a particular effect upon journalists and campaigning
groups, as well as MPs and their researchers. Allowing reading,
consultation and consideration time could be used to justify refusal
to release contentious or sensitive information which the public
body would prefer was not made publicly available. Allowing aggregation
of requests would allow any local authority or other local public
body, however wide its range of responsibilities, to accept just
one request a quarter from any regional newspaper company, even
though the requests may have been completely unrelated, made by
different specialist correspondents or general news reporters
from one title, or from various different titles, in order to
obtain accurate and authoritative information from different departments
of the same public body.
6. The proposals could have a hugely detrimental
effect upon the use and effectiveness of the Freedom of Information
Act at local level by the local press and their readers. The Government's
consultants estimated that media requests to public bodies outside
central Government cost around £1.4 million. This cost does
not justify the proposed restrictions to cut use of the Act. Regional
and local press requests have not dealt with trivial matters—they
have revealed cracks in local nuclear power stations, MRSA infection
rates in local hospitals, precise manner of expenditure of public
funds by the local public bodies. The Government's proposals do
not take into account the benefits which have resulted from the
information revealed by those requests, including the beneficial
effect of the resulting greater openness, public scrutiny and
public accountability, upon the activities, administration, decision-taking
of public bodies in discharging their public functions.
7. I attach the Newspaper Society's letter
of 29 November to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State which
details the reasons why the regional press are so deeply disturbed
by the proposals and opposed to such changes. I would be grateful
if the Committee could also consider this letter and the issues
raised by the industry set out in that letter. The draft regulations'
suggested cost thresholds and ceilings do not alleviate the concerns
described since they would still allow requests to be refused
on estimated costs grounds alone, in circumstances where that
would not be currently possible.
8. The Government may suggest that the regulations
are intended to assist public bodies faced with a potentially
time consuming request which the requester is reluctant voluntarily
to refine or agree an extended timetable. But the proposed legislative
change would extend the right of all public bodies to refuse to
supply any information to anyone, simply on estimated time and
costs grounds. The costs involved hardly provide justification
for undermining the freedom of information regime within just
two year of its introduction.
9. Regional and local newspapers have published
numerous articles, detailing the information which their readers
and reporters have obtained as a result of the Act and their opposition
to the proposals which could undermine its effectiveness. Many
examples were given by Members of Parliament during the adjournment
debate on 7 February on the Government's proposals. Editors and
publishers have and will continue to explain their real concerns
to the Government, ministers and officials and ask them to reconsider
its intentions.
10. The Newspaper Society hopes that the
Government will reconsider its proposals and decide against bringing
forward any regulations or other legislative proposals that take
away the public's right to information under the Freedom of Information
Act.
11. The Newspaper Society would be happy
to provide any further information.
Santha Rasaiah
Political, Editorial and Regulatory Affairs Director
February 2007
| 
