Evidence submitted by Which?
Which? welcomes the opportunity to submit written
evidence for the Committee's one-off evidence session on Freedom
of Information on 6 March 2007.
1. We are opposed to the draft regulations
published by the Department of Constitutional Affairs; our submission
to the formal consultation is not yet finalised but as soon as
it is submitted, I will send a copy to the Committee [see Appendix].
2. ABOUT WHICH?
Which? is an independent, not for profit consumer
organisation with around 700,000 members and is the largest consumer
organisation in Europe. Which? is independent of government and
industry and is funded through the sale of Which? magazines and
books. For 50 years we have been campaigning to get a fairer deal
for all consumers.
3. SUMMARY
3.1 Which? believes that the proposed changes
will hinder our ability to be an effective campaigning organisation
as we use Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to forge
positive change for consumers through our campaigning work.
3.2 Furthermore, we believe that the FOIA
has not been in force long enough for the proposed changes to
be either justified or necessary.
3.3 A core activity of Which? is to monitor
the effectiveness and efficiency of public bodies and relevant
legislation. We are recognised and relied upon by our members,
the media and the general public for this work. We believe the
draft regulations would limit our ability to continue to achieve
this.
4. The proposed changes to the FOIA of most
concern to us are:
4.1 That the cost of the time it takes to
read, consider and consult on FOIA requests will be added to the
cost limit (currently between £450-£600).
4.2 That unrelated requests from one organisation
or individual over a three month period will be treated as one
aggregated request.
5. Complex FOIA requests that Which? has
made in the past, which might have been refused under the DCA's
proposals, includes our work on:
5.1 Restaurant inspection reports—"scores
on doors".
5.2 EU subsidies paid to individual farmers.
5.3 Enforcement policies of the Financial
Services Authority.
5.4 Details of ministerial meetings with
outside bodies.
6. The impact of the proposed changes for
Which? could be that:
6.1 Due to the limit of one request per
quarter, for our health campaigns work, one request about waiting
lists for one medical procedure could prevent us from asking about
other waiting lists for 60 days and bar us from enquiring about
hospital cleanliness, food, surgical success rates, access to
new treatments, medical negligence, ambulance services, facilities
for the disabled, interpreting services, clinical trials, investment
plans, staffing levels, service cuts and other aspects of patient
care.
6.2 Any FOIA request that raises a new and
complex issue for the first time is at risk of being refused without
consideration of its merits. Such requests are by their nature
time consuming at first because they challenge tong held practices.
7. We have found that some public bodies,
including some central government bodies, are more confident and
willing to be open. Those that are less open are more likely to
incur higher costs (and use more time) which will, in turn, act
to curb FOIA requests.
8. We therefore believe that:
8.1 The aggregation of FOIA requests may
well in fact act as a disincentive to those public bodies that
are only now beginning to deal effectively with the impact of
the FOIA.
8.2 Public bodies should invest in records
management systems to make the processing of FOI requests more
efficient rather than seek to limit the number of requests.
8.3 Public bodies should seek to pro-actively
publish information so that FOIA requests are not necessary.
8.4 Interpretive guidance published by the
Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) is helpful to both
requesters such as Which? as well as the public bodies responding.
By implementing the proposed changes, such OIC guidance may diminish.
8.5 It may be sensible to require a proportion
of FOIA fees to be invested in information technology and records
management systems so as to meet current and projected FOIA demands,
including adjusting staffing levels particularly in high volume
areas, rather than seeking to limit the number of FOIA requests
as a management tool.
8.6 The level of complexity in the FOIA
could be reduced by amending the list of exemptions.
9. In December 2006, as part of a health
related campaign we are currently working on, we submitted a FOIA
request to 100 Primary Care Trusts (PCT). We are currently conducting
an analysis of the PCTs' responses. Our preliminary finding is
that there is a huge variation in both their response and their
knowledge of the operation of the FOIA. There is a tack of consistency
in both.
10. CONCLUSION
10.1 Which? has found the FOIA to be an
extremely important tool in providing reliable information and
equipping campaigners with more focused outcomes. We therefore
believe that the damage done by these proposals would be out of
all proportion to the relatively modest financial savings.
10.2 Which? hopes that the Constitutional
Affairs Select Committee will recommend that Parliament should
reject the draft regulations if they are ever presented to Parliament.
Mark McLaren
February 2007
| 
