Evidence submitted by David Heigham
As a former Civil Servant, it appears on the
face of the papers that the assessment of the costs of the Freedom
of Information Act did not follow the standard Treasury guidance
(which I assume is still in force) to assess benefits in such
a case as well as costs. Major benefits, even if ill quantified,
may outweigh marginal costs. Obviously, benefits cannot be quantified
in the same fairly precise terms as costs; but a guiding principle
in such assessments is that one should try to be approximately
right, and always aware of the danger of being precisely wrong.
Some possible headings of benefits that might
be approximately assessed include:
1. Has the operation of the Act helped to
reveal cases where public resources may be being misused or wasted?
2. Has the operation of the Act helped to
identify cases where the operation of the machinery of government
has been less than satisfactory?
3. Has the operation of the Act helped to
formulate guidance or training in Government operations?
4. Has the operation of the Act improved
confidence in public administration?
5. What benefits have citizens felt from
the operation of the Act?
6. Has the operation of the Act produced
any reductions of costs or increase of benefits for other agents
in the economy?
This list of possible headings is based on general
principles only. I have no expertise in Freedom of Information
matters; those who do will be able to list possible benefits more
completely and relevantly. But from the general principles embodied
in successive editions of the Treasury guidance, it seems difficult
to see how Ministers can come to a properly informed decision
if no attempt has been made to assess whether substantive benefits
exist.
March 2007
| 
