2 The objectives of the Act |
11. Drawing on the White Paper which preceded
the Freedom of Information Act as well as debates and speeches
in Parliament, the Ministry of Justice's Memorandum on Post-Legislative
Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Memorandum)
identified four objectives for the Act: openness and transparency;
accountability; better decision making; and public involvement
in decision making, including increased public trust in decision
making by government.
In research examining the impact of the Act, the University College
Constitution Unit teased out a further aspect of this final objective:
better public understanding of government decision-making.
The Constitution Unit also divided the objectives into primary
and secondary aims, as Dr Ben Worthy, from the Unit, told us:
The two core aims were to increase the transparency
of Government and to increase accountability. Flowing from them
were another four secondary objectives, which were to increase
public understanding, to improve the quality of decision making,
to improve public participation and to improve public trust.
The expectation of a new culture
of openness and transparency
12. Reactive openness, where a public body responds
to a request for information, and proactive transparency were
two avowed aims of those bringing in the freedom of information
legislation. During the Second Reading of the Freedom of Information
Bill in December 1999, Jack Straw MP, told the House that the
Government anticipated a widespread culture change as a result
of the new statutory right to access information:
Unnecessary secrecy in Government and our public
services has long been held to undermine good governance and public
administration [...] the Bill will [...] help to transform the
culture of Government from one of secrecy to one of openness.
It will transform the default setting from "this should be
kept quiet unless" to "this should be published unless".
By doing so, it should raise public confidence in the processes
of government, and enhance the quality of decision making by the
13. The Act sought to create the new culture
by providing both the statutory right to access information held
by public authorities contained in section 1 and imposing a duty
on every public authority to develop and publish a proactive publication
scheme, subject to approval by the Information Commissioner.
We will consider the impact of these two approaches in turn.
14. The Act covers a very wide variety of public
authorities, including central and local government, NHS organisations,
publicly-funded universities, regulators and organisations with
unique public functions such as the Association of Chief Police
Officers. Unsurprisingly, the Act appears to have varying degrees
of success in encouraging a culture of greater openness and transparency
in different types of public body. There was agreement from both
those using the Act and those responding to requests that central
Government was now more open. Alexandra Runswick of Unlock Democracy
told the Committee: "the Government are certainly considerably
more open and transparent than they were before the Freedom of
David Hencke, Senior Investigative Journalist for ExaroNEWS who
appeared before us on behalf of the National Union of Journalists,
told us there had been an enormous change, evidenced by the now
routine publication of information that previously was a closely-guarded
secret, such as releasing information on the gifts given to the
Prime Minister: "Things
that were secret at the beginning of the 21st century are now
routine and available for the public to find out."
The Rt Hon Lord McNally, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice
and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, observed: "When
I started working in Whitehall and Westminster over 40 years ago,
there was still a culture of the man in Whitehall knows best.
I do not think that is true anymore."
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield agreed: "I am pretty Pollyanna-ish
about the world that you are examining. Compared with the one
when I was a young journalist on The Times, it is almost
cornucopic in its openness for all the problems and the bumping
and grinding. It is a different world."
The Society of Editors told us: "The Act has become an essential
journalistic tool which has helped create a climate of genuine
openness and transparency in British public life."
The London Evening Standard agreed: "there is no doubt that
the advent of the Freedom of Information Act has significantly
improved transparency, accountability and good governance in British
Our witnesses suggested that the change was not wholesale, however.
Martin Rosenbaum of BBC News, among others, said: "There
has been a change in culture, but I think that that change is
still partial and inconsistent and has a long way to go."
Mr Rosenbaum suggested that this partial openness related to the
type of information being sought:
Characterising the sort of information that the Act
now enables us to obtain on a very crude level, you will now find
that it is much easier to get facts and figureshow much
was spent on this, statistics about the performance of public
services and so on. The sorts of things that were harder to get
previously now tend to be very easy to get, but what it has not
produced, and the civil service is certainly very resistant to
this, is internal discussion, documents, policy discussion, minutes
of meetings and so on.
We discuss the complex issues surrounding the publication
of policy documents in Chapter 6.
15. At local government level, Kent County Council
said: "The Act has definitely forced traditionally secretive
cultures to become more transparent [...] Within KCC, there [...]
is an acceptance that no longer can business be conducted "behind
Dr Ben Worthy, of the UCL Constitution Unit, agreed the Unit's
research showed greater openness in providing information at local
government level, although this inevitably varied between different
councils, a fact reflected in the evidence given by some of the
individual contributors to the inquiry.
Witnesses from the media were less inclined to identify a greater
culture of openness among councils than the councils and academics.
Ben Leapman, of the Sunday Telegraph, thought change had been
partial at local as well as central Government level: "FOIA
has brought important benefits for the public, by lifting, in
part, the veil of secrecy over the affairs of central and local
The Kent Messenger Group among others suggested that changes to
governing structures in local government meant that, despite the
Act, councils were becoming "more secretive"
FOI has been particularly useful in holding local
councils to account in the context of the introduction of cabinet
government (LGA 2000) which many journalists believe has diminished
the flow of information and allowed authorities much greater control
over the flow of information about executive decisions.
David Higgerson, Digital Publishing Director of Trinity
Mirror Regionals, who appeared before us on behalf of the Newspaper
Society, agreed that structural changes in a variety of public
bodies made the Act a valuable tool:
[...] most councils have adopted opaque 'cabinet
style' structures, many health bodies have done away with public
meetings when gaining 'Foundation Trust' status, and police forces
are reluctant to release even basic details about their work,
FOI has proved invaluable.
16. Public authorities in other sectors thought
the Act had increased openness. Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital
NHS Foundation Trust believed: "The Act works well in principle
and widely supports the openness and transparency agenda [...].
This can only be beneficial for public accountability and an assessment
of efficient use of public resources, services and finances."
Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust said that the Act "has facilitated
a much more open public sector culture."
Of the many submissions from the higher education sector none
addressed the issue of whether the Act had encouraged openness
within the sector; however, Professor Ian Diamond, Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Aberdeen, Chair of Research Policy Network,
Universities UK, told us that, while he emphasised universities
had already had a culture of openness, the Act had had the effect
of improving record keeping.
17. The Memorandum concluded that "the Act
has become a vital element in opening up Government [...] [and]
has resulted in disclosure of significant amounts of information
which might otherwise have gone unreleased."
We agree with the Ministry
of Justice that the Act has contributed to a culture of greater
openness across public authorities, particularly at central Government
level which was previously highly secretive. We welcome the efforts
made by many public officials not only to implement the Act but
to work with the spirit of FOI to achieve greater openness. Our
evidence shows that the strength of the new culture of openness
is, however, variable and depends on both the type of organisation
and the approach to freedom of information of the individual public
18. While closely related there is a clear distinction
between reactive responses to requests for information and the
proactive publication of data, commonly referred to as transparency.
The first puts the power in the hands of the individual seeking
to be informed: he dictates the parameters of the information
he is seeking and, subject to exemptions and cost, the public
authority will provide him with what he asks for. Proactive transparency
means that the body publishing the data controls what is published
and the format in which it is released.
19. The duty to produce proactive publication
schemes in section 19 of the Act is supplemented by extensive
guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office on model publication
schemes. It was generally
agreed that proactive publication had the potential to reduce
the need for freedom of information requests and WhatDoTheyKnow
told us it could "forestall significant numbers of requests",
however, there was some debate about whether the publication scheme
approach was the right one, and how extensive the benefits of
proactive publication could ever be.
20. Dr Ben Worthy told us that the primary reason
why publication schemes were under-used was technological change:
[...] one of the reasons why publication schemes
have not taken off in the way that many had hoped is that it has
been superseded by the internet search engine and the fact that
people can find a way of asking a question rather than looking
for the information. I do that myself in all sorts of circumstances,
and I am not sure that much can be done about it except to ask
people to flag up the information.
Professor Trevor McMillan, Pro-Vice Chancellor for
Research, Lancaster University and Chair of the 1994 Group Research
and Enterprise Policy Group, agreed: "things like the publication
scheme have been slightly bypassed by search engines on the web.
It is probably easier to put a request into a search engine than
it is to go through formal documents."
Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Business Strategy and Support
at Kent County Council, described the publication scheme approach
as "fairly antiquated."
21. The Information Commissioner told us that
publication schemes had the potential to save public bodies time
and money but were not necessarily done well:
We have done a lot of work on the model publication
scheme that public authorities should be running for proactive
disclosure and for making clear on their websites where information
can be found. It is a bit rich to have public authorities saying,
"We are assailed by unreasonable freedom of information requests",
when they do not have an adequate publication scheme, they have
not got their act together in terms of records management and
have a rotten website and so on.
The Commissioner also emphasised the importance of
his enforcement powers in the area of publication schemes:
If you have a recalcitrant local authority [...]
the Information Commissioner has the power to enforce the publication
scheme, which goes beyond the exhortation of Whitehall to be open.
Mr Graham told us that the ICO is currently carrying
out a consultation on the publication scheme approach.
22. Witnesses representing the media agreed that
good publication schemes were useful because information could
be accessed without the expense and delay of a FOI request. David
Hencke gave us an example: "I was checking a salary with
the Cabinet Office. It just said that it was in the public domain
and I did not need an FOI. It saves a lot of money. It points
you to the press office. If they provide a good publication scheme,
in some ways it reduces the need for FOI."
Mr Hencke agreed publication schemes could cut down on journalistic
'fishing exercises' where large numbers of public bodies are contacted
for the same piece of information but could not think of a good
example of a publication scheme for us to consider.
WhatDoTheyKnow noted along with other witnesses that publication
of information may also produce limited benefits as it can "often
[be] hard to actually locate" it on public authorities' websites.
Doug Wills, Managing Editor of the Evening Standard, i, Independent
and Independent on Sunday, agreed that publication schemes could
provide inadequate data:
If you use Birmingham City Council as an example,
we could probably go through the press office to ask a question.
If you are a member of the public looking through the city council's
spending, it will tell you the name of the vendor and the amount
spent, and it will give you the incredibly helpful invoice number,
but it will not tell you what it was for. If you wanted to know
how much the council was spending on grit, you would have to know
who supplied grit out of all the firms across 200 pages on a spreadsheet.
In Birmingham City Council's case, it says that, if you want to
ask any questions about this data, you have to put in a freedom
of information request.
23. Tracey Phillips, a solicitor advising on
freedom of information at Lambeth Council, was positive about
the likelihood that greater transparency would lead to more rather
than fewer FOI requests:
[...] publishing more information on our websites
takes extra resource internally within service areas to decide
what information they are going to publicise and also why that
information might be useful. We have the agenda going forward
to publicise more open dataraw dataso that it can
be interrogated. That is going to take some resource internally
but it will be for the better. I do envisage FOI requests coming
on the back of that.
Ms Phillips suggested that the publication scheme
approach would be enhanced if the Information Commissioner's Office
could provide more guidance as "it is quite broad ranging
in terms of what they say should go in the publication scheme,
but if they could be a bit more prescriptive on defining specific
information, that would help us somewhat."
Paul Gibbons thought the publication scheme approach was "outdated"
and suggested: "A list of information that authorities are
required to make available would be more useful, without stipulating
where the information should be placed on the authority's website."
24. Professor Hazell told us that the findings
of the UCL Constitution Unit showed that the type of information
requested by individuals often focused on "micro-politics"
and matters such as "allotments, parking and the quality
of the roads"
which meant that proactive publication only had a limited impact
on the volume of requests:
[...] you asked whether it would help reduce the
volume of FOI requests if public authorities proactively published
more information. That is intuitively plausible, but I think it
is unlikely to help significantly to reduce the burden because
[...] the extraordinary variety of FOI requests and the variety
of motives make it terribly difficult for authorities to guess
the sort of things that requesters might want.
25. Professor Hazell suggested that disclosure
logs were one of the best ways for public authorities to maximise
the benefits from proactive publication:
The most that they can do, and some of them do this,
is to publish on their websites what are called disclosure logs.
They publish lists of all previous requests, and you can click
on them and find out what the request was and what information
was disclosed; it is, as it were, a back record of things that
people have asked us.
This avoids the difficulty identified by Helen Cross,
an individual user of the Act, where the passage of time leads
to repeat requests for updated information on the same topic.
Julian Brookes, of NHS South of England, told us that his organisation
used the detail of FOI requests not only to proactively publish
information which was the subject of interest but also to consider
how it was presented:
There are lots of things now where we can judge,
from the basis of regular freedom of information requests and
so on, where it is really important for us to be consistent and
accurate in the way in which that information is portrayed. Wherever
possible, we also apply the test that, if this is something that
is consistently being asked for, we will put that into the public
domain. We will extend around the scheme of publication that we
would have and standards that we expected.
26. The relationship between publication schemes
and the wider transparency agenda is somewhat unclear. The Government
has made increasing transparency a priority. In the Foreword to
the Coalition Agreement, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime
Minister declared: "we will extend transparency to every
area of public life."
Lord McNally told the House of Lords that:
The transparency agenda is about much more than historical
information; it is about much more than government records in
the traditional meaning of the phrase. It is about the information
and data that we deal with day to day to inform our decisions
and provide our public services. Making that information available
is what makes the transparency agenda truly revolutionary. More
information than ever is being published proactively by this Government.
In excess of 7,500 datasets have been made available to increase
accountability, empower the public and foster innovation and economic
27. Local government, in particular, has been
subject to a number of measures involving the release of information
since the Act was passed. Some witnesses questioned the efficacy
of certain measures. Kent County Council told the Committee that
publishing the cost of every item of expenditure over £500
Due to the constraints of KCC's financial database
which was not designed for this purpose (KCC hasn't got the spare
£millions to replace or update), it costs approximately £120
a month plus dozens of hours of officer time to redact and prepare
data for publication [...] in the 16 months since this information
has been published on our website, there have only been 3000 visits
to this webpage [including] internal [...] hits, it is questionable
whether publishing this information is actually value for money
28. Edward Hammond, of the Centre for Public
Scrutiny, told us that complaints like that of Kent County Council
arose from the lack of a truly joined-up approach between the
freedom of information regime and the transparency agenda: "Although
there is an increased drive for transparency coming from central
Government, it is not [...] a particularly coherent drive. There
are different drivers coming from different directions. It makes
it very difficult for local authorities to respond in anything
other than a reactive way."
29. Two of the Ministers from whom we heard accepted
that the relationship between the freedom of information regime
and the transparency agenda was important to both. Lord McNally
emphasised the complementary effect of the two approaches: "The
transparency agenda, by its very nature, is what we want to tell
you; the FOI Act is what you want us to tell you. They are not
totally overlapping in that respect, but they can exist side by
30. The Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for
the Cabinet Office, told us that Government was aware of the need
to 'join-up' the two policy streams:
[...] the agendas are very closely linked. Are we
perfectly joined up? No. Are the Government ever perfectly joined
up? No; nor will they ever be, but we work pretty closely together.
Tom and I are giving evidence together. Tom sits on the transparency
board, which I chair, which is driving forward the transparency
agenda. The two agendas probably originate in different places,
but they need to be seen very much as a single range of issues.
31. While proactive transparency
clearly has the potential to reduce the burden of responding to
information requests on hard-pressed public authorities, the proactive
publication of data cannot substitute for a right to access data
because it is impossible for public bodies to anticipate the information
that will be required. Nevertheless, proactive publication is
important in achieving the primary objectives of the Act of openness
32. Government must ensure that
the freedom of information regime and the transparency agenda
work together to ensure best value for money. Individual initiatives
in different departments must be examined before implementation
in the light of existing policy to see whether they constitute
the most effective approach. Equally, existing initiatives should
also be assessed after a period of time to ensure they both offer
value for money and have not produced unintended consequences.
Has the increase in openness and
transparency increased accountability?
33. The evidence we heard suggested that greater
access to public information has led to an increase in accountability.
Dr Ben Worthy told us that the Constitution Unit had found that
the Act "has made local and central Government more transparent
and more accountabletransparent not only in terms of the
information provided but in fostering a more open culture and
it has improved accountability."
Professor Hazell agreed that Government accountability had been
increased. The National
Union of Journalists thought the Act made public bodies more accountable
and the Society of Editors agreed.
Representatives from NHS organisations also thought accountability
had been improved.
34. The Information Commissioner noted that the
increase in accountability through the Act had the potential to
be undermined if the freedom of information regime did not apply
to private providers of public services.
We consider this issue in depth in Chapter 8.
INCREASING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN PUBLIC
35. The Memorandum found that the objective of
increasing public trust and confidence in Government, Parliament
and other public authorities may have been unrealistic because,
as found following research by the Constitution Unit, the vast
majority of people experience freedom of information through news
stories and these are more likely to be negative in tone than
the Memorandum also noted that "the very existence of the
legislation gives [the public] some confidence that public authorities
have little to hide behind. They know they can be scrutinised
and this of itself tends towards a different relationship between
public authorities and the public."
These conclusions reflected the evidence we heard on this issue.
The Constitution Unit told us that its research showed the Act
had had "no generalisable impact on trust."Maurice
Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, told us he
saw an increase in trust among those who directly sought information
from public bodies rather than the majority who experienced the
fruits of the freedom of information regime through the media.
Doug Wills noted that the existence of the Act meant distrust
arising from the inability to obtain data was less likely to arise:
"If the information was not available, then there would be
distrust. That is positive in itself."
Martin Rosenbaum thought that it was not reasonable to expect
the Act to increase trust in itself; greater trust and confidence
was always going to be dependent on the information uncovered:
The Act enables people to know more, and what they
discover as a result may or may not increase their trust. There
are obvious reasons why it has not increased their trust in Parliament.
There are very clear reasons for that. It is not the fault of
the Act that there has been a failure to increase trust. The point
of the Act is to give people more information. Whether it improves
their trust levels or not is not something to hold at the door
of the Act.
David Hencke agreed that the information uncovered
by a freedom of information request was a substantial factor in
whether the Act contributed toward greater public trust noting:
"Parliament did not do itself any favours over the expenses
business when, in the preamble to it, someone put up a Private
Member's Bill that was trying to exempt Parliament from freedom
of information [...]"
36. As the Memorandum notes, however, the information
published following a freedom of information request and reported
in the media is more likely to "identify deficiencies in
decision-making or inefficiencies in spending decisions"
than it is to be positive. This reflects the evidence we heard
from a number of public authorities that they frequently respond
to requests from journalists that do not result in news stories.
Scrutiny and criticism of those in power is part of the constitutional
role of a free press. The fact that irregularities, errors and
deficiencies will usually be more newsworthy than the revelation
a public body is operating appropriately and efficiently is inevitable.
It can, however, have the unfortunate consequence of encouraging
secrecy rather than fostering a culture of openness. Lord O'Donnell,
former Cabinet Secretary, told us:
If you are open, you get criticised for the things
that you are open about. I had an interesting example myself [...]
I decided to release, since I am not paid by anybody at the minute
but I am a Member of the Lords, some hospitality information.
I do not think anybody else does that. Surprise, surprise, you
get a snidey press story in Private Eye as a result of this.
Such outcomes, Lord O'Donnell concluded, constituted
a "perverse incentive" to keep information secret, a
conclusion he noted had also been reached by former Prime Minister
Tony Blair in his autobiography.
Francis Maude MP agreed that the relationship between openness
and trust was not straightforward but said, "Can [openness]
lead to embarrassment? Yes. Do we have to be a bit grown up about
that? Yes, we do."
37. Our evidence on the impact
of the Act on trust generally agreed with the findings of the
Memorandum. Whether the Act will contribute to an increase in
public confidence in the Government, Parliament and other bodies
is primarily dependent on the type of information which is published
following a request. The majority of people will receive information
published under the Act through the media. Evidence of irregularities,
deficiencies and errors is always likely to prove more newsworthy
than evidence that everything is being done by the book and the
public authority is operating well. In these circumstances, the
expectation of a substantial increase in public trust following
the introduction of the Act was always going to prove unrealistic.
38. Greater release of data
is invariably going to lead to greater criticism of public bodies
and individuals, which may sometimes be unfair or partial. In
our view, however this, while regrettable, is a price well worth
paying for the benefits greater openness brings to our democracy.
IMPROVING THE QUALITY
OF DECISION MAKING
39. Our evidence showed that assessing the impact
of the Act on improving the quality of decision-making is highly
complex. We will consider the achievement of this objective in
INCREASING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
OF DECISION MAKING AND THE OPERATION OF AUTHORITIES
40. The Memorandum noted that the Information
Commissioner's Office tracker survey found a 54% to 87% increase
in the proportion of people agreeing that "being able to
access information held by public authorities increases your knowledge
of what they do" between 2004 and 2010.
The question whether the Act had actually had an effect on public
understanding of Government decision making was explored by the
Constitution Unit in its major piece of research on whether the
Act had achieved its objectives.
IMPROVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
41. As the Memorandum notes, Lord Falconer told
the House of Lords that one objective of the Act was "to
show citizens how government worksand to show them how
decisions are taken."
The Constitution Unit, while noting this objective had the fewest
mentions in the documents surrounding the Act,
found that public participation in decision-making had not been
greatly improved in central Government because:
First, many requesters are using FOI in a professional
capacity, as journalists or campaigners, rather than as ordinary
citizens. Second, a number also use it to non-political ends or
private purposes. Finally, FOI is used by people already engaged
in the political process, rather than bringing new participants
Moreover, FOI faces the same obstacles of lack of
interest, apathy and disengagement that face all the varying attempts
to promote wider engagement. Rather than FOI shaping political
engagement, pre-existing conditions towards disengagement hinder
the impact of FOI.
42. We received limited evidence on the achievement
of this objective. Paul Gibbons, author of the FOIMan blog, also
thought that the use of the Act by campaigners showed improved
public participation in decision-making:
One recent example was the campaign by disability
campaigners against the Welfare Reform Bill currently before Parliament.
The campaign used responses to the Department's consultation on
the Bill, obtained through an FOI request, to produce a report
which was then widely circulated through social media and other
One of our witnesses described a cultural change
in his sector which was influenced by rather than a direct consequence
of the Act. As noted above, Julian Brookes told us:
We have certainly seen improvements in the way in
which our records are kept and accountability and decision making.
It is partly to do with the Freedom of Information Act but also
partly to do with what I would describe as a change in culture
in terms of how we operate in the NHS in regard to our decision
making. There is increased engagement of key stakeholders in decisions
we make, particularly, for example, on service change. The greater
awareness that the Freedom of Information Act has brought to those
discussions has led to a good and accurate recording of the issues.
43. Having received limited
evidence on the impact of the Act on increased public participation
in decision making, we would not seek to disagree with the findings
of the Constitution Unit that this objective has not been achieved,
at least in central Government. We welcome, however, the suggestion
that, while the Act may not have had a direct impact on increasing
public participation in decisions made in the NHS it has assisted
in a move towards a culture of greater public involvement.
Understanding of the Act
44. The primary aim of the Act was to create
a statutory right to access information. The Rt Hon Jack Straw
MP told the House of Commons:
The Bill [...] lays down for the first time in our
constitutional history that the public have a right to know about
the work of Government and all other public authorities.
45. Lord Hennessy put it another way: "Even
the most difficult fruit cakes in the United Kingdom have rights
when it comes to FOI, which is as it should be."
The then Government's intention that the Act should create a universal
right to access public information was not, however, appreciated
by many of our witnesses. We heard a large number of complaints
that the Act was being used by people for whom it was not intended.
Complaints focused on journalists,
individuals pursuing purely private agendas
and individuals with frivolous requests.
These complaints misunderstand the intention behind the Act. While
we examine whether the Act should continue to be used in all these
ways in Chapters 3 and 5 below, the use of the Act by many different
groups of people should be regarded as a facet of the universality
of the right to access information, not a failure of the Act.
MISUNDERSTANDING THE ACT
46. The NHS Business Service Authority recognised
that misunderstanding of the Act had an impact on how it was viewed:
The benefits have taken time to be realised as requesters
and public authorities have developed their understanding of it.
Clearer central guidance, as provided under the Cabinet Office
transparency agenda, would have meant faster realisation of the
Throughout this inquiry we have borne in mind the
potential for misunderstanding of the Act being behind some of
the criticisms we have heard rather than genuine flaws in the
19 Memo, pp 5-7 Back
Ev 126 Back
Q 57 Back
HC Deb, 7 December 1999, col 714 Back
Section 19 Back
Q 2 Back
Q 137 Back
Q 138 Back
Q 513 Back
Q 244 Back
Ev w165 [Note: references to 'Ev wXX' are references to written
evidence published in the volume of additional written evidence
published on the Committee's website] Back
Ev 143 Back
Q 138 Back
Q 139 Back
Ev 192 Back
For example, Sophie Barnes, Ev w1; Colin Peek, Ev w56; Derek
Dishman, Ev w69; and Chris Boocock, Ev w205 among others. Back
Ev w65 Back
Ev w103 Back
Ev w121 Back
Ev w103 Back
Ev 134 Back
Ev w67 Back
Q 95 Back
Memo, p55 Back
The ICO has a duty to provide such information under section
20 of the Act. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide/publication_scheme.aspx Back
Ev 129 Back
Q 84 Back
Q 124 Back
Q 393 Back
Q 227 Back
Q 231 Back
Q 181 Back
Q 179 Back
Ev 129 Back
Q 182 Back
Q 394 Back
Q 395 Back
Ev w47 Back
Q 77 Back
Q 77 Back
Q 91 Back
Ev w197 Back
Q 289 Back
The Coalition: our programme for government , 2010, p7 http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf Back
HL Deb, 17 January 2012, col 545 Back
Ev 192 Back
Q 395 Back
Q 515 Back
Q 57 Back
Ev w215, w165 Back
Q 289 Back
Q 238 Back
Memo, p58 Back
Ev 126 Back
Q 42 Back
Q 142 Back
Q 142 While the initial reports of Parliamentary expenses
in 2009 were the result of a leak, the information was being pursued
by a number of journalists under the Freedom of Information Act.
It is now routinely published subject to the limited redaction
of personal details such as private addresses. Back
For example see Ev w136. Back
Q 250 Back
Q 514 Back
Memo, p58 Back
Memo, p7 Back
Robert Hazell, Ben Worthy and Mark Glover, The impact
of the Freedom of Information Act on Central Government in the
UK, Does FOI Work, (London, 2010), p27 Back
Ibid, p230 Back
Ev w47 Back
Q 298 Back
HC Deb, 7 December 1999, col 714 Back
Q 250 Back
For example see Ev w214 Back
For example see Ev 106 Back
For example see Ev w144 Back
For example see Ev 146 Back
Ev 105 Back