FOI73

WrittenevidencefromNHSBassetlawandNHSDoncaster 1. ExecutiveSummary ThefollowingoutlinesNHSBassetlawsandNHSDoncastersresponsetothe FreedomofInformationActSelectCommitteeReview. TheorganisationslistedabovesupporttheprinciplesbehindtheFreedomof InformationAct,whichensuresweareasopenandtransparentaspossible. HoweverwehaveallidentifiedareasthatdemonstratehowtheFreedomof InformationActisnotfullyoperatinginthemannerthatitwasintended,including: Media/CommercialBusinessrequests Timelimits NoDifferentiationofrequestee 2. Introduction InthecurrentclimateofNHSrestructuringNHSBassetlawandNHSDoncasterare workingcloselytogether,withintegratedteamsforFinanceandPrimaryCare.To thiseffectthefollowinginformationhasbeensubmittedjointlybybothPCTs. 3. FactualInformation NHSBassetlaw DoestheFreedomofInformationActworkeffectively? EachorganisationhasonitswebsiteacopyoftheInformationCentresPublication schemewhichoutlineswhatinformationtheorganisationwillpublish.However, veryfewrequestsactuallyfallintothiscategorywhereyoucanredirectthe requesteetotherelevantsectionofthewebsite. Themajorityoftherequestsaskforveryspecificitems,eitherbeforetheyget finalisedforinclusioninwebsitematerialorwouldnotbeintendedforroutine publication. Theactiseffectiveinthesensethatitensurespublicsectororganisationsareopen andtransparent;howeverthereshouldbemoreprotectionforpublicsector organisationsintermsofhowrequestscanbemade.Toomanyrequestsarevery vagueinnaturewhichthenentailsextraworkfortheidentifiedleadastheyhaveto tryaninterprettherequest,andbythisverynature,ifallPCTswereaskedforthe samething,andallinterpretedtherequestdifferentlythenthedatacapturedwould beuselessforcomparisonpurposes. Thereshouldbeamorestructuredwayinwhichrequestscouldbemade,which wouldinvolvetherequesteeputtingabitofthoughtintowhatitistheyrequire.We arenotsuggestingcreatingonerousbureaucracyasthisdefeatstheprincipleof beingopen,butsomeformofstructureintohowrequestsaremadecouldhelpto

Page1of3

FOI73
improvethesystem.Atthemoment,thiscanbeinanyformofwriting,anddoesnot havetomentiontheFreedomofInformationActintherequest. Exemptionsarealsoquitetechnicalinnature,whichweunderstandtheyhavetobe, butitwouldbeusefultohaveamoreuserfriendlyexemptionlistandreallife exampleswheretheycouldbeapplied. WhatarethestrengthsandweaknessesoftheFreedomofInformationAct? Strengths Actensurespublicsectororganisationsareopenandaccountable PublicationSchemeensureswepublishsomeinformationonourwebsite Allowsforresearchopportunitiesfrompublicsectororganisationsthatwould havepreviouslybeenunabletobecarriedout,i.e.localpeoplecanusetheactto findouthowacertaindecisionwasderivedetc. Weaknesses Currentprotectionfororganisationsontimelimitsandcostsofansweringthe questions.Thetimetakentoreviewthematerialandconsideringwhetherornot isexemptandthenactuallyredactingtheinformationcannotbeincludedinthe estimationofthetimeitwouldtaketocomplywiththerequest. TheActcanbeusedbyprivatecompaniestofishforcontactsandother information,wheretheonlypurposeappearstobetofurthertheirownbusiness interest. Requesteesdonothavetodisclosewhythisinformationisrequired.Aspartof anamendedrequestprocesscategoriescouldbeusedsothattheintendeduseis askedfor,withaclearmessageabouttheReUseofpublicsectorinformation. EachorganisationhastohaveitsownReuseofPublicSectorInformationrulesin place.Iftherewasastandardpolicyandchargesattachedforreusingthe informationforcommercialpurposes,thenitwouldhelporganisations. IstheFreedomofInformationActoperatinginthewaythatitwasintendedto? FromthePCTsperspectivewewouldsaynoitisntfullyoperatinginthewayitwas intended.Againwethinkitisfairandrightthatweareopenandtransparent,but theresourceimplicationsfordealingwithrequestsarehigh.Asmentionedinthe firstquestion,thepublicationschemeisinplaceandwepublishinformationonour website,howeverthemajorityofrequeststhatarereceivedarenotusuallycovered bytheinformationalreadypublished. AlsojournalistsareabletosendoneemailofftoallNHSorganisationswithout necessarilydoinganyofthegroundworkthemselves.TheFOIActdoesnt differentiatebetweenthesendersofrequests,whichundertheprinciplesisfine, howeverjournalistsrequestsaccountforapproximatelyaquarterofallrequests, andifthesamerequestsissenttoallNHSorganisationsthentheresourcerequired toanswerthesesoonaddsup. PleasenoteNHSBassetlawreceivedapproximately80journalistrequestsin2011. Page2of3

FOI73
NHSDoncaster: DoestheFreedomofInformationActworkeffectively? TheintentionoftheFreedomofInformationActwastoprovideaccessible informationtothepublic.TherequirementforaPublicationSchemehasabsolutely supportedourpublicsectororganisationtoprovidemoreinformationtothepublic inanaccessibleformatandhasencouragedustoputmoreinformationintothe publicdomain. Howevertheopportunitytomakeveryspecificrequestshasnotencouragedthe highnumbersofmembersofthepublicasintended.Instead,itispredominantly usedbycommercialorganisationsandjournalistsandmanagingtheveryspecific requestsmadebythesegroupsisaburdenonourorganisationinaclimateof reducingstaffinglevels. WhatarethestrengthsandweaknessesoftheFreedomofInformationAct? Strengths moreinformationavailableinthepublicdomain,whichsupportsusto betterengagewithourpopulationoncommissioningprioritiesetc. Weaknesses itfeelslikethespecificrequestsystemisbeingoverusedby commercialorganisations,journalists,andalsobystudentsfortheir dissertations.Thenumberofrequestsfrommembersofthepublicis lowcomparedtothesethreegroups.Thereisacostattachedtoeach request,andin2011alonewerespondedto389requests,severalof whichhadfurtherfollowupquestions. IstheFreedomofInformationActoperatinginthewaythatitwasintendedto? No,forthereasonsoutlinedabove. 4. Recommendations Considerthetimelimitsorganisationshavebeforetheexemption applies ForHealthOrganisations,considerdifferentiatingbetweenamemberof thepublicrequestinginformationascomparedtoajournalistor commercialcompany. February2012

Page3of3

FOI 74
Written evidence from the Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments Introduction 1. The NI central government departments (see Appendix 1) are separate public authorities under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000. By way of background, we would ask the Justice Select Committee to note the following brief summary of the operation of the FOI Act. Freedom of Information Annual Reports (published for each calendar year since 2005) show that the departments which compose the NI Civil Service received 18,353 requests for information between 2005 and 2010 inclusive. Most of the requests were received from members of the public. The media and the business sector were the next most prominent sources of requests. Over the six years, the departments responded to 91% of requests within the statutory time limits, and in 74% of cases the information requested was disclosed in full. The exemption engaged most frequently was that for personal information (section 40 (2)). The next most prominent exemptions used by the Departments were commercial interests (section 43), and the formulation of government policy (section 35). 652 internal reviews were conducted, and 77 complaints were made to the Information Commissioner, who has issued 57 Decision Notices involving the departments. Only five cases have been escalated to the Information Tribunal. The Justice Select Committee should note that while FOI is a transferred matter, in 2000 the then Executive Committee of the NI Assembly (the Executive) decided not to introduce separate FOI legislation. Therefore, NI was covered by legislation passed by Westminster.

2.

3.

Executive Summary 4. The FOI Act has facilitated the disclosure of significant amounts of official information: proactively through Departmental Publication Schemes and in response to requests for information. Furthermore, the Codes of Practice and guidance produced by the Ministry of Justice (and its predecessors), and the Information Commissioner have been of practical assistance in the implementation of the provisions of the primary legislation. There is clear evidence that the Act is being used by a wide range of users: members of the public; the media; businesses; public representatives; and campaigning groups. The administration of the Act has on the whole been well handled by Departments and, indeed, there have been improvements in information and records management policies, procedures and practices in response to the statutory obligations placed on public authorities.

FOI 74
5. However, the Act suffers from a number of flaws. Section 12 and the associated Fees Regulations are difficult to administer, and do not provide sufficient protection for departments which are absorbing substantial costs (though no satisfactory cost measure has been available for calculating total costs). A significant amount of resources have been tied up dealing with vexatious and repeated requests as a result of insufficient clarity in the section 14 provisions, and the consequent need to produce substantial evidence of proof. The exemptions in sections 35 and 36 of the Act have not afforded Departments the protection for the policy-making space that they feel is required. Strengthening the exemptions under sections and 35 and 36 would speed up the task of considering and responding to requests for details of early policy discussions and the decision-making process. Finally, there is a need for clarity about whether requests for information fall under the FOI Act or under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004.

What are the strengths of the FOI Act? Public Service and Accountability 6. The FOI Act promotes accountability and transparency in general, and facilitates the disclosure of information both proactively and in response to requests, in particular. Indeed, departments are more open and accountable in that their FOI performance is measured regularly through the publication of quarterly and annual reports. Ordinary members of the public continue to be the biggest category of requester, which suggests that the process of submitting requests is sufficiently straightforward and comprehensible. This is in keeping with initial policy objectives. It should be noted that a significant - though unquantified - number of requests are submitted by members of staff. This is not always interpreted as a good trend, as the requests tend to focus narrowly on the interests of individuals and not on the more strategic or organisational issues.

Codes of Practice 7. The section 45 (discharge of public authorities functions under Part 1 the FOI Act), and section 46 (records management) Codes of Practice have been issued and revised since the FOI Act received the Royal Assent. They provide a sound framework which facilitates public authorities compliance with the provisions of the legislation. Public authorities have also benefitted from the refinement of guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice (and its predecessors) and the Information Commissioners Office, and the emergence of case law. Overall, the quality of the content of responses from Departments has improved over the years.

Information and Records Management

FOI 74
8. Several departments comment that the FOI Act has proved to be a useful instrument for raising the profile of records and information management, for encouraging better record keeping, and for increasing awareness of the value in managing information as a key corporate asset.

What are the weaknesses of the FOI Act? (i) Fees Regulations 9. All departments agree that FOI compliance is burdensome, and that the range of activities that can be taken into consideration in determining cost is very limited. Furthermore, there is general agreement that searching, identifying and retrieving information (which count towards the cost) is usually a straightforward process but that the reading of the documents and information, consulting third parties, considering the use of exemptions, composing public interest tests, and redacting (which do not count towards the cost) are all very labour intensive and time-consuming activities. If requests are estimated to exceed the cost limit of 600, the policy of the Departments is to contact the requester (offering advice and assistance under the section 16 provisions), and seek to narrow the scope of the request so that the cost comes within the limit between 2005 and 2010 only 88 requests have been refused outright on the grounds of cost. The process of providing advice and assistance and the often related activity of seeking clarification of a request is timeconsuming and is not an activity that counts towards the cost limit; that process represents a significant burden on Departments. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the ability to aggregate requests under the Fees Regulations or to use section 14(2) for dealing with repeated requests is curtailed somewhat, as it is difficult to determine whether or not requesters are using pseudonyms. Departments note that round-robin requests are particularly burdensome, and that the situation is not helped by the fact that each department is a separate legal entity under the FOI Act. Requesters whether they are from the media or members of the public (including staff) tend to seek information on a NI Civil Service basis, and it is relatively easy for them to send the same request to 12 different Departments. And, any time departments have mentioned the FOI burden on the NI Civil Service as a whole when corresponding with the Information Commissioner, he reminds them that the burden on the central government sector does not come into the reckoning. For example, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) was advised recently (2011): 'I would remind you that each department is a separate public authority under the [FOI] Act, therefore OFMDFM should only be considering the effect of requests on its own efficiency.

10.

11.

FOI 74
12. Since devolution (May 2007) the number of round-robin requests has increased. In 2011, 74 out of the 173 requests received by OFMDFM have been round-robins (43%). In most cases, the round-robins received by OFMDFM were received by the other Departments the exact proportion of round-robins within the total number of requests received will vary slightly from department to department. It is a point worth noting that the devolved administration in Northern Ireland is at a clear disadvantage compared to the administrations in Scotland and Wales: a round-robin request sent to the NI Departments generates twelve separate responses, whereas a request to either the Scottish government or the Welsh government generates one response.

13.

Departmental recommendations 14. The recommendations on the fees issue listed below emerged from the considerations of individual Departments, and do not represent a composite (unified) view of all the NI Departments: Extend the range of activities that can be counted towards the cost limit of 600; Allow the NI Civil Service to aggregate the costs to individual Departments of responding to round-robin requests; The section 12 provisions in relation to the introduction of fees charged to applicants for complying with requests need revision. FOI legislation is within devolved competence but the way in which the power to introduce fees is framed suggests that only the Secretary of State may make the necessary regulations. Therefore, section 12 should be amended, so that the NI Departments can also make fees regulations; and Levy a reasonable nominal fee before a request is accepted; and strengthen the section 8(1) provisions, with a view to obtaining identity information from requesters.

(ii) Vexatious Requests 15. The burden of handling what appear to be vexatious requests has been a common complaint of the Departments. FOI legislation was intended to provide the public with greater access to information on the background to decisions made by public authorities impacting on their

FOI 74
lives. Unfortunately, the Act is often abused by individuals with an axe to grind. They use the legislation as a weapon against the public authority. There is a need to revisit the areas of clarity and validity of requests and vexatious requests. At present section 14 of the Act does not provide sufficient protection against abuse, whether the source is an aggrieved individual, who may be in dispute with the Department, or a journalist, many of whom submit very broad or multi-layered requests in the hope of uncovering a story (fishing expeditions). 16. While guidance on the subject from the Ministry of Justice and the Information Commissioner has been refined over the years, as a consequence of the processing of complaints cases involving the issue of vexatiousness, the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes a vexatious request means that departments have to put a substantial amount of resources (e.g., compiling dossiers of relevant correspondence and researching relevant decisions of the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal) into defending a decision to engage section 14(1) of the FOI Act. Because of the significant outlay on resources, Departments are coming to the conclusion that it is often more costly to refuse a request under section 14(1) than to respond to it.

Recommendation of the NI Civil Service Departments Section 14 should be amended to include a clear definition of what constitutes a vexatious request.

(iii) Operation of exemptions 17 Several Departments believe that restrictions on the application of section 35 (formulation of government policy) are having a negative impact on the openness of officials in providing written advice to Ministers. While it is accepted that there is scope within the current legislation to withhold such advice, the decisions of the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal tend to limit or restrict the attempts of public authorities to protect the policy-making space: the resultant chilling effect therefore tends to undermine rather than promote better decision-making. Similar views have been expressed in relation to the application of section 36, particularly section 36 (2)(b), which concerns the provision of free and frank advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.

18.

It is also been suggested that the disclosure of more information to the citizen through the FOI Act may have a detrimental effect on the quality of official documents, particularly the level of detail recorded, for example, in minutes of meetings and of discussions about policy decisions. Consequently, there is a risk that information available to the citizen in future under the 30-year rule (20-year rule should the

FOI 74
FOI provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill receive the Royal Assent) will be less detailed than might otherwise have been the case, leading the public to question or mistrust the official record. Such an outcome would not be in keeping with the FOI legislative objectives. Recommendation of the NI Civil Service Departments Strengthen the exemptions in section 35 and 36 of the FOI Act.

(iv) Boundary between Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and FOI regimes 19. There is a need for greater clarity about whether requests for information fall under the FOI Act or should be dealt with under the EIR. NI Departments are of the view that the tests for determining whether information is environmental, as set out in Regulation 2(1), are not sufficiently clear enough to provide a legal dividing line between environmental and other information. For example, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) would regard a request for information about the effects of cattle and sheep grazing on the Mourne Mountains or the disposal of waste from a meat plant as falling under EIR. However, if the request focussed on who owned the grazing rights in the Mournes or on the throughput or product destination of the meat plant, then DARD would consider the request to fall under the FOI Act, as it would cover (third party) personal information and/or economic rather than environmental issues. DARDs determining factor would be whether or not the core issue is environmental or wider. This is not the interpretation of the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal; they are directing that requests that relate to land use, fisheries, forestry, etc., even where the nature of the enquiry is financial or economic rather than directly about the impact on the environment should be dealt with under EIR.

Recommendation of the NI Civil Service Departments A re-wording of the FOI Act and EIR to make it clear what information falls within each regime.

A list of all recommendations is provided at Appendix 2.

APPENDIX 1 List of the NI Departments Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL)

FOI 74
Department of Education (DE) Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) Department of the Environment (DOE) Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DFP) Department of Justice (DOJ) Department for Regional Development (DRD) Department for Social Development (DSD) Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM)

Appendix 2 List of all recommendations Extend the range of activities that can be counted towards the cost limit of 600;

FOI 74
Allow the NI Civil Service to aggregate the costs to individual Departments of responding to round-robin requests; The section 12 provisions in relation to the introduction of fees charged to applicants for complying with requests need revision. FOI legislation is within devolved competence but the way in which the power to introduce fees is framed suggests that only the Secretary of State may make the necessary regulations. Therefore, section 12 should be amended, so that the NI departments can also make fees regulations; Levy a reasonable nominal fee before a request is accepted; and, strengthen the section 8(1) provisions, with a view to obtaining identity information from requesters;

Note: The recommendations on the fees issue listed above emerged from the considerations of individual Departments, and do not represent a composite (unified) view of all the NI Departments.

Section 14 should be amended to include a clear definition of what constitutes a vexatious request; Strengthen the exemptions in section 35 and 36 of the FOI Act; and A re-wording of the FOI Act and EIR to make it clear what information falls within each regime.

February 2012

FOI 75
Written evidence from the Telegraph Media Group Executive Summary 1. Telegraph Media Group (TMG) welcomes this opportunity to make some broad comments about the operation of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). 2. We understand that some of our journalists will be making personal responses about their own detailed experiences in making Freedom of Information (FoI) requests. 3. The FoIA has allowed the public to learn more how public bodies operate. This is welcome. But it is also acknowledged that since the introduction of the FoIA, there has been a cultural shift within some public bodies albeit not likely to be connected to the Act publishing more information proactively 1 . These moves are healthy for democracy but they do not go far enough. 4. TMG believes that there needs to be a fundamental cultural shift toward transparency and the release of information within many public bodies. Any changes to extend FoI must also be accompanied by further measures to address this culture, as legal changes alone will not go far enough in assisting this shift. 5. Some TMG journalists describe making an FoI request as a tortuous exercise. They know that obstacles will be erected with the purpose of preventing the release of information. 6. TMG have found that, where a request has been successful, FoI is often more useful in extracting low-level, statistical information rather than the release of whole documents.

Memorandum to the Justice Select Committee, MoJ, December 2011. Pg 45

FOI 75
7. Many public bodies are more concerned with protecting their own executives or corporate reputation than enhancing the public good in revealing information. A cultural change 8. There is an important distinction between information that a body has chosen to make public, and information that has been extracted by other means such as successful FoI requests, both on and off-record briefings, or whistleblowing. 9. TMG are concerned to read in the Ministry of Justices (MoJ) Memorandum that a key theme of public bodies responses to the IPSOS research is that requests from journalists have been perceived as a drain on resources, with the thought that responding to requests is not a good use of public money. 10. Obviously, there is a cost to the operation of the FoIA across public bodies. But public bodies should not be given new powers to reject requests nor allowed to make subjective judgements about which sorts of requests are worthy of answering, or given the power to inquire into the reasons why the information is wanted. 11. We also note that examples of spurious requests have been cited as a reason for increased costs in administering FoIA 2 . We would have thought that any spurious requests for information, if properly administered, could still be responded to both very quickly and cheaply, and the existing exemptions of the Act are sufficient. 12. The Committee may find of use just a few example headlines of how the FoIA is essential in allowing the public to be told about how public authorities operate. The Committee will agree that these stories are undoubtedly in the

Memorandum to the Justice Select Committee, MoJ, December 2011. Pg 110

FOI 75
public interest, and should note that the information was not proactively released by any of the public authorities: a) Secret correspondence shows British helped Libya secure Megrahi release 3 b) Taxpayers pick up 68m bill for thousands of union reps 4 c) Hospitals attacked over 'outrageous' 32m car park profit 5 d) Lawyers paid 11 million for immigration cases 6 e) Hundreds of police officers caught illegally accessing criminal records computer 7 f) Councils pay for prostitutes for the disabled 8 Operation of the Act 13. The FoIA, as it currently operates, should be considered as a mere hand chisel picking away at a rock of secrecy. Cultural change is required. 14. Whilst it is difficult to generalise, in Sweden and New Zealand freedom of information is more ingrained in public bodies. 15. We believe that a view is there any reason why this document or information should not be published? is more conducive to a transparent democracy than

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8306228/Secretcorrespondence-shows-British-helped-Libya-secure-Megrahi-release.html 4 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8815280/Taxpayers-pick-up-68m-bill-for-thousands-ofunion-reps.html 5 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8556490/Hospitals-attacked-over-outrageous32m-car-park-profit.html 6 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8455704/Lawyers-paid-11-million-forimmigration-cases.html 7 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8713194/Hundreds-of-police-officers-caughtillegally-accessing-criminal-records-computer.html 8 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7945785/Councils-pay-for-prostitutes-for-the-disabled.html

FOI 75
the culture within many UK public bodies. This change would also help assist the move to a twenty year release of information, which we fully support. 16. Some of our journalists feel that FoIA is being abused to worsen the amount of information available to the public. Before the FoIA a phone call to a press office would be sufficient to clarify or obtain information. Today a practice has developed whereby many press offices brush off requests from journalists. Nowadays journalists are often informed that they should make an FoI request for that information. This is an unwelcome development, and does nothing to enhance transparency. 17. We advise the Committee to look at the Iraq Inquiry website 9 . Hundreds of documents that have been declassified and released. Without the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry, we feel that it would have been impossible for the public to have ever seen all of these documents through making an FoI request. Playing the game 18. Some journalists consider that by making FoI requests they are beginning a war of attrition. They know it is likely they will be unsuccessful in obtaining the information quickly. It would be clear what information is being sought, but it is also well know that many public bodies will erect obstacles to prevent the disclosure. Examples of these barriers would include a lengthy internal review, or invoking a public interest test well after the initial request has been made. 19. In an attempt to counter this development, some journalists have now built relationships with FoI staff within organisations. They will often put in an unofficial call before submitting a request to seek guidance on how best to word their formal requests to counter any potential barriers imposed by that organisation. These relationships would have only once existed with press officers.
9

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/declassified-documents.aspx

FOI 75
20. We also know that some Ministers and Special Advisers are aware of information that they know their civil servants would not want to be made public. On a number of occasions our journalists have been advised to submit FoI requests by Ministers or Special Advisers, with the hope that civil servants will be forced to release information they were resistant to release. 21. We are also aware of a culture of conversations being taken offline (ie not on email or paper memorandum) so that there is no record of a conversation, discussion or debate, for fear that information within emails could, at some point, have to be released. Transparency 22. The Committee should consider whether increasing the current time and cost limitations would enhance transparency and democracy. 23. Calls to include consideration and redaction time of FoI requests should be resisted. This could be open to further abuse, and would only serve to slow down the release of information. 24. There should be a statutory time limit on the time allowed for an internal review. Internal reviews can often take too long. 25. We expect the Committee will be presented with lots of evidence of the challenges presented in attempting to obtain information by individuals and journalists. The Committee may like to consider the inclusion of a new clause within the Act that makes it an offence for any individual or organisation to take steps that unnecessarily frustrates the release of information. Imposing costs on transparency 26. We believe that ever imposing costs on those making FoI requests is both unjust and unacceptable.

FOI 75
27. Newspapers and journalists exist to ask questions of those in power on behalf of the public. Any impediment to this, financial or otherwise, would be unacceptable. 28. Cultural shifts, discussed earlier would see costs reduced. Chilling effects 29. It has been suggested that identity checks could be made on those making FoI requests 10 This is worrying, and we fundamentally oppose it. 30. We believe identity checks are intimidating, but they would disproportionately affect individuals rather than newspapers. 31. If the information is available, it should be of no significance who the requestor of the information is, or why they want to know that information. 32. Notwithstanding the fundamental argument, implementing such a system would only serve to increase both the costs and time in responding to requests. 33. The website www.whatdotheyknow.com provides a valuable free service, and allows FoI requests to be submitted to a public authority without the requestor giving their personal details. Importantly, this service is run without any funding from government. As some public authorities do not publish each and every FoI request they receive, it assists with transparency. Government agenda 34. The Deputy Prime Minister said in a speech last year that in relation to information that our starting point is always maximising transparency in the public interest moving from a closed society to an open society. We also

10

Memorandum to the Justice Select Committee, MoJ, December 2011. Pg 106

FOI 75
welcome within that speech plans to extend the scope of the Act to other bodies. 11 35. However, despite these welcome announcements from government, it is unfortunate that a view has emerged that responding to FoI requests are considered a drain on resources 12 . 36. We believe that all private sector contractors who enter into contracts with public authorities to fulfil their public functions should be designated for the purposes of the FOIA Act, as the Act permits under section 5(1) (b). This is important for the public to continue to have access to important information. Conclusion 37. Whilst public bodies may now publish more information, the crucial difference is that FoI allows information to be extracted that the body itself has chosen not to publish. 38. There needs to be a cultural shift within public bodies, all documents and information should be approached with the mentality is there any reason why this information should be made public? 39. TMG oppose any form of introduction of fees, and believe that any moves to further impede access to information, such as reducing time limits is unacceptable. 40. Conversely, the Committee should consider whether any increase in the time and cost limitations would enhance transparency and democracy. 41. There should be a statutory time limit on the time allowed for an internal review. Internal reviews can often take too long.

11 12

http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/civil-liberties-speech 7 Jan 2011 Memorandum to the Justice Select Committee, MoJ, December 2011. Pg 112

FOI 75
42. Costs of FoIA could be reduced if public bodies did not serve attempt to create barriers in preventing the release of information. February 2012