The Prime Minister's Office has issued a response to the Downing Street petition against the proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Act, which received 1,609 signatures:
The Government recognises the importance of public participation and understanding of the functions of Government. The intention of the changes proposed is not to hinder legitimate requests for information or to reduce the effectiveness of the Act. An independent review commissioned by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to look at the impact of the Freedom of Information Act showed that a small minority of requests and a small minority of requestors account for disproportionate amounts of the cost of answering FOI requests. The proposals are designed to address this issue and to ensure public authorities can balance access to information for all with the delivery of other public services.
On 14 December 2006 the Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, opened a public consultation on the draft fee regulations. The Government is keen to engage as many stakeholders as possible in this consultation. The consultation paper is available at: http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/dpr2007/cp2806.htm. Responses should be sent by 8 March 2007 to:
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Information Rights Division
6.16 Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QW
While the consultation is worth highlighting, I find the rest of this answer unsatisfactory, especially the attempt to problematise the fact "that a small minority of requests and a small minority of requestors account for disproportionate amounts of the cost of answering FOI requests."
The review which the reply mentions found that:
There are five main categories of FoI requestor that can be identified within the one week sample of central government. They are:
• journalists;
• MPs;
• campaign groups;
• researchers; and
• private individuals.
Within each of these categories it is possible to make a further split into serial requestors and one-off requestors. Serial requestors account for a significant proportion of FoI requests made to central government particularly in the first four categories identified above. (FOI Review)
Is it really a surprise that say the BBC makes more requests than private individuals or that researchers make more requests than non-researchers. I'm not even sure how they make the latter distinction. Aren't all FOI requestors researchers by definition?
The whole exercise of trying to discriminate between categories of requestor is highly dubious given that requestors are not (and should not be) obliged to give any information about the purpose of their requests.
It's also arguable that the categories which produce the most serial requestors are precisely those best-placed to gather information of real public interest:
Then again, according to some accounts that is precisely why the Government is targeting them.
A cabinet paper leaked in July showed what Falconer was up to. In a bid to throttle the FOI infant in its cradle, he decided many requests would in future be rejected as too expensive to process. To head off critics, he would commission a cost-benefit analysis. This would then give him a "solid evidence base" to make the changes. The consultants, Frontier Economics were paid £75,000 to come up with the figures. The firm's directors include Sir Andrew Turnbull, the former Cabinet secretary - although Frontier Economics says he was not directly involved in the report. (Guardian)
In response to the Government's assumption that there is a cost problem in relation Freedom of Information, I can only highlight once again the findings of the Select Committee:
18. We would be concerned if there were cases where public authorities were spending weeks finding information. Since authorities may already include this time within their calculations of chargeable limits, we do not consider that it would justify a review of the fees regulations, but it would demonstrate a serious shortcoming in some public authorities' records management systems. (Paragraph 97)
19. We recommend that problems with 'frivolous' requests should be dealt with through the existing provisions in the Act. We do not consider that this is an appropriate reason for reviewing the fees regulations. (Paragraph 100)
20. We see no need to change the fees regulations. There appears to be a lack of clarity and some under-use of the existing provisions. We recommend that the DCA publish the results of its internal fees review when it is concluded and that it conducts a public consultation before deciding on any change. (Paragraph 104) (Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Seventh Report)
The paucity of the Government's response only confirms me in my belief that this proposed changes to the FOI regulations should be opposed. Thanks to everyone who signed the petition and to all those who linked to it:
AccMan
Accountancy Age Blog
Cherie Willers
darkwaterfairy
Freedom of Information and Open Government Blog
Ideal Government
IMPACT
Indymedia Brum
John - Myspace Blog
Let's Talk Common Sense
Martin Stabe
Martin Moore
Neville Hobson
Roadblock
Roy Greenslade
Ruscombe Green
Sevenhelz
Spyblog
Wordblog
