I was alerted to this FOI Commission Consultation today by 38degrees and I jumped straight on it. My views are from the hip, so may not be completely thought through or expressed as elegantly as I might prefer - however 'truth before beauty' is usually a good call. The first 2 questions, in orange, are from 38degrees, and the rest, numbered, are from the government.
Subject: Submission to call for evidence by Commission on Freedom of
Information
To: foi.commission@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Why do you think Freedom of Information should be
protected?
The government is elected by and accountable
to the UK citizens - not just once each 5 years but every single day. They and
their selected providers are spending the citizens' money. If their decisions
and actions are not transparent then the citizens cannot hold them to account.
We have a participatory democracy where charities and volunteers contribute
significantly to the well-being of the country and its citizens. Without
transparency that participation is in danger of being ineffective, mis-directed
and eventually lost.
How do you think
government transparency could be improved?
Transparency
should start at 100% and only be reduced in specific areas where there is a very
strong case agreed by a body independent of government. Private companies
providing public services should be under the same scrutiny as if it were the
government providing those services.
Question 1: What protection
should there be for information relating to the internal deliberations of public
bodies? For how long after a decision does such information remain sensitive?
Should different protections apply to different kinds of information that are
currently protected by sections 35 and 36? (Note: ‘Sections 35 and 36’ of the
Act cover policy formulation, communications between ministers, and information
that would affect the free and frank giving of advice or expression of
views.)
It is essential that citizens can see how all decisions
have been made. How else can they hold the decision-makers to account? There
should be no delays in making this information available except in the case of
national security or personal privacy.
Question 2: What
protection should there be for information which relates to the process of
collective Cabinet discussion and agreement? Is this information entitled to the
same or greater protection than that afforded to other internal deliberative
information? For how long should such material be protected?
I
am not interested in Cabinet discussions - the horse-trading, back-biting and
manoeuvring - I am interested in traceability of decisions and
actions.
Question 3: What protection should there be for
information which involves candid assessment of risks? For how long does such
information remain sensitive?
Risk assessments should be made
fully available. The citizens want to know first that such a risk assessment has
been properly done, and second what the government's view of the risks
is.
Question 4: Should the executive have a veto (subject to
judicial review) over the release of information? If so, how should this operate
and what safeguards are required? If not, what implications does this have for
the rest of the Act, and how could government protect sensitive information from
disclosure instead?
The executive veto should stay in place for
very rare circumstances where security is affected, and it must be subject to a
strong and effective judicial review which starts with the question "what are
the risks to national or personal security of releasing this
information".
Question 5: What is the appropriate enforcement and
appeal system for freedom of information requests?
The current
system of appeal through the Information Commissioner seems ok to
me.
Question 6: Is the burden imposed on public authorities under
the Act justified by the public interest in the public’s right to know? Or are
controls needed to reduce the burden of FoI on public authorities? If controls
are justified, should these be targeted at the kinds of requests which impose a
disproportionate burden on public authorities? Which kinds of requests do impose
a disproportionate burden?
Organisations should not have to pay
(companies, accredited media, charities and so on). There could be a small
charge for individuals to discourage frivolous requests. A request should never
be denied on the basis of its cost; that simply rewards inefficiency with
secrecy. Technology and modern governance should facilitate the provision of
information without undue cost.
