The Justice Committee Report

The Freedom of Information Act has been a significant enhancement of our democracy

These are the stirring introductory words to the report of the House of Commons’ Justice Committee, produced in their key role in the post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of the Information Act 2000. saveFOI – a disparate group of practitioners, experts and activists – was set up because of perceived threats to the effectiveness of the Act from this scrutiny process. Along the way there have been some worrying and some more reassuring rumours. We even felt compelled at one point to write to the Committee because of some concerns we had about the process.

Now the report has been published, and we are – broadly – very pleased with the outcome. The Committee have also lambasted Tony Blair for his failure to co-operate with the process – but we’ll leave it saveFOI co-founder Tim Turner to demolish Mr Blair’s stance.

Here are some of the reasons why we’re pleased:

“Chilling effect”

It is very important to note that, despite strong arguments from loud voices, the Committee was not convinced that the “chilling effect” on government and policy development was supported by much more than bold assertions

We are not able to conclude, with any certainty, that a chilling effect has resulted from the FOI Act. On the one hand, the Constitution Unit’s research—the most in-depth available—suggests it has only a marginal effect. On the other hand, a range of distinguished participants who are, or who have been recently, at the heart of the policy-making process attest that it is a problem…Given the uncertainty of the evidence we do not recommend any major diminution of the openness created by the Freedom of Information Act, but, given the clear intention of Parliament in passing the legislation that it should allow a “safe space” for policy formation and Cabinet discussion, we remind everyone involved in both using and determining that space that the Act was intended to protect high-level policy discussions.(§200-201)

However, the Committee might have – wittingly – given the green light to further use of the illiberal ministerial veto powers under section 53 of the Act

We also recognise that the realities of Government mean that the ministerial veto will have to be used from time to time to protect that space.(§201)

Prospect of charges

Despite worries that the Committee would bow to pressure to call for FOI requesters to pay a small charge to make a request, there is no such recommendation

fees at a level high enough to recoup costs would deter requests with a strong public interest and would defeat the purposes of the Act. (§85)

“Requestor blindness”

Some witnesses had called for charges for certain classes of requestor (for instance the media, or commercial organisations). This too has been rebuffed

The Act operates on the basis of requester blindness. As a result developing a way to charge requesters who commercially benefit from the information they receive from public authorities is difficult, if not impossible. Any requirement that requestors identify themselves could easily be circumvented by requestors using the name of a friend, family member or other person. Attempts to police such a system, either by public authorities or the Information Commissioner, would be expensive and likely to have a limited effect.(§81)

“Frivolous” requests

There had also been suggestions of a new exemption to cover “frivolous” requests, including from the Information Commissioner. The Committee, while not completely rejecting this idea, was not convinced it was necessary

It is apparent from witnesses that frivolous requests are a very small problem, but can be frustrating. There is a case for adding frivolous requests to the existing category of vexatious requests which can be refused, but such requests can usually be dealt with relatively easily, making it hard to justify a change in the law.(§135)

Fees Limits

The Committee does recommend some changes be considered however. It clearly accorded some weight to arguments that the burden on public authorities in complying with complex and voluminous requests was too great. The report suggests that consideration be given to reducing the amount of time an authority need take in searching for and compiling information

complying with its duties under the Act can be a significant cost to a public body. A standard marginal decrease in the 18 hour limit may be justifiable to alleviate the pressure on hard-pressed authorities, particularly in the context of increasing numbers of requests. We would suggest something in the region of two hours, taking the limit to 16 hours rather than 18, but anticipate the Government would want to carry out further work on how this would affect the number of requests rejected (§61)

However, the Committee was not of the view that reading and consideration time should also be taken into account

Such activities are overly dependent on the individual FOI officer’s abilities, introducing an element of inconsistency into the process that undermines the fundamental objective of the Act, that everyone has an equal right to access information.(§60)

Pre-publication of research exemption?

A possibly important change is proposed at §202-214 – Universities argued strongly in written and oral evidence that there was insufficient protection for pre-publication research under the existing Act (and that a provision in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 should be mirrored in the FOI Act). The Committee took this on board

We recommend section 22 of the Act should be amended to give research carried out in England and Wales the same protection as in Scotland. While the extension of section 22 will not solve all the difficulties experienced by the universities in this area, we believe it is required to ensure parity with other similar jurisdictions, as well as to protect ongoing research, and therefore constitutes a proportionate response to their concerns.

Although there is an argument that sufficient protection exists under the existing statutory scheme, this is not either a particularly unexpected nor unwelcome proposal provided sufficient safeguards are built in to ensure such an exemption is not abused.

Section 77 prosecutions

It is not surprising that the Committee also recommend a change to the provisions of the Act dealing with the criminal offence of altering/erasing/concealing information. Currently this provision effectively requires the Information Commissioner to bring a prosecution within six months of the offence taking place. As often the Commissioner would not find out about an offence until well after this, the chances of bringing a prosecution have been very low – as he himself has pointed out . The report says

The summary only nature of the section 77 offence means that no one has been prosecuted for destroying or altering disclosable data, despite the Information Commissioner’s Office seeing evidence that such an offence has occurred. We recommend that section 77 be made an either way offence which will remove the limitation period from charging. We also recommend that, where such a charge is heard in the Crown Court, a higher fine than the current £5000 be available to the court. We believe these amendments to the Act will send a clear message to public bodies and individuals contemplating criminal action.(§121)

Statutory time limits for internal review etc

Under the current scheme when an authority wishes – where appropriate – to extend the time to consider the public interest test, or is asked to undertake an internal review of a refusal to disclose, there is no further statutory time limit. This has been described as an anomaly, and the report rightly calls for it to be corrected

We recommend the 20 day extension be put into statute. A further extension should only be permitted when a third party external to the organisation responding to the request has to be consulted…We recommend that a time limit for internal reviews should be put into statute. The time limit should be 20 days, as at present under the Code of Practice, with a permitted extension of an additional 20 days for exceptionally complex or voluminous requests.(§111-112)

FOI and private contractors

The Committee recognised that the “right to access information must not be undermined by the increased use of private providers in delivering public services” but generally felt that current commercial and contractual arrangements should normally suffice to prevent this

We believe that contracts provide a more practical basis for applying FOI to outsourced services than partial designation of commercial companies under section 5 of the Act, although it may be necessary to use designation powers if contract provisions are not put in place and enforced. We recommend that the Information Commissioner monitors complaints and applications for guidance in this area to him from public authorities.(§240)

Disclosure logs and names of requestors

A slightly surprising recommendation is that

where the information released from FOI requests is published in a disclosure log, the name of the requestor should be published alongside it.(§82)

As this falls under a heading in the report of “charging media companies”, it appears to be aimed at addressing concerns about use of the Act for commercial or journalistic purposes. However it is phrased in general terms (and is also in the report summary) and authorities would be well-advised not to implement this in advance of any clear statutory or other guidance – it appears to us to run the risk of unfair disclosure of personal data and a potential breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Conclusion, and what next?

Mostly good! Some concerns remain, and we’ll continue to read the report and possibly blog in more detail in coming weeks.

It’s clear the Committee have applied themselves admirably to the task (and this was evident from an early stage). What the government, and ultimately Parliament, does next remains to be seen. Possible future battle lines were drawn in an exchange between Jack Straw (yes, yes, we know he’s not in this government, but…) and the Campaign for Freedom of Information’s Maurice Frankel on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Straw’s only real concern appeared to be the lack of recognition of the need for a “safe space” for government and policy-making. Of course, such a safe space already exists (see the discussions on the “chilling effect” and consider the broad exemption and veto powers under sections 35, 36 and 53) but the government may pursue this point.

saveFOI will continue to work to defend the Act, and we recognise that the Justice Committee’s report is only one part (albeit a major one) of the struggle.

Further reading

Many pieces and analyses are already emerging. Here’s a selection

Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham

FOIMan – “Justice for FOI”

Tim Turner – “Revenge of the Nincompoop”

UCL’s Constitution Unit – “No Going Back: Committee Protects FOI”

BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum – “Commons Report praises current FOI system”

and finally

“Campaign welcomes Justice Committee FOI report” from the redoubtable Campaign for Freedom of Information, without whom, as they say, perhaps none of us would be here.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Justice Committee Report

  1. […] The Justice Committee Report – an analysis of the report by Save FoI. […]

  2. Charles N. Davis says:

    Hi….love the blog, and the FOI Man one as well! I am a US FOI researcher…my blog is at theartofaccess.com should you be interested.

    cd

  3. easyvirtualassistance says:

    Here’s a piece of legal opinion from Senior Counsel Hugh Tomlinson QC, which appears to make more likely the prospect of public sector employers opting for Freedom of Information and Data Protection “gagging clauses” within compromise agreements; and thereby aiming to remove persons’ statutory rights to make data and information requests.

    It has been an effective reputation management tactic, and a way of concealing the historical malpractice engaged in by employers when targetting whistleblowers or getting rid of people who’ve lodged grievances. The ruse has been deployed in the past by two councils; Cheshire West & Chester, and Brent.

    The ICO are powerless to prevent it as the HT opinion implies that contract law takes precedence over a person’s statutory rights – which it appears can be surrendered. The ICO could only act if the recipient of any “ban” were to breach it and make an FoI or DP request of the relevant data controller – which is unlikely to occur because there’s always a “club over the head” of the signatory to the compromise agreement i.e. the threat of any monetary pay off being clawed back through the courts.

    http://tinyurl.com/bu9vynx

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: