A new consultation on Freedom Of Information requests, which have until now allowed members of the public to access government data for free, is seeking to charge for the service, and has left people feeling deeply divided about the proposal.
Some have suggested that to charge for this information would limit a fundamental right, one which allows for greater transparency inside government, whilst others have taken the view that charging a fee is only reasonable in light of the man hours it requires to answer these requests and source the information asked for, where possible.
So who is right, and how should we address yet another cut to services which are most often used either by the most vulnerable in society, or on their behalf?
The Freedom Of Information Act was implemented in 2005 by a then Labour government, and celebrated its 10th birthday last year. Among some of its victories, was its highlighting of the varying levels of performance across NHS hospitals, promoting greater transparency within the public sector and closer to home, the realisation that a vast and growing number of families were having to represent themselves in Family Court due to dwindling legal aid and unaffordable legal representation. FOI was intended to improve government, highlight injustice and bring about positive change. And under the LibDem – Tory coalition, a further 100 organisations were added to the list of bodies whose data could be accessed under the service.
But under an unfettered Conservative government, which set up a less than kosher panel this year to examine ‘the public’s right to know versus the need for sensitive information to have robust protection’, all that is about to change.
The current call to evidence within the consultation describes a power within the Act to charge for requests, and offers data collected by various consultancy firms and government bodies on the costs of dealing with FOI queries. As the service continues to grow in popularity – there are now almost 1,000 requests every week – the lack of funding to match this increase is straining already struggling government departments.
This though, should not be a reason to limit a statutory right to information through fees – the current consultation even suggests charging up to a whopping 500 Euros per request. Instead, we must first ask ourselves why it is that a monitoring body like FOI is soaring in popularity and why the public feel compelled to search for answers on this platform.
A creeping, and not undeserved, mistrust in government is contributing to the FOI’s popularity. As answers are not forthcoming from cabinet ministers or other government officials concerning developments surrounding legal aid, budget cuts and support services, the public has taken to exercising its right to this information through FOI. Researching Reform alone has made dozens of requests over the years, but what we noticed is that often, our requests are unsuccessful – the Act offers discretion as to what can and can’t be accessed and much of the data the public deserves to see, goes unpublished. FOI then, has never been a free-for-all in that sense, and arguably should be opened up even further, not watered down.
This, in light of a growing trend within commercial corporations looking to benefit from government data. A recent request from one of the largest tobacco companies in the world seeking to discredit the government’s research on plain packaging and discover the smoking habits of teenagers highlights the dangers of charging for FOI. Large corporations are more than happy to pay a few hundred Euros for research or data that may increase their profit margins by millions, but the vulnerable and the poor, cannot. To charge then, would simply increase the gap between those who make FOI requests in the name of profit, and those who make them to highlight injustice and improve government services. The very reasons the Act was implemented in the first place.
We are told that as part of its ethos, the Freedom of Information Act was designed to, “transform the culture of Government from one of secrecy to one of openness’; ‘raise confidence in the processes of government, and enhance the quality of decision making by Government’. By charging for this service, we will effectively be doing the opposite, and turning FOI in relative terms into a cheap alternative for Multi Million Pound industries looking to source data quickly and without having to shoulder the costs of in-house R&D.
The real issue then, is not whether FOI is too expensive or a drain on the economy, but whether the government will look to improving its services in tandem with FOI, so that requests become fewer and less lengthy. If it manages to do that, FOI will cost the nation less without compromising government transparency or what’s left of public confidence in politics.
Freedom of Information must remain just that – free.
Pingback: Researching Reform: ‘There Is No Freedom Of Information Once We Charge For It’ | Justice for Men & Boys
Maggie Tuttle said:
As Governments continually make new rules and change the laws so the plebs are left with nothing and Governments continually steal the kids, so how are we the plebs and the children suppose to protect our self’s, I wonder if the Governments “In a child’s best interest” would help the plebs by returning the mass millions they have set aside for their little self corruptions over the next god knows how many years into more debates and debates into the children abused in their care system, I wonder how much money has been made from the children in care who were trafficked and still used for medical experiments and lastly what of the OH so big Insurance company who insure every kid in care, who gets those insurance claims, my god untold thousands of kids abused in care wow again the money made, perhaps we should ask Mr Tony Blair to give a few millions back to support the plebs to apply under the freedom of information so that the families can continue to help their children, yea in our minds only.
onhttp://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/please-help-us-kids-can-run-away/
The new research on the web as in the link from yesterday
Maggie
LikeLike
Dana said:
Hi Natasha, I agree with your observations and comments. It would be good if there was no need for FOI but until that need is met voluntarily and automatically we need to know via FOI. It most certainly should be free!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roger Crawford said:
FOI is paid for by us through our taxes, so it must remain free at the point of use. It highlighted the expenses scandal so is unpopular with many M.P.s but that is absolutely no reason to water it down. Remember Cameron pledged ‘more open Government’? Hold him to account on this, or we we will lose it and forever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Reblogged this on Victims Unite!.
LikeLike
The Porcelain Doll said:
Reblogged this on perfectlyfadeddelusions.
LikeLike
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Norman Scarth said:
The Freedom of Information Act, like so many more, was designed to do the OPPOSITE of what it purports to do, as was the position of Information Commissioner. He is SUPPOSED to enforce the Act. It would be more fitting if he had the title ‘Commissioner of Cover-up’!.
I DO speak from experience!
LikeLike
Norman Scarth said:
PS to my earlier message. Whether you are required to pay or not will make not an ounce of difference. Oh, yes, the Information Commissioner while act over trivial matters, to ‘prove’ he is doing his job, but ask for information which exposes corruption, & he – along with the ‘First Tier Tribunal’, & the ‘Second Tier Tribunal’ (to whom one is supposed to appeal) will close ranks to prevent it being exposed.
LikeLike
Roger Crawford said:
The Expenses business was not trivial. . . . .
LikeLike
Norman Scarth said:
Roger. Sorry to tell you, but the expenses scandal WAS trivial – compared to what remains covered up!
LikeLike
Pingback: Save Freedom Of Information – Sign The Petition | Researching Reform
Pingback: BREAKING: Freedom Of Information To Remain Free | Researching Reform
Alan M Dransfield said:
The FOI cost issue is trivial in comparison to the Vexatious BS under GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO. In essence, Judge Wikeley’s vexatious decision has gagged Joe Public and the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have rubber stamped it.
It now rests with the EU Court of Human Rights but don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike