Vanishing Freedom of Information
Since its inception more than 20 years ago the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has been a thorn in the side to successive governments but it has also heralded a new era of transparency.
Over time though it is fair to say that the legislation has somewhat lost its bite. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which enforces freedom of information has been consistently underfunded and it is allowing government departments to avoid meaningful scrutiny.
This became especially apparent over the weekend when a report in The Times showed that the Ministry of Justice was actually tracking journalists who make information requests and compiling background reports on them. As the journalist Martin Rosebaum pointed out in response to the story, “compiling background notes on requesters is a misuse of government resources and enables political influence…which should not affect the freedom of information process.”
The plot thickens though as there is also evidence that there is often a delay in releasing data until clearance is given by political appointees. In fact some requests may be denied outright because of decisions made by press officers and Conservative Party special advisers.
Just the other week the original author of the Freedom of Information Act, Lord Clark, called for a Parliamentary review into the way that police forces respond to requests after a number of serious data breaches called into question their processes. He noted that far too often freedom of information is seen as an “add on”.
All of this should probably be far from surprising. The government’s Draconian approach to freedom of speech alongside a concentration of power amongst the Cabinet makes something like freedom of information requests seem like an historic inconvenience.
In the short-term there is not much that can be done about the intransigence of departments like the Ministry of Justice but if the next general election brings about a new government then this should be seen as an opportunity for a fresh start. A Parliamentary review would be useful but other practical changes could also be made such as greater funding for the ICO and giving that body sharper teeth to address failures.
This week on the podcast we discuss a high profile bankruptcy case where the trustee in bankruptcy agreed to sell a cottage. The bankrupts challenged this decision but the important question for the court was whether they were challenging it as bankrupts or as possessors of the property.
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2023-uksc-29/
Make a difference today,
Marcus