NMA: Government’s FOI Proposals ‘Regressive and Unnecessary’
Proposals in a consultation on the Freedom of Information Act would seriously harm government transparency and the public right to know, the News Media Association has said.
Responding to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information’s consultation document, the NMA said proposals – which include charging for FOI requests and restricting what can be released under the Act – were “regressive and unnecessary.”
Lucy Gill, NMA legal, policy, regulatory affairs advisor, said: “The Freedom of Information Act has done more than any other to help the free press and the public it serves to hold power to account. Everyday newspapers run stories exposing waste, incompetence and cover-ups that would never have come to light but for the FOIA. These stories result in policies being changed for the better and action being taken to improve people’s lives.
“It is therefore disappointing that instead of looking at ways of making government more transparent, the Commission is instead considering a raft of measures that would weaken the Act and impede the public’s use of it. Proposals such as strengthening the government veto, removing some types of information from FOI altogether and charging for requests are regressive and unnecessary. The Act already contains robust safeguards for sensitive information and it has revealed far more wasteful spending by public authorities than it has cost to administer.
“It is essential that all supporters of the FOIA make their voices heard at this time. That is why NMA will be asking its members in the national, regional and local press to show the Commission – and the Government – how they use the FOIA to benefit their communities and enhance the public good.”
Speaking about proposals to introduce charges for FOI requests, Campaign for Freedom of Information director Maurice Frankel said: “Charges would be likely to deter large numbers of requests. When a €15 application fee was introduced under Ireland’s freedom of information act in 2003, it resulted in the number of requests falling to 25 per cent of its previous level. The same could occur here, reducing the scrutiny of public authorities and making it easier for them to say they are doing one thing when they are really doing the opposite.”
The Guardian said in an editorial: “To say that this bunch [the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information] is more likely to take an insider’s view – to think first of the perspective of the bureaucracy being asked awkward questions, and only second of the citizen trying to root out inconvenient truths – is to put it mildly. Sir Humphrey would be thrilled by the panel’s “soundness.”
The Sun said in editorial: “Britain is a secretive country, with information increasingly hidden from the public… The Freedom of Information Act enables the public and Press to ask questions because “openness is fundamental to the public health of a state”. So the idea of charging £20 for FOI requests is an outrage. Newspapers can afford it. The public less so. But why should anyone pay? The clue is in the Act’s name. This information should be freely available.”
Chairman of Johnston Press’ editorial board Jeremy Clifford: “Johnston Press editors and journalists have used the FOI act consistently over the past decade to inform readers on many, many issues that directly affect them. We are deeply concerned at any plans to restrict the act and urge David Cameron to consider the membership of this commission and its remit.”