Peter Bradwell
Researcher
Peter Bradwell is a researcher at Demos. He is interested in digital identity, technology and the ways that information and knowledge is shared...
at 10:42am
on Monday, 23rd October 2006
Information wants to be free? Well somebody, apparently, is paying over the odds to oblige.
Frontier Economics were commissioned by the DCA to carry out a study into the costs of the FOI Act for government and the public sector. The remit of the study is pretty interesting in the link it makes between the first and second stated aim:
1. The costs of delivering FOI, alongside an analysis of the key cost drivers
2. An examination of the options for changes to the charging regime
Is a study on which the government bases its policy on how much should be charged for FOI requests sufficient to inform that policy if it covers only costs and cost drivers?
It is important to consider the government's response to the Constitutional Affairs Committee report 'Freedom of Information - One Year On'. The report was tasked with looking into the experience of the first year of the Act, and the impact it had and promises to have. It was made up of 11 MPs, and interviewed a range of FOI practitioners, experts and users. It recommended no change to the charging regime, and a public consultation before any change does take place.
The response was - as widely predicted - that, in light of the independent review, the government was 'minded' to firstly include reading, consultation and deliberation time and secondly calculate an 'appropriate' limit for individuals and organisations who are repeat requesters. Campaign for Freedom of Information looks at the potential ill effects of these suggestions here.
In the government response to the report, Lord Falconer suggests that the Frontier review looked at the impact of the Act (page 13 of the response). But that isn't really true - it looks at a specific impact - the costs associated with delivery. There is a whole set of wider benefits which the CAC touches on and which need much more exploration.
The Frontier review should form a valuable part of a far broader range of work. And it seems perverse for the government to respond to a Constitutional Affairs Committee recommendation - which has subsequently drawn broad support, not least from MPs through the CFOI's Early Day Motion - with the findings of a report with such a peculiar twofold remit the conclusions of which, luckily enough, concur with the prevailing wind of government thinking.
We're developing our access to information work at the moment. Drop me an email if you have any thoguhts or would like to get involved.
Information wants to be free? Well somebody, apparently, is paying over the odds to oblige.
Frontier Economics were commissioned by the DCA to carry out a study into the costs of the FOI Act for government and the public sector. The remit of the study is pretty interesting in the link it makes between the first and second stated aim:
1. The costs of delivering FOI, alongside an analysis of the key cost drivers
2. An examination of the options for changes to the charging regime
Is a study on which the government bases its policy on how much should be charged for FOI requests sufficient to inform that policy if it covers only costs and cost drivers?
It is important to consider the government's response to the Constitutional Affairs Committee report 'Freedom of Information - One Year On'. The report was tasked with looking into the experience of the first year of the Act, and the impact it had and promises to have. It was made up of 11 MPs, and interviewed a range of FOI practitioners, experts and users. It recommended no change to the charging regime, and a public consultation before any change does take place.
The response was - as widely predicted - that, in light of the independent review, the government was 'minded' to firstly include reading, consultation and deliberation time and secondly calculate an 'appropriate' limit for individuals and organisations who are repeat requesters. Campaign for Freedom of Information looks at the potential ill effects of these suggestions here.
In the government response to the report, Lord Falconer suggests that the Frontier review looked at the impact of the Act (page 13 of the response). But that isn't really true - it looks at a specific impact - the costs associated with delivery. There is a whole set of wider benefits which the CAC touches on and which need much more exploration.
The Frontier review should form a valuable part of a far broader range of work. And it seems perverse for the government to respond to a Constitutional Affairs Committee recommendation - which has subsequently drawn broad support, not least from MPs through the CFOI's Early Day Motion - with the findings of a report with such a peculiar twofold remit the conclusions of which, luckily enough, concur with the prevailing wind of government thinking.
We're developing our access to information work at the moment. Drop me an email if you have any thoguhts or would like to get involved.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments
Interesting to hear about all of this going on in the UK. Charlie, Melissa and I spent last week in Bratislava doing the latest in the network effect series and working with a Slovak partner, IVO (institute of public affairs). They were active in a massive collaboration of NGOs to get the act passed in Slovakia in 2000. Given the background of corruption and lack of political transparency getting it in the first place was a big deal, and meant a lot to the people. But now, similar to the UK, there are big questions about how it is being implemented - who is getting information? do citizens know what their rights are understand what the act means to them in the day to day?
Slovakia have gone some way by introducing an annual competition for 'friend' and 'enemy' of information. This gets the act in the media, but still hasn't allowed it the kind of reach the NGO group had hoped for. They're now about to begin a campaign to increase information about the act (ironic I know), but the group we spoke to seemed determined to make it work. Watch this space, worth keeping an eye on as an unlikely comparison to the UK.
I think the Slovakian policy is more of a gimmick. However, it doesn't matter what happens in which country because every democracy would be grappling with the same sorts of problems.
Its a bit unfair to deny people information based upon costs which are beyond their control. Its important if people are denied information that is in their interests to know.
I do think people do have a right to know on what basis decisions are being made upon their behalf. This is particularly important when it is likely that decision-making is likely to be devolved.
From the government's perspective, sometimes information is likely to be more difficult to disseminate because it simply isn't reliable or robust. Especially if it generates further research. However, in turn that could be a good thing.
Perhaps the best solution would be for online registers to be made available which detail what FOI requests have been asked for, who is asking for it, when by etc.. Departments should be collecting this information internally, but publicly posting it (because the info will be made public anyway) could allow researchers, policy hacks, journalists and members of the public to work out what is already available. Similarly, it would minimise nonsense requests because it would be known what and who was requesting the information.