The constitutional affairs select committee said that government
plans to limit FOI requests did not adequately balance the costs
and the public's rights to know about public bodies. It said that
the proposed limitations would not be transparent or accountable to
the public.
Last year the Government proposed restricting public and media
access to public information by cutting requests which were complex
or took more time to fulfil.
A cost ceiling currently operates so that if the cost of finding
and extracting information, billed at £25 per hour, exceeds £600
then the request can be denied. The ceiling is £450 for local
government bodies.
The new proposal allows authorities to bill for reading
documents and staff consultation, a move which will put many more
requests above the ceiling than is currently the case. The proposal
most controversially would allow for 'aggregation' of requests,
meaning that the cost ceiling would not apply to an individual but
to their organisation.
That would mean, for example, that large organisations such as a
newspaper would only be permitted £600 worth of requests every
three months, a move that opponents fear would stifle open
government and hamper newsgathering.
"No clear evidence to support the Department of Constitutional
Affairs (DCA)’s decision that a change to the charging regime was
necessary has been published," said the committee's report. "The
data in the Frontier Economics review [on which the DCA's
recommendations were based] is not a satisfactory substitute since
it merely confirms that the various change options would reduce
requests rather than presenting a cogent argument to explain why
such changes were considered necessary.
"We have no evidence to indicate that the Government has
adequately reviewed whether the existing charging regime balanced
public access rights with the needs of public authorities to
deliver services effectively, before examining ways of reducing
compliance costs. Furthermore we have not heard sufficient evidence
from the Department to support the need for a radical change in the
arrangements for charging for Freedom of Information requests,"
said the committee's report.
The Government published its plans last December, but the outcry
which followed forced it to begin a supplementary consultation
process which threw doubt on the plans. The committee's report will
further weaken the Government case for change.
The committee said that the cost benefit analysis behind the
Government's proposals was based on "poor quality" information and
focused entirely on cost reduction and not on the societal benefit
of transparent government.
The committee also looked at the funding and operation of the
ICO, finding that the office was insufficiently funded and
repeating an earlier call for the office to report directly to
Parliament. "We question whether it is appropriate for the Ministry
of Justice to set the funding levels for the independent regulator
and thereby directly influence its capacity to investigate
complaints," said the report. "We are not convinced that the
funding of the ICO is sufficient to enable it to deliver an
effective complaints resolution service."
