FOI 105

Written evidence from John Cross EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

1. The Justice Committee has invited written evidence on a number of areas in relation to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am writing in a personal capacity and as editor of addtofoi.co.uk to give evidence relating to situations where I would have liked to have the option to use the Act but was not able to due to gaps in coverage. I am the editor of addtofoi.co.uk which campaigns for more bodies exercising public functions and/or receiving public funding to be made subject to the Act. 2. I would like to comment on just one of the questions raised in the invitation to provide evidence: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Freedom of Information Act? more specifically, I wish to comment on one of the main weaknesses of the Act. 3. In my experience one of the main weaknesses of the Act is the gaps in coverage, the Act should be extended to cover many more organisations and officials exercising public functions and/or receiving public funding MAIN BODY OF RESPONSE 4. Examples of bodies that should be considered when extending the coverage of the Act include: ACAS Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Air Travel Trust (the Trust manages the Trust Fund for the benefit of customers of failed tour operators) Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA) Association of Port Health Authorities (APHA) Bar Council (including Bar Standards Board) BBC Worldwide Americas Inc. BBC Worldwide Limited British Academy (mainly funded by grants from Central Government) British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) British Film Institute British Standards Institution (BSI)(UK's National Standards Body) Chamberlain of London Chequers Trust Churches Conservation Trust (sponsored by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport) College of Arms (official repository of coats of arms and pedigrees)

FOI 105
Commissioners of Irish Lights (General Lighthouse Authority) Companies owned two thirds or more by any number of public authorities. Consumer Financial Education Body (CFEB) Contractors performing covert investigations in connection with RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) Corporate Officer of the House of Commons (established by the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992) Corporate Officer of the House of Lords (established by the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992) Counting Officers for public referenda Court Funds Office (CFO) Crown Estate Paving Commission Dartmoor Commoners' Counci District Auditors (see also ICO lines to take LTT11) Dorneywood Trust Duchy of Cornwall Duchy of Lancaster Electoral Registration Officers for public elections Exam boards (in respect of the administration of public examinations) Farriers Registration Council (maintains the statutory register of register persons engaged in farriery and the shoeing of horses under Farriers (Registration) Act 1975) Financial Ombudsman Service Financial Reporting Council (the independent regulator responsible for promoting confidence in corporate governance and reporting) Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited (FSCS) (the statutory fund of last resort for customers of authorised financial services firms, set up under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) House of Commons Commission (established by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, claims not to be subject to FOI) Housing Associations (also called Registered Social Landlords) (those wholly owned by one local authority are already subject to the Act) Housing Ombudsman Service Improvement and Development Agency for local government (IDeA) Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA)(Home Office funded body that sets 'best practice' for custody visiting processes) Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) Inns of Court

FOI 105
Inspection services for private schools Institute for Learning (IfL) Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) (plus ILEX Professional Standards Limited IPS) JANET (UK) Law Society (including Legal Complaints Service - LCS and Solicitors Regulation Authority SRA) LGcommunications Local Authority Leaders' Boards (regional planning bodies) Local Authority leisure and recreation trusts Local Government Association (LGA) Local Government Employers (LGE) (the business name of Employers' Organisation for Local Government) Local Medical Committees (Statutory body representing GPs) Local Safeguarding Children Boards London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited (LOCOG) Manchester Airport Group (MAG is publicly owned by the ten local authorities of Greater Manchester) Master of the Rolls (see also: EA/2010/0119) National Anti-Fraud Network National Association of Local Councils (NALC) National Exhibition Centre Limited National Screen Agencies (funded by UK film council - see also list of agencies) Nationalised banks Navigation authorities for inland waterways (some are already subject to the Act others are not) Network Rail Infrastructure Limited/Network Rail Limited NHS Confederation Nominet UK Non-judicial Inquiries Northern Housing Consortium Not for dividend companies receiving funding from public bodies (in respect of information which relates to the receipt/expenditure of public funds or work undertaken on behalf of a public body) Office of the Complaints Commissioner (investigates complaints against FSA) Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) (the designated operator of the student complaints scheme in England and Wales under the Higher Education Act 2004) Official Receivers (see also ICO lines to take: LTT12) Official Solicitor

FOI 105
Panel on Takeovers and Mergers Parking and Traffic Appeals Service Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (PCGN) PhonepayPlus Limited (regulator for premium rate charged telecommunications services) Port Authorities Press Complaints Commission Private Operators of prisons and detention centres Privy Council (see also ICO decision notice: FS50125731001) Providers of prisoner escort services Public Trustee Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Regional Fire Control Companies Regional Screen Agencies (funded by UK film council - see also list of agencies) Regional Technical Advisory Bodies (RTAB) Returning Officers for public elections Royal Collection Royal Household Royal Marines Museum Royal Naval Museum Royal Navy Submarine Museum Royal Trustees School Food Trust Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces The Carbon Trust The Energy Saving Trust Traffic Penalty Tribunal Trinity House (The Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar and it is also a Deep Sea Pilotage Authority) Trustees of House of Commons Pension Scheme Trustees of Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund UCAS UK Association of National Park Authorities (UKANPA) Universities UK Urban Regeneration Companies (companies established by the relevant Local Authority and Regional Development Agency to co-ordinate redevelopment an regeneration) V (also called Russell Commission Implementation body receives majority of its income from Government grants)

FOI 105
Video Standards Council (VSC) (designated body responsible for the age rating of video games supplied in the UK) Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA)

4. I recommend that the Justice Committee compiles a list of the bodies/officials not subject to the Act that it believes ought to be seriously considered for inclusion. February 2012

FOI 106
Written evidence from Helen Cross
Summary

1. My evidence addresses the questions of whether the Freedom of Information act (the Act) is
working as intended and what are the strengths and the strengths and weaknesses of the act, This is based on my own experience of making FOI requests.

2. Generally, the Freedom of Information Act is working as intended, but there are still a few areas
of weakness.and problems with compliance amongst smaller authorities.

3. The lack of a fixed time limit for conducting an internal review or a public interest test when
applying an exemption leads to unnecessary delays for the requester.

4. There should be less focus on publication schemes, and more on disclosure logs to ensure
released data is available to all.

5. The time limit for taking action under section 77 of the act is too short.
Is the Freedom of Information Act operating in the way that it was intended to?

6. In my experience, the Freedom of information act is operating as intended. Most public authorities
are now well practised in answering Freedom of Information requests, so the level of compliance with the requirements of the act is generally quite high.

7. Unfortunately, there are still some authorities who have failed to comply with their responsibilities
under the Act, including by doing the following:

Demanding that FOI requesters a pay a fixed fee for access to information. eg Sussex Coast College who tried to charge a flat 75 fee to requesters 1 Refusing to respond to valid requests submitted via email. eg South Ribble Borough Council, who tried to force requesters to use their web form instead 2 Taking unreasonable steps to establish the identity of requesters eg the Department for Communities and Local Government who asked one requester to present their passport to the British embassy in Baku 3 This is an issue that particularly effects people with less common names. Refusing to answer requests from companies made in the legal name of the company. Demanding a postal address be provided for requests made electronically eg Bury Parish Council 4

1 2 3 4

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ore_valley#incoming-183785 http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tickets_for_2012_olympics_347#incoming-181672 http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/barrier_busting_website_follow_o#incoming-203514 http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/composition_and_costs_of_running_43#incoming-245550

FOI 106
8. These problems occur most frequently amongst smaller authorities who may not have a full time
Freedom of Information officer or who have not had to answer requests before.

9. Whilst I recognise that some councils are concerned about the cost of responding to FOI requests
at a time of of budgetary constraint, I believe that section 12 of the Act is working as intended and the current limits strike the right balance between limiting the cost burden on a public authority in responding to a request with the information rights of the requesters.

10. There is however, a problem with authorities who do not respond promptly to requests, but who
consistently providing a response on the 20th working day regardless of the nature or the complexity of the request. The Information Commissioners Office has a policy whereby it does not issue formal decision notices in these cases. I believe that this is unfortunate, as the 20 working day limit is meant to be the maximum time allowable by law, not the standard response time.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Freedom of Information Act?

11. One of the main strengths of the Freedom of Information act is that it makes it simple for all
sections of society to access public sector information that is relevant to them. This is largely due to the fact that requesters are not charged for making requests and there is no prescribed form of words that requesters have to use in order to get a response. I would strongly urge the committee to resist any calls to introduce charges for making requests as the information rights of the public should not depend on personal wealth. I would ask the committee to examine evidence from Ireland where the introduction of a charge for information requests lead to a steep drop in the number of requests that were made.

12. A further strength of the Act is that it is applicant blind so that all requests for information are
supposed to be treated in the same manner regardless of who has made the request. Sadly this principle is not always adhered to by some public authorities who regularly route requests from journalists via their press office, who pre-approve any responses. This can lead to responses to requests from members of the press being delayed. The Metropolitan Police revealed late in 2011 that it treats requests from high profile requesters differently to those received from other members of the public, with those responses requiring sign off from higher ranking members of the force. This is a trend which I find quite worrying and one which I feel goes against the spirit of the act.

13. The main weakness of the Freedom of information act as currently drafted, is the lack of a limit on
the amount of time that a public authority can take to conduct a public interest test when decided whether certain exemptions should apply. This can lead to frustrating delays, with requesters sometimes left waiting for months before being provided with a response from the authority.

14. A good example of this is a request made to the Metropolitan Police on 22 August 2011 asking

for information on their monitoring of Social Networking 5 . The Metropolitan Police wrote repeatedly to the requester explaining that they were unable to respond to the request as they were considering public interest factors, and they did not issue a refusal notice until 15 November 2011, which was almost three months after the initial request was made.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/social_media_monitoring_policies

FOI 106
15. As that request was refused on cost grounds, the requester refined their request on 16 November
2011 in an attempt to see if the request could be answered within the current cost limit. The Metropolitan Police again repeatedly delayed their responding to this request on the grounds that they were considering the public interest in disclosing the information. The Metropolitan Police finally issued a second refusal notice on 2 February 2011, over 5 months since the original request was submitted.

16. Such long delays are in keeping with the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act and I have
observed that they can be very frustrating to requesters when they occur. I would like to see the Freedom of information act amended to introduce a limit to the amount of time that an authority can take to consider whether releasing information is in the public interest. I think this would help to reinforce the message that Information is meant to be provided promptly to the public when requested and would reduce the level of frustration felt by requesters who can see a request for information drag on for months.

17. I would also like to see a statutory time limit introduced for the amount of time that an authority
can take at the internal review stage of a request. The Information Commissioner has already issued guidance that an internal review should be concluded within 40 working days of a request having been made, but without the full force of statute behind it, in practice the review stage can take much longer.

18. A further weakness of the Act is that Public Authorities are not required to maintain a disclosure
log, which means that information is not automatically made publicly available one it has been released under the act. This can lead to repeat requests being made to public authorities, placing an unnecessary administrative burden on them.

19. The Act instead requires authorities to maintain an adequate publication scheme. I have found
these to be of little use when making FOI requests as they are often out of date or incomplete. I have also been unable to access a copy of the register of interests of my local councillors because the fact it is listed in the authorities publication scheme means I am unable to specifically request a copy and the council were insistent that the document should only be available for inspection. Here the existence of the publication scheme actually made it harder for me to access the information that I required.

20. The final weakness that I would like to highlight is the short time frame for taking action, under
Section 77 of the Act, against those who have deliberately acted to conceal or destroy information that otherwise would have been released. As the time limit for launching proceedings under s77 begins when the original offence took place, I believe that there is little prospect of a successful prosecution being brought. Although the ICO have significantly reduced the average time taken to handle complaints in recent years, it still can still take them several months to hear a case and. owing to delays at the internal review stage, several months for a complaint to reach the commissioner in the first place. I would ask to Committee to consider whether an amendment is necessary to give the ICO greater time to act in the event of a breach. February 2012