Commons report praises current FOI system

Picture of someone at the national archives at Kew

Supporters of freedom of information will be relieved, but many of its critics will be disappointed.

That is the likely reaction to the new report by the Commons Justice Committee, which has assessed how FOI is working in practice and concludes that the UK's Freedom of Information Act "is serving the nation well".

The two controversial topics it has focused on most are the cost of FOI and its impact on the frankness of internal policy debate. In both areas the MPs on the committee are not convinced by many of the challenges from those who think the FOI system is too expensive or damaging to good government or both.

Thus, on the starkest, most high-profile issues, the committee does not recommend giving cabinet records or other policy documents any increased legal protection from FOI requests; nor does it back the introduction of up-front fees for making freedom of information applications.

But it is clear from the cautious and nuanced report - and from their lines of questioning at the committee hearings - that the MPs do have some significant worries.

The Ministry of Justice will now have to consider how to respond to the committee's review of the workings of the Act and whether to bring forward any changes.

Start Quote

The MPs are clearly very cross with Tony Blair because of his failure to give evidence to them in person”

End Quote

Much of the evidence to the committee from public authorities concerned the administrative burden of FOI. While the report stresses that FOI disclosures can prompt savings as well as costing money, it suggests a number of smaller measures to address the expense issue.

Currently most public authorities can reject FOI requests where it would take them more than 18 hours to retrieve the information. The MPs propose cutting this to 16 hours. But they reject as unfeasible the more drastic option of allowing authorities also to count towards the limit the time spent thinking about whether to release material.

'Chilling effect'

It is interesting to see that the committee strongly maintains that well-run public authorities can cut the cost of FOI considerably.

As to whether FOI has in fact introduced a "chilling effect" on honest records of policy discussion, the MPs are clearly concerned and summarise the evidence on both sides while eventually remaining agnostic. However they argue that if this is the case, the solution is not to curtail FOI. Instead senior government figures should proclaim that FOI does leave a "safe space" for internal debate and use their ministerial right of veto over the Information Commissioner if necessary.

Yet there is one category of critic of the FOI system who will be pleased - university researchers. Many academics had argued that the UK-wide FOI Act should have an exemption for academic research intended for later publication, as is the case in Scotland. This is the only restriction on the scope of FOI that the committee back.

In terms of the main complaints coming from those who want greater openness, the MPs were clearly influenced by the argument that there is too much delay in the current system.

Tony Blair Tony Blair has called himself a nincompoop for introducing FOI

The committee recommends that the law should lay down statutory time limits on how long public authorities can take to assess whether releasing material is in the public interest and to decide on reviews of their previous decisions. Currently the time limits are only advisory.

The report is unanimous and some of the conclusions have a balanced "on the one hand, on the other" tone which hints at compromises and some differences beneath the surface.

The MPs are clearly very cross with Tony Blair because of his failure to give evidence to them in person, despite his well-publicised self-condemnation of himself as a "nincompoop" for introducing FOI.

But for me the most striking feature of his letter to the committee is the fact that it states one purpose of the legislation was "to permit people to access information about themselves held by government".

This is simply wrong, since personal information of this kind is specifically excluded from the FOI Act and is instead covered by the Data Protection Act.

I have also heard this same inaccurate and peculiar claim made by Jonathan Powell, Blair's former chief of staff and fellow FOI critic.

I don't know what to make of this error, but since Mr Blair did not appear in front of the committee, the MPs did not have a chance to ask him about it.

Finally, as a declaration of interest, I should state that I gave evidence to the committee from a journalistic perspective for BBC News.

Martin Rosenbaum Article written by Martin Rosenbaum Martin Rosenbaum Freedom of information specialist

10 things we found out because of Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act came in 10 years ago. It's led to the unearthing of a trove of facts.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 4.

    See Martin's performance as referred to in this article: "Finally, as a declaration of interest, I should state that I gave evidence to the committee from a journalistic perspective for BBC News.", please see:,
    entitled: "Martin Rosenbaum: Using the Freedom of Information Act".
    There are other posts on this site that I found interesting & informative.

  • rate this

    Comment number 3.

    As a FOI supporter, I'm concerned at Committee’s comments on veto. It chose to support veto in principle as a way to counter arguments about “the chilling effect”. i.e. It is saying civil servants & Ministers need not fear that discussions around policy formulation will be disclosed. But I see discussions around this topic as important; so, in my view, this is unwelcome & step backwards.

  • rate this

    Comment number 2.

    There appears to be much controversy over things that I believe are without consequence, such as time for processing. What does that have to do with an otherwise legitimate request?
    I'm also with Brendan Howlin, Irish Labour Party politician, who says bodies in receipt of Exchequer funding - as banks are - should be made subject to Freedom of Information requests.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1.

    Before a person can make an honest decision, they need honest relevant facts.

    Mr Blair was never honest with himself and is probably why he feels he is an nincompoop for the FOI Act.
    After all it SHOULD give accountability to his own actions, (if they are not detrimental to the UK).

    FOI vetoes still make getting to the truth difficult

    Which is WANTED!


Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • Audi R8Need for speed

    Audi unveils its fastest production car ever - ahead of its Geneva debut


  • A bicycle with a Copenhagen WheelClick Watch

    The wheel giving push bikes an extra boost by turning them into smart electric hybrids

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.