Press release: 7 January 2011

Welcome for proposed FOI extension - but regrets that Network Rail and contractors escape scrutiny

The Campaign welcomed the coalition government’s announcement [1] that it proposed:

• to extend the FOI Act to a range of regulatory, representative and other bodies [2]
• to implement the last government’s measures to release old government records after 20 years instead of 30 years [3]
• apply the Act to companies that are jointly owned by more than one public authority.[4]

The Campaign said these were valuable improvements to the FOI regime.

However it pointed out that before the election both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had promised that Network Rail would be covered and that the Conservatives’ had also promised to cover Northern Rock. Neither body is being covered. Many other individual bodies, including electoral registration officers and returning officers should also be added, the Campaign said.

It also called for companies providing contracted out functions to be brought under the Act, particularly those relating to health, social services, education and criminal justice and for the Act to be extended to housing associations. The Campaign pointed out that the Scottish Government was proposing to extend the Scottish FOI Act to contractors who build or maintain schools, hospitals and roads (where the contract value is above certain thresholds), to private bodies running prisons or providing prison escort services to contractors running local authority sports or leisure centres and to the Glasgow Housing Association.[5]

The Campaign said it was also unhappy at the decision to implement a more restrictive exemption for senior members of the Royal Family.[6] At present, communications with the Royal Family are exempt, but potentially disclosable on public interest grounds. In future the public interest test will be removed for communications with the monarch and the next two in line to the throne.[7] The Campaign said that where Prince Charles was seeking to actively intervene in policy decisions, his input would be withheld in all circumstances, even if it had played the decisive role.

Finally, the Campaign suggested the proposal to allow the Information Commissioner to serve for only a single 5 year term was a potentially double-edged sword. Limiting appointment to a single term only meant that the Commissioner could not be tempted to comply with the government’s wishes in order to be reappointed. But appointing a new Commissioner every 5 years could be potentially disruptive, as a new Commissioner needed at least a year to master the brief, and the Campaign suggested the Commissioner’s term of appointment should be extended to 6 or 7 years.

Notes

1. See: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease070111a.htm
2. The government proposes to bring a range of regulatory bodies under the Act: the Bar Council and Law Society (in relation to their regulatory functions), the Advertising Standards Authority, Independent Complaints Reviewer, Independent Schools Inspectorate, Quality Assurance Agency and the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers. It also proposes that the Local Government Association and the NHS Federation should be covered as well as British Standards Institute, Carbon Trust, Energy Saving Trust, Examination Boards, Harbour authorities, National Register of Public Service Interpreters, The Bridge School Inspectorate, Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, The Trinity House Lighthouse Service and Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Finally, the coalition government is to implement the last government’s decision to include the Association of Chief Police Officers, UCAS and Financial Ombudsman Service.
3. Amendments to implement these proposals were made by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 shortly before the last election but have not yet been brought into force.
4. At present, a company which is wholly owned by a single public authority is covered by the Act, but a company which is jointly owned by 2 or more public authorities is not.
5. See “Consultation on Extending the Coverage of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002”, Scottish Government, July 2010. For the Campaign’s response see: http://www.cfoi.org.uk/pdf/CFOIinSS5response2010.pdf
6. The Royal Family itself is not subject to the FOI Act but information about it held by public authorities is potentially disclosable.
7. Amendments to create this revised exemption were also made by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act before the election but have not yet been brought into force. The amendments would exempt information relating to communications with the monarch, the heir to the throne and the second in line to the throne for 20 years or until 5 years after the death of the individual, whichever is later.

Further information

Maurice Frankel 0207 831 7477 or

Katherine Gundersen 0207 831 7477