The amount of information released under the Freedom of Information Act could be severely cut back, according to a leaked cabinet committee paper. This proposes significant changes to the Act's charging arrangements.

At the moment, FOI requests are normally answered without charge. Authorities can charge for photocopies but not for the time they spend dealing with requests. However, they can refuse to answer altogether if the cost of searching for the information exceeds a set amount. For government departments this is £600, equivalent to 24 hours of staff time. For others the figure is £450 or 18 hours.

The leaked paper, obtained by the Sunday Times, reveals that a cabinet committee is considering three changes. The first is a standard application fee for all requests. The second is to allow multiple requests by the same person on different subjects to be refused if their total cost exceeds the limit. The third is to allow all the time officials spend working on a request, not just the search time, to count towards this limit. The idea is said to be to reduce the cost of legislation by deterring “serial requesters” and allowing “the most difficult requests” to be refused. But the proposals are clearly intended to produce substantial overall cuts in the numbers of requests.

A flat fee would hit all requesters indiscriminately, deterring people on low incomes as much as high volume requesters. It could also lead to charges for routine information. Any written request is automatically an FOI application, even if the applicant doesn't mention the Act. The new fees could allow authorities to demand a cheque before responding to queries of the “when did you last empty my bin?” kind.

Ireland's experience suggests that application fees could be devastating. In 2003, a £10 up-front application fee was introduced under Ireland's FOI Act. The number of requests instantly collapsed to one quarter the previous year's level. That is the last thing we need here.

The second proposal is to be to aggregate the costs of requests on different subjects by the same applicant. This can already be done for multiple requests on the same subject. Allowing unrelated requests to be treated the same way could severely ration the use of the Act by newspapers and campaigning organisations.

The third proposal would be to take account of the time officials spend considering requests. Currently the cost limits apply to the time spent looking for information. A single report raising complex issues under the Act's exemptions could be refused because of the time needed to think about it. The longer officials scratched their heads the greater the chance of a refusal. If ministers got involved in the decision, as they often do, their time might be enough to sink the request. The opportunities for abuse are obvious.

The cost limits are inflexible and make no allowance for the importance of the information. Although the Act has a public interest test which can require authorities to disclose exempt information in the public interest this does not apply to cost refusals. It would not matter if the report described an overwhelming risk to public safety or a blatant abuse of public office - the material would be withheld.

What's behind all this? Some departments do receive large numbers of requests, but publicly ministers have said it is only the 'frivolous' or 'vexatious' requests which concern them. In fact, the number of frivolous requests seems tiny. As for 'vexatious' requests, the Act already allows these to be refused. The Information Commissioner, who enforces the Act, has interpreted this test broadly, and supported authorities which have refused unreasonably high volumes of requests from the same individual.

The Act has just begun to chip away at the system's deep seated secrecy. An indication of the great range of information now being disclosed can be seen from summaries of 500 FOI press stories at www.cfoi.org.uk. Any one of the government's new proposals could seriously limit this flow of information, making it harder for requesters to ask penetrating questions and easier for authorities to avoid scrutiny. All three would be a massive blow.

Maurice Frankel is director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information
www.cfoi.org.uk

	Freedom of Information & Open Government.
	Home page.