The Bill also reforms the Official Secrets Act - the law which makes it a crime to release some kinds of government information. The Bill creates a new defence - that disclosure was in the public interest - for someone prosecuted under this Act.

It would also make private companies publish more information in their annual reports, so you could see whether they were obeying laws on public safety, the environment, consumer protection, safety at work and discrimination. And it would give you the right to see your employment records.

The Bill was introduced by Mark Fisher, Labour MP for Stoke on Trent Central. It has the support of MPs from all parties - Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist, Plaid Cymru, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. It was debated in the House of Commons on February 19, 1993.

What difference would the Right to Know Bill make to me?

First, it will let you see files held about you by public authorities and your employer. At the moment you can only see some kinds of files - most can be kept secret.

You can see files held about you on computer, thanks to the Data Protection Act. But usually you have no right to see information kept about you in written or typed form - for example, by your employer, the college you're studying at, by local councils or government departments like the Department of Social Security.

You can see part of you medical records - but only the information added since November 1991. There is no right to see what your GP or hospital doctor wrote before this date.

(This has now changed following the introduction of the Code of Practice on Access to NHS Information in June 1995. For further details click here to read the Campaign's briefing on the Code

Someone may have made a mistake or written unfair or damaging comments about you - but you won't know. The Right to Know Bill would let you see these records, correct mistakes and get compensation if you'd been damaged by errors.

Second, it would give you the right to know what rules authorities use in making decisions about you.

Officials may use internal rules and guidelines to help them decide whether you are entitled to benefits or grants, how much tax you should pay, or how they should deal with any complaint you might make. If you can't see these rules you can't know if you're being treated fairly.

Authorities would have to publish these rules under the Bill. If they didn't, and you suffered some disadvantage because you hadn't seen them, you could go to court to get compensation or to have an unfavourable decision reversed.

Third, it would give you the right to know about things which directly affect your life - like safety, pollution, planning, food hygiene, transport and schools.

We can sometimes get more information about Britain under the American Freedom of Information Act than we can from our own government. For example, its easier to get information about the safety of British medicines, pesticides, food additives and cars from Washington than it is from Whitehall.

The US Freedom of Information Act can be used by anyone, even a British citizen living in the UK. Sometimes it is even possible to get information about Britain that ministers have refused to disclose to MPs in the House of Commons.

The Bill would let us get that information from our own government. You would be able to choose the safest product, make sure that the authorities were clamping down on hazards or insist that poor services were improved.

Fourth, you would be able to find out more about the real effects of government policies - on unemployment, the council tax, the crime rate, the health service, education and much more.

If policies aren't working, the government is always liable to try and conceal the facts. Its easier for ministers to try and suppress the truth than to acknowledge and apologise for any error. The Bill would make it harder for them to get away with being dishonest.

Fifth, openness will improve the quality of decisions.

Secret decisions are more likely to be bad decisions. Keeping a decision secret means that only a handful of people are allowed to know what is going on. The public and independent experts aren't allowed to contribute. So there is less chance that errors will be spotted. Bodies with vested interests can feed in slanted information, which no-one else can check. And if mistakes are made, the authority may react with even more secrecy, to make sure no-one finds out.

When decisions are taken openly, there is a greater chance that problems will be identified and dealt with. Unworkable ideas can be dropped, without loss of face, before the government has committed itself to them. And if the policy has been developed openly, and people's views listened to, it is more likely to have public support than a policy drawn up in secret and forced through without consultation.

Finally, it would give you more power

If you are trying to protect yourself against an unfair decision, prevent an injustice, or bring about change of any kind - the one thing you must have is information. If you are kept in the dark, you will be powerless. If you have the facts you can make your voice known, force your MP or councillor to listen, argue your case with authority and have some chance of making those in power respond to your concerns.

But don't we have too much information already?

A lot of information is published. But much of it is what the government wants us to have - information which explains government policy or supports a decision already taken. It is much more difficult to get information if it casts doubt on a decision.

Do other countries already have Right to Know laws?

Yes. Countries which have 'freedom of information' laws, as they're usually called, include the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Greece. Sweden has had a freedom of information law for more than 200 years!

What difference would the Right to Know Bill have made in the past?

In many of the recent major accidents, the authorities knew of safety problem beforehand - but the public didn't.

For example, in 1985 more than 50 people died in a fire at Bradford City Football club. Later it was revealed that the council had written to the club months earlier demanding action on the 'unacceptable' hazard. But the public hadn't known, because such correspondence is always confidential.

After the Marchionness river boat sank in the Thames in August 1989 it was revealed that the ship that had crashed into it - the Bowbelle - had been involved in 3 previous river accidents. The public hadn't known about its dangerous record, because accident reports are confidential.

There were warnings about the hazard at Kings Cross underground station before the 1987 fire which killed 31 people. But these too were confidential and had not been acted on. The Fennell report into the fire found that "Many of the shortcomings...at King's Cross...had in fact been identified before by the internal inquiries into escalator fires. They were also highlighted in reports by the fire brigade, police, and Railway Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Standards Committee."

No-one knows whether these tragedies could have been avoided by greater openness. But it is possible that if the public had known about the problems, they would have demanded improvements - and something would have been done in time.

How would I get information under the Bill?

You would write to the authority which holds the records, describing the information that you want. It would have 30 days to release the records. It would have a longer period, 45 days, if the information had been supplied by a third party, to allow the third party to be consulted about any possibly exempt information.

You be given access either by being allowed to inspect the records or by having copies sent to you.

Would I have to pay for information?

You would pay only for copies that were sent to you, and postage. There would be no other charges.

How will I know what information an authority holds?

Every authority would have to produce an index to the records it holds, which you could look at.

The index wouldn't have to identify every single file. But it would tell you what subjects the authority deals with, what kinds of records it has on them and what types of personal files it holds.

Authorities would also have to produce a leaflet telling you of your rights, explaining how to make an application and who to complain to if you are dissatisfied.

Would I be able to get information held on computer?

You would be entitled to copies of any record, regardless of how it is held. If the information was on computer you could get a print-out, or a copy of the computer disk. You could get copies of any video, tape, film or other type of record. And you would be entitled to printed or written records, including handwritten notes, correspondence or minutes of meetings.

If the authority doesn't have the information would it have to get it for me?

No. The Bill only gives you the right to records that already exist.

However, if the authority knew that the records were held by another public body it would have to pass your application on to that body for it to deal with.

What could I do if an authority refuses to release information which the Bill says it should?

You would be able to complain to an independent Commissioner. He or she would have the power to look at the records and order the authority to release them.

Could the authority just ignore the order?

An order by the Commissioner would be like a court order. If it was unreasonable, the authority could appeal to the Tribunal. But if it simply refused to obey it would be in contempt of court. The person responsible could be fined or even imprisoned.

Won't authorities find ways round the law - for example, by not writing sensitive things down?

They may try, but its very difficult to run even a tiny organisation - let alone a gigantic bureaucracy - without proper records. Government departments may spend months consulting each other over even the simplest decision. Officials wouldn't be able to keep all the information they needed in their memories during this time: they would have to keep good records.

Could authorities destroy files to avoid having to release them?

An official who deliberately destroyed a record after someone had applied for it, would commit an offence under the Bill and could be prosecuted.

Why is the Bill enforced by a Commissioner and Tribunal and not in the courts?

First, because the courts are very expensive. If a public authority appealed at every stage it could cost tens of thousands of pounds, and take years, to fight a case up to the House of Lords. A complaint to the Commissioner would cost nothing and be quicker.

Second, a Commissioner and Tribunal who deal only with this subject and nothing else will produce a more informed and consistent set of rulings than the courts. Uncertain areas will be sorted out much more quickly and everyone will have a clearer idea of what has to be disclosed.

Who would appoint the Commissioner?

The Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and the chairman of a House of Commons select committee would have to agree on the nomination for Commissioner. The actual appointment would be made by the Queen, after being approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Commissioner could only be dismissed after a vote of both Houses of Parliament.

What information could authorities legitimately withhold?

Only information which the Bill specifically exempts from access. Personal information about individuals would be exempt. Information which would cause 'significant damage' to defence, international relations, the lawful work of the security services, law enforcement, the economy and the lawful commercial interests of an authority or private company would be exempt. But information about a public hazard could not be withheld, even if it was commercially sensitive. Exemptions also apply to information which might endanger life if disclosed; to certain types of civil service advice; and to information which an authority has prepared for use in legal proceedings. There are a number of other minor exemptions.

So the Bill wouldn't produce total openness?

No. It acknowledges that there are legitimate grounds for keeping some information confidential. But it would lead to much greater openness; it would limit the grounds on which information could be withheld; and it would make it possible to challenge and overrule any unjustified secrecy.

Do the exemptions mean that all information about, for example, defence would be exempt?

No. Only information which the authority could show would cause "significant damage" to defence could be withheld.

Could the authority withhold the whole of a document if only part of it was exempt?

No. It would have to delete the exempt information, and release the rest.

Who decides if information is exempt?

Initially, the authority could refuse to release information which it thought was exempt. It would have to tell the applicant it was withholding information, and say which exemption was involved.

If the applicant was unhappy with the decision he or she could complain to the Commissioner. The Commissioner would have the power to look at the records and, if they were not exempt, order their disclosure. Either side could appeal to the Tribunal.

Won't the Commissioner be overwhelmed by complaints?

Not according to overseas experience. The first stage of a complaint would be to ask the authority to review its own decision. This is what happens under the Australian Freedom of Information Act. In a third of cases, more information is then released. This may be because reviews are done by more senior officials, with greater authority to release information.

The Bill says that if the 'internal review' isn't completed within 14 days, the applicant could complain to the Commissioner. The applicant could also complain if he or she was unhappy with the result of the internal review.

In 1990-91 there were some 25,000 freedom of information requests in Australia. But there were only 233 requests for internal review. Only 68 cases were taken to the tribunal which hears appeals.

The Australian act gives individuals the right to amend personal information about themselves if it is incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading. About a hundred requests for amendment were made in 1990-91, representing less than 0.5% of all applicants.

Could exempt information ever be disclosed?

Yes. If there was evidence of significant abuse of authority, negligence, injustice, danger to health or safety or unauthorised use of public funds. In these cases the Commissioner could order disclosure if, after weighing any possible benefit and damage, releasing the information was held to be in the public interest.

A minor abuse of authority would not justify disclosing highly sensitive information. But if the wrongdoing was serious this might call into question the normal presumption that the public interest requires the information to be secret. On the contrary, secrecy may prevent the problem being dealt with, or the necessary lessons being learnt, or an injured person obtaining justice. If the benefits of openness outweighed the possible drawbacks, the Commissioner could order disclosure.

Is it right that the Commissioner appointed under the Bill, rather than a minister, should have the final word on what should be disclosed?

No system of disclosure would enjoy public confidence if ministers were free to withhold information without challenge. Ministers can too easily get away with concealing information from parliament. Individual MPs have no rights to information. Parliament as a whole could in theory vote against the government if it refused to provide essential information. But this would involve MPs from the majority party voting against their government and risking an election - something too drastic normally to be contemplated.

There is nothing new in independent bodies with the power to compel ministers to disclose. The courts do it in cases of judicial review, or if the government has been sued. One option might be for the Commissioner to be a judge or a retired judge, so that the post was held by someone who had experience of making such decisions. The Parliamentary Commissioner (the "ombudsman") can also force ministers to release information needed for an investigation. And ministers can be compelled to disclose records under the Data Protection Act - which gives people a right of access to personal files held about them on computer.

Would the Bill change the relations between ministers and civil servants?

No. There is a convention in parliament that the advice given by civil servants to ministers is not normally disclosed. The Bill accepts this convention. Policy advice given by civil servants would not be disclosed.

However, the factual information on which the advice is based would not be exempt. Any analysis, interpretation or evaluation of that information would be made public and so would any projections of future trends based on such information. Expert advice on a technical, legal, medical, statistical, scientific or other specialist subject would also be disclosed.

Where do the political parties stand on the Right to Know?

At the last election, in April 1992, both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats promised freedom of information laws. In January 1992 a Liberal Democrat MP, Archy Kirkwood, introduced a Freedom of Information Bill in parliament. The government opposed it, and it didn't become law. The following month Robin Corbett MP, a Labour front bench spokesman, published a Right to Information Bill which Labour said it would introduce if it won the election.

The government has not, so far, supported the principle of a freedom of information act, though many individual Conservative MPs do support such legislation.

However, the 1992 Conservative election manifesto promised to "be less secretive about the workings of government". It said the Conservatives would try to allow greater access to personal files held by government; and would review those laws which prohibited government from disclosing information. However, it didn't promise to give the public the right to this information.

The government's approach has been to try and encourage departments to release more information. But it hasn't yet said that it will require them to do so.

Why do we need a new law if the government has said that it wants to be more open?

Under the government's approach, departments and authorities will be asked to release more information. But they would still be free to keep things secret if they choose. This couldn't happen under the Right to Know Bill.

Under the government's approach, ministers would be judge and jury in their own case. If a minister decided not to release information, the decision would be final. Under the Bill, if information was improperly refused you could complain to a Commissioner with power to order disclosure.

Under the government's approach, ministers say they would release "useful", "usable" and "well-prepared" information. This means ministers will decide what is useful for us to know. The Bill would give us the right to decide for ourselves what information to have.

Finally, a policy of being more open may not last. If the government's priorities change, or ministers lose interest, it can be abandoned. This is what happened the last time government said it was going to be more open.

In 1977 the Labour government introduced what was known as the "Croham directive", a policy named after Lord Croham the former head of the civil service. It said that the background papers to decisions would be published. In fact very few papers were released, and within 18 months the policy had been quietly dropped.

After his retirement, Lord Croham himself announced that he believed a freedom of information law was needed!

A freedom of information act would be permanent. It would be enforceable. And it would give us the information we want, not the information that the government wants us to have.

 

	Part Two of this document.
	Back to the top
	Publications List.
	Freedom of Information & Open Government.
	Home page.