In October 2007, in a speech on liberty at the University of Westminster, the Prime Minister announced that more “Freedom of Information is the right course because government belongs to the people, not the politicians” adding that “there is more we can do to change the culture and the workings of government to make it more open”.
He continued: “Public information does not belong to Government; it belongs to the public on whose behalf government is conducted. Wherever possible that should be the guiding principle behind the implementation of our Freedom of Information Act”. The PM concluded that “we are also today publishing a consultation document to consider whether additional organisations discharging a public function - including in some instances private sector companies running services for the public sector - should be brought within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation”.
A year and a half later, the result of this consultation was finally published - last week under the encouraging title of “Freedom of Information Act 2000: Designation of additional public authorities”. So how many public authorities will actually will be designated immediately? I think the real answer is somewhere between zero and a handful, and at the lower end of the spectrum.
To be fair, there were new public authorities identified to be covered by FOIA (e.g. Academies, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service). However, as there will be “further consultation” with all of these bodies, actual inclusion in a FOI regime is actually being deferred until that “further consultation” is completed.
The Government is “attracted” to the prospect of bringing public utility service providers (e.g. gas, electric, telecommunications) into the FOIA regime but there will be further consultation with these organisations. In the context of the Government proposals, the word “attracted” needs translating; it means not to be included in a FOI regime.
Government are to “keep under review” (another way of saying “not to be included in a FOI regime”) those contractors who supply major services to the public sector particularly those who provide services such as prisons, detention centres and care homes. These bodies are “encouraged” to proactively publish information. Finally the report explicitly states that charities and the regulator of professional and voluntary services are not to be included.
So, I have reluctantly concluded that if the proper title of the document should be “Freedom of Information Act 2000: Non-designation of additional public authorities”.
Comments