Supplementary consultation on FOI Regulations 2007 - extended until June 2007

Open Rights Group submission to the DCA's Freedom of Information Act consultation - Submitted March 8th 2007

The government has invited the public to comment on changes it proposes to make to the Freedom of Information (FOI) regulations and have published a consultation paper.

The consultation period ended on March 8 2007 and the government planned for the regulations will be introduced shortly afterwards, on March 19. They where stopped.

Michael Wills (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice) Written Ministerial Statement Access to Information 25 October 2007

Today I have deposited copies of "Draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007: Response to Consultation" in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. I have also laid before Parliament the "Government response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Report on Freedom of Information; Government's proposals for reform" (Cm 7187).

These documents set out the Government's response to the consultation on the draft FOI fees regulations and to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Report. They also set out the Government's decision on next steps regarding the fees regulations. We have decided to make no changes to the existing fees regulations. We will deliver a package of positive administrative measures to make better use of the existing provisions to improve the way the Freedom of Information Act works.

The Government are commissioning a review of the "30-year rule"—the date by which public records must be transferred to The National Archives by Government Departments—and the date at which records become "historical". Changes to these would require amendments to the Public Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act, and, taken together, could have the effect of increasing access to Government records. The review will consider the means by which such changes could be delivered and will include recommendations on an appropriate reduction period.

The Government are also publishing today a formal consultation on extending the application of the Freedom of Information Act, by means of an Order under Section 5 of the Act, to a range of organisations that perform public functions. The consultation will run for three months and copies of the consultation paper are being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

In addition to this, the Government are today announcing their intention to conduct a review of the way we share and protect personal information in the public and private sector. The review and any recommendations will be produced by Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner and Dr. Mark Walport, Director of Wellcome Trust, and published in the first half of 2008.

Context

When passing the FOI Act, the Government committed to review the fee regime after the first 12-18 months of its operation.

Independent Review

In August 2006 Frontier Economics was commissioned to carry out an independent review of the operation of the Act.

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for the review set out two issues to be examined in detail:

the cost of delivering FOI across central government and the wider public sector, alongside an assessment of the key cost drivers of FOI
an examination of options for changes to the current fee regime for FOI.

And four key objectives:

to assess the cost of processing FOI requests across the public sector
to include an assessment of the pressure points in respect of the different activities that need to be undertaken in processing a request and the different levels of engagement required (e.g. senior management involvement)
to model a system for assessing the impact of processing FOI requests in the wider public sector, (i.e. in local government, police etc)
to analyse how different options for amending the FOI fee regime would impact on the costs of operating FOI across the different parts of the public sector.

And identified four options for amending the fee regime for consideration:

Option 1: the introduction of a flat fee for FOI requests
Option 2: allowing the aggregation of non-similar requests from the same requester for the purposes of assessing whether the costs of responding to the request were below the appropriate limit
Option 3: including reading, consideration and consultation time for the purposes of assessing whether the costs of responding to the request were below the appropriate limit
Option 4: lowering the current appropriate limit thresholds of £600 for central government and £450 for other public bodies.

Findings

In October 2006 the Department for Constitutional Affairs published the findings of the review. They recommended that changes be made to the way that the costs of responding to requests are calculated, so that they be:

reflective of the actual costs of delivering FOI

Goverment Response

Michael Wills (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice) Written Ministerial Statement Access to Information 25 October 2007

Today I have deposited copies of "Draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007: Response to Consultation" in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. I have also laid before Parliament the "Government response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Report on Freedom of Information; Government's proposals for reform" (Cm 7187).

These documents set out the Government's response to the consultation on the draft FOI fees regulations and to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Report. They also set out the Government's decision on next steps regarding the fees regulations. We have decided to make no changes to the existing fees regulations. We will deliver a package of positive administrative measures to make better use of the existing provisions to improve the way the Freedom of Information Act works.

The Government are commissioning a review of the "30-year rule"—the date by which public records must be transferred to The National Archives by Government Departments—and the date at which records become "historical". Changes to these would require amendments to the Public Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act, and, taken together, could have the effect of increasing access to Government records. The review will consider the means by which such changes could be delivered and will include recommendations on an appropriate reduction period.

The Government are also publishing today a formal consultation on extending the application of the Freedom of Information Act, by means of an Order under Section 5 of the Act, to a range of organisations that perform public functions. The consultation will run for three months and copies of the consultation paper are being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

In addition to this, the Government are today announcing their intention to conduct a review of the way we share and protect personal information in the public and private sector. The review and any recommendations will be produced by Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner and Dr. Mark Walport, Director of Wellcome Trust, and published in the first half of 2008.

Proposed changes

The consultation paper covers changes that would make it harder to make Freedom of Information requests and easier for the government to turn down the requests.

Draft Regulations

1. Citation and commencement

(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007 and come into force on [ ] 2007.

(2) These Regulations apply to any request for information which a public authority receives on or after [ ] 2007.

2. Interpretation

In these Regulations— “the 1998 Act” means the Data Protection Act 1998; “the 2000 Act” means the Freedom of Information Act 2000; “the appropriate limit” is to be construed in accordance with regulation 3.

3. The appropriate limit

(1) This regulation prescribes the appropriate limit for the purposes of—

(a) section 9A(3) and (4) of the 1998 Act; and

(b) section 12(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act.

(2) In the case of a public authority which is listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, the appropriate limit is £600.

(3) In the case of any other public authority, the appropriate limit is £450.

4. Valuation of time

(1) This regulation applies to any estimate of costs which a public authority makes under regulation 5, 6 or 9.

(2) Where the public authority takes account of any costs which are attributable to the time which persons are expected to spend undertaking any of the activities mentioned in regulation 5, 6 or 9 on behalf of the authority, it shall estimate those costs at the rate of £25 per person per hour.

5. Estimating the cost of complying with a request for unstructured personal data

(1) This regulation applies where a public authority proposes to estimate whether the cost of complying with a request for unstructured personal data would exceed the appropriate limit for the purposes of section 9A(3) or (4) of the 1998 Act.

(2) A public authority may, for the purpose of its estimate, take account only of the costs which it reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in—

(a) determining whether it holds the data;

(b) locating the data, or a document which may contain the data;

(c) retrieving the data, or a document which may contain the data;

(d) examining the data, or a document containing them, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature or content of the data; and

(e) extracting the data, or so much of the data as the public authority is required to communicate under section 7(1) of the 1998 Act, from a document containing them.

(3) The costs which a public authority takes into account for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) to (d) may not include the costs of examining any data or document more than once.

6. Estimating the cost of complying with a request under the 2000 Act

(1) This regulation applies where a public authority proposes to estimate whether the cost of complying with a request for information would exceed the appropriate limit for the purposes of section 12(1) or (2) of the 2000 Act.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (6), a public authority may, for the purpose of its estimate, take account only of the costs which it reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in—

(a) determining whether it holds the information;

(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information;

(c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information;

(d) examining the information, or a document containing it, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature or content of the information;

(e) determining whether any provision of Part II of the 2000 Act applies to the information;

(f) reaching a decision about the application of section 2(1)(b) or (2)(b) of the 2000 Act; and

(g) extracting the information, or so much of the information as the public authority is required to communicate under section 1(1)(b) of the 2000 Act, from a document containing it.

(3) The costs which a public authority takes into account for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) to (d) may not include the costs of examining any information or document more than once.

(4) Where a public authority proposes to take into account any costs which it reasonably expects to incur only for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (2)(e) and (f), it shall estimate separately—

(a) the costs of consulting any persons, other than the person making the request, for those purposes; and

(b) any other costs which it reasonably expects to incur for those purposes.

(5) The costs mentioned in each of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (4) may only be taken into account for the purposes of the public authority’s estimate—

(a) where the costs mentioned in that sub-paragraph alone exceed the additional costs threshold; and

(b) to the extent that the costs mentioned in that sub-paragraph do not exceed the additional costs ceiling.

(6) In this regulation—

(a) “the additional costs threshold” means—

(i) in the case of a public authority which is listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, £100;

(ii) in the case of any other public authority, £75;

(b) “the additional costs ceiling” means—

(i) in the case of a public authority which is listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, £400;

(ii) in the case of any other public authority, £300.

7. Aggregation of requests under the 2000 Act

(1) This regulation specifies the circumstances in which, where two or more requests for information are made to a public authority—

(a) by one person; or

(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,

the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is, under section 12(5) of the 2000 Act, to be taken to be the total costs which the authority may take into account under regulation 6 of complying with all of them.

(2) Those circumstances are—

(a) that the two or more requests referred to in paragraph (1) are received by the public authority within any period of sixty consecutive working days; and

(b) that either—

(i) those requests relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information; or

(ii) it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the public authority to take account of the total costs of complying with all of those requests.

(3) In this regulation, “working day” has the same meaning as in section 10 of the 2000 Act.

8. Maximum fee for complying with section 1(1) of the 2000 Act

(1) This regulation specifies the maximum fee which a public authority may charge under section 9 of the 2000 Act for complying with section 1(1) of that Act.

(2) Subject to paragraph (4), the maximum fee is a sum equivalent to the total costs which the public authority reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in—

(a) informing the person making the request whether it holds the information; and

(b) communicating the information to the person making the request.

(3) The costs which a public authority may take into account for the purposes of this regulation include, but are not limited to, the costs of—

(a) complying with any obligation under section 11(1) of the 2000 Act as to the means of communicating the information;

(b) reproducing any document containing the information; and

(c) postage and other forms of transmitting the information.

(4) But a public authority may not take into account for the purposes of this regulation any costs which are attributable to the time which persons are expected to spend undertaking any of the activities mentioned in paragraph (2) on behalf of the authority.

9. Maximum fee for communicating information under section 13 of the 2000 Act

(1) This regulation specifies the maximum fee which a public authority may charge under section 13 of the 2000 Act for the communication of information.

(2) The maximum fee is a sum equivalent to the total of—

(a) the costs which the public authority may take into account under regulation 6 in relation to that request; and

(b) the costs which it reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in—

(i) informing the person making the request whether it holds the information; and

(ii) communicating the information to the person making the request.

(3) But for the purposes of paragraph(2)(a), a public authority shall disregard—

(a) any costs which it may take into account under regulation 6 solely by virtue of regulation 7; and

(b) the limitations on the costs which it may take into account under regulation 6 by virtue of paragraph (5) of that regulation.

(4) The costs which a public authority may take into account for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) include, but are not limited to, the costs of—

(a) giving effect to any preference expressed by the person making the request as to the means of communicating the information;

(b) reproducing any document containing the information; and

(c) postage and other forms of transmitting the information.

10. Revocation and transitional provision

(1) The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004(5) are revoked.

(2) But those Regulations shall continue to apply to any request for information received by a public authority before [ ] 2007 as if they had not been revoked.

Impact

Estimating Costs

At the moment, when calculating the estimated cost of answering a request an authority can only take into account the cost of finding and extracting the information. However, the new regulations would allow authorities to also include the cost of time spent consulting about the request and considering whether the information must be disclosed. This would raise the calculated cost of all requests and therefore make it easier to refuse more of them.

The thresholds are:

£600 for:
- Any government department.
- The House of Commons.
- The House of Lords.
- The Northern Ireland Assembly.
- The National Assembly for Wales.
- The armed forces of the Crown, except-
  - the special forces, and
  - any unit or part of a unit which is for the time being required by the Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in the exercise of its functions.
£450 for any other public authority

When calculating the cost of time, it must be valued at £25 per person per hour and may include all or any of the following activities:

determining whether the authority holds the data
locating the data or a document which may contain the data
retrieving the data or a document which may contain the data;
examining the data or a document containing them, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature or content of the data

Only once per piece of information or document, mind you:

The costs which a public authority takes into account for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) to (d) may not include the costs of examining any data or document more than once.

However, still at £25 per person per hour, they may also include the cost of time spent:

determining whether any exemptions apply to the data or containing documents (as specified in Part II of the 2000 Act)
reaching a decision about whether it would be in the greater public interest to:
- withold the information because an exemption applies (as specified in Part II of the 2000 Act)
- maintain secrecy about whether or not the authority holds the data
extracting the data

This is on top of any non-time-related costs they would currently take into account for all of the above activities.

If the authority deems it necessary to consult someone, an expert, for example, in order to determine whether or not an exemption applies and/or decide whether the information should be withheld then they are required to estimate these costs separately. They can't be included in the overall estimate unless they total more than £100/£75 (respectively), to a maximum of £400/£300 (respectively).

Even if a request is refused the authority is still obliged to write to the person who made the request, to let them know whether or not the information asked about is held by that authority - unless:

doing so would, in itself, cost more than an "appropriate limit", which may differ from case to case
it's decided that the need for secrecy outweighs any public interest that might be gained from confirming or denying whether or not the information is held by that authority

Aggregation

If, within a period of sixty consecutive working days:

one person submits more than one request relating to "the same or similar information"
requests are submitted by different people who the authority suspects to be acting "in concert or in pursuance of a campaign"

then the total estimated cost of all those requests may be added together to create one large total, making it more likely that the costs exceed the £600/£450 threshold and therefore easier to refuse. This would also effectively ration requests from the media or campaigning organisations to possibly no more than one per quarter to the same authority.

This may also be done with multiple requests that aren't similar if the authority considers that circumstances make it 'reasonable' to do so.

Reasonableness Test

The consultation paper recommends that the "reasonableness" test should take account of the disruption caused to the public authority, amongst other factors – but there is no mention of the public interest in disclosing the requested information. Nor is the test mentioned explicitly in the draft regulations.

Consultation Questions

Preliminary Remarks

Public consultations are welcome and worthwhile when evidence submitted is used as basis for policy formation.

Public consultations improve the process and quality of legislative reforms to the extent that evidence submitted is used as a basis of policy formation. We welcome this opportunity for affected stakeholders to contribute to and indeed shape government thought on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’).

There is significant parliamentary opposition to the Proposed Regulations

EDM 845 asks the Government to not proceed with the proposals, stating the Proposed Regulations “undermine the Act's contribution to increased discussion of public affairs, accountability and trust in the work of public authorities.” In addition, Alan Beith MP as Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee argues the Proposed Regulations “fly in the face of the Government's stated desire of encouraging an open culture and have the potential to block important requests where it would be in the public interest to disclose information.”

Financial cost is one of but not always the most important criteria by which to determine the validity of Freedom of Information requests. In this regard the public interest deserves equal status.

Disproportionate emphasis on economic concerns in the proposed Regulations, resulting from the narrow scope of the government-commissioned independent review of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, precludes consideration of other valid public policy objectives, in particular the public interest. Economic concerns are of course important considerations for government activities, and especially so in terms of justifying refusal of frivolous or imprecise requests.

Yet such concerns should not invalidate complex or politically contentious requests , which are by their very nature time-consuming so likely to exceed the revised restrictions in the proposed Regulations, where disclosure is in fact supported by the public interest. This factor, apparently absent from government thinking on Freedom of Information, should be accorded equal stature with economic concerns in terms of publicising government-held information.

No dramatic changes to this legislation should take place before users and the administration are fully acquainted with its operation.

The suggested amendments to the practical operation of the Act are premature. Whilst a review of operations was correctly scheduled for 12 – 18 months after introduction, such dramatic change is unjustified before the scheme is more fully observed in its routine function. We recommend consulting again on a further set of Draft Proposals once this round of submissions have been considered, before effecting changes.

Question 1

Are the Regulations prescriptive enough to ensure consistent calculation of the appropriate limit across public authorities or should they contain more detail?

For example, taking into account the differing formats and quantity of information requested, should a standard reference (i.e. a ‘ready reckoner’) for how long a page should take to read be included in the Regulations or guidance?

Response

As suggested in our preliminary remarks, operations should continue to be reviewed without dramatic amendments to the Act at this stage. Any future amendments should be made within a framework that puts the public interest first.

Notes

The draft changes state that:

This regulation applies to any estimate of costs which a public authority makes under regulation 5, 6 or 9.

Where the public authority takes account of any costs which are attributable to the time which persons are expected to spend undertaking any of the activities mentioned in regulation 5, 6 or 9 on behalf of the authority, it shall estimate those costs at the rate of £25 per person per hour.

Question 2

Does the inclusion of thresholds in the regulations provide sufficient flexibility, taking into account the differing complexity of requests received?

Response

No. The inclusion of thresholds as suggested in the draft proposals does not guarantee requests made in the public interest will be serviced.

Irrespective of their complexity, requests should be granted where it is in the public interest to provide a response. Where the costs are significantly higher than the appropriate limit, there may be some instances in which it would be proper for costs to be shared between public and private sources.

Notes

Question 3

Are the thresholds the right ones to make sure the balance is struck between allowing public authorities to count these activities but not refuse requests on one of these grounds alone?

Response

While there is a rationale in the use of thresholds in the context of the rightful use of public funds, costs of a request do not trump other public policy considerations. The validity of refusing a request on the grounds that it involves excessive consideration or consultation time depends largely on the public interest in serving that request.

The draft proposals appear operate a form of cost-benefit analysis, yet ignore the benefits to be had in terms of the public interest.

Notes

Question 4

Are the regulations as drafted the best way of extending the aggregation provision?

Response

No. Extending the aggregation provision in this way risks bringing harm to the public by preventing journalists and campaigners from examining government activities.

During the short time of the Act’s operation, instances where it has served the public interest have been numerous . Such activities encourage transparent government and dialogue between citizens and the authorities. This reflects the spirit of the Act and the needs of a modern United Kingdom. These requests should be encouraged.

The draft proposals are not sophisticated enough to prevent frivolous or self-interested requests without also snaring requests of benefit to the public interest.

Notes

Question 5

Do the factors that need to be taken into account when assessing if it is reasonable need to be explicitly stated in the regulations or can this be dealt with in the guidance?

Response

If ‘reasonableness’ factors that are included in the regulation are legally binding, whereas those in guidance have no such binding force, then the factors should be included in the regulations. Otherwise, dissatisfied requesters will not be able to rely on the factors should they complain to the Information Commissioner.

Notes

Question 6

Are these the right factors?

Response

No. These factors specifically relate to the identity and conduct of a requester. Decisions on requests should be ‘applicant / purpose blind’ – that is dependent on the consequences of disclosing information, not the identity or conduct of the requester.

These factors would disadvantage some of the main beneficiaries of the Act – journalists, campaigners, and the public they serve – who may be restricted to a single request per quarter. This effect would be felt still more acutely by organisations of regular-requesters (e.g. newspapers or campaign-groups), who may themselves be restricted to making a single request that quarter.

Notes

Question 7

What guidance would best help public authorities and the general public apply both the EIRs and the Act effectively under the new proposals?

Response

Just as the Freedom of Information Act should maintain its focus on the spirit of open government and the public interest, so should any effort to increase public understanding of the Act. This would make it extremely difficult to promote the Act effectively under the new proposals.

Notes

Other Responses to the Draft Proposals

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said:

These changes strike right at the heart of the Act, which is that the basis for decisions should be the public interest, not authorities’ interests. The Government is taking a scythe to its own Act.

Oliver Heald, the Shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary, said:

I fear that the Government may be attempting to close down public scrutiny by curtailing the public’s right to know with this more restrictive regime.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs itself states in the consultation paper that:

the proposals "could, on the face of it, present the risk of a high percentage of ‘complex’ requests being rejected".
the plans to aggregate requests could "have the effect of imposing rigid quotas on requests submitted by frequent users"

Tom Watson MP said:

There is currently a debate about how Whitehall deals with these requests. At present, if it costs more than £600 to answer a question, the government can refuse to answer it. This strikes me as being entirely reasonable. The formula used to calculate this sum does not include the cost of an official who has to read the documents and consult with colleagues. Lord Falconer is considering whether to add reading time into the equation. This strikes me as being unreasonable.

Other politicians who have spoken out against the changes include Michael Meacher MP and Colin Challen MP.

Early Day Motion 2699

An Early Day Motion calling for discussion of the proposed changes to the FOI Act and signed by 140 MPs, was submitted to the House of Commons on 10 December 2006:

That this House welcomes the finding of the Constitutional Affairs Committee (HC991) that the Freedom of Information Act has `already brought about the release of significant new information and....this information is being used in a constructive and positive way' and the committee's conclusion that it sees `no need to change' the Act's charging arrangements; views with concern reports that the Government is considering changing these arrangements to permit an application fee to be charged for all requests or to allow authorities to refuse, on cost grounds, a significant proportion of requests which they currently must answer; and considers that such changes could undermine the Act's benefits of increased openness, accountability and trust in the work of public authorities.

Links

Documents

Consultation paper - published on the website of the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA)

News

2007-10-25 - Out-Law - Government backs down on controversial FOI fees change: Summary: The UK Government has dropped controversial proposals that critics said would have neutered the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Changes to the charging structure that would have allowed bodies to refuse more requests will not now go ahead.

2007-10-25 - The Guardian - FoI campaigners give Brown speech cautious welcome: Author: Chris Tryhorn; Summary: Campaigners for freedom of information welcomed Gordon Brown's promise to strengthen the legislation today but warned that government action must follow his words. The prime minister announced today that the government had ditched plans to increase fees for FoI requests and proposals to restrict the media's access to coroners' courts. He also appointed a three-man panel, which will include Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, to look into a possible relaxation of the 30-year rule on access to government documents.

2007-05-24 - BBC - Minister 'wants secrecy for MPs': Summary: Minister Alistair Darling wants tighter restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC has learned. The Trade Secretary is concerned that it does not sufficiently protect advice from officials to ministers.

2007-05-24 - Kable - Plan to stop silly FOI requests: Summary: Pointless Freedom of Information enquiries will be curbed by a new charter, the information commission will announce.

2007-01-08 - The Telegraph - Freedom of information? It's laughable: Author: Philip Johnston; Summary: Freedom of information always seems like a good idea to opposition parties, but once in office they tend to be less generous with the information that they now control. So it has proved with Labour. ... Ostensibly, this is being done to save £12 million a year, but in reality it is an attempt to curb the prying that has gone too far for Labour's liking.

2006-12-30 - The Independent - What freedom of information?: Author: Robert Verkaik; Summary: Labour's flagship freedom of information laws are being blocked by ministers who are increasingly refusing to answer routine inquiries about government policy, new figures show. ... The legal challenge will be followed by the introduction of regulations designed to stop the media from making full use of the new powers. These regulations represent a direct attack on the spirit of the law, once heralded by Labour as the end of the culture of Whitehall secrecy. The media and other organisations will be restricted to a handful of requests a year, while the time taken by officials and ministers to consult and consider requests will now be counted when calculating whether people should be charged for any disclosure.

2006-12-28 - Evening Standard - Ministers accused of undermining FOI laws as 30 per cent of requests rebuffed: Summary: Ministers have slashed the amount of information they allow the public to know, a report has revealed. It showed that a string of Whitehall departments have tightened the secrecy surrounding their activities despite Tony Blair's promise that Labour would bring an era of open government. ...The cutback in what Whitehall allows the public to find out comes in advance of Lord Falconer's planned new restrictions on freedom of information law. These would prevent MPs, lobby groups or journalists from putting more than one request in every three months, and which would also greatly increase the number of requests turned down on the grounds that they would cost too much in bureaucrats' time. Critics say the effect of Lord Falconer's new rules will be to ensure that the only people who would be allowed to get information out of Whitehall would be those who do not ask for it.

2006-12-28 - The Guardian - Media law review of the year: Author: Edgar Forbes; Summary: A backlog of freedom of information requests prompted the information commissioner to call for more cash, while providing Lord Falconer, secretary of state for constitutional affairs, with an excuse to look at tightening up rules about the use of civil servants' time that may make it even more difficult for the media to obtain information.

2006-12-19 - The Economist - Every expense spared: Summary: There are better targets for penny-pinching than the cheap and effective Freedom of Information Act, but watering it down might make official lives a bit easier.

2006-12-18 - Financial Times - [Neutering Freedom of Information Act]: Summary: The government last week gave opponents of its plans to neuter, for all practical purposes, the 2005 Freedom of Information Act until April to make their case. It appears to be banking on a lukewarm response and a failure to grasp its obfuscatory reasoning. ... This is an insult to the public intelligence and a negation of one of the Labour government's most important reforms.

2006-12-15 – The Times – Ministers curb freedom of information: Author: Sam Coates; Summary: Despite a barrage of criticism from politicians and media organisations, the Department for Constitutional Affairs is pressing ahead with changes to the Freedom of Information Act that will restrict the release of controversial information. ... The legal challenge will be followed by the introduction of regulations designed to stop the media from making full use of the new powers. These regulations represent a direct attack on the spirit of the law, once heralded by Labour as the end of the culture of Whitehall secrecy. The media and other organisations will be restricted to a handful of requests a year, while the time taken by officials and ministers to consult and consider requests will now be counted when calculating whether people should be charged for any disclosure.

2006-12-15 - The Independent - Proposed curbs on Freedom of Information: Author: Matthew Beard; Summary: Attempts to unearth government secrets using the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act will be severely curtailed under plans outlined yesterday.

2006-12-15 - eGov monitor - Consultation on Freedom of Information fees regulations: Summary: A consultation paper on draft Freedom of Information fee regulations has been published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007 will implement the changes the Government announced it was considering 16 October 2006. The draft regulations will extend the existing provisions by allowing public authorities to* include reading time, consideration time and consultation time in the calculation of the limit above which requests could be refused on cost grounds; and * aggregate requests made by any person or persons apparently acting in concert to each public authority for the purposes of calculating the appropriate limit.

2006-12-14 - Press Gazette - Consultation begins on Govt bid to "neuter" Freedom of Information: Author: Dominic Ponsford; Summary: Lord Falconer's Department of Constitutional Affairs today began a 12-week consultation on changes to the Freedom of Information Act which journalists fear could severely curtail its power. ... Everyone involved in journalism should do their best to ensure that the FoI Act is not now "neutered", as the Newspaper Society put it, while it is still in its infancy. We must protect the principle, enshrined in the current act, that Government information should be disclosed to the press unless the public interest in keeping it private clearly outweighs the public interest in making it known.

2006-12-04 - The Guardian - Afraid of the daylight: Author: David Leigh; Summary: Given their record, no wonder ministers want to sabotage the Freedom of Information Act ... As a piece of chutzpah, this takes some beating.