Embedded Files
The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a public "right of access" to information held by public authorities. The Act implemented a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election. The full provisions of the act came into force on 1 January 2005.Around 120,000 requests were made in the first year that the Act was in force. At the time of the passing of the Act, advocates of freedom of information legislation were critical of the bill for its complexity, limited scope and the inclusion of a ministerial veto. Lord Mackay criticised the bill in the House of Lords as "toothless" for its inclusion of provisions allowing ministers to veto applications.
In the article Freedom of Information: A sheep in wolf's clothing? Rodney Austin offers the following criticisms of the substance of the Act:
The range of exemptions is wider than for any other freedom of information act existing in a democratic state.
The obligations to establish publication schemes were diluted meaning that there is no duty to publish information of any specified type.
There is a ministerial veto which undermines the Act. This has been used five times: the first time to stop publication of minutes of cabinet meetings relating to the invasion of Iraq, the second and third time by successive governments to stop publication of cabinet meetings relating to discussions regarding devolution, the fourth to stop publication of a risk register on NHS overhaul in England and the fifth to stop publication of private letters Charles, Prince of Wales sent to a number of government departments.[
Facts that have been brought to light by this Act include:
The Government agreed to a £1.5 million bailout of one of the most troubled schools in its flagship academies programme ten days before the 2005 general election.
Ministers and MPs claimed thousands of pounds on taxis as part of £5.9 million in expenses for travel.
Foreign diplomats – who have diplomatic immunity – were accused of rapes, sexual assaults, child abuse and murders while working in Britain
Freedom of Information Act 2000 was an attempt to widen the public’s access to information that is held by a wide range of public bodies, helping in particular to ensure open government. Nevertheless, the Act has strengthened parliamentary scrutiny by giving MPs and peers easier access to government information.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 promotes government transparency. A 1997 White Paper stated openness is vital for a healthy state. It marked a new era for government and UK citizens. A government was ready to give people a legal right to information. This law covers many public bodies. These include councils, police, the BBC, and universities. Central government is also included. Public bodies have two main duties. First, they must share specific data. This includes meeting minutes and policy papers. They often make this information available online for free. Second, people can ask for data. They make requests through the Information Commissioner’s Office. Public bodies must usually respond within 20 days. They can only withhold information in certain situations. The BBC once asked councils about homeless numbers. The MPs’ expenses scandal in 2009 also emerged through FOI. Several MPs and peers faced jail time for this.
But how well has the FOI Act worked? It is quite popular. Over 11,000 requests were made in one quarter of 2020. Most were answered on time. Many requests were seen as answerable. However, fewer than half were fully answered. Many were denied outright. Some were partially answered. There are valid reasons to deny requests. This can be for national security. Commercial secrecy is another reason. It may also be denied if gathering the data is too costly. The Act has greatly helped journalists. It aids pressure groups and citizens. They seek information public bodies might hide. This has greatly improved government openness. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair reflected on the Act. He called himself an idiot for its passing. He felt naive and foolish. In 1996, he viewed information sharing positively. He said it shows a government's view of power. He also mentioned its impact on citizen relations. Perhaps he disliked how FOI was used. Maybe he worried about private government talks. It might also be that the Act exposed issues within his own party.
At the time of the passing of the Act, advocates of freedom of information legislation were critical of the bill for its complexity, limited scope and the inclusion of a ministerial veto. Lord Mackay criticised the bill in the House of Lords as "toothless" for its inclusion of provisions allowing ministers to veto applications.
By contrast, Tony Blair, the prime minister responsible for passing the Act regards it as "One of the biggest mistakes of his career". Blair says that "For political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, 'Hey, try this instead', and handing them a mallet. The information is neither sought because the journalist is curious to know, nor given to bestow knowledge on 'the people'. It's used as a weapon." Labour peer Lord Falconer has criticised the use of the act by journalists for "fishing expeditions" into salacious stories, arguing that "FoI is not for press[,] it is for the people. It needs to be properly used to promote good Government. Information needs to be handled responsibly, and I strongly believe that there is a duty of responsibility on behalf of the media as well."
In the article Freedom of Information: A sheep in wolf's clothing? Rodney Austin offers the following criticisms of the substance of the Act:
The range of exemptions is wider than for any other freedom of information act existing in a democratic state.
The obligations to establish publication schemes were diluted meaning that there is no duty to publish information of any specified type.
There is a ministerial veto which undermines the Act. This has been used five times: the first time to stop publication of minutes of cabinet meetings relating to the invasion of Iraq, the second and third time by successive governments to stop publication of cabinet meetings relating to discussions regarding devolution, the fourth to stop publication of a risk register on NHS overhaul in England, and the fifth to stop publication of private letters of Charles III, then the Prince of Wales, sent to many government departments.
The legislation has also been criticised for "loopholes" that allow authorities to avoid disclosing information in certain situations. Companies owned by one public authority are generally subject to the Act but companies owned by two or more public authorities are not covered.
The then Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, issued the first ministerial veto on 23 February 2009 for the contents of the legal advice on military action against Iraq. Two subsequent vetoes were issued protecting communications on devolution issues and a fourth on. A fourth veto was issued on 8 May 2012 blocking the release of the NHS Transitional Risk Register and a fifth in July 2012 blocking extracts from Cabinet minutes on the military action against Iraq in 2003. A sixth was on 16 October 2012, relating to the release of correspondence from Prince Charles to Government departments. This has prompted a Court of Appeal judgment on 12 March 2014 quashing the veto, which is being appealed. A seventh veto was issued in January 2014 in respect of HS2 documents.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse