Changes we would like made to FOI law: Difference between revisions
John Cross (talk | contribs) |
John Cross (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
We would stop the "intended for future publication" exemption to information not scheduled for publication within 90 days of the date of the request. | We would stop the "intended for future publication" exemption to information not scheduled for publication within 90 days of the date of the request. | ||
We would suggest that public authorities have to demonstrate there existed prior to receipt of the request a committed plan in place to publish in order to rely on the exemption. | |||
==Destruction of information that has been requested under FOI== | ==Destruction of information that has been requested under FOI== | ||
Revision as of 14:02, 23 May 2010
See also: Changes we would like made to increase the transparency of public bodies in the UK
Time limits for internal reviews
At present there is no fixed time limit in law for carrying out internal reviews. The current time limit for responding to requests for information is twenty working days we suggest that the time limit for internal reviews is also set at twenty working days.
This is already the case under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.[1]
Time limits for public interest tests
At present there is no fixed time limit in law for carrying out public interest tests. This means that in practice a public authority must respond in full to an FOI request within twenty days except where a public interest test is being considered in which case there is no fixed time limit for responding to the request.
We suggest the time limit for dealing with FOI requests including considering the public interest test is set at twenty days - this is already the case under the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002.
Add more public authorities
Public sector contracts
Alter the exemptions in s41 and s43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 so these cannot be used as a reason not to disclose public contracts. These exemptions relate to:
- s41 information provided in confidence
- s43 commercial interests
There is a clear public interest in opening up public sector contracts to public scrutiny and so these should be released unless there is a really good reason not to provide them such as National Security.
Harm test
Information should be withheld only where there is a good reason not just any reason.
Under the UK Act a public body can use an exemption to withhold information if they can demonstrate "prejudice" to a specified interest. Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 the public authority must show that disclosure would "substantially prejudice" a specified interest. [2]
We would suggest that the UK Act should require public bodies to demonstrate 'substantial prejudice' before using an exemption to withhold information.
Intended for future publication
We would stop the "intended for future publication" exemption to information not scheduled for publication within 90 days of the date of the request.
We would suggest that public authorities have to demonstrate there existed prior to receipt of the request a committed plan in place to publish in order to rely on the exemption.
Destruction of information that has been requested under FOI
Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002:
"section (s.1(5)) prevents destruction of documents unless “not reasonably practicable”. Clear from Justice Minister's comments that relates to info “already on a lorry... trundling towards the incinerator”. (Stage 3 debate)."[3]:
We suggest that a similar clause is added to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which does not offer strong safeguards against requested documents being destroyed. The difference is mainly relevant in cases where a document has been requested and after the request is made a public official decides to destroy the document in line with the public body's document retention policy.
Dissolution of Parliament
In the UK Parliament is dissolved prior to a General Election. The public officials working in the Palace of Westminster during the 2010 General Election argued that the House of Commons di not legally exist during dissolution and so there was no legal requirement to respond to requests for information during dissolution. It is unacceptable that a time of heightened public interest in politics that public officials are not answering FOI requests.
By adding the following bodies to the list of public authorities covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (in schedule 1 of the Act) we can avoid a repeat of the problems experienced during the 2010 General Election:
- Corporate Officer of the House of Commons (established by the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992)
- Corporate Officer of the House of Lords (established by the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992)
- House of Commons Commission (established by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978)
