Letter to say more organisations should be covered by the Act: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(First para)
(rest of letter - do revert if this isn't an improvement!)
Line 10: Line 10:
We welcome the recent statements by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Michael Wills confirming the Government's intention to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There is an increasing demand for organisations in receipt of public funding, or with a public role, to operate to the highest standards of transparency and openness. However many organisations with substantial public responsibilities are not currently subject to the UK's freedom of information laws. We find it extraordinary that private prisons, most housing associations, the monarchy and the organising committee for the London Olympics are all beyond the current reach of the act.  
We welcome the recent statements by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Michael Wills confirming the Government's intention to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There is an increasing demand for organisations in receipt of public funding, or with a public role, to operate to the highest standards of transparency and openness. However many organisations with substantial public responsibilities are not currently subject to the UK's freedom of information laws. We find it extraordinary that private prisons, most housing associations, the monarchy and the organising committee for the London Olympics are all beyond the current reach of the act.  


Now is the time for the Government to show it it is genuinely committed to freedom of information and transparency by adding more organisations with public responsibilities to the Act.  Many of the omissions from the Act appear to be illogical and unjustifiable. Why are the new specialist academy schools not subject to the act whereas other schools are? Why are police forces subject to the act, but the Association of Chief Police Officers which co-ordinates aspects of national policing and develops policy is not? Surely it is important that bodies which control what we read and what we watch such as the Press Complaints Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the British Board of Film Classification operate in an open fashion. 


Now is the Government to show it it is genuinely committed to freedom of information and transparency by adding more organisations with public responsibilities to the Act. Members of the public will find many of the omissions from the Act to be illogical, unfair and unjustifiable.  There are a large number of bodies which need to added to the Act more than we can cover in one letter but we will highlight certain examples.
In addition to the specific organisations mentioned, there are a number of general loopholes in the current legislation. For example if a company is owned by two or more public authorities is not subject to the act, whereas if it was wholly owned by one it would be. In addition, as the act only applies to companies wholly in public ownership, those in which the public have significant, even majority, stakes are not covered.  


We call on the Government to make the following bodies and officials subject to Freedom of Information Act 2000
There are a large number of bodies which we believe need to added to the Act; as the list is far too long to include here we have made it available online at [[Letter to say more organisations should be covered by the Act/Appendix_I|Appendix to this letter]].


#Academies (which the DCSF describes as “state-funded schools”)
#Returning Officers in general and local elections
#Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme
#Bodies that control what we read and what we watch such as the Press Complaints Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the British Board of Film Classification
#Housing Associations
#Companies owned two thirds or more by public sector bodies
#UCAS – the organisation responsible for managing applications to higher education courses in the UK
#companies that control our National Infrastructure such as the National Grid
#The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) which formulates national policing policy in a wide range of areas
There are many other bodies which we think the Government should seriously consider making subject to the Freedom of Information Act and we have provided a more comprehensive list in an [[Letter to say more organisations should be covered by the Act/Appendix_I|Appendix to this letter]].


Regards,
Regards,


NAMES
NAMES

Revision as of 07:39, 11 June 2009

Reason for letter

To get the Government to use its powers under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act to bring more organisations into the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

The letter is intended to influence the Government's response to the findings of its consultation.

Text of letter

Sir,

We welcome the recent statements by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Justice Minister Michael Wills confirming the Government's intention to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There is an increasing demand for organisations in receipt of public funding, or with a public role, to operate to the highest standards of transparency and openness. However many organisations with substantial public responsibilities are not currently subject to the UK's freedom of information laws. We find it extraordinary that private prisons, most housing associations, the monarchy and the organising committee for the London Olympics are all beyond the current reach of the act.

Now is the time for the Government to show it it is genuinely committed to freedom of information and transparency by adding more organisations with public responsibilities to the Act. Many of the omissions from the Act appear to be illogical and unjustifiable. Why are the new specialist academy schools not subject to the act whereas other schools are? Why are police forces subject to the act, but the Association of Chief Police Officers which co-ordinates aspects of national policing and develops policy is not? Surely it is important that bodies which control what we read and what we watch such as the Press Complaints Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the British Board of Film Classification operate in an open fashion.

In addition to the specific organisations mentioned, there are a number of general loopholes in the current legislation. For example if a company is owned by two or more public authorities is not subject to the act, whereas if it was wholly owned by one it would be. In addition, as the act only applies to companies wholly in public ownership, those in which the public have significant, even majority, stakes are not covered.

There are a large number of bodies which we believe need to added to the Act; as the list is far too long to include here we have made it available online at Appendix to this letter.


Regards,

NAMES

Retrieved from "https://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php?title=Letter_to_say_more_organisations_should_be_covered_by_the_Act&oldid=2831"