The government is considering introducing charges for freedom of information requests. David Hencke argues that this would be fundamentally unjustifiable as it would limit both people’s right to know and the right to demand information on services they have already paid fo

Hencke, David

English

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/03/30/foi-request-charges-hencke/Charging for freedom of information requests forservices that are already paid for by taxpayers is utterlywrongMar 30 2012The government is considering introducing charges for freedom of informationrequests. David Hencke argues that this would be fundamentally unjustifiable  asit would limit both people’s right to know and the right to demand information onservices they have already paid for. It must be very tempting in these times of austerity for government to introducecharges for freedom of information (FOI) requests. Tempting it might be but it wouldbe utterly wrong.Giving evidence to the Commons Justice select committee’s post legislative inquiry into the FOIAct, I got the strong impression that some Conservative MPs might want to do this. The example ofthe Republic of Ireland which has introduced charges for requests, internal reviews and appeals tothe Information Commissioner, has provided an excuse.The fact that the new act has been a resounding success with the public, journalists and also privatebusinesses is not a reason to introduce charges. My reasons for not going down this road are notsuch much to do with limiting the public’s right to know – although as Ireland has shown – this wouldbe the inevitable consequence. They are more fundamental.As a taxpayer I am obliged – I have no choice – to fund public services from my income. Therefore ifI wish to know whether my money has been spent wisely and people have taken the right decisions– I should have the right to ask questions and ferret for information. As a journalist rather than aprivate citizen I have more time to do this – it is part of my job – and the information I discover canbe communicated to thousands, if not millions, of people.As one recent example showed – the disclosure under FOI that Ed Lester, the chief executive of theStudent Loans Company, had found a legal way to avoid tens of thousands of pounds of tax – it caneven lead to alerting ministers to something they were unaware.To introduce charges would in effect be double taxation. I would be charged once for providing theservice and again if I wished to find out what officials and ministers had done with my money. This iswhy I believe it is unacceptable.A more subtle variant of charging is a suggestion that private citizens still receive the free servicebut commercial organisations like the media, private firms and official bodies paid the cost of therequest – which could be anything up to £600. Again it would unfair and also unworkable.Businesses, law firms and the media – unless they are near bankrupt – pay their share of taxes tothe government and again would be charged twice for seeking to find out how and why their moneywas spent.It would also be completely unworkable to run such a two tier system. There is nothing to stop me asa journalist, or indeed any business person, asking a friend to put in a FOI and getting it sent to theiraddress. And there is no way officialdom could find out, unless they subject every private requesterto a ninth degree inquisition every time they asked a public body for information.It would be a nightmare scenario for the public sector to police and make officials extremelyunpopular with the general public. It might even lead them to face legal complaints, such as falselyaccusing individuals of avoiding charges.What is required urgently is an extension of the freedom of information act to the private sectorwhen it provides public services. The government has an active policy of encouraging privateproviders – whether charities, mutual or commercial companies – to provide public services.Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, in an address to the Policy Exchange think tank saidthat turning state provided services into mutuals owned by the staff might indeed be as widespreadas privatisation of state industries in the 1980s Thatcher government.At present the mechanism for extending FOI to new bodies is rather cumbersome – requiring adesignation under the Act by ministers – usually following a consultation period. This is woefullyinadequate to cope with a major shift from public to private sector providers in Whitehall, localgovernment and the NHS. One simple solution would be to include a standard clause in any privatesector provider contract saying that if the company accepted public money to run a public servicethey would automatically be subject to FOI requests about that particular service.No doubt they would be a howl of protest from the business community about new burdens andcosts to running the service, but given the multi million pound size of most contracts it would be asmall price to pay. And if it was a standard contract it would mean that there would be a level playingfield for contractors bidding for the work. It could also be confined only to the services they providedin the public sector and not to normal business contracts.This would bring within the scope of FOI private train operators and bus companies who taketaxpayers subsidies but are at the moment outside the act. It would also encourage these bodies toprovide a more efficient service since they would have an incentive not to encounter the wrath of thetravelling public every time they failed to provide a public service.The public could also question and challenge the companies when they cut service provision toprove they had a case and also ask for detailed policy on protecting public safety. Similarly, it wouldprovide the public with some protection as the NHS expands the use of private hospitals foroperations as they are outside the scope of the act.The act does require an overhaul in this area. But MPs on the committee should resist thetemptation to call for charges to use the act as this would be unfair to the general public and totaxpayers. The right to demand information on services you are required to pay for without beingcharged is a fundamental human right that should be non-negotiable, even in the present financialclimate.Please read our comments policy before posting.Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics andPolicy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. About the authorDavid Hencke is a freelance lobby journalist working for Tribune,  and Exaro News, aninvestigative news website based in Fleet Street. He was also a member of the  Lord Chancellor’sAdvisory Committee on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act between 2002 and2005. He is former Westminster Correspondent of The Guardian from 1986 to 2009 and waschairman of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in 2009. You may also be interested in the following posts (automatically generated):1. In order to reform public services for the better, we must first tackle an outdated employmentculture that is bad for both taxpayers and workers2. Transparency is the foundation of accountability. The government is committed to Freedom ofInformation and to opening up public authorities to greater scrutiny to allow the public to holdthem to account.3. ‘Big Society’ volunteering in long term care must not substitute for skilled paid staff4. The evidence shows that multiculturalism in the UK has succeeded in fostering a sense ofbelonging among minorities, but it has paid too little attention to how to sustain support amongparts of the white population

Charging for freedom of information requests for services that are already paid for by taxpayers is utterly wrong

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online