The Freedom of Information Act, formally introduced into Parliament in 2000 by New Labour, and then brought into effect in 2005 as a legitimate practice in government and subordinate public authorities, is the UK's first general right of access to information held by the aforementioned institutions. This act provides the necessary freedom for the general public, this includes journalists (whose individual rights are legally no different than anyone else's), to request and, if allowed, receive permissible information collected and owned by a particular public authority - this could be the DVLA, for example, from whom it could be possible to demonstrate the number of cars being driven by women and men, which would enable someone investigating into driver demographics to see if more men drive, and thus live more independent lives, than women.
After sifting through the mass of clauses, stated non-covered departments, absolute and qualified exemptions, administrative regulators (Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal) and various other intricacies of this interesting act, it has become quite clear to me that, in spite of the laudable attempts at reducing the restrictions on what is made eventually available to requesters in the public, the system is regrettable overrun with legal loopholes to be used at the advantage of public authorities who see fit to do so. Therefore, in my opinion, we still have a long way to go before we, as journalists and members of the public, can be rightfully assured of our influence in the public domain.
However, the FOI Act is, as an investigative tool, very handy. It provides a route to enquiry that entitles anyone who is concerned about the running of daily public affairs, and the conduct of the governmental and public authorities which apply, to a justifiable position of review - a type of independent regulation of these authorities, exercised by those with a constitutional right to do so as such matters directly reflect their interests in society. The information that is under request by the requester is expected to be a clue as to how the affairs of these authorities correspond with the common will of the public. It is unsurprising then, that the sanctity of the public interest/concern has managed to weave its way into the tapestry of priorities for this regulatory arm of the public sphere, which correspondingly benefits the underlying private sphere. What is important for journalists to remember is that the public interest prior requirement, which is applicable in cases with a basis in confidentiality and a breach of this, whereby a Reynold's defence can be launched and the significance of the public interest used as a reason to underpin it.
The major 'sting factor' that I've alluded to in mentioning the "legal loopholes" of this regulatory process is the existence of specific exemptions, which could, if incorporated by default response to a request that incurs them, disable an request, and subsequently an investigation by an individual or group represented by an individual. There are two types of exemption: absolute and qualified exemption. Similar to absolute and qualified privilege - at least in how they defend protocol - absolute exemption blocks out completely the intrusion into restricted authorities like MI5 and MI6 (think national security and the threats to it), but qualified exemption, as well as blocking out, can allow some information transfer. The main difference between the two is that what is absolute needs no explanation of refusal to disclose requested information, and what is qualified is obligated to provide such an explanation, if the information goes undisclosed. In cases of qualified exemption the 'public interest test' is often used; this is to see whether the information requested is better disclosed or undisclosed, in terms of the public interest in it.
Another often painful recoil of this process is the bureaucratic delays in relaying a request through the mandatory stages of the FOI Act in practice. A public authority can, regardless of the tone and tendencies of a request, procrastinate to no conceivable end - but only after it has responded to the request within the usual 20 day period expected - after this it can stipulate reasons as to why it cannot provide requested information, or it can indicate its application of the public interest test, which can unfortunately remain up in the air for however long it need be debated. There are, of course, adjudicators in this sometimes monotonous myriad of legalities. First there is the Information Commissioner, who in all his statutory privileges is able to decide, after appeal, whether the public authority in question has done right by the requester. After him we have the Information Tribunal, which subsequently decides, if appealed to, whether the IC has done right in his responsibilities. Sometimes judicial reviews in high courts can take place, but this is not common as it is all the more lengthy and expensive.
What is most essential, especially for a journalist, is that the FOI Act permits a wider range of people to know what is going on. We're no longer, for the most part, left put aside in the affairs of our publicly-funded administrative authorities, who are there for our benefit. Journalists can and do use this information blowout to their advantage. One central figure in the application of FOI is Heather Brooke, whose website and book offer expert insight into the officialdom of this regulatory department (visit her site here at: http://www.yrtk.org/). Another useful source of information on the FOI has been recommended by Chris Horrie: http://foia.blogspot.com/2009/11/extension-of-foi-act-to-acpo.html.
A sensible school of thought on the matter of FOI is that of its extension to cover an even bigger number of public authorites through the changing of FOI orders for recognisable authorities. The ACPO is one such authority that is currently under review for its eligibility under the FOI Act to be included by it as a body whose information we could soon have access to. What I'm interested in is seeing to it that the government, also with its departments subject to the FOI Act, come under greater scrutiny for its decisions by way of accessing vital information that is owed to the public, without facing rights of veto or any other officious official meddling. Wether or not total freedom of information is on the cars for the future is not certain; but I'm inclined to believe that we've a long way to go before the public is on par with its power-bearing elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment