FOI 92

Written evidence from the Society of Editors

The Society of Editors has more than 400 members in national, regional and local newspapers, magazines, broadcasting and digital media. It has always supported the principles that underpin the Freedom of Information Act. The Act has become an essential journalistic tool which has helped create a climate of genuine openness and transparency in British public life. It is, therefore, vital that any subsequent refinements do not compromise these very real gains. Any new constraints placed on those making formal requests under the Act will not serve the public interest, playing instead into the hands of organisations wishing to manage the media at the expense of transparency. The experience of our members and their journalists in using the Act has revealed a number of operational weaknesses. For example, it has proved to be feeble when applied to requests aimed at finding out specifically why certain decisions were taken. This is a fundamental element of bread-and-butter reporting addressing the publics right to know how its money is being spent, and the reasons behind those decisions. Some local authorities have complained about what they see as the sheer volume of FOI requests submitted to them. That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the need for and value of the Act. When the public is accused of apathy and the media of trivialisation, they should be pleased rather than critical of such attention. Use of the Act was always going to mean requests, and I must stress that no media organisation makes FOI requests lightly. Sometimes a journalist may make a number of similar requests for information from local authorities in a given area in order to carry out a comparative analysis. It has been suggested that the lack of a motive clause should be redressed and that in future, people making requests should be forced to explain why they want the information. We would not wish to see the Act weakened in this way. Important stories in the public interest are more often than not the sum of their parts, turning on micro-details, or a string of them. The effectiveness of the Act as a means of uncovering the truth would be dramatically reduced should journalists be forced to disclose the purpose of their enquiries. The Freedom of Information Act was introduced partly to combat the creeping secrecy which was spreading through government, local authorities and other agencies. Unfortunately, there is still the very real threat of a return to those darker days if the progress already achieved is not consolidated. For that reason, we would be concerned to see steps taken towards introduction of any system which introduces categories of documents within departments which would enjoy absolute exemptions. This would merely be an encouragement to retain information under those headings. Some of our feedback indicates it is by no means unusual for officials to circulate memos marked as restricted and policy documents which are nothing of the sort, in order to evade the provisions of the Act. At present, cost limits only apply to the expense of locating and extracting information but does not extend to redaction or any other kind of processing in a response to an FOI request. The rules should stay as they are. Journalists and campaigners should be free to ask questions in precisely the same way as anyone else. To introduce different categories of information requester would be undemocratic, to say

FOI 92
nothing of the attendant difficulties in defining a journalist in the first place. The FOI Act is for everyone. Access to information by the press is both necessary and desirable in a healthy society, and more than average use of the FOI Act is an obvious consequence. It is no exaggeration to say that a central problem for the press in using the FOI Act stems from the fact journalists are already treated differently to others applying for information. Operational experience of working with it also suggests delays in responding to legitimate requests for information are still cause for concern. The current 20-day limit on replies would be sufficient, if it were adhered to. Equally, there are too many instances of the deliberate misuse of exemptions, and there should be stiffer and clearly-defined penalties available. Under the current arrangements it is possible for officials to keep information hidden for more than a year. Failing to keep appropriately full records should also be an offence under the Act. The service offered by press offices is often cited as a reason for making changes to the current the Act. It must, however, be remembered that press offices are working to their organisations own remit and are often under pressure. As a result, questions are not always answered fully nor with the precise detail required in response to formal FOI requests. Without the FOI Act it would frequently be impossible to obtain information which is otherwise unavailable. It would not be possible to double-check whether that information provided by press offices in response to non-FOI requests was accurate and complete. Finally, the Act suffers from inconsistency, with a wide spectrum of approaches applied by information controllers. In practice this highlights the intransigence of some set against the good example of others. Encouragement and incentives aimed at ensuring the spirit of the Act is followed to the benefit of all would be valuable. The underlying problem remains in the lack of a clear purpose clause. Without one the Act, with its long lists of exemptions, appears more like legislation aimed at restricting information than what was intended. The idea should be to transform the culture in government and other public bodies from one that restricts the flow of information to one that encourages the release of all information unless there is a good and positive reason not so to do. February 2012

FOI93
Written evidence from The Press newspaper in York,

Post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We are aware that the committee is scrutinising the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As a local newspaper that has long prided itself on its investigative and campaigning role within our community, we feel it is appropriate for us to highlight our experiences of the legislation. Since the FOIA came into force in 2005, it has allowed our journalists to uncover stories of significant public interest that would otherwise have remained hidden. We believe that the Act has been a great force for good, in holding public authorities to greater account and allowing the public unprecedented access to information of public interest. We have read with interest the memorandum by the Ministry of Justice, which has been presented to the committee. We are concerned with the suggestions that FOIA requests from journalists may be perceived as a drain on resources, and that it is perhaps not fair for public money to be spend answering such questions. (p104 of the memorandum). We are concerned also by the suggestion that requests are submitted with the overarching aim of obtaining a good media story or to irritate organisations. (p127 of the memorandum). It is our view that the FOIA was a long-overdue recognition of the publics inherent ownership of public information, and of its right to see that information free of charge (certain exemptions notwithstanding). It is correct that any news organisation is always keen to source good news stories. However we believe it would be a mistake to believe that FOIA requests by the media are, by and large, speculative or frivolous. Within our newsroom, the FOIA has been used pointedly and with consideration, to unearth information that we believe to be in the public interest, and which would otherwise not have been made available to our readers. Most of our reporters have undertaken dedicated training in the FOIA and use it carefully and as a means of trying to corroborate and verify stories on which they are already working. Public organisations are increasingly keen to manage their reputations, meaning that official statements in response to media inquiries are invariably polished responses by professional communications experts. They are routinely loath to provide information that reflects poorly on their organisation. The FOIA has been invaluable in ensuring that a press officers reluctance to divulge such information does not prove decisive. Used well, the FOIA is a way to prove, or disprove, an existing line of journalistic inquiry. It is perhaps useful to detail some examples of where the Act has proved beneficial, to us and to our community: 1) In 2005, City of York Council considered, before ultimately shelving, proposals to move a homeless hostel known as Arc Light to a new location, in a busy residential area. Many local residents were unhappy about what they perceived as a lack of openness. In December 2005, through the FOIA, we obtained council minutes and correspondence showing that the proposal was being discussed five months before

FOI93
2) local people were told, and were able to show the level of concern within the council itself, about the lack of consultation. In 2006, a woman was killed crossing the A64 in North Yorkshire, after alighting from a bus. Documents released under the FOIA allowed us to reveal that a safety audit carried out previously had already identified the dangers to pedestrians at the site. In November 2006, before the Home Office policing website was enabling detailed crime-data to be easily accessed by the public, we ran a three-day investigation based on FOIA requests, showing the varying crime patterns across every council ward in York. In late 2006, we were told that fingerprint scanners were in use in York schools. In January 2007, using information obtained under the FOIA, we revealed that 12 York secondary schools were using such scanners in their libraries or canteens, including two without parents knowledge. Privacy campaigners and local politicians raised concerns over the practice. As a result of our story, one of the schools suspended use of the scanners, the two schools that had not informed parents wrote to all parents to explain the system, and local politicians lobbied the Government for clear guidance on the propriety of the practice. Such guidance was issued later that year. In 2008, City of York Council was planning a move to new headquarters at a site known as Hungate. The move caused great controversy, including due to the unpopular design of the proposed building and the cost involved. In July 2008, after English Heritage objected to the councils planning application, the council abandoned the proposal. Using the FOIA, The Press was able to obtain an internal memo from the councils conservation architect, which warned the planning department even before the proposals were tabled that the building was inappropriate. We also used the FOIA to obtain correspondence between English Heritage and the council, showing that the former had indicated support for the scheme before performing a late U-turn. In essence, the Act allowed us to give crucial detail to our readers about how the project had collapsed. In 2008, City of York Council hired external consultants to advise them on a costcutting programme, but a dispute meant the consultants walked off the job before it was finished. The council leader had declared that they would be paid only if they achieved savings but we discovered they had been paid 600,000. In 2011, using the FOIA, we were able to prove that they had then been paid a further 211,000 of public money to settle a legal dispute. Council expenditure on external consultants is now considerably lower than in past years. In 2008, we were informed by a source that several council laptops had been stolen. The FOIA enabled us to ascertain that 12 had been stolen and to reveal that confidential data was on some of the machines. A few weeks later, the council announced it was to improve security on its computers. In 2010, we were made aware of concerns over data management at North Yorkshire Police, particularly over suggestions that the force was effectively harvesting callers information for its database as an end in itself. We had a lengthy FOIA wrangle with the force, which initially refused to answer many of our questions. Eventually, after we appealed, we were given enough information to reveal that tens of thousands of people who had never been accused, nor suspected, or an offence were being kept on the forces niche database; that police staff had been told to routinely ask callers for their ethnicity and date of birth, as well as their contact details, so they could be added to the database.

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

FOI93
9) We were informed that, in 2010/11, City of York Council had paid a PR consultant, Jim Knight, to help present the case for its community stadium project. Such expenditure was criticised by opposition councillors but the council would not detail the consultants involvement. Through information released under the FOIA, we were able to show how many days work he had done for the council, and what his remit was. We are in the process of trying to ascertain how much he was paid. The council has since confirmed that it will not spend public money on Mr Knights services again. 10) In 2011, North Yorkshire Police merged its two control rooms into one. We were informed that the move had not gone smoothly. The force would not voluntarily give any detail about the problems, but under the FOIA, we were able to reveal that the force was taking twice as long to answer 999 calls as it was 12 months earlier. Response times have since improved. In our experiences, the Act generally works well. Most public authorities are aware of the legislation and, with rare but notable exceptions, they usually meet the time limits. Our most consistent concern with the legislation is that many public authorities, when not disclosing information, rarely adhere to the obligations in Section 16 of the Act, namely the duty to advise and assist the applicant. Our local police force is particularly poor in this regard, consistently failing to offer assistance on how a request could be amended, or on which information similar to that requested could be released. More often that not, we receive a response far later than the 20th working day and with a straight refusal, devoid of any assistance. Many public authorities have embraced the FOIA by publishing online all information they disclosed under the Act. We regard this as good practice, and believe it may be beneficial if more authorities were encouraged to follow suit. We do believe that the imposition of charges to any applicant would be a retrograde step, in that it would deter applicants and therefore potentially prevent information that should be made public from being disclosed. Similarly, we believe that the reduction of the cost threshold for public authorities, without a corresponding duty on them to provide a cost breakdown, would enable authorities to withhold information without first giving adequate consideration and deliberation to the case.

February 2012