AddThis SmartLayers

'No sympathy' for bodies which fail to meet the law

Information commissioner Richard Thomas has promised that his office will be “independent, robust and responsible” in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act.

He said: “The right to know signals a fundamental culture change – moving all public services away from excessive official secrecy.

“Our job is to be the referee if a request for information has been refused.

“Our independence means that we can be robust in ensuring that information is released where the new law requires.

“I expect most requests for information to be dealt with within the 20 working day deadline.

“I will not be able to be sympathetic to bodies that have not made good use of the four year lead-in time. Excuses, such as lack of time or poor record management systems, will not wash.”

The new push invites a presumption in favour of disclosure, which will mean his department deciding whether exemptions have been properly applied by public bodies and, in most cases, ensuring that the public interest is fully considered.

But he added: “However, we must be responsible in our approach, recognising that greater openness should strengthen, not undermine, effective government.”

The new Act means that much more information will be put into the public domain.

Unless exemptions are applied, examples of where information is likely to be routinely disclosed will include:

  • research studies and the facts behind national and local decisions;
  • details of official meetings held with outside organisations;
  • the health and safety records of organisations;
  • environmental impact reports;
  • details of proposed transport links;
  • proposals for mergers or closures of hospitals;
  • admissions policies for schools;
  • performance figures for Government departments and local authorities;
  • information on hospital complaints and the performance of clinicians;
  • contracts with suppliers;
  • expenses paid to public servants.

    The commissioner said that the Freedom of Information Act would improve the public’s understanding of how public authorities carry out their duties, why they make the decisions they do, and how they spend public money.

    And placing more information in the public domain would ensure greater transparency and trust, and widen participation in policy debate.

    Richard added: “I anticipate that more and more public bodies will – wherever possible – make official and environmental information routinely available rather than wait to be asked for it.

    “After all, they all want to enjoy the trust of the public and show they have nothing to hide. Information should only remain secret where there is a good reason.”