The boss of the Society of Editors has hit out at ‘ludicrous’ plans by a council to charge newspapers for answering Freedom of Information requests.
Executive director Bob Satchwell criticised proposals by Hampshire County Council to ask for government permission to charge commercial organisations such as newspapers or researchers for answering information requests.
The authority has asked the Local Government Association to petition the government to relax the FoI Act – so it could ask for payment from some organisations which benefit commercially from receiving the information.
It comes after the council estimated it spent £346,000 responding to 707 FoI requests during 2009-10.
Said Bob: “It’s ludicrous. Hampshire County Council should remember this information doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to the public.”
Current legislation means answering FoI requests cannot be charged for unless it would cost more than £450-worth of staff time.
Maurice Frankel, chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, added: “We have no real objection to straightforward commercial requests carrying a charge. But newspapers are an important point of scrutiny of local authorities.
“Their work is an important part of transparent government. We’d definitely oppose such a measure.”
Councillor Colin Davidovitz, cabinet member for communications and efficiency defended the council’s move.
He said: “There’s no doubt that newspapers use the information they receive from FoIs to benefit a great deal, by putting it on their front page to sell more papers.
“They are benefiting from research we do on their behalf, at our expense. We also provide information to researchers.
“I see nothing wrong with charging organisations who benefit from the information we give them, for the service we provide. Why should taxpayers pay for newspapers to benefit?”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
If I were the council I’d have a look at how on earth it is possible to spend £346,000 on deailing with 707 requests, many of which would be a straight ‘no we don’t have it’. Perhaps they should FOI it.
Report this comment
I think the councillor’s absolutely right. Why should taxpayers have to fund fishing trips by media organisations – which a lot of FOIs are? And remember, councils also have press offices, whose job it is to answer questions by the media, and the vast majority of FOIs from local papers should in fact just be a call to the press office. Although that wouldn’t enable the resultant story to be dressed up as an “investigation” featuring information “released” under FOI.
Report this comment
In my experience Davy, it usually becomes an FOI request when it turns out to be a difficult question the council doesn’t want to answer. Councils are using FOI as a delaying tactic.
Report this comment
Hmm, 707 requests at a MAXIMUM of £450 each is £318,150, and that’s an absolute upper limit. Where did the other £25,000 go, Hampshire Council? Someone’s telling porkies here, and I don’t think it’s the newspaper…
Report this comment
When I was told by a stupid council it will take them too long to find simple statistics I suggested I’d go to Town Hall and do the work myself as I didn’t mind putting in extra hours. Not surprisingly they refused but I would have done it. If these councils find it so expensive to locate the information from their own files and computer systems why don’t they just find a more efficient way for storing the data? As the editor said, the information belongs to the public not the councils.
Report this comment
Edward is totally correct – and it’s not just council press officers that push stuff to FoI. Isle of Wight council leader, Steve Beynon, pushed our questions to FoI, attempting to kick them into the Long Grass [http://ventnorblog.com/2010/10/07/steve-beynon-stonewalls-questions-over-ventnor-botanic-garden].
Report this comment