This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35550967

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What does the Freedom of Information Commission do? What does the Freedom of Information Commission do?
(35 minutes later)
Ministers have chosen not to make wholesale changes to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, including ruling out fees for requests for information.Ministers have chosen not to make wholesale changes to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, including ruling out fees for requests for information.
An independent commission was asked to examine it amid concerns within government that "sensitive information" was being inadequately protected. An independent commission was asked to examine it amid concerns within government "sensitive information" was being inadequately protected.
There had been concerns the government wanted to curtail a law that allows campaigners and journalists to ask questions of public bodies, and to reveal embarrassing facts about their failings.There had been concerns the government wanted to curtail a law that allows campaigners and journalists to ask questions of public bodies, and to reveal embarrassing facts about their failings.
However, Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock said FOI was "working well".However, Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock said FOI was "working well".
Why was the FOI Commission set up? Why was the Freedom of Information Commission set up?
The Freedom of Information Act is not popular at the heart of government. The Act gives the public the right to obtain much of the information held by public authorities and is regarded by many in positions of power as somewhere on a scale from pointless nuisance to deeply infuriating and much worse. This is true both of politicians and officials. The Freedom of Information Act is not popular at the heart of government.
Last year David Cameron described FOI as being one of the "clutteration" and "buggeration" factors that impede the process of governing. In 2012 he told a committee of MPs that it was an "endless discovery process that furs up the whole of government" - although he quickly added, "Don't worry, we are not making any proposals to change it." That was then. The act gives the public the right to obtain much of the information held by public authorities and is regarded by many in positions of power as somewhere on a scale from pointless nuisance to deeply infuriating and much worse.
The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, in a rare public appearance, told a seminar last year that FOI (while "positive" overall) had led to extra costs and "chilling effects" - the term used to argue that officials are now less likely to provide frank opinions and record honest discussion. This is true both of politicians and officials.
His predecessor Lord O'Donnell has frequently criticised FOI for what he sees as its harmful impact on internal policy debate. Last year Prime Minister David Cameron described FOI as being one of the "clutteration" and "buggeration" factors that impeded the process of governing.
Against this background, the trigger was a judgement from the Supreme Court last March in the dispute involving Prince Charles's correspondence with ministers where he advocated particular causes. The Court backed the Guardian's case that these letters should be released. In 2012, he told a committee of MPs it was an "endless discovery process that furs up the whole of government" - although he quickly added: "Don't worry, we are not making any proposals to change it."
In doing so, the Court made it much harder for the government to use the "ministerial veto", the "backstop provision" that allows it to overrule instructions from the Information Commissioner or the Information Rights Tribunal that material should be disclosed. The veto has been deployed on seven occasions since the Act came into force in 2005, and is regarded as an important safeguard in government circles. That was then.
What was the Commission's remit? The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, in a rare public appearance, told a seminar last year FOI, while "positive" overall, had led to extra costs and "chilling effects" - the term used to argue officials were now less likely to provide frank opinions and record honest discussion.
The remit of the Commission was highly selective and was not to assess the FOI Act as a whole. In this era of commitments to transparency, few think it would be desirable or politically feasible to abolish freedom of information altogether. His predecessor, Lord O'Donnell, has frequently criticised FOI for what he sees as its harmful impact on internal policy debate.
The Commission's core aim was to review whether "sensitive information" and policy material needed greater protection from disclosure. Against this background, the trigger was a judgement from the Supreme Court last March in the dispute involving the Prince of Wales' correspondence with ministers, where he had advocated particular causes.
It was also authorised to examine whether FOI places an excessive "burden" on public authorities. Some local councils have complained about the cost of dealing with FOI requests, particularly trivial ones and those that come from the media or businesses. The court backed the Guardian's case these letters should be released.
The public protests from local government about FOI have tended to focus on this issue of the "administrative burden", in contrast to concerns expressed at central government level which are not about cost but mainly about protecting policy discussion. In doing so, the court made it much harder for the government to use the "ministerial veto", the "backstop provision" that allows it to overrule instructions from the Information Commissioner or the Information Rights Tribunal that material should be disclosed.
The Commission's role relates to the UK-wide Act, which covers England, Wales, Northern Ireland and UK-wide public bodies. There is a separate, although similar, FOI Act for Scotland. The veto has been deployed on seven occasions since the act came into force in 2005, and is regarded, in government circles, as an important safeguard.
Why was the Commission's creation controversial? What was the commission's remit?
Freedom of information campaigners argued that the review was too narrowly focused only on restrictions to FOI, when it should also have considered ways the Act could be extended. They say that talk of the chilling effect is much exaggerated, that by deterring profligacy FOI probably saves more public money than it costs, and that the real motive of politicians and officials in constraining FOI is to avoid embarrassing revelations. The remit of the commission was highly selective and was not to assess the Freedom of Information Act as a whole.
The membership of the Commission was also strongly criticised for being limited to people with a one-sided experience of freedom of information - that of being on the receiving end of FOI requests rather than making them. In this era of commitments to transparency, few think it would be desirable or politically feasible to abolish FOI altogether.
The Commission's chair, Lord Burns, is a former Treasury permanent secretary. Other members included Dame Patricia Hodgson, head of Ofcom, and two former Home Secretaries, Lord Howard and Jack Straw. The commission's core aim was to review whether "sensitive information" and policy material needed greater protection from disclosure.
Mr Straw had previously already made clear his unhappiness with the Act, arguing that policy advice needed greater protection and attacking the Information Tribunal for what he called "crazy" decisions. It was also authorised to examine whether FOI places an excessive "burden" on public authorities.
How has the Commission operated? Some local councils have complained about the cost of dealing with FOI requests, particularly trivial ones and those that come from the media or businesses.
The original announcement said that the Commission, created in July 2015, would report by November. In the wake of the fuss over its composition, it then decided to issue a consultation document and take evidence, and it fell badly behind its initial timetable. The public protests from local government about FOI have tended to focus on this issue of the "administrative burden", in contrast to concerns expressed at central government level, which are not about cost but mainly about protecting policy discussion.
In October last year the Commission was widely ridiculed after it gave a briefing to a select invited group of journalists, which it insisted was off the record while the unidentifiable anonymous source there stated "our aim is to be as open as possible". The commission's role relates to the UK-wide act, which covers England, Wales, Northern Ireland and UK-wide public bodies.
Since then the Commission has changed its approach, posting on its website minutes of its meetings, research papers it has commissioned and some of the evidence it has received. There is a separate, although similar, Freedom of Information Act for Scotland.
The Commission was sent over 30,000 submissions (although the vast majority came via the campaigning website 38 Degrees). Why was the commission's creation controversial?
What other reviews of the FOI Act have there been? Freedom of information campaigners argued the review was too narrowly focused, only on restrictions to FOI, when it should also have considered ways the act could be extended.
In 2012 the operation of the Act was reviewed by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee. This concluded that the Act was "working well" and made some comparatively minor recommendations on how it could be modified. They say:
When the government set up the new Commission three years later, it had still not announced a decision on implementing these recommendations. The membership of the commission was also strongly criticised for being limited to people with a one-sided experience of FOI - that of being on the receiving end of requests rather than making them.
After the FOI Commission was set up, the Labour Party launched its own review of the Act, which also held evidence sessions. Former Treasury permanent secretary Lord Burns chairs the commission.
Other members included Ofcom head Dame Patricia Hodgson and two former Home Secretaries, Lord Howard and Jack Straw.
Mr Straw had previously already made clear his unhappiness with the act, arguing policy advice needed greater protection and attacking the Information Tribunal's "crazy" decisions.
How has the commission operated?
The original announcement said the commission, created in July 2015, would report by November.
In the wake of the fuss over its composition, it then decided to issue a consultation document and take evidence, and it fell badly behind its initial timetable.
In October last year, the commission was widely ridiculed after it gave a briefing to a select invited group of journalists, which it insisted was off-the-record, while the unidentifiable anonymous source there stated: "Our aim is to be as open as possible."
Since then, the commission has changed its approach, posting on its website minutes of its meetings, research papers it has commissioned and some of the evidence it has received.
The commission was sent more than 30,000 submissions, although the vast majority came via the campaigning website 38 Degrees.
What other reviews of the Freedom of Information Act have there been?
In 2012, the operation of the act was reviewed by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee.
This concluded the act was "working well" and made some comparatively minor recommendations on how it could be modified.
When the government set up the new commission three years later, it had still not announced a decision on implementing these recommendations.
After the Freedom of Information Commission was set up, the Labour Party launched its own review of the act, which also held evidence sessions.