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 1 Version 2
What does the Freedom of Information Commission do? FOI Commission: Why has it surprised observers?
(about 4 hours 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 sweeping 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 "sensitive information" was being inadequately protected. The decision follows publication of a report by an independent commission asked to examine the Act.
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 within government "sensitive information" was being inadequately protected, while campaigners feared an attempt to curb powers to hold public bodies transparently to account.
However, Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock said FOI was "working well". Why have possible restrictions on FOI been blocked?
When it was appointed, the government's Freedom of Information Commission was derided by some as an "establishment stitch-up" that would inevitably lead to tough curbs on the public's right to know what its rulers are doing.
In fact the Commission's report has surprised many, being more sympathetic to greater openness than expected, while also backing some changes that would help public authorities to keep some material secret.
And at least one proposal it did make to restrict FOI - bolstering the legal basis for ministers' rights to veto disclosure - has already been rejected by the government.
This has left openness campaigners with some powerful feelings of relief. So, despite the fact that David Cameron thinks FOI "furs up" the process of government, and the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood objects to its "chilling effects", why have those who want to restrain FOI been disappointed?
There is the zeitgeist of our time, which lauds openness - exemplified in ministerial rhetoric about "being the most transparent government in the world".
There is also the strong pressure applied by FOI supporters - notably the dedicated and tightly argued lobbying by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, the numbers mobilised through the website 38 Degrees, and the powerful publicity of the media, such as the Daily Mail.
And there is the fact that the government would probably find it difficult to get restrictive change through Parliament. Its small majority in the Commons could easily be overturned as some Tory MPs like David Davis have already made it clear they would oppose constraints on FOI. In the Lords the government has no majority at all.
Is there another possibility?
Yes, that in its lengthy and detailed report the Commission shows it was swayed by the evidence about how FOI actually works in practice.
It is not yet clear how the government will respond to all the Commission's recommendations. The Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock says: "We will not make any legal changes to FOI", so that would appear to rule out any legislation.
This would mean that many of the Commission's ideas - both some promoting secrecy and others promoting openness - would not be implemented. Any change would then be limited to government guidance.
In which case the Freedom of Information Act would be left, as the Commission puts it, pretty much in its current state of "working well".
Why was the Freedom of Information 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 Freedom of Information Act has not been 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.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.This is true both of politicians and officials.
Last year Prime Minister David Cameron described FOI as being one of the "clutteration" and "buggeration" factors that impeded the process of governing.Last year Prime Minister David Cameron described FOI as being one of the "clutteration" and "buggeration" factors that impeded the process of governing.
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 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."
That was then.
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 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.
His predecessor, Lord O'Donnell, has frequently criticised FOI for what he sees as its harmful impact on internal policy debate.
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.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.
The court backed the Guardian's case these letters should be released.The court backed the Guardian's case these letters should be released.
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.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, in government circles, as an important safeguard.
What was the commission's remit?What was the commission's remit?
The remit of the commission was highly selective and was not to assess the Freedom of Information Act as a whole.
In this era of commitments to transparency, few think it would be desirable or politically feasible to abolish FOI altogether.
The commission's core aim was to review whether "sensitive information" and policy material needed greater protection from disclosure.The commission's core aim was to review whether "sensitive information" and policy material needed greater protection from disclosure.
It was also authorised to examine whether FOI places an excessive "burden" on public authorities.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.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 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.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.
The commission's role relates to the UK-wide act, which covers England, Wales, Northern Ireland and UK-wide public bodies.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, Freedom of Information Act for Scotland.There is a separate, although similar, Freedom of Information Act for Scotland.
Why was the commission's creation controversial?Why was the commission's creation controversial?
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. Freedom of information campaigners argued at first that the review was too narrowly focused, only on restrictions to FOI, when it should also have been asked to consider ways the act could be extended.
They say:
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.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.
Former Treasury permanent secretary Lord Burns chairs the commission.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.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?How has the commission operated?
The original announcement said the commission, created in July 2015, would report by November.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 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."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.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.