Placing council services at arms length has weakened Scotland's freedom of information
|
Version 0 of 1. Though Scotland's Freedom of Information Act (FoISA) became operational back in January 2005, the growing use of arm's-length management companies and outsourcing agreements by Scotland's local authorities means that fewer and fewer public services are subject to the public's right to know. The Scottish Information Commissioner, for example, estimates 15,000 council tenants lost their FoISA rights through stock transfer when they became tenants of housing associations. This loss of rights has been compounded by sustained inaction by successive ministers, culminating this month in a refusal to fix the problem, despite assertions by Scotland's Deputy First Minister that he believes "Scotland already has the most robust Freedom of Information regime in the whole of the UK". Such flag waving is tempered by the profound disappointment of campaigners as – despite enjoying full devolved powers to legislate – the Scottish Government rejected amendments that would have ensured FoISA returned to the standard intended when passed in 2002. Currently our right to know depends on which organisation in Scotland holds the information. Many organisations that receive public money are not covered by FoISA including around 130 arm's-length organisations created by Scotland's local councils and a number of private contracting companies. Yet people want to access to this information, whoever delivers their public services. Research from the Scottish Information Commissioner, published in 2011, revealed 89% of the public agree it is important to be able to access information held by public authorities. They also agree that trusts providing services for local authorities (88%) and housing associations (82%) should be covered. In 2002 the argument was won when Scottish ministers conceded that similar additional bodies would be covered using section five of the original act. "We recognise that companies involved in major PPP/PFI contracts are delivering important public services... companies that are involved in contracts of that nature – whether those relate to prisons or to matters such as road maintenance – are the sort of bodies that we want to add," they stated. A reasonable commitment, given that the long title of FoISA, is for "the disclosure of information held by Scottish public authorities or by persons providing services for them". Progress has been made in Westminster. The government has extended the UK act to cover the Association of Chief Police Officers, the University and College Admissions Service and the Financial Ombudsman Service; it is consulting on including other bodies, such as the Law Society and Local Government Association. Under pressure, the Scottish government decided to amend its own technical freedom of information (amendment) bill and extended coverage to a single group of arm's-length organisations which deliver council culture, sports and leisure trusts. This raises further anomalies as many of these organisations provide other services including economic development, transport, building maintenance and property services. The cultural, sport and leisure trust in Glasgow is already covered. This bill has failed to address the reduction of rights over the last 11 years and the public's right to know continues to be determined by who delivers our public services not by what those services are, or who pays for them. Ultimately this is a lost opportunity to demonstrate that the Scottish Government trusts the public with basic rights to access information easily, helping them live in their community, and engage with wider society. <em>Carole Ewart is co-convenor of the </em><em>Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland</em> <strong>This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for news, views and career opportunities in your area</strong> |