Council wants changes to the Freedom of Information Act

Freedom of Information - your right to know

Since its introduction in 2000 the Freedom of Information Act has become a vital part of our democracy and helped to expose a wave of scandals.

A review of the Act that is currently under way is viewed by many as an attempt to curb public access to government and council documents.

In its submission to the review panel Rochdale Borough Council said it is working towards compliance with the Transparency Code 2015 by making more information available in a re-usable format. However, it said the "cost of servicing high numbers of FOI requests limits the available resource to expand the publication and maintenance of data to improve this transparency".

The Council says controls are needed to reduce the burden of FoI on public authorities. Based on calculations in a report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in 2012 (Ipsos MORI) of the average estimated cost of an FOI request to a non-central government body, servicing FOI requests cost Rochdale Borough Council £215,000 for the 2014/15 period.

The Society of Editors says that it opposes what is “clearly an apparent attempt to restrict the Freedom of Information Act”.

In its submission, Society of Editors Executive Director Bob Satchwell described the possible introduction of charging for requests as a “major concern”.

He added: “By exposing abuse of power, waste of money and official complacency it has improved governance at national and local levels, saved money and saved lives. There are thousands of examples of how the media, nationally and locally, has used the Act for the benefit of the public and indeed to improve transparency and the work of authorities covered by the Act.

“It is claimed that many FOI requests may be frivolous. This is not the case: the overwhelming majority from media organisations represent responsible journalism in the public interest.

“The real issue is that many official organisations remain committed to needless secrecy rather than transparency. Too often they take the easy option of telling the public as little as possible. In fact, the easy - and correct - option should be to release as much information as possible unless there is an extremely good reason for it to remain confidential. Such reasons are usually a matter of common sense.”