Skip to site navigation

Select Committee confirms Constitution Unit analysis in review of Freedom of Information Act

26 July 2012

In its Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to be published on Thursday 26 July, the Commons Justice Committee has drawn heavily on the Constitution Unit’s analysis of how well the FOI Act is working, and cited the Unit’s research and evidence over 40 times in the Committee’s report.

“The Justice Committee has conducted a very thorough review of the operation of the Act”, said Director of the Constitution Unit Prof Robert Hazell.  “They concluded, as we did, that FOI has led to greater transparency and accountability.  But it has not achieved its secondary aims of improving the quality of government decision making, or increasing public understanding of those decisions; nor has it led to an increase in public trust, or public participation in government.  In those respects FOI was over-sold.  In reaching those conclusions the Committee drew heavily on our research projects which evaluated the impact of FOI on Whitehall, and on local government”.

The Committee also drew heavily on the Constitution Unit’s research on the costs of FOI, and on whether FOI has had a chilling effect.  It decided not to recommend an application fee for FOI, and decided not to recommend a stronger exemption for policy advice, or a specific exemption for Cabinet papers.  Instead the Committee invited senior government officials to re-affirm that there is a safe space for policy discussions, and that the government is prepared to use the veto to protect that space. 

Prof Hazell commented, “That will not provide the greater certainty which officials like Sir Gus O’Donnell were calling for.  Officials  will not know until much later whether the veto might be applied.  At best they might know that the government is more willing to exercise the veto.  But that guesswork might degenerate into a cat and mouse game, with greater friction between the government and the Information Commissioner”. 

Notes for Editors

Media

Join the Debate

Blog

News

“A good place to work?” What Commons staff think of House governance

Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:00:46 +0000

Barry K Winetrobe examines one aspect of the current committee inquiry into House of Commons governance following the Clerk appointment fiasco. Evidence submitted by House staff reveals much which may be unsettling for House managers and MPs, but is ultimately good for the House itself. ‘We seek to ensure that the House of Commons is […]

Read more...

English votes on English laws: much ado about nothing?

Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:00:34 +0000

Robert Hazell writes that if English votes for English laws were introduced, the impact would most likely be limited. He highlights that there are relatively few English laws, and that few votes in the past would have had different outcomes if EVEL had been in place. The sound and fury generated by the debate on […]

Read more...

Are quotas for judicial appointments lawful under EU law?

Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:00:37 +0000

A recent report laid out recommendations for improving diversity in the judiciary, including a quota system for women and BAME candidates. Kate Malleson and Colm O’Cinneide explore the legality of such measures under EU law, and specifically whether the quotas could be brought in under EU employment law or EU gender equality law. In April 2014 Sadiq Khan, Shadow Secretary of […]

Read more...
Mailing List

Connect with us

RSSFlickr

Footer menu