The amount of information released under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act could be severely cut back, according to a leaked cabinet committee paper that proposes significant changes to the Act's charging arrangements.

At the moment, FOI requests are normally answered without charge. Authorities can charge for photocopies but not for the time they spend dealing with requests. However, they can refuse to answer altogether if the cost of searching for the information exceeds a set amount. For government departments this is £600, equivalent to 24 hours of staff time. For others the figure is £450 or 18 hours.

A flat fee would hit all requesters indiscriminately, deterring people on low incomes as much as high volume requesters. It could also lead to charges for routine information. Any written request is automatically an FOI application, even if the applicant doesn't mention the Act. The new fees could allow authorities to demand a cheque before responding to queries of the “when did you last empty my bin?” kind.

Ireland's experience suggests that application fees could be devastating. In 2003, a £10 up-front application fee was introduced under Ireland's FOI Act. The number of requests instantly collapsed to one quarter the previous year's level. That is the last thing we need to happen in the United Kingdom.

The second proposal is to aggregate the costs of requests on different subjects made by the same applicant. This can already be done for multiple requests on the same subject. Allowing unrelated requests to be treated the same way could severely ration the use of the Act by newspapers and campaigning organisations.

The third proposal would be to take account of the time officials spend considering requests. Currently the cost limits apply to the time spent looking for information. A single report raising complex issues under the Act's exemptions could be refused because of the time needed to think about it. The longer officials scratched their heads the greater the chance of a refusal. If ministers got involved in the decision, as they often do, their time might be enough to sink the request. The opportunities for abuse are obvious.

The cost limits are inflexible and make no allowance for the importance of the information. Although the Act has a public interest test which can require authorities to disclose exempt information in the public interest this does not apply to cost refusals. It would not matter if the report described an overwhelming risk to public safety or a blatant abuse of public office—the material would be withheld.

 What's behind all this? Some departments do receive large numbers of requests, but publicly ministers have said it is only the “frivolous” or “vexatious” requests which concern them. In fact, the number of frivolous requests seems tiny. As for “vexatious” requests, the Act already allows these to be refused. The Information Commissioner, who enforces the Act, has interpreted this test broadly, and supported authorities which have refused unreasonably high volumes of requests from the same individual.

The Act has just begun to chip away at the system's deep seated secrecy. An indication of the great range of information now being disclosed can be seen from summaries of 500 FOI press stories at www.cfoi.org.uk. Any one of the government's new proposals could seriously limit this flow of information, making it harder for requesters to ask penetrating questions and easier for authorities to avoid scrutiny. All three would be a massive blow.

Maurice Frankel is director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information www.cfoi.org.uk

 
 Opening the files: Some stories broken under the Freedom of Information Act

Satellite group BSkyB urged the government to give media regulator Ofcom the powers to monitor the BBC, documents disclosed under the FOI Act reveal. Minutes of a meeting between James Murdoch, the Sky chief executive, and Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, show that the government promised to look at how the BBC cross-promoted its services as part of its review of the corporation’s charter. A briefing note for the culture secretary revealed that the satellite group "strongly believes the BBC should be brought within the ambit of regulation by Ofcom". The Guardian

Police G8 overtime bill more than £11m

Policing the G8 summit in Perthshire cost Scotland’s police forces more than £11m in overtime. The figures were obtained from five of Scotland’s eight forces under the FOI (Scotland) Act, but do not include Tayside, which led the policing of the event. Strathclyde Police spent £6.39m while Lothian and Borders Police’s bill was £2.69m.However, forces expect the figures to rise as some officers have yet to put in their claims. The Herald

Spun-believable!

Figures showing the amount spent on public relations by the Welsh Assembly Government, councils and quangos have been disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. The costs range from the Assembly Government’s spend of almost £750,000 to Conwy Council's £28,000. The bill for Swansea Council is £314,000 and for the Welsh Development Agency £590,000. Wales on Sunday

MoD dumped munitions in the Irish Sea

The Ministry of Defence has dumped more than a million tons of munitions into the Irish Sea since the 1920s, according to a disclosure made under the FOI Act. The program of disposal, which included 14,600 tons of phosgene-filled artillery rockets and “small quantities” of radioactive laboratory waste, ended in 1973 after which dumping on the UK continental shelf became illegal. The Daily Telegraph

Hush up food scares, industry says

Food manufacturers asked the Food Standards Agency to consider keeping information about unsafe foods from the public. Minutes of an FSA meeting with the Food and Drink Federation, released under the FOI Act, state “The FDF commented that the publicity surrounding a recall was a key concern and suggested that the FSA needed to … secure removal of products from the food chain without the type of media headlines seen during the Worcester sauce incident”. The Sunday Times

Labour and Tories united to foil BBC

Labour ministers worked with the Conservative leadership to trying to block a series of BBC programmes seen as encouraging support for the Scottish National Party. The five programmes were made in 1977 to examine how Scotland might look by 1980 if it became independent. At the time, Labour and the Conservatives feared a surge in SNP support in district council elections. The documents show Labour Minister Harry Ewing, now Lord Ewing, feared the implications were "serious enough to warrant intervention by the government at the most senior level". The Herald

Jowell and Murdoch talked cricket before deal

Culture secretary Tessa Jowell met James Murdoch Sky’s chief executive, three weeks before the satellite broadcaster won exclusive rights to cover Test cricket. Minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2004, disclosed under the FOI Act, reveal that Murdoch “said he wanted to discuss sports, the ECB [England and Wales Cricket Board] and the broadcast of Test cricket matches.” But details of the discussion were withheld. Sky’s four-year £220m deal to screen all domestic test matches and one day internationals from summer 2006, was announced three weeks later. The Guardian