A small step towards compromise?
Lord Falconer last night hinted at a minor compromise on one part of the government's plans to restrict freedom of information.
In a speech last night, he appeared to re-focus the proposals which would restrict the number of FOI requests that could be made within a three-month period to one public authority by any one individual or organisation.
Referring to the plan to give public authorites more leeway to put together or 'aggregate' requests when assessing if they are over the cost limit, he said: "That is to deal with the mass of requests designed to get round the limit. If they are genuinely different then aggregation should not apply" (my emphasis).
In contrast, the government's currently proposed changes would allow public authorities to aggregate requests received from one individual or organisation within a three-month period, even if they were on completely unconnected topics, where it would be reasonable to do so.
What Falconer's remarks may suggest is that the expected guidance on what 'reasonable' means may include advice that it is less reasonable to aggregate and thus block several 'genuinely different' requests. At the moment this is not one of the factors suggested by the DCA in their .
Of course to take Lord Falconer's words literally would suggest a much more important compromise, because the position he apparently advocates is in fact more or less the current position. If an individual makes several related but separate requests to get round the cost limit, the total cost can already be aggregated and the requests dismissed if that is too expensive, while genuinely different requests are not frustrated.
So to take his remarks last night at face value, the logic of them would be that there is no point in changing the regulations on aggregation.
However there is no evidence that the DCA intended to communicate any such significant shift in the government's position.
Lord Falconer made no suggestion of a compromise on the other part of the proposed restrictions, which would allow authorities to include time spent on reading, consideration and consultation in determining whether requests are too expensive to answer.
The main thrust of his speech was to argue that the final decisions on what material should be made public, whether from government or the courts, should be made neither by Whitehall and politicians nor by the media but by the judiciary. This argument seemed to go down well with his predominantly legal audience.
The of his speech is available on the DCA website.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
The FOI Act needs reworking, but this isn’t the way forward.
A small step towards compromise?
My thought was why is any change being proposed that requires the citizen to compromise with the Freedom of Information Act?
You feel innocent of all charges yet you are sentenced to 30 lashes as a punishment by say Lord Falconer.
Innocent old you objects to such treatment - "Twenty lashes?" comes back from my lord.
"Oh, alright then" you are meant to reply?
No compromise. No change unless it is for MORE openness. Isn't this game up yet, Martin?
THE CHANGES TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IS TYPICAL OF THE EXCESSIVE SECRECY THAT IS ENDEMIC IN WHITEHALL. WE EITHER HAVE OR DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION. ONE SUSPECTS THAT THE CHANGES ARE MORE TO PROTECT THE SENSITIVITIES OF OUR MP's, 'AFTER ALL WHO ARE THESE OIKS WHO DARE QUESTION US?' IT IS LIKE MUCH OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM THESE DAYS THE PEOPLE HAVE VERY LITTLE SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS AT WHITEHALL AND AN ARROGANCE SURROUNDS OUR ELECTED 'REPRESENTATIVES'. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OLD DAYS WHEN POLITICIANS HAD TO HAVE A MANDATE ON A SUBJECT. WE NEED MORE CONTROL OF OUR MP's THAN JUST A FIVE YEAR ELECTION
Why is the 91Èȱ¬ refusing to comply with the FOI request for the , which is believed to detail the 91Èȱ¬'s anti-Israel bias in news reporting?
Dave Bartlett, This is twice I have seen that query. The 91Èȱ¬ are not the last line of defence for an FOI request.
I sent my written appeal off (for some other information from another body) to The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane
WILMSLOW' Cheshire SK9 5AF and await developments. If the 91Èȱ¬ route is exhausted?
Good question. The 91Èȱ¬â€™s relationship with the FOI is very one sided.
I have the same question as Dave Bartlett -
"Why is the 91Èȱ¬ refusing to comply with the FOI request for the Balen Report, which is believed to detail the 91Èȱ¬'s anti-Israel bias in news reporting?"
Is Martin Rosenbaum sticking up for FOI in this instance ? If not, how would he respond to accusations of hypocrisy ?
David (#7) -
Thanks for the question about how I would respond to accusations of hypocrisy. The answer is still in the same way as I have when asked about this sort of point from time to time in the past. For example, see here:
/blogs/opensecrets/2006/12/bbc_at_the_tribunal.html .
I have also written about the Balen Report in the past (see comments 14-16 for example on this page: /blogs/opensecrets/2006/05/about_martin_rosenbaum.html ). I will have more to say tomorrow.
Martin
Credit for responding Martin - I'm not convinced by the arguments you put forward in the comments you reference but will wait to see what you add to your comments tomorrow.
Thanks
David