Caroline Pidgeon writes…Why open government is good government and why it is time to defend the freedom of information act

The announcement this Summer that Ministers are now seeking to ‘review’ the freedom of information act had a most depressing ring to it.

For a start any fundamental review of freedom of information (FOI) legislation is hardly necessary. Just three years ago the cross party House of Commons Justice Committee, chaired by Alan Beith, carried out an extensive investigation into the operations of the Act.  It reported that: “The Freedom of Information Act has been a significant enhancement of our democracy. Overall our witnesses agreed that the Act was working well. The right to access information has improved openness, transparency and accountability.”

Few pieces of legislation get that kind of endorsement.

Indeed the Justice Committee not only defended the Act but also highlighted where it should be strengthened. For example it criticised public authorities that kick requests into the long grass by holding interminable internal reviews.

So why, once again, is this useful and much needed legislation, potentially under threat by a review that is merely looking at proposals to weaken the Act?

One explanation is that there are myths about the Act which keep resurfacing, often peddled by people who simply dislike the overall concept of open government.

The first myth is the claim that the Act is an incredibly expensive burden for local councils and other public bodies.

Yes, the act does come with some costs, but as the Justice Committee so clearly stated some of the costs are often self imposed. The committee robustly stated: “Evidence from our witnesses suggests that reducing the cost of freedom of information can be achieved if the way public authorities deal with requests is well-thought through. This requires leadership and focus by senior members of public organisations. Complaints about the cost of freedom of information will ring hollow when made by public authorities which have failed to invest the time and effort needed to create an efficient freedom of information scheme.”

Moreover, it should be added that in some cases the release of information through FOI requests saves public money, in some cases huge amounts of money.

The second big myth about the FOI legislation is the claim it undermines a “safe space” for policy development.  Perhaps not surprisingly Tony Blair is the leading proponent of this claim.

At present section 35 of the Act allows the withholding of policy development work private office communications and letters between ministers.  Section 36 allow ministers to withhold other information as well which would undermine safe space of discussion.

However, for some people these provisions simply are not enough.  They detest that there is a public interest test attached to these provisions.

Once again, let’s look back at what the Justice Committee revealed. Its verdict could not be clearer, stating: “We do not believe that there has been any general harmful effect at all on the ability to conduct business in the public service, and in our view the additional burdens are outweighed by the benefits.”

I suggest that instead of putting the Act under scrutiny we should start now putting its critics under the microscope.

We need stronger, not weaker legislation as I argued last year on Lib Dem Voice. Simon Hughes’ subsequent success in getting Network Rail included under the law’s remit, was an important step forward, but quite frankly we still need to go much further in ensuring far more public organisations are covered. Organisations that also receive significant public funding, such as train operating companies and major contractors to the public sector should also be included within its remit.

It is hard to exaggerate some of the beneficial effects that have flowed from freedom of information legislation.  It has exposed waste, incompetence and neglect of vulnerable people, including for example the record of so many children in local authority care  who go missing each year.

The daily media coverage and scrutiny of many public bodies would be emasculated if we now weakened our FOI legislation. If you need convincing just look at how many important news stories the Guardian  used  FOI requests in just the first two years of the legislation’s existence.  More recently we have discovered the huge cover up within central government over the real levels of pollution created by diesel engines. And don’t for one minute think the legislation is only used by national media outlets – it is equally vital for local newspapers, not to mention many small campaigning groups.

Defending FOI legislation should be an issue that should unite each and every Liberal Democrat. We should all be using the legislation and defending it.

I hope this briefing from the Campaign for Freedom of Information is useful in the battle we must now face.


* Caroline Pidgeon is the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member and chair of the London Assembly Transport Committee

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Antony Hook 24th Sep '15 - 4:06pm

    Caroline is entirely right about this.

    FoI is under threat and any curb on it disempowers the public.

  • Richard Underhill 25th Sep '15 - 9:44pm

    Caroline Pidgeon made a good speech at conference. her interview with the BBC Sunday Politics is available on Freesat, which means that the viewer does not need to live in London. The whole of the south east is affected by these issues in ther same way that air pollution from the continent affects Bournemouth (UKIP notwithstanding).

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJeanette Sunderland 16th Oct - 12:40am
    How disappointing that you referred to the colour of Joe's dress before you commented on what she said.... So disappointing.
  • User AvatarRoland 15th Oct - 11:01pm
    @Ross - Its probably more to do with peoples understanding of UK English grammar and thus the correct usage of Licence and License.
  • User AvatarTonyH 15th Oct - 10:17pm
    David Evans - "Ryan didn’t have any experience of UK politics." I was actually thinking about one E. Pamplin, but maybe that's ancient history now....
  • User AvatarPaul Barker 15th Oct - 8:14pm
    While I understand some of the concerns expressed in this thread I disagree about the threats facing us. Right now, it seems to be that...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 15th Oct - 8:09pm
    @ Katharine, I did think twice about including Guy Verhofstadt. I haven't done an extensive background check on his views, but I did turn up...
  • User Avatarfrankie 15th Oct - 8:05pm
    It also increases Iran's influence. Right next door to Israel sits an ally of theirs. Syria has a battlehardend population and army, with no fear...