Post Legislative Scrutiny Of The Freedom Of Information Act 2000

Some former Ministers and senior civil servants argue that Freedom of Information (FOI) is having a 'chilling effect' on policy discussion at the heart of government. The Committee recognised there could be a problem--at least of perception. However the existing provisions of the Act could be used more effectively, including use of the ministerial veto to ensure a "safe space" for high-level policy discussions. The number of FOI requests is growing and some witnesses suggested introducing fees for FOI. However, while FOI imposes costs, it also creates savings when the inappropriate use of public funds is uncovered - or where fear of disclosure prevents the waste of public money. Setting fees could deter requests with a strong public interest and therefore defeat the purposes of the Act. Fees introduced purely for commercial and media organisations could also be circumvented. The MPs recommended: higher fines should be imposed for destruction of information or data and the time limit should be removed on prosecution of these offences; the law should be amended to protect universities from having to disclose research and data before the research has been published; all public bodies subject to the Act should be required to publish data on the timeliness of their response to freedom of information requests; the right to access information must not be undermined by the increased use of private providers in delivering public services and contracts for private providers should be explicit and enforceable in stipulating FOI obligations; where public authorities publish disclosure logs, the names of those requesting information should be included

Incorporating HC 1849-i-v, session 2010-12. Additional written evidence is contained in Volume 3, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee

Government response to HC 96-I (ISBN 9780215047335). Dated November 2012. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 Chapter 36 (ISBN 9780105436003)

The Government presented its Post-legislative Scrutiny of the Serious Crime Act 2007 Memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee and Justice Committee in November 2012. The parts of the Memorandum falling within the Justice Committee's remit were a) Serious Crime Prevention Orders and b) Part 2, in particular, offences of encouraging or assisting crime in terms of prosecution and interpretation of the sections by courts and the CPS. There is concern about the trenchant criticism that Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 received. In addition, Part 2 was the subject of appeals to the Court of Appeal. The report concurs with the academics who wrote that the sections are complex and difficult to understand for lawyers, let alone for defendants, jurors and other lay-people working in the criminal justice system. It raises some key concerns and questions about the purpose of post-legislative scrutiny. It is considered that where the substance of an Act or part of an Act is to create or revise criminal offences it is appropriate for questions of a purely legal or technical nature to be considered. The latest judgment in the case of Sadique may allow the legislation to settle into accepted use and interpretation. However, the Ministry should conduct a further and full post-legislative assessment of Part 2 in 2016. If, in the meantime, the number of appeals on Part 2 increases, the Ministry should consider bringing forward legislative proposals for revising, or even replacing, Part 2 to meet the purpose of the legislation in a less tortuous fashion

The Commission's report examines the options for ensuring adequate post-legislative scrutiny of Acts of Parliament, in the light of the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (in their 14th report, HCP 173-I, session 2003-04; ISBN 0104005416). The main focus of the report is on primary legislation, but it also considers delegated legislation and European legislation. Issues discussed include: existing forms and benefits of post-legislative scrutiny in the UK Parliament and in other jurisdictions (including Canada, Australia, Germany, France and the EU); the experience of pre-legislative scrutiny; and options for post-legislative scrutiny mechanisms. A number of consultation questions are given, and responses should be received by 28th April 2006.

To what extent have parliaments a responsibility to monitor how laws are implemented as intended and have the expected impact? Is the practice of Post-Legislative Scrutiny emerging as a new dimension within the oversight role of parliament? What approach do parliaments apply in assessing the implementation and impact of legislation? These are the fascinating questions guiding this book. Case studies offer an in-depth look at how particular countries and the European Union conduct Post-Legislative Scrutiny. The analysis puts Post-Legislative Scrutiny in the context of parliamentary oversight and parliaments’ engagement in the legislative cycle. The purpose of this book is to demonstrate the value of Post-Legislative Scrutiny as a public good, benefiting the executive, legislature and the people in ensuring that law delivers what is expected of it, as well as to respond to the need for greater clarity as to what is meant by the term. In this way, the publication can assist legislatures to think more clearly as to what precisely they understand, and seek to achieve, by Post-Legislative Scrutiny. This book is the result of the co-operation between the Centre for Legislative Studies at the University of Hull and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The chapters were originally published as a special issue of The Journal of Legislative Studies.

The expert contributors identify the goals, purposes and ramifications of transparency while presenting both its advantages and shortcomings. Through this framework, they explore transparency from a number of international and comparative perspectives.

This is the fourth edition of what is the leading practitioner's text on freedom of information law. Providing in-depth legal analysis and practical guidance, it offers complete, authoritative coverage for anyone either making, handling or adjudicating upon requests for official information. The three years since the previous edition have seen numerous important decisions from the courts and tribunals in the area. These and earlier authorities supply the basis for clear statements of principle, which the work supports by reference to all relevant cases. The book is logically organised so that the practitioner can quickly locate the relevant text. It commences with an historical analysis that sets out the object of the legislation and its relationship with other aspects of public law. Full references to Hansard and other Parliamentary materials are provided. This is followed by a summary of the regime in five other jurisdictions, providing comparative jurisprudence which can assist in resolving undecided points. The potential of the Human Rights Act 1998 to support rights of access is dealt with in some detail, with reference to all ECHR cases. Next follows a series of chapters dealing with rights of access under other legislative regimes, covering information held by EU bodies, requests under the Data Protection Act and the Environmental Information Regulations, public records, as well as type-specific rights of access. These introduce the practitioner to useful rights of access that might otherwise be overlooked. They are arranged thematically to ensure ready identification of potentially relevant ones. The book then considers practical aspects of information requests: the persons who may make them; the bodies to whom they may be made; the time allowed for responding; the modes of response; fees and vexatious requests; the duty to advise and assist; the codes of practice; government guidance and its status; transferring of requests; third party consultation. The next 13 chapters, comprising over half the book, are devoted to exemptions. These start with two important chapters dealing with general exemption principles, including the notions of 'prejudice' and the 'public interest'. The arrangement of these chapters reflects the arrangement of the FOI Act, but the text is careful to include analogous references to the Environmental Information Regulations and the Data Protection Act 1998. With each chapter, the exemption is carefully analysed, starting with its Parliamentary history (giving full references to Hansard and other Parliamentary material) and the treatment given in the comparative jurisdictions. The analysis then turns to consider all court judgments and tribunal decisions dealing with the exemption. The principles are stated in the text, with footnotes giving all available references. Whether to prepare a case or to prepare a response to a request, these chapters allow the practitioner to get on top of the exemption rapidly and authoritatively. The book concludes with three chapters setting out the role of the Information Commissioner and the Tribunal, appeals and enforcement. The chapter on appeals allows the practitioner to be familiar with the processes followed in the tribunal, picking up on the jurisprudence as it has emerged in the last eight or so years. Appendices include: precedent requests for information; a step-by-step guide to responding to a request; comparative tables; and a table of the FOI Act's Parliamentary history. Finally, the book includes an annotated copy of the FOIA Act, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, all subordinate legislation made under them, EU legislation, Tribunal rules and practice directions, and the Codes of Practice.ContributorsProf John Angel, former President of the Information TribunalRichard Clayton QC, 4-5 Gray's Inn SquareJoanne Clement, 11 KBWGerry Facena, Monkton ChambersEleanor Gray QC