The UK’s information watchdog has been in discussion over proposals that could significantly restrict public access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, according to documents disclosed through the Act itself.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has – it has been reported – considered measures around the act that include limiting requests to UK residents, requiring applicants to provide identification, and restricting the number of requests an individual could make to a public authority.
These proposals were revealed in documents obtained and reported by Mishcon de Reya, which said the plans would have the effect of “reducing the impact of requests on [public authorities] and the ICO”.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives the public the right to request information from public bodies, including government departments, councils and police forces.
For Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), a small charity which regularly uses FOI requests to investigate British military activity and civilian harm, these restrictions – if they come to pass – may well add to the barriers we already encounter when seeking information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
In our report published last year, we outlined how the MOD routinely relied on cost limits, national security exemptions and procedural rules to block our requests concerning allegations of misconduct, civilian casualties and military operations.
“Transparency is not a threat to security but a cornerstone of responsible governance,” we wrote at the time.
We did so having recently received our third rejection relating to military recruitment activity in British schools. The MOD argued that fulfilling that request would exceed cost limits because officials would need to compare two separate databases containing thousands of schools.
Other requests rejected by the MOD included our attempts to obtain information about complaints against British troops in Afghanistan and Kenya, as well as data on civilian harm caused during operations overseas.
That was then. With this new proposal, things could take an even harder turn towards opacity.
It seems that under the guise of pressure these changes, however, will happend. The ICO told Mishcon de Reya the proposals were part of an internal discussion prompted by increasing pressure on FOI systems.
An ICO spokesperson said: “Over the past year, there has been a sharp rise in FOI related complaints. FOI practitioners have told us clearly that the rise in request numbers is changing the reality of their work.” Perhaps AI generated requests have had a part to play in this rise in requests.
Either way, a spokesperson said officials were seeking ways to ensure FOI services remained “workable and resilient”.
Among the measures discussed seem to be powers allowing authorities to refuse requests considered not to be in the public interest and proposals to remove the right to appeal decisions to the First-tier Tribunal except on points of law.
Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, has said some of the ideas “would undoubtedly weaken the FOI system”.
As the Mishcon de Reya noted: “Among the proposals floated (which, it should be noted, would need primary legislation to effect) are:
- restricting the right to make requests to UK residents
- making requesters have to provide a physical address
- making requesters have to provide ID to make a request
- limiting the number of requests a person can make to an individual authority
- allowing individuals (and not just requests) to be labelled “vexatious”
- allowing public authorities to refuse requests when they are not in the public interest (alternatively, allowing the ICO to decline to investigate complaints where the initial requests were not in the public interest)
- removing the right to appeal to the First-tier tribunal (so a challenge to the ICO could only be on a point of law, rather than on merits).”
Maurice Frankel warned that allowing the ICO to reject complaints on public interest grounds could prevent investigations into serious matters affecting individuals.
Critics have also questioned whether the ICO, whose role is to regulate and uphold information rights, should be proposing measures that would restrict them.
The concern, of course, is that tighter restrictions could further limit scrutiny of military operations and government conduct. And, suffice to say, without the Freedom of Information Act, the public would not have known the discussions within the ICO had taken place at all.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate