ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION Assuming that the goal of the draft Policy is to implement legislation – and we refer to our concerns and recommendations in that regard expressed in the previous section – we are concerned that the current draft should provide more detailed guidance to public authorities. Implementation of freedom of information legislation entails a wholesale change of culture at all levels of government; as Jack Straw, then UK Home Secretary, said at the introduction of the UK’s Freedom of Information Bill, in 1999, freedom of information laws “transform the culture of Government from one of secrecy to one of openness”.10 Such a change needs to be well-managed to be successful, and requires a detailed implementation strategy that tells public authorities exactly what can be expected of them – and the public what they can expect of public authorities. In its current form, the draft Policy does not provide that detailed guidance. Of the five substantive sections, only Section 3 provides any real guidance to public authorities on how to implement an access to information regime. Section 2 reviews the existing legal framework; Section 4 lays down a data protection policy, and Section 5 discusses the envisaged review and appeals process. This leaves only seven pages, in Section 3, for guidance on the implementation of access to information legislation. This is simply not enough. The substance of the guidance provided in those seven pages is also lacking; most of it is merely descriptive of the content of the (as yet non-existing) freedom of information Bill or Act. For example, Section 3.10 deals with the very difficult issue of how freedom of information will affect private bodies. All it says is: “This policy will apply to private bodies that carry statutory functions and those that are contractors to public organisations.” This is not sufficient: an implementation strategy should give far more precise guidance as to what this will mean in practice. One question that needs to be answered, for example, is the meaning of the word ‘contractor’. Does this mean that a company that provides cleaning services for government buildings is bound by freedom of information requirements? How about the company that provides security guards at the entrance to a ministry, or the taxi company that picks up employees? These are seemingly mundane yet important questions that ought to be addressed. Among the few sections that really do aim to provide guidance is Section 3.5, on ‘Management of Information’ and the duty on public authorities to adopt their own information policy frameworks. While even this could be elaborated further, it at least gives guidance to public authorities as to what will be expected of them. We recommend that the entire draft Policy is reworded along these lines, with the explicit goal of providing guidance to public authorities on the implementation of freedom of information requirements. Part of the draft Policy’s ‘mission statement’ is to provide for the “review of existing laws, regulations and procedures”. We welcome this statement of intent; there currently exists a range of legislation and regulations that impede access to information. All of this needs to be 10 Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 7 December 1999, col. 714. -3-