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-