This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/09/freedom-of-information-commission-not-very-free-with-its-information
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Freedom of information commission not very free with its information | Freedom of information commission not very free with its information |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The government-appointed body reviewing the Freedom of Information Act has held its first official briefing – but journalists were asked not to disclose who was there or attribute what they said. | The government-appointed body reviewing the Freedom of Information Act has held its first official briefing – but journalists were asked not to disclose who was there or attribute what they said. |
| Sources at the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information briefing disclosed that the cross-party group will consider introducing charges for applications for information for the first time. | Sources at the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information briefing disclosed that the cross-party group will consider introducing charges for applications for information for the first time. |
| However, officials at the bizarre briefing in the Houses of Parliament asked journalists to keep it “off the record” and not quote the individuals present, despite requests to the contrary. | However, officials at the bizarre briefing in the Houses of Parliament asked journalists to keep it “off the record” and not quote the individuals present, despite requests to the contrary. |
| Our aim is to be as open as possible | Our aim is to be as open as possible |
| The meeting, attended by six journalists, was held by the commission to launch a public call for evidence after being set up in July by the Conservative minister Matthew Hancock to decide whether the act is too expensive and overly intrusive. | The meeting, attended by six journalists, was held by the commission to launch a public call for evidence after being set up in July by the Conservative minister Matthew Hancock to decide whether the act is too expensive and overly intrusive. |
| The committee has been heavily criticised for being an establishment “stitch-up” to neuter the work of journalists, campaigners and members of the public. | The committee has been heavily criticised for being an establishment “stitch-up” to neuter the work of journalists, campaigners and members of the public. |
| The five-member committee includes Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, who is already on the record calling for the act to be rewritten; Lord Carlile of Berriew, who accused the Guardian of “a criminal act” when it published stories using National Security Agency material leaked by Edward Snowden; Lord Howard, whose gardening expenses were criticised after being exposed following FoI requests; and Dame Patricia Hodgson, the deputy chair of Ofcom, which has criticised the act for its “chilling effect” on government. It is chaired by Lord Burns, the former chair of Channel 4 and a former permanent secretary to the treasury. Under the terms of the briefing, the Guardian cannot disclose which members of the committee were present. | |
| At the briefing, sources close to the commission defended its members. “It was put together by the government. Members of the committee have been asked to be as open minded as possible. They are distinguished in their field,” the source said. | At the briefing, sources close to the commission defended its members. “It was put together by the government. Members of the committee have been asked to be as open minded as possible. They are distinguished in their field,” the source said. |
| It was conceded by the source that the commission’s members had not submitted requests for information. “What is true is that most people who are on the committee have been the subject of FoI requests rather than made FoI requests,” the source said. | It was conceded by the source that the commission’s members had not submitted requests for information. “What is true is that most people who are on the committee have been the subject of FoI requests rather than made FoI requests,” the source said. |
| “Our aim is to be as open as possible,” the source continued. However, the committee source could not explain why the committee itself was not open to FoI requests and declined requests to publish transcripts of its meetings. Parties who wish to submit evidence with regards to the proposed charges for FoI requests have a deadline of 20 November to present their findings to the commission. | |
| The source said he is confident that the commission can read all the evidence, discuss it, come to a conclusion, write a report, and print that report by the time parliament rises on 17 December, twenty working days after the deadline. | |
| The source insisted that the commission has not come to any firm views and is open to go where the evidence leads. The source also said that Hodgson had “nothing to do” with Ofcom’s criticisms of the FoI act. | The source insisted that the commission has not come to any firm views and is open to go where the evidence leads. The source also said that Hodgson had “nothing to do” with Ofcom’s criticisms of the FoI act. |
| Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have made clear that they are unhappy that Straw and Carlile chose to serve. Both parties have pointed out that they chose to take part in a personal capacity and are not representing the views of their parties, which both believe the act should remain as it is. | Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have made clear that they are unhappy that Straw and Carlile chose to serve. Both parties have pointed out that they chose to take part in a personal capacity and are not representing the views of their parties, which both believe the act should remain as it is. |