LONDON: New moves to restrict Britain’s freedom of information laws underline how Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government has backpedalled on early pledges about transparency, experts say.
British lawmakers on Friday controversially backed proposals to exempt themselves from the besieged 2000 Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, in what one critic called a “shameful day” for parliament.
Transparency campaigners are now pinning their hopes on Blair’s successor Gordon Brown, crossing their fingers that he take a more liberal approach to counter claims of “Stalinist” control freakery once he enters office in June.
“Brown is giving off strong signs that part of his agenda is to increase public trust and accountability,” said Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.
Campaigners had high hopes that Blair’s New Labour government, which was elected in 1997 with a landslide majority, would herald a new dawn of democratic openness in Britain.
The Act – which allows requests for information from official bodies such as the government and police – was passed in 2000, although it only came into force in 2005 after a delay which critics blamed on government second thoughts.
Since becoming law the law has prompted some 70,000 requests for previously secret information, many trivial but including a regular trickle of embarrassing revelations such as details of officials’ expense claims.
But two years later, ministers seem to be pulling away from it.
As well as the moves to exempt parliament, ministers are also exploring plans to increase the number of requests which can be rejected, notably by arguing that officials are spending too long dealing with such inquiries.
Lawmaker Norman Baker, of the centre-left Liberal Democrats, described freedom of information in Britain as “a flickering candle.” “The early Prague Spring of constitutional reforms after Tony Blair came in when there was freedom of information, the Human Rights Act, devolution, that lasted maybe a couple of years and since then, it’s been rowing back because they have decided there’s too much coming out,” he said.
Frankel echoed that view.
“I think Blair believed it at the time but lost enthusiasm,” he said. “He became the ruler and began to see it from the government perspective, as it weakened government’s ability to control what the public and press can access.” The cabinet minister in charge of managing the legislative programme, Jack Straw, has argued that parliament should be exempt from freedom of information laws to protect correspondence between lawmakers and their constituents.
Campaigners, though, say this is exempt under a separate law and argue that the intention is to block disclosure of lawmakers’ expenses and allowances.
More generally, some ministers and officials have claimed that freedom of information laws as they stand are attracting too many frivolous requests from journalists and repeat applicants.
Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Charles Falconer, a former flatmate of Blair, said in March that it was not passed to facilitate “fishing expeditions” by journalists.
The law has yielded a flurry of eye-catching, though not earth-shifting, stories, including how Blair invited celebrities like singer Elton John to dine at his country residence, Chequers, plus details of lawmakers’ travel expenses.—AFP
