Clause 93 of the bill seeks to amend Section 6 of the FOIA (Publicly Owned Companies).

In summary what it does is extend FOI to cover companies jointly owned by more than one public body.

Another part of the bill strengthens FOI in relation to datasets.

*Close the loophole which means the act does not cover organisations owned by two or more public bodies.
*Introduce a time limit on consideration of the public interest test.
*Extend the coverage of the act to include private contractors delivering high-value public sector contracts.
*Remove the ministerial veto on FOI disclosures
*Extend the time limit within which proceedings can be brought for the offence of deliberately altering a record to prevent the disclosure of information

Cambridge MP Julian Huppert is one of those MPs who will help Mr Brake “prepare and bring in the bill”.

Mr Brake’s speech introducing the bill can be read via:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-09-07a.203.0

We’ve been here before though, in 2007 Mr Brake tried to do the same thing then too MPs gave him permission to introduce the bill, but it never became law.

Thank you for your e mail of 20 January about freedom of information.

I am pleased to say I have signed Early Day Motion 589 as you asked.

Mr Howarth’s letter can be viewed here.

Dear Mr Howarth,

I would like to draw your attention to an early day motion which is currently open for signatories. It seeks draw attention to the need to close a loophole in the Freedom of Information Act which means companies wholly owned by public authorities are subject to the act, but those owned jointly by two or more public authorities are not. It also addresses the related problem of a company with significant public ownership not being subject to the act.

The EDM is no. 589
http://tinyurl.com/edm589

I believe it would be hard to argue this is anything other than an unintended loophole which needs closing and I would like to ask you to consider signing the motion.

You may well be in a position to do more than simply signing the EDM - such as finding a way to get the Government’s proposed “section 5 order” (secondary legislation which is expected to add ACPO Limited, UCAS, and Network Rail to the FOI Act) debated and amended to increase its scope as it (at least nominally) passes through Parliament.

Many housing associations and purchasing consortia would be covered by the change proposed in the EDM, as would a diverse range of organisations from the Manchester Airport Group (Publicly owned by the ten local authorities of Greater Manchester), to The Russell Group of Universities (Registered in Cambridge).

While I would like to see the law changed more dramatically than the EDM proposes it would be a step in the right direction.

I find it extraordinary that many organisations with substantial public responsibilities and/or significant public funding are not currently subject to the UK’s freedom of information laws. Private prisons, returning officers, the organising committee for the London Olympics, and the Cambridge City Centre Management organisation “Love-Cambridge” are just some of bodies beyond the reach of the current freedom of information law.

Related articles:
http://www.mysociety.org/2010/01/20/foia-loophole/
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/1328

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/cp2707.htm

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your email of 16th May to Michael Wills regarding the extension of the Freedom of Information Act. Michael Wills has asked me to respond on his behalf as the policy lead in this area.

As you’ll be aware the Prime Minister announced the public consultation to seek views on whether the Government should use the powers under Section 5 of Freedom of Information Act and extend the application of the Act to persons that perform functions of a public nature and contractors providing services that are functions of public authorities. Those responding were asked to nominate bodies they deemed suitable for coverage under the Act. The consultation closed in February 2008. More than 130 responses were received, and I can confirm that ACPO were nominated by some respondents to the consultation, and therefore have been factored in to our considerations. The Government has committed to publishing its response to the consultation by the summer.

Section 6 of Freedom of Information Act states that any company which is wholly owned by a public authority listed by Schedule 1 or by Government, is a public authority for the purposes of the Act. This helps to ensure clarity and consistency in the application of the Act. Therefore, those bodies that are owned by two or more public authorities would be considered as suitable candidates for a section 5 order.

Kind regards,

Stuart

Stuart Watts Policy Adviser Information Directorate