|
Briefing Document No 17 - Page 4 of 4
Towards Freedom of Information? - Continued.



Parliamentary Debate
In a Parliamentary debate on the proposals on 15 March, Jim Wallace said that "the bill can be distilled down to a set of quite simple principles: a legal right of access to information; a right that is limited only by narrowly drawn exemptions; a rigorous harm test of substantial prejudice and consideration of whether it would be in the public interest to disclose information; and decisions on disclosure being subject to an independent arbiter". Among the points made in a debate that expressed cross-party support for the Bill but doubts about its limitations were:
1. Possible politicising of the appointment of the Commissioner by Parliament
2. The anomaly of exempting policy advice to Ministers but not policy advice in local authorities
3. The danger that statistical information would only be released where it led to a decision to act, but not where a decision was made not to pursue a line of action
4. Use of the commercial confidentiality exemption to prevent disclosure of information about privately-run prisons
5. Exemption of the Crown Office (particularly in light of the Chokhar case)
6. Charging as a deterrent, and an area where the Bill is worse than the UK Act
7. The withholding of policy advice to Ministers would have hindered the recent SQA inquiry (where a compromise was reached on access)
8. The need for Parliament to review its own practices eg re Committees meeting in private (which might be open to challenge under the new regime)
The proposals were defended on the basis that "Governments require an appropriate degree of privacy to conduct internal debates, to receive advice, to develop policy and to make decisions. Failure to provide adequate protection for those processes would undermine a Government's ability to choose objectively between options and to maintain collective responsibility" (Jim Wallace); he also indicated that he expected that Ministerial vetoes would be seen as "a significant political event" and rarely used.
Theological and Church Context
At UK level, churches have been allied with the Campaign for Freedom of Information in criticising the Westminster Act as inadequate. Like churches in Scotland which responded to An Open Scotland, they have seen the need for moving to a culture of openness as part of developing the active citizenship that is part of our calling to be salt for the earth: "Modern man cannot do without information that is full, consistent, accurate and true. Without it he cannot understand the perpetually changing world … Only in this way can he assume a responsible and active role in his community and be part of its economic, political cultural and religious life" (Communio et Progressio, Vatican II). Of course, we will also recognise other, sometimes competing, values, such as the "right" to personal privacy, and other needs of good government; the challenge is to build a culture that is genuinely open and accountable, getting beyond both secrecy and defensiveness while appropriately protecting individuals.
Accessible information not only enables us to function as Christian citizens; it also constrains the sin we recognise infecting all structures of power. Although focussing cynically on the alleged sins of the powerful may be unhealthily self-righteous, awareness of the sin that we share can be a constructive contribution to good governance. Freedom of information is therefore a vital dimension of the open and participative government for which churches and others have called, as the way towards a more just Scotland.
Responding
The consultation period runs until 25 May. Responses should be sent to: Sarah Corcoran, FOI Unit, Scottish Executive, 2nd Floor West, St Andrews House, Regent Road, Edinburgh, EH1 3DG. Phone 0131 244 4615; Fax 0131 244 2582; Email
foi@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Further information (including the document itself) is available on the Executive website or from SCPO; see also the Campaign for Freedom of Information website at www.cfoi.org.uk



|