How Should Public Authorities Handle FOI Requests from Journalists?

Journalists play an essential role in scrutinising the actions of government and public authorities, and in informing the public about decisions and actions that affect their lives. To do this, they often turn to the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information that is not otherwise in the public domain. Yet research by the London School of Economics suggests that journalists’ experience of the FOI process, particularly when dealing with central government, can be characterised by delays, unresponsiveness and refusals on grounds that may be difficult to verify. 

From the perspective of information governance and FOI professionals, however, the picture can look rather different. They are often working under significant resource and workload pressures, while dealing with journalists who may be seeking information against tight publication deadlines or hoping to secure a newsworthy “scoop”. 

So how can public authorities and journalists navigate these competing pressures?
And what can FOI professionals do to handle journalists’ requests in a way that is both legally sound and constructive? 

We answer these questions in episode 9 of the Guardians of Data podcast. 
Ibrahim Hasan was joined by Martin Rosenbaum. Martin spent 16 years at the BBC as the organisation’s leading specialist in using FOI for journalism. Over that time, he broke major stories, trained reporters, and took cases all the way to tribunal hearings.
Martin is also the author of Freedom of Information: A Practical Guidebook 

Martin’s experience provides some practical lessons for anyone responsible for handling FOI requests from journalists. 

Don’t treat journalists differently 

The first principle is perhaps the most important. A journalist is simply another requester under FOI. 

As Martin explains, FOI gives journalists a legal right to seek information that might otherwise be difficult to obtain. That does not mean every request should be disclosed, but neither should the identity of the requester influence the application of the legislation. For an information governance professional, the task is to apply the law properly, regardless of whether the requester is a journalist, campaigner, researcher or member of the public. 

Good relationships can reduce the FOI burden 

It is tempting to see journalists and FOI officers as being on opposite sides.
Martin’s experience suggests that this is unnecessary. A constructive professional relationship and good communication can actually reducethe workload associated with FOI. 

Communicate early 

One of Martin’s strongest messages is the importance of communication. Journalists often work to publication deadlines. That does not change the statutory requirements of FOI, but it does make prompt communication particularly valuable. From a journalist’s perspective, being contacted on day 19 to clarify something that could have been resolved on day two or three can be extremely frustrating. 

If a request is unclear, contact the journalist as soon as possible. A quick telephone conversation can often establish what the journalist is actually looking for, whether the information is held and how records are organised. It can also prevent the authority spending time searching for information that will not answer the journalist’s question. 

It can also help establish whether information can simply be provided without the need for a formal FOI process. Martin recalls situations where discussions with FOI professionals saved both sides considerable time by identifying information that was not held, explaining terminology or suggesting a more productive approach. 

Don’t confuse sensitivity with exemption 

Some requests from journalists will concern controversial or embarrassing subjects. That is part of the nature of investigative journalism. The potential consequences of publication should not become an informal additional exemption. 

Martin’s own experience demonstrates the value of persistence within the FOI system. Information initially withheld can sometimes be disclosed following an internal review, an ICO investigation or an appeal to the tribunal. He believes that information can sometimes be withheld too broadly at an early stage, with more detailed consideration later resulting in additional disclosure. 

The two rules to remember 

Asked for his best advice, Martin offered two pieces: Think clearly about what you really want and talk to people. These apply to both sides of the FOI process. 

For journalists, a precise request is more likely to produce the information they actually need. For information governance professionals, early communication can make requests easier to understand, search and process. The result is not necessarily less FOI. It is better FOI: a process in which requests are dealt with properly, resources are used sensibly and information that should be in the public domain is made available. And ultimately, that is what FOI is there to achieve. 

Listen to the podcast 

Listen to the full episode 9, in which Martin also discusses his experiences using FOI to investigate government, his battles with other public authorities, taking cases to tribunal, the impact of AI on FOI and what he would like to see FOI change in the future. 

If you want more perspectives on this important topic be sure to check out our other podcast episodes. In Episode 3, Maurice Frankel, the Director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information explains the history of FOI and his views on current and future challenges to the legislation. in Episode 14 barrister, Saara Idelbi, gives advice on handling AI generated information requests. Finally, Episode 17 Ben Worthy discusses the research studies that he has conducted into FOI practice, to give us an insight into the effectiveness of FOI in achieving transparency. We also explore what FOI can (and can’t) achieve and where transparency in the UK might be heading next.

New Podcast: FOI and Transparency in Practice 

In the UK, Freedom of Information laws are now more than 20 years old. If you want to understand how they have impacted the way government operates, there are plenty of clues in the news headlines over the last few years: 

  • The Covid Inquiry gave us an extraordinary insight into how ministers and officials communicated during the pandemic, including the extensive use of WhatsApp. 
  • The Peter Mandleson affair raised questions about the vetting of ministers and civil servants, and more broadly, about what the public is entitled to know about the people exercising public power. 
  • And internationally, the release of the Epstein files demonstrated the enormous public interest in information held by powerful institutions and the political consequences when information is withheld or released. 

In the latest episode of the Guardians of Data podcast we are joined by Dr Ben Worthy, a Reader in Politics and Public Policy at Birkbeck College, University of London. Ben has written extensively on issues around Transparency and Freedom of Information including authoring the book “The Politics of FOI”. Ben discusses the research studies that he has conducted into FOI practice in various sectors, to give us an insight into the effectiveness of FOI in achieving transparency. We also explore what FOI can (and cant) achieve and where transparency in the UK might be heading next. 

Listen on your preferred platform via our podcast page, or download the episode directly.  

If you want more perspectives on this important topic be sure to check out our other podcast episodes. In Episode 3, Maurice Frankel, the Director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information explains the history of FOI and his views on current and future challenges to the legislation. In Episode 9 we talk to Martin Rosenbaum, an 
ex-BBC Journalist, who shares practical tips on dealing with FOI requests from journalists. Finally, in Episode 14 barrister, Saara Idelbi, gives advice on handling AI generated information requests. 

This podcast is sponsored by Phaselaw – a purpose-built solution for document disclosures, like subject access requests and FOI requests. Instead of redacting PDFs one by one, or forcing litigation software to do a job it wasn’t designed for, with Phaselaw you get collection, review, and redaction in one workflow. Teams across the World are using it to cut response times from weeks to days. 

For Guardians of Data listeners, Phaselaw is offering a two-month free trial; run it on live requests, see what it does to your backlog, decide from there. No card, no commitment. 

Head to https://www.phase.law/guardians to claim your free trial.  

Previous episodes of the Guardians of Data podcast have featured Dr. Agnieszka Piotrowska talking about the profound ways that Generative AI is changing human relationships, Professor Kistie Ball talking about employee surveillance without losing trust and Ilyas Nagdee analysing the impact of predictive policing on human rights. 

New Podcast: Handling AI Generated Information Requests

Many organisations are seeing a massive increase in AI generated Freedom of Information requests and GDPR Subject Access Requests (SARs). For example, Lincolnshire County Council received almost 2000 FOI requests in the last financial year; an increase of 18% compared to the previous year. No doubt the same is the case for SARs. 

AI has democratised and powered access to information. Large Language Models, like ChatGPT and Claude, can produce ‘perfectly written’ FOI requests and SARs at the touch of a button. But these are causing problems for over loaded information governance departments. Not only are more requests coming through; they are often longer, broader and difficult to interpret.  

In the latest episode of the Guardians of Data podcast we guide information governance practitioners to help them manage and lawfully respond to AI generated information requests. Our guest is Saara Idelbi from 39 Essex Chambers. Saara practises in administrative law, human rights, data protection and information rights. She is named by the Legal 500 as a ‘leading junior’ barrister. Saara is a recognised voice on AI and the law and is the co-founder of Advocatr, an AI legal training platform. 

Listen on your preferred platform via our podcast page, or download the episode directly, for practical guidance on how to handle AI generated information requests whilst respecting the key principles of information rights legislation: openness, transparency and accountability.  

This podcast is sponsored by Phaselaw – a purpose-built solution for document disclosures, like subject access requests and FOI requests. Instead of redacting PDFs one by one, or forcing litigation software to do a job it wasn’tdesigned for, with Phaselaw you get collection, review, and redaction in one workflow. Teams across the World are using it to cut response times from weeks to days. 

For Guardians of Data listeners, Phaselaw is offering a two-month free trial; run it on live requests, see what it does to your backlog, decide from there. No card, no commitment. 

Head to https://www.phase.law/guardians to claim your free trial.  

Previous episodes of the Guardians of Data podcast have featured Caroline Wong talking about the impact of AI on Cybersecurity, Jen Persson, a privacy campaigner, explaining the privacy implications of the Government’s new plans for children’s data, and Ilyas Nagdee analysing the impact of predictive policing in human rights.

New FOI Style Requirements for Housing Associations

From October, tenants of non-local authority social landlords, such as housing associations and housing co-operatives, will have new rights to access information about how their homes are managed. Tenants of local authority-owned housing can already access this information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  

In Autumn last year, The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published a policy statement following a consultation on the introduction of Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs). Some have dubbed this “FOI for the housing sector.”  

The Regulator of Social Housing has been directed to introduce a new standard requiring all non-local authority social landlords (also known as private registered providers or “PRPs”) such as housing associations to comply with the new requirements.

Publication Scheme 

From 1st October 2026, PRPs must proactively publish information that they hold relating to various matters such as governance and decision making, spending, housing stock management, performance, housing services, lists and registers and social housing management. 

They must make tenants aware of the publication scheme so that they can easily identify and access information. Just like under FOI, there is no requirement to create any new records to comply with this obligation and redactions may be made in certain circumstances e.g. to protects commercially sensitive or personal information. 

Information Requests 

From 1st  April 2027, PRPs must respond to their tenants’ requests for information that relate to the management of their social housing. Only tenants can make requests, unlike FOI where anyone can do so. Matters determined by local councils and information about property management that is not related to the social housing functions are not part of this obligation. 

Requests must be in writing. There will be a deadline of 30 calendar days to respond to a request for information, which may be extended in certain circumstances.  

PRPs cannot delete or alter information to prevent disclosure but the same exemptions set out in the FOI will apply under STAIRs. 

Review Process 

PRPs will also need to put in place a STAIRs review process to deal with any complaints related to either the publication scheme or information requests. Reviews will need to be completed within 30 calendar days. If the complainant is unhappy with the response they can they escalate this to the Housing Ombudsman. Responses to review requests should inform tenants of their right to access the Housing Ombudsman Scheme

Training 

PRPs need to prepare now for the new  STAIRs regime. They should ensure they have adequate policies and procedures in place including staff training.  

Please see our new STAIRS workshop with Naomi Mathews. We can also deliver this course on an in house basis customised to the needs of your staff (online or classroom). Get in touch for a quote.

John Edwards Resigns as Information Commissioner

Last Friday we woke up to the news that (not only has Andy Burnham won the Makerfield by-election) John Edwards has resigned as Information Commissioner and Chair of the newly formed Information Commission. The latter position was given to him as a result of The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 which will soon transition the ICO into the Information Commission. 

The news was posted by Edwards on LinkedIn. It follows an ICO HR Investigation which concluded there was a “case to answer”. There was some clue as to the reason for the ICO investigation in Edwards post on LinkedIn: 

“From the time the investigation was launched, I have accepted that there have been occasions where I exercised poor judgement and made attempts at humour that were inappropriate and caused offence.” 

Later on Friday the ICO released its official statement which said: 

The independent workplace investigation relating to Mr Edwards reached findings for DSIT to consider. The investigation concluded that there was a case to answer and made clear that his behaviour fell short of the conduct expected from a public official.” 

[Note: The ICO updated its stamen on Saturday to give more detail about the allegations.]  

Then on Saturday Liz Kendall, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, took time out from trying to persuade Keir Starmer to resign, to post an “update” on LinkedIn giving more details: 

“I have seen evidence of the vulgar and highly sexualised language that was used in his interactions with his staff and am extremely concerned that he continues to describe these incidents as misplaced humour, including on his social media post announcing his resignation. Such conduct does not belong in the workplace, least of all exhibited by the leader of an organisation.” 

So what happens now? Don’t expect the ICO’s “robust enforcement” of IG rights to stop. (Well in a parallel universe at least!) Senior staff at the ICO have been carrying out the Commissioner’s functions since his suspension and will no doubt continue while the search starts for a new chair.  

As we have said before, there has been a surprising lack of transparency about this whole issue from a statutory regulator in the area of, amongst other things, openness and transparency.

Listen to the Guardians of Data Podcast  for the latest news and views on data protection, cyber security, AI and freedom of information.

How to Succeed as an Information Governance Leader 

In Episode 2of the Guardians of Data podcast Ibrahim Hasan spoke with Raz Edwards, Head of Data Security and Protection and Data Protection Officer at The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. With more than 17 years in information governance across local government and the NHS, Raz reflected on leadership, visibility, diversity, professional development and the future of the IG profession.  

The following is an abridged version of the conversation.   

How did you first get into information governance?

Raz describes her entry into information governance as accidental, which will sound familiar to many long-standing professionals in the field. Fresh out of university with a degree in computer science, she began in local government IT, working on information security and data quality. That gradually led her into records, accuracy and governance. At the time, information governance was barely understood as a profession, and there were few clear frameworks, networks or career paths. That lack of structure made the work challenging, but it also created an opportunity: Raz was able to help shape an approach from the ground up. Early work in social care, where records and access issues were especially sensitive, gave her a practical understanding of why IG matters and how closely it is tied to public trust and service delivery. 

What were the biggest challenges in the early days of your career?

One of the hardest tasks was persuading colleagues that information governance had value. Raz says that, in the early years, IG was often poorly understood and seen as a function that asked difficult questions rather than one that helped organisations work better. She also faced personal challenges as a young woman from an underrepresented background trying to establish credibility in a profession that did not always expect leadership to look or sound like her. Over time, however, the position of IG has improved. Legal developments such as the GDPR and the formalisation of the Data Protection Officer role have given the profession greater visibility and authority. Raz believes the biggest shift has been in moving IG away from the stereotype of being a blocker and towards being recognised as an enabler. 

What advice would you give to people who want senior leaders to take IG seriously?

Raz stresses that influence is built through trust, clarity and relevance. Senior leaders are busy and often balancing competing priorities, so IG professionals need to communicate in a way that is concise and useful. Her advice is not simply to raise problems, but to present issues alongside practical options and a clear explanation of why the matter matters to the organisation. She also highlights the importance of building relationships with key stakeholders such as Caldicott Guardians and SIROs, who can help champion the message at board level. In short, her advice is to step into senior leaders’ shoes: understand their pressures, speak their language and make the value of the conversation obvious. 

Why does diversity and representation matter in information governance?

Raz is candid about the fact that many people from ethnic minority backgrounds still do not see information governance as an obvious or visible career option. Families and schools often spotlight more familiar professions such as law or medicine, while IG remains relatively hidden despite offering influence, intellectual challenge and strong career progression. She argues that the profession needs to do much more to make itself visible to younger people and to underrepresented communities. In sectors such as health, where services affect people from every background, it is especially important that the profession reflects the communities it serves. Diversity is not only about fairness; it also improves understanding, strengthens decision-making and helps organisations respond better to risks such as bias in new technologies. 

How can mid-career professionals move into more senior IG roles?

Raz says progression comes from seeking opportunities beyond day-to-day operational tasks. Subject access requests, DPIAs and FOI casework are important, but leadership requires a broader view of strategy, influence and organisational change. She encourages professionals to develop “other strings to their bow” by joining networks, taking part in wider sector work and saying yes to opportunities that stretch them. Her own tribunal and network leadership roles have given her perspectives she can bring back into her organisation. That wider involvement helps people become less purely operational and more strategic, which is often what opens the door to senior posts. 

What has your tribunal work taught you?

Serving in the Information Rights Tribunal has shown Raz how easily organisations can create avoidable disputes. A recurring lesson is that public authorities often fail to explain themselves clearly enough. For example, saying “information not held” without proper context can frustrate requesters and trigger unnecessary escalation. Raz believes organisations should be more willing to understand the requester’s motivation, communicate openly and, where appropriate, revise their position on review. Too often, exemptions are applied defensively and then maintained simply because reversing course feels uncomfortable. Her message is clear: transparency, explanation and humility can prevent many disputes long before they reach a tribunal. 

Why are networks like SIGN so important?

As Chair of the National Strategic Information Governance Network, Raz sees collaboration as one of the strongest tools available to the profession. She is keen to challenge the misconception that SIGN is only for health professionals. In reality, it spans a broad range of sectors and offers a community of practice where people can learn from each other’s challenges and solutions. For Raz, networking is not an optional extra; it is a key part of development. She also makes an important point about in-person learning. Conferences, informal conversations and face-to-face sessions build confidence and create opportunities in ways that virtual meetings often cannot. Technical knowledge matters, but confidence, communication and relationships are just as critical to long-term success. 

Q: What are the biggest challenges for information governance over the next five to ten years?

Resources remain a major concern. Raz notes that public bodies are being asked to do more with less, and IG functions can be vulnerable if they are seen as invisible back-office support rather than frontline enablers. That is why she believes the profession must keep demonstrating its role in major priorities such as AI, big data, cyber security, service redesign and population health management. Data underpins all of these developments, which means IG must be in the room when key decisions are made. Another major issue is succession planning. Many experienced professionals are approaching retirement, and unless knowledge is actively shared, the profession risks losing vital expertise. Raz’s philosophy is simple but powerful: if someone in her team can do her job as well as she can, that is a sign of success, not a threat. 

How can the profession attract and develop new talent?

Raz was part of the trailblazer group that helped create the information governance apprenticeship standard, and she sees apprenticeships as a practical answer to one of the profession’s longstanding problems: entry barriers. Too often, employers recruit only those who already have IG experience, which limits the pipeline of future talent. Apprenticeships create a more structured route in, but Raz is clear that formal learning alone is not enough. Experienced professionals must invest time in coaching, giving apprentices a safe environment to apply theory, ask questions and build confidence. Her own experience has been positive, with one apprentice going on to become a permanent member of staff and thrive in the role. 

After nearly two decades in the field, what keeps you passionate about the work?

For Raz, the answer is impact. Working in the NHS means supporting clinicians, services and innovations that have a direct effect on patient care. Whether the subject is robotic surgery, AI-assisted diagnostics, data-enabled service redesign or the everyday flow of information that allows care to happen safely and efficiently, she sees IG as an essential part of making those outcomes possible. That sense of purpose is what keeps the work rewarding. Her final message is an encouraging one for anyone entering or growing in the profession: information governance may not always be visible from the outside, but it is varied, influential and deeply worthwhile. For those willing to keep learning, collaborate widely and lead with confidence, it offers a remarkable career. 

Listen to the complete Episode 2 with Raz podcast here. More advice on IG careers in Episode 1where we talked to Jon Baines who is a senior data protection specialist at Mishcon de Reya LLP.

New Podcast: Learning from a Journalist’s Use of FOI  

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) is an essential tool for the journalist seeking to  hold public institutions to account. But for those handling FOI requests from journalists, the challenge is to balance minimising the resource burden on the organisation with maintaining opennesss and transparency. This requires a good understanding of journalists’ motivation, tactics and pressures. 

In the latest episode of the Guardians of Data podcast we are joined by Martin Rosenbaum. Martin spent 16 years at the BBC as the organisation’s leading specialist in using FOI for journalism. Over that time, he broke major stories, trained reporters, and took cases all the way to tribunal hearings. His investigations have covered everything from private conversations between Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, to the policing of Greenham Common protests, to the flaws in the honours system. 

Martin is also the author of Freedom of Information: A Practical Guidebook– a comprehensive, hands-on guide that explains the law, the process, and the tactics for using FOI effectively. 

In this podcast episode, we talk about: 

  • How journalists use FOI to uncover the truth and inform the public 
  • The tactics that make the difference between a successful request and a dead end 
  • How FOI has evolved since its introduction  
  • And what information professionals can learn from the media’s use of this powerful tool 

Whether you work in information governance, public service, or the media, or you simply believe in transparency and accountability, this conversation will give you practical insights into how FOI really works and why it still matters today. 

Listen on your preferred platform via our podcast page, or download the episode directly.

This podcast is sponsored by Phaselaw – a purpose-built solution for document disclosures, like subject access requests and FOI requests. Instead of redacting PDFs one by one, or forcing litigation software to do a job it wasn’t designed for, with Phaselaw you get collection, review, and redaction in one workflow. Teams across the World are using it to cut response times from weeks to days. 

For Guardians of Data listeners, Phaselaw is offering a two-month free trial; run it on live requests, see what it does to your backlog, decide from there. No card, no commitment. 

Head to https://www.phase.law/guardians to claim your free trial.  

Previous episodes of the Guardians of Data podcast have featured Tahir Latif talking about responsible AI deployment, Jen Persson, a privacy campaigner, explaining the privacy implications of the Government’s new plans for children’s data, Naomi Mathews and Ibrahim Hasan explaining the law on filming people in public for social media and Olu Odeniyi analysing recent cyber breaches and discussing the lessons learnt.

Act Now Wins IRMS Supplier of the Year Award 2026

Act Now Training is proud to announce that it has won the Information and Records Management Society (IRMS) Supplier of the Year award for 2026. The aim of the award is “to recognise suppliers in the IG/IM/RM world that go above and beyond normal expectations of customer service.”  The awards ceremony took place on Monday night at the IRMS Conference in Cardiff. 

This is the fourth time in six years that Act Now Training has won this award. Ibrahim Hasan said:  

“We would like to thank all our colleagues in the IG profession who voted for us. 
The award recognises our education led approach and our commitment to providing measurable training that develops participants’ IG skills, competencies and behaviours.   

It has been another fantastic 12 months for Act Now Training. Notable achievements include: 

Launching the Guardians of Data Podcast 

The new Guardians of Data Podcast has proved extremely popular with the IG profession. It’s a show which explores the world of information law and information governance; from privacy and AI to cybersecurity and freedom of information. In each episode we speak to experts and practitioners to unpack the big issues shaping the IG profession 

Previous episodes  have featured Tahir Latif talking about responsible AI deployment, Naomi Matthews and Ibrahim Hasan  explaining the law on filming people in public for social media, Maurice Frenkel looking back at 20 years of the Freedom of Information Act and Olu Odeniyi analysing recent cyber breaches and discussing the lessons learnt. 

Building the AI Skillset  

Act Now launched the AI Governance Practitioner Certificate with the aim of helping data protection professionals to play a leading role in addressing the legal and ethical dilemmas posed by emerging AI as well as position themselves as
forward-thinking leaders who can bridge the gap between law, ethics, and technology. The course has been extremely well received by the profession.     

Revising the Advanced GDPR certificate  

Since its launch in 2020, Act Now’s  Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice has attracted hundreds of DPOs from across the public and private sectors. Feedback has been consistently positive with many participants commenting on how the course has given them the confidence and skills to be able to dissect complex data protection scenarios and give clear and practical compliance advice. This year the syllabus has been revised to reflect advances in technology, especially in AI, and the latest ICO/Tribunal decisions. The assessment method for this course has also been revised to help develop participants’ communication skills. 

Delivering New Workshops  

Act Now has continued to provide relevant and cost effective IG workshops during rapidly changing times for the IG community. Our programme has been expanded to include practical advice on topical issues such as the Data (Use and Access) Act, Data Breach Management and Children’s Data. 

20 Years of FOI: An Interview with Maurice Frankel  

It is more than 20 years since the Freedom of Information Act came into force. Now more than ever transparency is an important aspect of public life and indeed a democratic necessity.  

In Episode 3of the Guardians of Data podcast we discussed these issues with our guest was Maurice Frankel OBE, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information .  

The following is an abridged transcript of the podcast.

Question: What was life like before the Freedom of Information Act? How easy was it to obtain information from the public sector? 

Answer: It was extremely difficult in most cases; unless the information you were asking for, was helpful for the public authorities position, in which case the authority would be prepared to release it. But if you asked for information which might question its position, then it was very difficult to get the information and officials, council leaders and ministers would treat the information as if it was their own personal information, and they’d sometimes be affronted that you would even ask and expect that information to be disclosed. 

What were the other challenges in terms of getting the FOI Act onto the statute books? 

Well, the fact is, the government realized and Tony Blair realised, once the legislation was going through Parliament that, this was something that would cause them problems. And, it came to the point at which, the government privately threatened to pull the FOI Bill from Parliament if further improvements to the bill were made during its parliamentary progress.  

Jack straw, who was the Home Secretary and the Justice Minister, confirmed this in his memoirs; that the government actively considered dropping the FOI Bill, for fear that it had gone too far, that it was providing too much openness; that explains why they put it off for so long. 

You mentioned the cost limit. There was a story recently about an author who had a number of FOI requests about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor refused on costs grounds. Do you think there’s a case here for the cost limit rules to be changed so FOI requests cannot be refused on the grounds of costs if there’s a strong public interest in disclosing the information? 

Well, I think there’s a good case for that. We argued for that when the FOI Bill was going through Parliament because, it was obvious that you had an absolute limit on what could be disclosed based on the time needed to find it, essentially. And there was no way through that. And that limit applied in the same way to a request about the purchase of government stationery and to information the government held about a life threatening disease or potential pandemic. And, the case for treating those differently and recognising the public interest in serious cases, I think is very strong. Now the government will argue that everybody will make a public interest case for disclosure. But everybody does make a public interest case for disclosure of information about commercial interests, law enforcement matters and so on. And the exemption does not, collapse in every case simply because somebody makes that argument. Tt gives way when there is genuine evidence which justifies a disclosure of otherwise exempt information. I think the same could take place if there was a public interest test applying to the cost limit. 

You mentioned previously with regards to inquiries and their power to seek information from government. The Covid inquiries are ongoing. We’ve about the use of unofficial communications such as WhatsApp, Signal and Google Chat by ministers and advisers and in some cases, them using disappearing messages. What does that say to you about attitudes to transparency when it comes to the major decisions, particularly around Covid? 

Well, a chunk of the history will have been lost forever. It may be that there’s enough been recorded, to make up for that in the main areas. But I think the use of auto deletion, or messaging software, is a very unhealthy development. And if it’s possible to prevent officials using it, even where they need to use messaging software for efficiency purposes, they should not be able to use software, which automatically deletes messages once they’ve been read. I think that is inimical to proper record keeping practices, to accountability and to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Do you think that the fallout from the Epstein Scandal and the Covid Inquiry so far, is going to lead to improvements in government transparency, or is it going to lead to more unrecorded decisions? 

Well, I think the surprising thing is that very embarrassing material has come out of the Post Office Inquiry. For example, about the real reasons for continuing with various practices, despite the fact that it was well known that the Post Office was subject to the Freedom of Information Act and was receiving Freedom of Information requests. So I think what is perhaps more surprising is how much of that information has survived, despite the existence of FOI. I mean, when the Act was being discussed in the early days, the government would argue that people would use post-it notes to record sensitive information so that these could be pulled off the documents when an FOI request was received. And so they believed that the threat of disclosure would prevent anything significant, which could be embarrassing being recorded in a permanent form at all, and that’s not proved to be the case. And I think that is probably because, first of all, the chances, I think officials will recognise that they’re dealing with vast volumes of documents, and very few of those were ever requested under FOI. And that means the ordinary incentive to carry on, recording information in the ordinary way or sending recorded information to colleagues, in the ordinary way, carries on, despite what in practice, maybe a hypothetical possibility of an FOI request being received at some later stage. So the information is, is not that vulnerable, to pre-emptive destruction, to prevent disclosure. I think that is perhaps a reassuring, result of these inquiries. 

I agree with you, Maurice, that having had over twenty years of FOI, we are seeing the government disclosing more information, sometimes embarrassing as well and certainly the inquiry system is disclosing more information perhaps, than the Freedom of Information Act would have allowed. So together, I think I agree we have made progress. But do you think there is still room for improvement? Do you think certain public authorities need to improve more than others? 

Well, I think there’s room for improvement across the board. I think there’s a number of things. I think the first thing is, authorities are sometimes too keen to impute bad motive to a requester, just as requesters are sometimes too keen to impute bad motive to a public authority for withholding information.  

I think a second problem is that, public authorities are not making proper use of Boolean searches,. That is, they’re not searching for search term A combined with search term B, but excluding search term C. They are simply looking for hits under particular search terms and not intelligently, using the ability that their systems in many cases, must have to narrow the request by proper use of the of search language. So I think that needs to be looked at.  

And I also think that the Act itself needs to be amended, to address some of the shortcomings that it creates. And, chief of those is, the reasonable extension to consider the public interest test. So the twenty working days is extendable by an unspecified reasonable period to consider the public interest test. I think that extension should be got rid of, just as the Environmental Information Regulations have got rid of it (and Scotland’s Freedom of Information Act, has never adopted that approach). 

Where do you think FOI is going? If we get a change of government, do you think you’ll be back on the campaign trail trying to save FOI? 

Well, we are always aware of the fact that the Act could come under threat at any time. The number of times we have had to come in and try and defend the Act against attempts by, initially the Blair Administration, then the Coalition Government, Conservative Government, to stop attacks on FOI is remarkable.  

I mean, we had attempts to remove Parliament itself from the scope of the act in the early days. There was an attempt to expand the cost limit so that the cost limit of effectively 18 hours or 24 hours of time spent looking for information would apply not to a single request, or to all similar requests within a sixty working day period, but to all requests by a requester to the same public authority, whether they were related or not. And that would mean that, and not just from the same individual requester, but from the same organisation. So it would mean that major news organisations would be limited to one or two requests to the Home Office in a in a three month period, spread amongst all of their journalists. This was seriously put forward by the Blair Administration in the early days. And so, I don’t underestimate the threat to FOI.  

The most recent serious threat we had was, the government setting up the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, in the mid-nineties, where the unspoken aim was to remove information about policy making from the scope of FOI altogether. We did a very detailed analysis of all Tribunal decisions over, I think, a sixteen month period, relying on section 35, and showed that in very many cases, the exemption worked as it the government had intended it to work. That is, it protected sensitive discussions, from disclosure even after the decision had been taken. But that in a number of cases where the public interest justified it, that information was disclosed and the Tribunal accepted that that was the exemption and the public interest test working as it was supposed to, and that there should be no change to that that position. And so I think that was a very important milestone in the Act, because that resulted in the government before the final report was published, announcing that it hoped the Independent Commission would not require any weakening of the Freedom of Information Act, whereas a weakening of the Act had been the whole purpose of setting up the Commission 

And just finally, some words of inspiration for our new professionals please Maurice. 

Try and understand what the rationale for bringing FOI in actually was, and that was that openness serves the public interest. It serves the interest of accountability. It deters bad practice and it exposes unacceptable conduct. Those are all things which authorities, should be endorsing. And the FOI officers in particular, should see that as the benefit of freedom of information. And in my own experience where I’ve been provided information in the right spirit, it does change your view of the authority you’re dealing with. It does make you more willing to accept what they tell you, and more willing to have confidence in their decisions. It increases public trust in the organisation which can only be a good thing.  

You can listen to the full  Episode 3 podcast with Maurice here. 

The Information Commissioner Steps Aside (Temporarily)  

Five days ago, the Information Commissioner, John Edwards, posted on LinkedIn: 

“Colleagues and friends!👋🏻 I wanted to let you know that for the last few weeks I have voluntarily stepped aside from my duties at the ICO while an independent investigation into HR matters is undertaken. I am fully cooperating and engaged with the investigation and will report progress in due course.” 

Paul Arnold, CEO of the new (but not yet functioning) Information Commission, has assumed the role of Acting Information Commissioner.   

Edwards announcement has come as a surprise to ICO watchers. It was only issued after a POLITICO journalist made enquiries to the ICO regarding Edwards’ work absence. Until then there was silence; not what you would expect from a statutory regulator in the area of, amongst other things, openness and transparency.  

Listen to the Guardians of Data Podcast for the latest news and views on data protection, cyber security, AI and freedom of information.