Richard Thomas assesses the impact of the Freedom of Information Act and argues that it is eroding the public authorities' culture of secrecy


It is extremely encouraging to see the positive impact the Freedom of Information Act is having right across the public sector. I was delighted that the constitutional affairs select committee concluded that freedom of information was proving to be a significant success.



A great deal of information has been released since the introduction of the Act, which would not otherwise be in the public domain. My own office has made some powerful rulings on a wide range of issues, including the cost of identity cards, Legionnaires disease, academic standards, MPs' expenses, and the salaries of senior officials. The public can now see hygiene reports on restaurants, and details of subsidies paid to farmers.



My main role as Information Commissioner is akin to that of a judge. If a public authority refuses to grant requested information, people can make a complaint to my office. We then consider whether the public authority has correctly applied the exemptions - and we can order disclosure.



This is quite a challenge for us. We balance the need for intellectual rigour against the operational focus of getting the job done. We treat each complaint on a case-by-case basis, and we are seeing a roughly even split between the cases where we order public authorities to release information and those where we are satisfied that the public authority has correctly applied the exemptions.



In 2006, I published a progress report, showing the efforts we are making to speed up the way we deal with complaints. The improvements have resulted from a new case reception unit, a complete restructuring of complaints teams, new procedures, and more active case management.



However, if we are to deal with higher than anticipated demand and maintain acceptable service standards, the report signals that we need to find additional resources to allow us to retain trained temporary staff.



We have also published a new enforcement strategy that sets out how a tougher approach will be used with recalcitrant public bodies from now on. Where public authorities are regularly or seriously failing to meet expected standards of good practice, the commissioner's office will take appropriate enforcement or other action.



We have recently seen some interesting rulings by the Information Tribunal. It is the role of the tribunal to make rulings where my decisions are appealed either by the original requester or the public authority.



Only recently the tribunal upheld my decision ordering the House of Commons to release a breakdown of MPs' expenses. It is my view that the disclosure of MPs' expenses would not impinge on MPs' personal privacy when it relates to individuals acting in an official, rather than a private, capacity.



The Act has involved a steep learning curve for everyone, but it is having a positive impact on the culture of secrecy in government. Most public authorities are taking the Act seriously, and the pendulum is definitely swinging towards disclosure of information unless there is very good reason to do otherwise.



Solicitor Richard Thomas is the Information Commissioner, having been the director of public policy at Clifford Chance between 1992 and 2002