IT SEEMS to be a sad truism of public policy and politics that strong calls in opposition for more freedom of information will equate to a more reluctant response in government.
Scotland's first Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion saw governments of different hues come and go but he ended up repeating a painful mantra towards the end of his nine years in office.
He spoke of his frustration to this newspaper in 2009, saying: "As a matter of principle we should be following the public pound, and the fact that it involves private finance should not alter that."
He reckoned at that time that the trend towards hiving off council responsibilities such as housing and leisure facilities to hands-off bodies, or outright privatisations such as contracting companies to operate prisons, meant there were 79 bodies and counting which should be brought back under the scope of the FoI Act. "People are losing hard won FoI rights within a few years of winning them. That cannot be right."
We wholeheartedly agreed then and continue to do so now, which makes it all the more disappointing that Mr Dunion's successor, Rosemary Agnew is having to continue to make precisely the same arguments in almost identical terms.
"Our right to information is being slowly eroded," she writes in a special report to Parliament. "Rights have been gradually lost over the last 10 years as the responsibility for public service delivery is passed to third parties. These rights are fundamental to ensuring public services are open, cost-effective and accountable to the public.
"As the models for the delivery of public functions evolve and change, it is vitally important that the public's right to the information held about the services that deliver them are protected and strengthened."
Ms Agnew calculates that in the last decade in the area of housing alone more than 15,000 households have lost the right to FoI over their tenancies, and she says the existing statutory provision to extend FoI to non-public sector organisations delivering public services has been "woefully underused".
To emphasise that point; no fresh legislation is required, and Ministers already have the power to do this. Over the years Ms Agnew and her predecessor have comprehensively debunked the argument that for smaller bodies the requirement to be compliant would be too onerous, bureaucratically or financially, or that private companies should be allowed to shelter behind claims about commercial confidentiality. It's public cash going to public service contracts. End of argument.
There is plenty of good news in Ms Agnew's ten-year review in terms of public awareness of FoI and belief in its worth. Only 8% consider this money poorly spent, compared to 61% who see it as of value. But a well-regarded public right being eroded makes it all the worse that our politicians are permitting this erosion.
The Scottish Government is now proposing to "go out to consultation" on the issue"in the spring, with the "hope" of some action to extend the provisions of FoI in the autumn. Were Ministers not reading Mr Dunion's words on this in The Herald almost six years ago? The inaction has gone on too long.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article