SCOTLAND should be proud of its legislation on freedom of information, which has helped expose the truth on everything from hospital-acquired infections to the closure of schools. But the legislation passed almost 15 years ago should always be seen as the beginning of change, not the end. FOI is a fragile concept that has to be carefully protected against vested interests and any backsliding by government or public bodies.
Which is why the proposal to allow some public bodies three times as long to respond to requests is concerning. Under the plans, grant-aided and independent special schools would be permitted 60 days to answer an FOI request rather than 20, the justification being that a 60-day limit takes into account the fact that the schools face particular challenges and are closed for long stretches during the holidays.
On the face of it, the change may look benign, but The Campaign for Freedom of Information is right to express concern that the FOI legislation could be undermined in the longer term. When it was passed in 2002, it was regarded as one of the world’s strongest laws on access to information, but in the years since, there has been a worry that changes in the way public services are delivered has put some publicly-funded organisations outwith the remit of the law, which is unacceptable: any organisation that spends public money should be subject to FOI.
Every public body should also be required to respond to requests timeously. One of the strengths of FOI is that the rules, including the 20-day limit, apply across the board, and there is a danger that changing the rule for one could lead to changing it for others. Allowing some schools 60 days to respond is not in itself a profound challenge to the legislation, but what is to stop other organisations making the same arguments and one chip in the law leading to another? Freedom of information is a law we should be proud of, but it needs to be robustly protected.
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 here