FOI fees for commercial organisations
Question for debate? This story from the Guardian illustrates a growing frustration in parts of the NHS (and I suspect the wider public sector) over commercial uses of the FOIA.
Is this use of FoI valid? What can be done to take the strain off the public sector resulting from these requests? Is this practical or desirable? Is the commercial use and costs a negative byproduct set against the overall benefits FoI brings to Society as a whole? Is perhaps the situation in the UK similar to the US (where business use is heavy) as UK business practices are closer to those in the US, than other European or Commonwealth countries.
It also hard at present to work out a true pattern of use at present as the Act makes no provision for understanding categories of requestor (all applications are in essence are "blind") it is discretionary for the requestor to state that they work for an organisation. At present the DCA stats are not presenting estimates of categories of requestor. Although slightly ancedotal the the APR smartlogik research suggests high levels of business use (50%) in Central Government. In Ireland Business users run at 9%.
One option would be make different charges for commercial requests (this is the case in the US FOIA). However this could be got round to a certain extent by companies making requests as individuals. A flat fee might also deter (as in Ireland) but might create an overall deterrent effect.
The DCA are consulting on fees towards the end of the year and it will be important that people send in their views. The issue needs to be carefully assessed as any changes to the FOI charging regime may have negative effects.
Post your comments below
5 comments:
The fee structure for the US federal law also includes a fee waiver for FOIA requests. This allows the press, academics and many campaigners to make requests without having to worry about the cost. The drafters of the UK law could have easily included such a waiver for requests made to promote greater public understanding. The fact they did not shows there was little concern to encourage use of the law for public enlightenment.
Another point - this information was compiled by public officials at public expense. So really why shouldn't it be freely available to anyone who wants to use it? For all those who complain about the US hegemony on global information (Google, Lexis Nexis, Medline, etc) it is worth considering that the reason America dominates the information database industry is precisely because public information in that country cannot be copyrighted by the government.
--Heather Brooke www.yrtk.org
The fee structure for the US federal law also includes a fee waiver for FOIA requests. This allows the press, academics and many campaigners to make requests without having to worry about the cost. The drafters of the UK law could have easily included such a waiver for requests made to promote greater public understanding. The fact they did not shows there was little concern to encourage use of the law for public enlightenment.
Another point - this information was compiled by public officials at public expense. So really why shouldn't it be freely available to anyone who wants to use it? For all those who complain about the US hegemony on global information (Google, Lexis Nexis, Medline, etc) it is worth considering that the reason America dominates the information database industry is precisely because public information in that country cannot be copyrighted by the government.
--Heather Brooke www.yrtk.org
The ineptitude of some requests from commercial users is frustrating - a little research into how a public sector organisation works would not go amiss. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Act to say that commercial requests are invalid. I feel the pain of the Trust Manager who complains that commercial requests are not in the spirit of the Act. But FOI 2000 does not say what it is for, or which requests are valid, and which are not. They all count. In my experience, commercial requests are vague and sent to dozens of similar organisations. Therefore, they rarely ask questions that take very long to answer.
For what it is worth, I think the real problem here is that Parliament didn't understand how FOI would be used in the real world. There is an opportunity with the review of the fees regulations for both Houses to step back and consider the realities of FOI.
Do we really want to 'invest' the effort going into FOI?
How much should the user pay directly (through requests) vs. taxation (after all the total cost of FOI is part of our tax bill)
Does the user have a right of unlimited reuse of the information including for commercial gain?
I fear this debate was not had in the rush to get the regulations in place in December, I only hope that a full and informed debate takes place rahter than the regulations going through on the nod.
The commercial use of FOIA is very much in the spirit of the legislation- especially since the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regs came into effect last month. The Regs, which implement the European Directive of the same name, are intended to stimulate growth in the UK's information industry by encouraging the re-use of public sector information resources by the private sector. It is hoped that by removing barriers to PSI, the European information market will begin to resemble that of the USA, which is currently 5 times more valuable.
The RPSIR could be very advantageous to the Public Sector, as they offer the opportunity for authorities to exert control over the way that information is re-used through licensing, and make a provision for authorities to charge re-users for the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents, plus "a reasonable return on investment". There is a clear incentive here for authorities to take advantage of information as an asset beyond the purposes for which it was originally developed.
It is worrying that the featured article, and subsequent debate, do not mention RPSIR, as this suggests that authorities have not yet picked up on them and are unaware of the rights of the private sector in this area.
Indeed, it could be argued that had the authorities referred to in the article taken a more proactive approach to preparing for the FOIA (for instance, by identifying a manager with responsibility for dealing with FOI requests)they would be in a better position to see the benefits of this subsequent piece of legislation.
Post a Comment