Ever since the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) was placed on the statute books, central government agencies such as transport, law and order, health, security and defence, have all received hundreds of thousands of enquiries for information.  Neither has local government escaped the demand for the truth; one political journalist joked that when the Freedom of Information Act came into force council leaders across the country scrambled to get their hands on industrial paper shredders, such was their haste to stop the public finding out what they had been up to. 

Whilst this last scenario may be somewhat exaggerated, the FOIA has caused councils across the country a certain degree of discomfort.  No longer could they keep commercial deals secret, hide performance statistics or generally keep the public excluded from what was going on behind closed doors.  As a result of the clamour to obtain information, many councils have had to set up specific departments to deal purely with FOIA enquiries.  Inevitably, this has placed pressure on steadily dwindling council resources, but this needn’t always be the case. 

Many councils, in an attempt to stem the incoming flow of FOIA enquiries, have “opened” their doors when it comes to how they handle information.  When looking back at the historical nature of requests, councils have found that certain subjects crop up on a regular basis, for example road accident black spots, education statistics and the remuneration packages for full time and elected officials.  They have therefore published these freely on their publicly accessible websites.  Financial budgets have also been broken down into more intelligible sections, and the myriad of red tape, which precedes the release of information, has either been scrapped or greatly reduced.  There is also a growing propensity for some councils to place their members register of interests on the web for all to see.  This register is a set of documents that outline details about those people we have elected at local level, for example what hospitality they have received as a result of their position, and what business dealings they have with the council.  Imagine that – the public being able to see all the free football match tickets certain councillors get just for being elected. 

A good example of this approach concerns Hammersmith and Fulham Council, whose Value for Money Scrutiny Committee has deliberately adopted a policy of “cost containment” by releasing more and more information into the public domain, either through the press, its own publications or via the web. 

How then, does South Tyneside Council perform when it comes to being open and transparent when it comes to telling the public what it has been up to on their behalf?  Part two of this series of article will let you know.

Share