Three further comments on DCA plans
Three further comments on the government consultation this morning.
1. The questions specifically asked by the Department for Constitutional Affairs focus very narrowly on the detail of how to implement its plans. The DCA has not asked for comments on the basic thrust of what it is trying to do. Nevertheless, given the reaction so far, it is likely that many respondents will tell the DCA that they reject the proposals altogether.
2. I understand that the junior DCA minister Baroness Cathy Ashton told the which met this morning that the regulations would be introduced on March 19. Since the consultation ends on March 8, this does not seem to leave very long for digesting its results. However, if the DCA does not act quickly, the changes could end up being considerably postponed.
April will see the election campaign for the Scottish, Welsh and local elections on 3 May. At time of writing it seems likely that this will then be followed by Blair announcing his resignation, with a new Labour leader and PM in post around the end of June. There will then be a ministerial reshuffle. It is widely predicted that Lord Falconer's position at the DCA will come to an end once his old flatmate is no longer in Number 10. And it is far from clear whether some of the Cabinet ministers most concerned about FOI, such as Jack Straw, will survive under a Brown premiership.
Gordon Brown's team are working hard on his plans to make a big impact in his first 100 days as prime minister. Would he want to make restricting FOI part of this?
3. The DCA quotes again a table setting out potential savings from its plans, while adding (in a footnote) that these figures are 'upper limits', or what others might call 'exaggerations'. Given that the proclaimed aim is to save time and money, it is striking how many additional tasks that will mitigate the savings will actually be created if the proposals come in:
* Additional internal reviews and complaints to the Information Commissioner
* Extra guidance on implementing the new regulations
* Greater need for providing 'advice and assistance' to requesters
* Time spent on estimating consideration, consultation and reading time
* Time spent on deciding when it is reasonable to aggregate requests
Most of these points are noted by the DCA, but they have made no apparent attempt to calculate what level of savings would actually survive once these factors are taken into account.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Hi Martin,
Regarding point 3 above, I agree and would add that the government is simply reaping the reward for its badly drafted FOI law. Perhaps it's all part of a cunning plan. Make the law so bloated with legalese, numerous exemptions and vague concepts that nothing can be decided except with the input of many lawyers, civil servants and ministers. Then use the inevitable costly bureaucratic procedures as reason to kill the law.
There are no straightforward certainties in the law (unlike its American counterpart), instead the law is drafted so that almost everything has to be decided on a ‘case by case’ basis, ensuring maximum complex bureaucratic proceedures. This is a law written by, and for, lawyers.