The UK Freedom of Information Act, which came into force on 1st January, is described by the government as a remedy for flagging public confidence in government. Charlie Falconer says that FoI is "essential to the renewal of trust" in public institutions.
But if the Blair government is so sure about the tonic effect of FoI, why has it taken so long to put the law into place? After all, since Labour's election in 1997, over 30 other countries have adopted similar laws. The likely answer is that the government suspects—rightly—that FoI will do nothing to boost public trust. On the contrary, there is good reason to think that FoI will cause suspicion of government to worsen. One obvious reason is the steady supply of news stories about mismanagement or abuse that will be produced by FoI.
There is a second reason why FoI may aggravate distrust. The law creates a process that guarantees ongoing, high-profile conflict over access to government documents. Every year there will be thousands of instances in which government officials deny access to information, and hundreds of cases in which the information commissioner is asked to rule on those denials. The entire process will work to reinforce the perception of secretiveness—even if more information is, in fact, released.
Experience in other countries shows this dynamic at work. In early December, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release announcing that it had filed FoI requests with the FBI to obtain information relating to alleged surveillance of protest groups. Before FoI, the ACLU could not have filed the request at all, or had this news hook for a press release. The ACLU will have another hook in a few months, when it commences litigation in a federal court to force a response to its request. The ACLU will eventually get documents that it could never have obtained before FoI—but the lingering public impression will be one of FBI recalcitrance.
British journalists and advocacy groups will also become adept at exploiting the news opportunities created by the UK FoI Act. As in other countries, journalists will perfect the art of crafting a story about bureaucratic delay and evasion. Whitehall will seem more tight-fisted with information, even as it is, overall, becoming more forthcoming. Moreover, experience in Canada and Ireland suggests that the new information commissioner will become a high-profile advocate for transparency as well, making regular pronouncements on the state of the law that will serve as opportunities for more media comment on government secretiveness.
There are other reasons for doubting a connection between openness and trust. Surveys show that political trust is a complex matter. Perversely, it seems that the biggest single boost to trust in government in the US in the last four decades followed a massive case of government incompetence: the failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks.
If FoI does not improve trust, is it still good policy? Absolutely. FoI will deter arbitrary decision-making and allow citizens and businesses to protect their right to fair treatment. It will deepen public understanding of government, broaden political debate, and improve policymaking. There is ample proof from other countries that FoI will yield these results. Unfortunately, none of this will make the Blair government's life any easier. And that is why it has delayed so long.
