Sensible reforms to FOI are possible – but any overhaul must achieve more, not less, open government
4 min read
Two recent newspaper stories signalled that we are entering one of those periods when the government of the day starts to blame Freedom of Information (FOI) for at least some of its troubles.
One spoke of a possible “clampdown” because record numbers of requests are creating a financial burden on public bodies. The second, almost alongside it, hinted that the law is being used by the Chinese government to access unclassified information.
Both raise important issues. The number of FOI requests is undoubtedly increasing, although the bulk of these are going to the National Archives. The possibility that an FOI law can be abused is an ever-present one, though unclassified information is, as the name suggests, not necessarily secret.
But underlying these issues is a deeper question – what is it about transparency that governments seem to find so difficult? Of the last eight prime ministers, four have criticised the FOI law. There’s an obvious and not-so-obvious answer. The simplest answer is that you can’t go off what you’ve never liked. US president Lyndon B Johnson, who signed the first modern FOI legislation into law, supposedly swore when it was mentioned. But in 2026, outright public opposition is rather trickier. It is hard to argue against an idea like ‘transparency’.
The less-obvious answer is that politicians don’t like the kind of transparency FOI brings. Politicians have three major complaints: FOI is misused, it is counter-productive and it is expensive. Sir Tony Blair complained (wrongly) that only journalists use FOI, while Liz Truss lamented being asked questions by activists.
There seems to be a shared view that FOI is stopping ‘good’ government. Truss claimed that FOI stopped her freely “kicking ideas around” and Theresa May said that it made public bodies “defensive”. David Cameron spoke of how real openness was about “following the money” and that FOI was just “cluttering up government”.
There’s then the issue of the cost and financial burden of FOI. I sympathise with hard-pressed local government, where most FOI requests go. Trying to work it out is almost impossible, and estimates often err on the low side.
There may be a hidden story too about how politicians meet FOI in their daily life. A senior politician is likely only to be alerted to only a small fraction of FOI requests, the most controversial or ones that concern them. Blair was fixated on FOI requests about visitors to Chequers. Truss was subject to FOI around her (considerable) drinks bill. So, any PM gets a distorted view of FOI.
Some of these complaints simply aren’t true (such as who uses it) and others are not really supported by evidence (on decision- making). But what matters is that politicians believe them and keep repeating them.
UK governments have repeatedly tried to weaken FOI, but any direct assault provokes resistance. Politicians thus turn to more subtle tricks. You can simply slow down and starve the system, as Narendra Modi has done to India’s famous and world-leading Right to Information law. You can have a review, and hope it comes to the ‘correct’ conclusions, as David Cameron tried in 2015. Unfortunately for him, the review ended up praising the law. Or you can dabble with costs, maybe charge a small fee, or tinker with how it works and change the rules so officials can spend less time on it, as is suggested now.
Attempts to weaken FOI are likely to falter. But there’s a two-fold danger. One is that politicians’ repeated stories create a sense that FOI is a ‘problem’, rather than a democratic right. The second is that the complaints can provoke resistance behind closed doors. From the ‘Government by WhatsApp’ in Covid to the Scottish government’s secrecy and Morgan McSweeney’s stolen phone, there’s a fear that FOI is being undermined from within at the very top of government. One area that really needs looking at is how to close the gaps in Freedom of Information created by WhatsApp, rather than counting the cost.
Ben Worthy is a reader in politics and public policy at Birkbeck College, University of London
