Informed 11


End information descrimination against Scotlands’ journalists


Journalists in Scotland are systematically denied equal access to information requests made under that country’s Freedom Of Information laws. A NUJ submission to Scotland’s government calls for an end to such discrimination. Research by the Scotish Information Commissioner revealed the practice. It showed that requests for information


to the Scotish Government lodged by journalists are subject to additional clearances to those made by members of the public. In 2015/16 the survey showed that journalists were significantly less likely to receive the information requested. In the following year, such requests took longer than others.


Scotish organiser John Toner said:


Bureaucratic atrition threatens FoI


I write a column in the Waltham Forest Echo about the redevelopment of the estate where I live, writ Edw ds (pictur


es Michelle ar ed). As a result, I put


in a lot of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to the council. Here is just one example of why these


are so important. In 2016, the High Court ruled that Southwark Council had overcharged residents for their water bills in an arrangement it had with Thames Water. Southwark was ordered to repay 41,000 tenants an average of more than £400 each. The ruling set a legal precedent that meant that other local authorities and housing associations using similar arrangements with Thames Water might need to make payouts as well. These other councils include Waltham Forest. After a two-day search of Waltham


Forest Council’s committee meetings for the last four years, I found two entries referencing the Thames Water rebate. From these, it appeared that they had no intention of refunding residents. A spokesperson later confirmed to me that:


“Waltham Forest Council considers that the water charges have been correctly applied as it collects these on behalf of the water providers and therefore is not a water reseller…the council has no plans to issue refunds in relation to this.” The response came despite my


finding, from an FoI request, that a “provision” of £4.9 million had been made for the possible refund of charges in the council’s 2017/18 accounts. From another FoI request, I discovered that the council had sought legal advice on the matter via the Local Government Association (LGA) to the tune of £1,697. In addition, advice from its in-house legal team cost £787. The council appears to be waiting for a brave resident and their lawyer to step forward. It is just one of many instances where


information that could make a real difference to people’s lives is accessible only because of FoI. But it is also clear that many public authorities do everything


“In seeking freedom of information requests journalists are acting on behalf of the pubic and should not be treated like second-class citizens”.


Te Scotish submission comes at a time of mounting calls for the extension of FoI in England, both to enforce rights more robustly and to extend FoI’s scope to the contractors who deliver public services. A motion adopted by London Freelance Branch will bring this issue to the 2020 Delegate Meeting. It was proposed by member Michelle Edwards, whose doggedness on the FoI batlefield shows just how vital are these rights.


in their power to thwart our right to know. I have now escalated 23 cases for investigation to the Information Commissioner where Waltham Forest Council has refused to provide what I requested.


The ICO has already issued three decision notices against the council for non-compliance with the 20 working days’ time limit. Another four have been accepted as either “eligible for further consideration” or “accepted for investigation”. I have also done my best to keep up the pressure. That is why I took a motion to my branch calling for the NUJ to do more. I have also sought out ICO’s Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham at public


events to let her know that more work is required if


enforcement is to be effective. The FoI Act (2000) for which


the NUJ had campaigned for years, gives reporters an amazing tool to help our readers understand the decisions made on their behalf.


Unless journalists campaign for our rights to be properly enforced, however, we risk its usefulness being eroded through bureaucratic attrition. Now is the time to take a stand and say that is not acceptable.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12