Thousands of students have just received their examination results. Hundreds of them are dissatisfied. They want to see a copy of their marked paper to see if they got a fair result. If the Freedom of Information Act we are discussing in parliament does not give students the right to see their own marked papers, it would show how ineffective and powerless it is.
A person recently went to withdraw money from an ATM but as it was not working he could not get any money. Yet a few days later the ATM’s recent transactions record showed that he had withdrawn the money. He took up the case with the bank. One way of checking whether he had actually withdrawn the money was by looking at the video captured by the CCTV of the bank. He was told that only members of staff are allowed to look at that video. A person who saw the video admitted that it was not very clear whether any money had been withdrawn. Will the new Freedom of Information Act give this person the right to look at the video? If not, it is clear that this Act is going to fall very short of giving citizens the right to access information about themselves and on which decisions that affect their lives are based.
A government official has been once again denied a promotion he believes he deserves. He wants to know what reports are kept about him in his personal file. A decent Freedom of Information Act should guarantee him this right.
I consider the Freedom of Information Act we are discussing in parliament as too weak and restrictive. It will not go a long way to give citizens the right to know what information is held by public authorities. It is not strong enough “to promote added transparency and accountability in government.” Before Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he was very passionate about opening government to public scrutiny. In 1996 he said: “Information is power, and any government’s attitude about sharing information with the people actually says a great deal about how it views power itself, and how it views the relationship between itself and the people who elected it.”
Once in power Blair passed the Freedom of Information Act. Although it lagged behind the Scandinavian and the United States’ model it may be considered one of the Prime Minister’s greatest legacies. Over the years the same Labour government that introduced this act has been diluting. Last year Labour MP Tony Wright opposed proposals by government to restrict the Act and limit its power to hold government accountable for its actions. Years after the UK finally got its Freedom of Information Act, Wright complained that “Freedom of Information has not yet got in the bloodstream of public authorities.”
A Freedom of Information Act is effective if it makes it more difficult for governments to hide the truth. We are among the last EU member states to introduce such an Act. In the last 10 years many governments in Europe and the rest of the world either strengthened the Freedom of Information Acts they had or created new ones. Many of them changed their constitutions or wrote news ones and included the right to know as one of the guaranteed basic human rights. 3
7 I believe that we should also include this right in our Constitution as the right to know is indispensable to a high quality of democratic and accountable governance. The bill presented by government puts the Data Protection Commissioner in charge of operating the Freedom of Information Act. This is unacceptable. The Freedom of Information Commissioner should be totally independent of government and like the auditor general and the ombudsman should be answerable to parliament.
I also think it unacceptable that a person who wants to access information held by local public authorities must be a Maltese or EU citizen who has resided in Malta for at least five years. This is too restrictive. We should also adopt the best practice in this area and follow the example of those countries who give a very wide definition of what type of information can be accessed and who can access it. It should include information that is in the possession of private companies and entities that are carrying out government functions or operating with public funds.
The European Court has ruled that it is a human right to know the information that security and intelligence services hold about us. Our Freedom of Information Act should reflect this judgement. We should also make available cabinet documents. In some countries this happens after a number of years. In others, like New Zealand, cabinet documents are released regularly and promptly.
Open government should mean that a lot of information is shared regularly with citizens and they do not have to ask for it. Open government facilitates the flow of information to all the citizens, information which is not superficial public relations material but meaningful information on which public policy decisions are based. Fees to access such information should not be too high as this would deny many people the right to be well-informed citizens.
Where effective Freedom of Information Acts have been introduced and successfully implemented, abuses and corruption have been curbed. The quality of policy-making and governance has improved and politicians and public institutions have regained the trust of citizens. Freedom of Information Acts cost money to operate. But corruption, maladministration and distrust cost much more.
As a Labour Party we intend doing all we can in parliament to change and improve the bill presented by government and base our Freedom of Information Act on the best models in the world. But passing such a law will be just a first step. We still have to cultivate and nurture a new culture of openness. We must ensure effective implementation, efficient record management by public institutions and educate our citizens, non-government organizations and journalists to make maximum use of this basic human right to know once it becomes available.