FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE OMBUDSMAN
| Published date | 01 June 1995 |
| Author | ROBERT HAZELL |
| Date | 01 June 1995 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1995.tb00827.x |
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE OMBUDSMAN
ROBERT HAZELL
In
an article in
Public
Administration
five years ago
I
reported on the operation
of the new freedom of information laws in Australia, Canada and
New
Zealand
(Hazell
1989).
Despite these Commonwealth precedents, under
Mrs
Thatcher’s
premiership the British government maintained that freedom of information
was incompatible with the Westminster system of ministerial accountability to
Parliament. Under John Major that line has softened a bit, and last year the
British government took an important step towards freedom of information,
with the introduction of its new code of practice on open government. The code
of practice will be policed by the Ombudsman; and
this
article considers the
implications of
this
novel extension to his jurisdiction.
THE
1993
WHITE PAPER ON OPEN GOVERNMENT
The government’s White Paper was published in July
1993,
and the new open
government r6gime took effect in April
1994.
The centrepiece of the White Paper
is not a Freedom of Information Act but an administrative code of practice.
This
may
be considered rather neat and flexible, a piece of good British pragmatism;
but in the freedom of information stakes it places the
UK
in a minority of one.
Of the
15
Commonwealth governments who have introduced freedom of infor-
mation
(I
include the Australian states and Canadian provinces) all have done
so
by legislation. We are being led down a very different road, which may or
may not
turn
out to be a blind alley.
The White Paper has some good features.
I
will mention just
two.
The first
is
the requirement to publish departments’ internal manuals: what administrative
lawyers call their secret law. It is a feature of the legislation overseas, which
has
led to useful improvements there; departments say it forced them to pull their
manuals into shape, and
I
hope the same will happen here. The second is a new
right to reasons for administrative decisions.
This
is
an advance we would all
Robert Hazell is Director of the Nuffield Foundation.
In
1986-87 he held a government research
fellowship to study freedom
of
information in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
This
article is
based upon a paper delivered to the conference
of
the Association
of
UK
Ombudsmen at Warwick
in
November 1993.
Public Administration Vol. 73 Summer 1995
(263-270)
0
Basil
Blackwell Ltd. 1995,108 Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4
l~,
UK
and
238
Main
Street,
Cambridge,
MA
02142,
USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial