The following Acts have been amended to make them compatable with Freedom of Information

Medicines Act 1968

Factories Act 1961: new Section 154A allows public officials and others on their behalf to disclose information under the FOIA

Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963

Health and Safety At Work etc Act 1974: Section 28 amended so information can be disclosed under FOIA.

Biological Standards Act 1975: Section 5 (restrictions on disclosure of information) repealed

National Health Service Act 1977: Amended to allow disclosure under FOIA

Audit Commission Act 1998: Section 49 amended to allow disclosure

Access to Justice Act 1999: Section 20 amended to allow disclosure under the Act after 100 years

A section in the Freedom of Information Act gives public authorities the option to exempt certain information if a qualified person believes that releasing it is not in the public interest. Who are these qualified people? Until now, no one was sure. The Department for Constitutional Affairs has just released a list of these ‘qualified’ people on their website. Companies which are owned by a public authority are listed separately. I have not seen any public consultation or debate about how these people were chosen. For all anyone knows, they could have been chosen from a hat. But if you want to give the DCA your opinion, why not email them.

Section 36 is an example of how NOT to draft a FOI law. It is a ‘catch-all’ exemption for information ‘prejuducial to the effective conduct of public affairs’. This definition is purposely vague and far-reaching and guaranteed to undermine the public’s right to know. It can cover pretty much anything and everything, which is just the way politicians like it.

As if the exemption is not bad enough, the ‘qualified person’ is allowed the final say on what is in the public interest. As these are always people associated with the authority rather than the public they are hardly going to be objective. For example the Vice Chancellor of a University can decide whether info is in the public interest when s/he is precisely the person who would most want to keep embarrassing facts under wraps.

Worse yet – when the qualified person is a government minister his or her opinion overrides the decision of the independent Information Commissioner.

Section 36 has to go!

The British Medical Association has issued new guidance to General Practitioners (GPs) on the Freedom of Information Act advising them to be open about operation success rate data. My speculation is that the guidelines were issued in response to sustained pressure to end the lack of transparency about this type of information, which I highlighted in my book. A special investigation by the Guardian newspaper revealed that 10 years after the Bristol babies scandal, patients are still being denied the information they need to make an informed choice about heart surgery.

The BMA guidance, ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Frequently Asked Questions’, applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Separate guidance for Scotland is being prepared.

Other aspects of the FOIA are also covered in this FAQ including how to respond to requests for information, exemptions, financial issues and vexatious requests.

The guidance was issued by the BMA’s GP Committee and states that to withhold data on operation success rates (called ‘Quality of Outcomes Framework’ in BMA jargon) ‘could be seen as detrimental to the profession.’ The committee advises practices to be publicly accountable (obviously a novel concept for some).

A managed publication process is planned with the Department of Health. ‘Information will be published annually, most likely in July, by the Primary Care Organisations with the support of the Health and Social Care Information Centre,’ according to the document

E-Health Insider published an article about the new guidance on 4 May 2005.

The BMA itself is not subject to FOI requests because it is a voluntary organisation, however the General Medical Council, the regulatory body for GPs, is covered by the Act.