Developments since 1997

This act requires public bodies such as government departments, local authorities and the NHS to ;

• Publish and make publicly certain information about their activities such as an annual report and minutes of meetings.

• Allow members of the public to request of information from these public authorities via a FOI request.

• FOI requests are extremely popular and widespread over 45,000 overall were made in 2016 alone.

• Allows the public and pressure groups to identify possible examples of waste and inefficiency or even corruption.

• An important investigative tool for journalists, releasing information that they may want to keep hidden. For example, the Act played a significant role in uncovering the MP’s expenses scandal in 2009.

• Allows public scrutiny of police initiatives and how well they work in practice. For example, in 2006 there was a highly publicised knife amnesty by the Metropolitan police.

• Those initially denied access to the requested information can appeal to the ICO there were 461 appeals in 2016.

• Public bodies can often refuse requests, which they do for information this can be for many reasons including national security, commerce sensitivity, cost or because the request is ‘vexatious.’

• in 2016, 37% of all requests were declined and for 14% of requests only part of the information was released.

• It is often the case that requests for information are declined because they would involve the release of private or personal information was released. Therefore, the Act can cause conflict between an individual’s right to privacy and the right of the public to gain access information about public officials.

• Passed following the coalition government between conservative and Lib Dems after the 2010 general election.

• Weakened the power of the prime minister to call a snap election by dissolving parliament unilaterally.

• Parliament now needs a two-thirds majority to call an early election. Alternatively, if there’s a vote of no confidence in the government this must be confirmed by another vote within two weeks.

• It allowed the Coalition government to work well in a stable and effective manner over its full 5-year term. This political stability was seen as beneficial for economic growth and longer term policy making.

• It is fairer on the junior member of the coalition e.g the lib dems after the 2010 coalition as they would not have to face an early general election over which they had no say in the timing.

• Prime minister Theresa May did exactly what the act was made to avoid by calling a snap election in 2017 within 20 years of the previous election when points showed an early tory lead of around 20%

• The Act was only passed in the first place because of political circumstances and expediency, not out of principle. Had it not been for the need to provide stability to the coalition government it s unlikely the act would have passed.

• It could also be argued that it even failed in its political aim to protect the lib dems who after the full 5 years in coalition, crashed from 57 MPs to just 9 in 2015.