Jane Steele, Policy Studies Institute
Key findings:
- The Act was found to be effective in establishing minimum standards for openness and accountability, with which all local authorities appear to be complying.
- While some authorities stated that they were already meeting the Act's requirements prior to 1985, in others the Act facilitated a transition to more open attitudes and working practices.
- Four fifths of local authorities were found to be exceeding the minimum requirements, by taking steps to ensure that information about meetings and rights under the Act was made more widely available. More could be done to facilitate access to information.
- Members of the public and the press use their rights under the Act, although local authorities perceive the take-up to be low. Efforts made to encourage public participation appear to be linked with higher levels of attendance at meetings. This supports the argument that local authorities should review their approach to information provision.
- Steps taken by local authorities to meet the requirements of the Act, and even to exceed them, had generally been achieved without incurring significant additional costs.
Introduction
The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 provided the public and elected members with new rights of access to information about the policies and practices of local authorities and some other public bodies, in order to reinforce their accountability. It also opened up authorities' meetings to the public and the press.
The Act is unusual in giving statutory rights of access to information, and is therefore important in the debate about freedom of information, open government and public participation in the democratic process.
This summary describes the findings of a research project to evaluate the impact of the Act. The study was commissioned by the Department of the Environment and carried out by the Policy Studies Institute. It was overseen by a project group which included representatives of the local authority associations.
The overall aim was to evaluate the impact of the Act by considering its operation in practice, including compliance and resource requirements; its value to the public, the press and elected members; and its influence on the work of local authorities and other bodies (such as police authorities and passenger transport authorities) covered by the legislation.
Research methods
The study was undertaken in two main stages.
Postal survey
A survey of all local authority and other bodies covered by the Act in England took place in April 1994. The response rate for local authorities was good (85%), with an even spread across authority type and political control. A response rate of 85% was also achieved for the other public bodies covered by the legislation.
The questionnaire covered the take-up of rights to information by the press and the public; and the authorities' approach to the implementation of the Act, in the context of public information more generally.
Case studies
Twelve case study authorities were selected to cover the different types of authority, region and political control. The case study authorities included some with and some without formal policies on information provision, and with varying levels of information take-up by the public.
The case studies investigated in depth the attitudes toward and experiences of implementing the Act. They also explored the use of the Act by elected members and representatives of local groups and associations.
Implementing the Act
All authorities appeared to have systems in place to meet the requirements of the Act, and eighty two per cent were doing more than required by the Act both to publicise rights to information and to make documents available. Only one fifth were simply fulfilling minimum requirements.
However, passive methods of publicising the Act and its provisions were far more widespread than active methods in fulfilling the requirements of the Act. Passive methods rely on the public already being in contact with the authority they include notices at council offices or on committee papers. These methods were likely to work well for those already'in the know' but have a limited impact on the wider public. Active methods involve taking information out to the community, by means of posting notices in libraries, using the local press and so on.
Practices in making documents available varied widely, but most authorities were making documents available at more than a single, central location and charging fairly modest fees for most of their information. Most authorities operated a mailing list for those who wished to receive papers regularly.
The Act allows authorities to suspend rights of access where two categories of sensitive information confidential and exempt are being discussed. Authorities generally operate the Act in such a way as to minimise exclusions, although there was evidence of a smaller number which interpret the Act more strictly.Impact on local authorities
Many local authorities stated that they had adopted many of the Act's principles and procedures, as part of their own policy on access to information and openness, before the Act was introduced. Many felt that the Act, therefore, had little impact on their own organisation but that it had been useful in bringing others 'into line'. At the other extreme, in some authorities the implementation of the Act had brought fundamental changes in attitudes towards openness.
The administration of the Act works smoothly. It has brought some procedural changes, even if minor ones, to almost all authorities. The changes which needed most adjustment from officers and members were those concerned with exempt information, the time limits for the despatch of papers and the admission of urgent business. But these changes had contributed significantly to open government in local authorities the Act has resulted in more local authority business being conducted in public.
Most authorities (87%) reported that they had incurred no significant extra costs in operating the Act. Forty one authorities (12%) felt, however, that significant extra staff time was necessary to maintain records in relation to the Act. Those authorities exceeding the Act's requirements to the greatest extent were least likely to report that they had incurred additional costs.
Approach to information provision and participation
During the period since the Act's implementation, authorities have devoted an increasing amount of effort and resources to providing public information about the authority and its services. Nearly half the authorities had a formal policy which codified their approach to information provision. The main emphasis of these policies is on publicity, service information and 'customer care' rather than accountability and open government.
Although authorities with a formal policy were rather more likely than those without to be exceeding the requirements of the Act, this group does not have an exclusive claim to be doing more than the Act requires. Many authorities had taken separate steps to encourage public participation in the democratic process, such as allowing the public to speak at meetings or setting up local consultative fora.
Use of the Act by the public
The public, both as individuals and as members of interest groups, are exercising their rights under the Act, mainly through attendance at meetings. There are regular attendances of more than ten people at council meetings in over one third of authorities, and at planning meetings in over 60% of authorities.
Attendance is generally made up of regulars, representing interest groups on particular committees, and individuals or groups concerned with issues of immediate personal or local concern. Planning and development control is the local authority function which attracts most individual and group interest.
Local authorities perceive interest and attendance to be low, reflecting public apathy or interest which is limited to local or personal issues, rather than the broader strategic concerns of the Council. While regretting this lack of public interest, many felt there is little that they can or should do to change the situation, especially if this involved increased expenditure.
However, the research shows there are a number of actions that authorities can take to encourage greater public interest. The effort made by a local authority to encourage participation does seem to be linked to higher attendance. The most effective methods of advertising meetings and rights to information were notices in libraries and other public buildings, using leaflets, and advertising in the local press and in council newspapers.
In contrast to attendance at meetings, requests for papers were low: only a small proportion of authorities said they received frequent requests for committee papers, and interest in background papers was even more limited. The presence of any kind of charging policy appears to reduce the frequency of requests for documents.
Use of the Act by the press
Awareness of the Act was low and few journalists found a need to assert their rights to information under the Act. Journalists tend to use faster and more informal sources of information than committee minutes or background papers.
Although they did not perceive themselves as active users of the Act, journalists regarded access to meetings and committee reports before meetings as important. A common view was that a legal framework was an essential safeguard, and it was important that this extended to background documents.
Use of the Act by elected members
Councillors' general awareness of the Act was reported to be fairly good, although detailed knowledge was uncommon.
Members' information-related problems are generally those of overload rather than restricted access. However, disputes over access to information do arise and then the Act offers a lever to councillors to push for information. Generally, the Act is used and valued more by backbench and opposition group councillors. Although not frequently used in a conscious way, the Act makes a valuable contribution to informing members, ensuring openness and thus to supporting the local democratic process.
Effectiveness
The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 has been largely effective. It has ensured a minimum level of openness and accountability in local government. A basic legal framework within which local authorities can work and which establishes statutory rights for the public, press and members, has proved to be very important in establishing minimum standards, ensuring consistency and even in challenging less open attitudes.
However, the Act's contribution to open government depends upon its local implementation. Initiatives at local level have done a great deal to make information accessible, rather than simply available. More could be done by authorities taking a proactive approach to information and publicity; reviewing their overall approach to information and communication; and reviewing the extent to which they are 'open' authorities.
Other bodies covered by the Act
In addition to local authorities, the Act applies to police, passenger transport, fire and civil defence, waste regulation and disposal authorities and to two of the national parks and the Broads Authority.
These authorities generally did less to publicise people's rights of access to information than did local authorities. They also did less to encourage take-up of rights. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, attendance at their meetings and interest in their documents was notably less.
Good practice under the Act
The research has identified a range of initiatives and good practice in local authorities. Some of these are used by a large number of local authorities, whilst others are more unusual. These suggestions, whilst unlikely to result in a considerable increase in take-up, will go a long way to ensuring that people know of their rights, and are able to use them should the need arise.
In the summer of 1995 the local authority associations will publish a Guidance Note on good practice on open government, which will further assist local authorities to review their policies and improve practices.
- Publicity. Authorities should consider the way in which they publicise people's rights to information, using active methods where possible. In particular, production of special leaflet concentrating on rights to information should be considered.
- Awareness of the press and elected members should be raised through targeted publicity (for the press) and briefings and induction for members. The latter could be incorporated into existing approaches to induction and support.
- Background papers should be listed on committee papers, with a name, telephone number and contact details for further information and copies.
- Committee papers should be despatched to mailing list members as far in advance of meetings as possible, in order to allow time for representations to be made. Seven days would seem to be a workable target.
- Committee papers should be made available in the community at convenient and accessible points. Libraries and neighbourhood offices are likely access points.
- Documents should be written in a style that makes them accessible to the public. This would include the use of 'plain English' and summaries.
- Exempt information. Wherever possible, items should be split so that at least the general policy issues can be discussed in public.
- Agendas should be organised so that exempt information is discussed last, and topics of the greatest public interest are discussed first.
- Venues for meetings should be changed to larger accommodation when a meeting seems likely to attract large numbers.
- Charging policies should be developed or reviewed. The aim should be to keep charges as low as possible, especially for copies of documents for members of the public, and to have a consistent, explicit approach.
'Public Access to Information: an evaluation of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985' by Jane Steele (Policy Studies Institute), priced at £9.95, is available from:
BEBC Distribution Limited, PO Box 1496, Poole, Dorset, BH12 3YD.
For further information on the research contact:
Paul McCafferty, Local Government Research Unit, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
Telephone: 0171 890 4103. Fax: 0171 890 4099. E-mail: lg3.doe@dial.pipex.com
Published in June 1995
Return to Best Value Research
Return to Beacon Council Research
Return to Local Government Research Unit Index
Return to Local Government Finance Index
Return to Best Value Index
Return to Local Government and the Regions Index
Return to DTLR Home Page
DTLR Web Site Terms