FOI legislation has 'paid for itself', claims information commissioner

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

Freedom of Information legislation has "paid for itself" by reducing unnecessary public spending, the UK's Information Commissioner says in a message to mark International Right to Know Day .

In a statement released by the Information Commissioner's Office , Christopher Graham praises the role of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in ensuring "greater transparency and accountability" from public bodies.

"Freedom of Information shines a torch into the dark corners of public service, identifying wasted money and duplication of effort. Freedom of Information must have paid for itself many times over in the beneficial impact it has had on reducing unnecessary spending – and that contribution can only increase in the years ahead," he says.

"Organisations, whether public or private, need to invest in information rights - whether it's Freedom of Information, good records management, or data protection. Where organisations fall down on their information rights obligations they do so at the cost of destroying citizen and consumer trust."

Graham makes particular reference to a decision notice by the ICO that ordered the BBC to release information relating to the amount it spends on booking services. Last week, the BBC released details of its expenditure on external legal fees in dealing with FOI requests following a request for the information via the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

But the commissioner said that as more public authorities and organisations covered by the act volunteer the release of information, less money will be wasted on investigations, appeals and tribunals.

Graham's comments come as the Guardian awaits a restart to its Information Tribunal over the release of letters from Prince Charles to the UK government. The paper's original FOI request was made in 2005.