top stories

Comments from ACCA
February 2008

Under the terms of the Companies Act 1989, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is both a Recognised Qualifying Body (RQB) and a Recognised Supervisory Body (RSB) and is regulated directly by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). We are pleased to make the following response to the questions posed in the recent consultation paper "Freedom of Information Act 2000: Designation of additional public authorities [CP 27/07].

Question 1. Do you support extending the coverage of the FOI Act to organisations that carry out functions of a public nature and to contractors who provide services to a public authority whose provision is a function of that public authority?

Comments: ACCA supports the principle of greater transparency in public life and would support the extension of the coverage of the FOI Act where it advances this principle and provides clear public benefits that outweigh the inevitable compliance costs (for those bodies only marginally involved in public functions and already subject to independent oversight).

Question 2. Of the five proposed options, which do you consider the best option? Or would some other option, or combination of options, be preferable? Please explain your reasoning.

Comments: ACCA's preference would be for Option 4 – "Introduce an exhaustive list of designated public authorities under section 5 FOI Act".

Question 3. Should some form of public funding be essential in order for an organisation to be considered for inclusion in a section 5 order, or should this be just one of a number of relevant factors to be considered?

Comments: ACCA believes that an element of public funding should be an essential condition for inclusion in a Section 5 order.

Question 4. Are there any organisations or categories of organisations that do not receive public funding but that you believe should be covered by the Act? Please explain why.

Comments: ACCA believes that any further expansion of the FOI Act should be carefully targeted on sectors where there is a perceived strong and justifiable demand for information; new regulatory burdens should be imposed only where absolutely necessary and subject to a high cost-benefit threshold.

Question 5. Do you agree that the balance between the public interest and the potential burden of FOI is an appropriate consideration when deciding whether to cover an organisation?

Comments: As noted above, we support the extension of the coverage of the FOI Act subject to the proviso that designation should only apply where it provides clear public benefits that outweigh the inevitable compliance costs (for those bodies only marginally involved in public functions and already subject to independent oversight).

Question 6. To what extent do you think that the factors listed, or any other factors, should be taken into account in determining whether organisations performing public functions should be brought within the ambit of the Act?

Comments: As noted above, ACCA believes that any further expansion of the FOI Act should be carefully targeted on sectors where there is a perceived strong and justifiable demand for information. New regulatory burdens should be imposed only where absolutely necessary and subject to a high cost-benefit threshold.

Question 7. Do you agree that the coverage of FOI should extend to contractors who provide services under contract with a public authority whose provision is a function of that authority? If you disagree, please give your reasons.

Comments: The public interest could be argued to extend to a right to information about contracts specifically entered into with a public authority. However, such contracting is conducted – with good reason and by all parties - within a sensitive, highly commercial environment. We do not therefore think it appropriate to extend coverage of the FOI Act to this set of commercial activities.

Question 8. Do you agree that information relating to an organisation's administration of a public service or function, for example in the areas listed in paragraph 33, should be subject to FOI? If not, please give your reasons.

Comments: The specific matters that should be covered by the extension of the FOI Act to any particular type of organisation should not be determined in advance since that would undermine the obligatory process of consultation. We suggest instead that the process of consultation should expressly concentrate on identifying areas of activity in relation to which there is a deemed public interest and on which the public interest in disclosure was deemed to outweigh the additional regulatory cost of compliance on the part of the body concerned.

Question 9. Which organisations, or types of organisations, do you believe should be considered for inclusion in any extension of FOI under s.5 of the Act, and why?

Comments: As noted above, we support the extension of the coverage of the FOI Act subject to the proviso that designation should only apply where it provides clear public benefits that outweigh the inevitable compliance costs (for those bodies only marginally involved in public functions and already subject to independent oversight). This limitation would apply equally to contractors (where public authority contracts form only a part of their contract portfolio) and professional bodies (where their immediate regulator is itself a designated public body).

Back to top