Peers Voice Accountability Concerns Over ARIA FOI Exemption

Peers have voiced their concerns about a lack of public accountability if the new  ARIA research agency were to be exempted from the freedom of information regime as proposed by government.  

In a Lords debate on the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill on Tuesday, peers cited concerns from bodies including the News Media Association, Information Commissioner’s Office and the Campaign for Freedom of Information who have called for ARIA to be brought within the scope of the FOI Act.   

Viscount Stansgate, Labour, said: “Like other noble Lords, I received a briefing from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which strongly advocates that FoI requests should be allowed. The News Media Association has also taken the trouble to write to us on the same issue. I am sure that is something we will explore.”

Writing to peers ahead of the debate, the NMA gave its backing to a CFOI briefing on the issue and warned: “Given that ARIA will spend some £800 million of public money over the next four years we cannot see any justification for its exemption from FoI. 

“Drawing a veil of secrecy over this independent research body would lead to a dangerous lack of transparency and accountability.” 

CFOI director Maurice Frankel said: “The idea that complying with FOIA would be an obstacle to the UK becoming or remaining a ‘science superpower’ is utterly implausible. The obstacles to innovation by funding bodies have been discussed at length and do not include FOIA.  The 47 US FOI requests a year relating to ARPA/DARPA are trivial by comparison. That volume could not be regarded as a burden on ARIA, let alone one that might prevent it from achieving its objectives.”

“With a budget of £800 million, ARIA will be vastly better resourced to answer FOI requests than thousands of small bodies which already comply with the Act, including parish councils, town councils, schools, GPs, dentists, opticians and pharmacists police and crime commissioners, internal drainage boards, local healthwatch bodies and many others.

“All public authorities have important tasks to fulfil in the public interest and limited resources. ARIA has no greater claim to avoid complying with FOI legislation than any other public authority. On the contrary, its budget, which vastly outstrips that of many FOI bodies, provides compelling grounds for its inclusion.”

In the Lords debate, Lord Clement-Jones, Lib Dem, said it was “completely unacceptable” to exempt ARIA from the FOI regime citing Information Commissioner’s Office evidence which said: “Without this, there will be a lack of transparency, accountability, trust and confidence in ARIA.”

He added: “After all, the US equivalent of ARIA, DARPA, is covered by the US FOIA. As the ICO also says, the FOIA ‘includes safeguards which allow a balance to be struck between the public interest in transparency and the protection of legitimate interests.’”

Lord Fox, Lib Dem, said exempting ARIA from the freedom of information obligations was “wrong.” He added: “We think that at least £800 million of public funds will be spent, and there needs to be some accountability. As my noble friend pointed out, DARPA submits itself to the US equivalent of FoI and it seems to have nothing to fear.

“Of course, in this country, the Information Commissioner’s Office is clear in its opposition. If the Minister wanted to engender mistrust and to sow seeds of suspicion about ARIA, I suggest this is one way he could go about doing it.”