RESPONSES ON TOPIC 3 - FEES/CHARGING (Questions 12-22)
8.1 A number of questions were asked about the wide range of issues connected with fees/charging. Detail on the responses to specific questions is provided in Annexes 7 (a) to 7 (i). An attempt has been made to group the views expressed into categories (bodies subject to the Act, other organisations (Campaign, users etc.) and private individuals. This breakdown was difficult to achieve precisely but does provide some indication of the provenance of particular views.
8.2 Overall only about half of the respondees expressed a view on whether or not they thought the current fees regulations are generally correct and effective. (Question 12.) The majority of responses from public sector bodies indicated that they found the fees regulations either incorrect or ineffective. However a number of the public authority respondees indicated that they had no experience of using the fees regulations. For example, that they did not allow for effective or proportionate cost recovery. However of these the majority indicated that they thought the current regulations were incorrect or ineffective in some way. A number of respondees also indicated that they found the fees regulations complicated and difficult to understand. (see detail in Annex 7 (a))
8.3 With regard to the "prescribed amount" of £600 a number of respondees who commented on this indicated that they did not consider it to be the correct amount and that it should be reduced or that it allowed for too high a level of resource commitment in responding to requests. However there were a wide variety of comments and suggestions on this issue (Question 13) which warrant close consideration (see detail in Annex 7 (b))
8.4 In terms of question 14 about the appropriateness of elements allowed for in estimating the projected costs, 28 respondees indicated that in their view the elements were not correct. As would be anticipated, most of the responses to this question came from public sector organisations. Some of the suggestions for additional elements to be included were: deliberation time; reading time; costs incurred in determining if information is held; time to consider the public interest. Other respondees did, however, indicate that they considered that the elements allowed for are correct. (see detail in Annex 7 (c))
8.5 Question 15 provided respondees with an opportunity to comment on approach taken to assessing staff time costs and the £15 per hour staff time maximum cost allowed for in the regulations (SSI 2004/376). A majority indicated that they considered the approach to be correct. However, in the main, responses also indicated that there is concern with the capping level, although some were content that the amount is correct. (see detail in Annex 7 (d))
8.6 In terms of Question 16 and the issue of whether or not to incorporate aggregation provisions in any revised fees regulations, a majority of the respondees from public authorities who commented on this issue indicated that they had evidence which supported a requirement to reconsider the option to incorporate the provisions. There were also responses, however, which indicated that they had no evidence to support this requirement. Some respondees provided illustrations of where aggregation might have proved appropriate which will need to be considered more closely to see if the provisions would be of use if introduced. This question also topic drew out a broad range of more general views on the issue. (see detail in Annex 7 (e))
8.7 A small number of respondees answered question 17 which asked for "any other comments on the current fees guidance." As the 13 comments were quite wide-ranging they are simply listed in Annex 7 (f). In general respondees find the guidance useful, however this is tempered by the concerns about the regulations themselves to which the guidance refers. (see 8.2 and 8.3)
8.8 In question 18 respondees were asked if they had any evidence of the resource implications/general impact of FOI(S)A on their organisations. The majority of bodies subject to the Act who responded to the Consultation provided a response to this question. The detail of their responses is provided in Annex 7 (g). It may be useful to compare responses on this question with the sector reports provided to the Scottish Freedom of Information Implementation Group during 2005/6.
8.9 Responses to question 18 indicate that some organisations have undertaken a greater level of monitoring than others so responses vary from specific cost estimates to comment on particular new posts regarded as being required as a consequence of FOI(S)A. Some organisations indicated that there were no significant resource implications and that FOI(S)A obligations have simply been absorbed. Some respondees expressed the view that authorities would already have been handling requests for information prior to the Act coming into force and without knowing the resource implications pre-January 2005 it would be difficult to give a clear evaluation of the resource impact of FOI(S)A.
8.10 Question 19 asked if the operation of the FOI(S)A fee charging regime is working effectively with the charging regime for the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs). Around 20 authorities provided comment on this issue which is briefly noted in Annex 7 (h). However the majority of responses indicated that at this point there is limited experience available to provide a clear response to this question.
8.11 Questions 20 and 21 asked about the issue of fees notices and the position on fees notices issued but not paid. Of those authorities who responded, 43 (63.6%) had never issued a fees notice. Of the remaining 23 authorities who had issued fees notices, a breakdown of the number of notices issued, and the corresponding numbers of notices unpaid is provided in the table at Annex 7 (i).
8.12 A number of respondents made comment around the possibility of "upfront" fees for requesters. There is currently no mechanism for this in the Act and, as stated in paragraph 4.1 above, Ministers made clear at the outset of the review that there is no intention to amend the primary legislation at this point.