Council urges change to Freedom of Information rules

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council claimed some FOI requests are not in the public interest

A council has criticised Freedom of Information (FOI) requests as "burdensome" and called on the government to change the scope of the law.

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council complained about the number of requests it receives, in a statement outlining its efficiency to the new Labour government.

The council said answering questions from the public and other organisations was a "significant undertaking".

But a local campaigner said requests are often needed to ensure the council's activities were "transparent".

In its statement, the council said: "The reality is that lots of the requests are from people looking for business, journalistic requests and other government departments.

"Whilst some are of course worthy, others have no public interest element yet require work to answer.

"The council asks that the government significantly revise the scope of the act to reduce the burden on councils."

One campaigner said FOI requests were needed because the council was not "transparent"

The Freedom of Information Act gives everyone the right to obtain information held by public authorities, including councils.

Peter Finlinson, a parish councillor based in Marske, said he had submitted a number of requests for information to the council.

"The problem is the council has a reputation for being less than transparent about matters and the use of an FOI is democratic tool for holding a public body to account," he said.

"I have been dealing with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council since 2017 on planning and other issues, and have never been satisfied that full disclosure has been made."

In March, the Information Commissioner, John Edwards, wrote an open letter to public organisations to remind them that "transparency is essential" and resources "must be dedicated to access to information".

The Labour-led council also used the statement to call for changes in the way funding was allocated to local authorities, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

It said competing against other local authorities for grants was not an "efficient use of resources, financial or human" and suggested a more streamlined process was needed.