Chris Daniel: We need freedom to find out how our money is spent

It has allowed taxpayers to get information on how their money is spent, and how their public services are run. Before the election last year, the TaxPayers' Alliance produced a manifesto which called for the strengthening of the FOI Act within the first year of a new Government taking office.

So it was great when last week the coalition said it would extend Britain's Freedom of Information laws. The current act covers government departments, local authorities, NHS authorities and primary care trusts, schools and universities plus a handful of quangos. There are, however, a great many arm's length bodies and organisations which have been spared the scrutiny and examination to which similar bodies have been subject. It was therefore great to hear Nick Clegg announce plans to make bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Advertising Standards Agency, Network Rail, the Financial Ombudsman Service, UCAS and the Local Government Association subject to the legislation.

The act has provided the public with unprecedented access to data without obfuscation. In this long overdue move, the coalition will extend it so taxpayers can delve into the books of many more organisations that receive vast sums of their money, and are really extensions of Government. According to Mr Clegg, the scope of the act will be extended to include "potentially hundreds more bodies." We can only hope.

Our research shows that some bodies funded almost entirely by the public purse are not subject to the FOI act. For example, the Carbon Trust receives more than 100m a year from taxpayers who currently have no right to find out how the money is spent. It should be among the bodies covered by the Act. And when we completed our report on regional development agency grants, we uncovered a whole pseudo public sector: bodies set up and nearly entirely funded by the RDA and the local council but completely closed to taxpayers' scrutiny. Our report on taxpayer-funded lobbying and political campaigning found that many organisations like Alcohol Concern were dependent on the Department of Health for the vast majority of their funding. Nick Clegg should be commended for his move on FOI but it's crucial that bodies such as these are included in the broadened act if taxpayers are to be given full information on public spending.

Along with the scope of the act it's just as important that it can work properly. Following 10 years on the statute book, it has become evident that changes are needed. These should make it easier for the public to submit requests and make it more difficult for public bodies to refuse or delay the provision of information. From our experience, organisations do not always respond within the 20 day statutory time limit and with no consequences for a delay some organisations put requests off almost indefinitely. The current ICO procedures for not replying to a request can carry an unlimited fine but, with investigations often taking more than 12 months, they rarely materialise because a prosecution must be made within a six month limit as outlined in the act. The most notorious example is the "Climate-gate" scandal involving East Anglia University.

The list of excuses with which councils can refuse information also needs changing. Regularly we receive responses from councils who have refused information under Section 21 of the Act, on the grounds that the information is "intended for future publication." These are farcical grounds for refusal as councils do not have to declare when the information will be published and often put off the request indefinitely, negating their legal obligation. The other area in need of change is Section 43, on the grounds of commercial interest. This is quite often a response we receive from councils; however this is rarely strictly adhered to. To supplement this excuse, organisations are required to provide evidence on how publication of the requested information will prejudice the commercial interests of "the organisation" in question. In this sense the act is not being implemented in the wider public interest.

The office of Information Commissioner – the gatekeeper of the legislation – should also be directly funded from Parliament, as currently happens with the National Audit Office.

In time more transparency from Government, both local and national, should mean the public does not have to submit FOI requests for certain information.For example, we won't need to submit requests to compile the Town Hall Rich List in England and Wales this year (though it will still be necessary in Scotland and Northern Ireland). I've heard arguments to the contrary, such as that transparency will pose more questions than it answers. This may be true in the infancy of transparent government, but once the system is more open, clear and sophisticated – and a culture of transparency is engendered – we should start to see a drop in the need for FOI. Robust information legislation should be maintained and improved and work alongside this, of course.

Nick Clegg has said that if an organisation's behaviour and decisions had "clear consequences for the public good, people must be able to see right into the heart of them." He's right, and he should be applauded. And Tony Blair was right as well. Back in 2000, that is.

Chris Daniel is a policy analyst at The TaxPayers' Alliance