83

Politics

Freedom of information law passes; opponents pledge recall vote

admin
June 4th, 2013


This article is more than 11 years old.

New law passes despite concerns ministers will use it to limit political transparency and prevent exposure of corruption

After a decade in the making, the controversial freedom of information (FOI) law passed parliament today despite widespread fears it will allow government ministers to cover up corruption and incompetence.

The law, offentlighedsloven, exempts from FOI requests correspondence between ministries and the civil service if a minister is requesting advice. Ministers' calendars are also exempt.

The three parties voting against the law, Enhedslisten, Dansk Folkeparti and Liberal Alliance, have never had ministers in government and consequently would not benefit from the limitations.

The law has been widely condemned and a petition against it has accumulated 85,631 signatures, making it Denmark’s most popular online petition ever.

Despite the widespread condemnation of the law by academics, politicians and the media, Morten Bødskov, the justice minister, argued it was designed to improve the public’s access to official documents.

“We are not covering up abuses of power,” Bødskov told parliament today. “We are expanding openness in public institutions.”

The revised FOI law is designed to update existing procedures, which experts say are antequated, and allow easier and greater access to official documents.

The Justice Ministry has admitted, however, that the changes to the types of ministerial documents covered by FOI requests would have prevented a number of past political scandals from being uncovered.

This is the fear of critics, who argue that the new law is vague and will be interpreted too broadly, though proponents argue it simply provides ministers with the chance to safely voice new ideas with civil servants and other ministries without that information making its way into the media.

But despite repeated requests from critics, Bødksov has so far been unable to provide an example of when the current FOI law proved an obstacle for ministers doing their work.

Mogens Blicher Bjerregård, the chairman of the Danish journalists’ union, argued the new law was a major backward step for transparency in Denmark.

“The law prevents FOI requests, which are designed to ensure that that people have a thorough understanding of this country’s legislation,” Bjerregård told Berlingske newspaper. “It’s as though there has been no willingness to the problems and the warnings that were raised.”

Corruption watchdogs Transparency International Danmark (TI-DK) also urged the government not to vote for the law.

“The law will weaken the media’s role as the fourth estate and watchdog, which would be a very unfortunate consequence,” TI-DK wrote in a press release.

While the coalition government was joined by the two major opposition parties in voting for the law, not everyone wanted to toe the party line.

Despite being a board member in Copenhagen’s Nørrebro for the party Radikale, which voted in favour of the law, Anders Højsted was a central figure behind the petition against the law.

“I see the potential for it to lead to massive abuse of power,” Højsted told The Copenhagen Post, adding that the law did improve the transparency of local and regional governmental organisations.

“But the negative sides of the law overshadow the positive sides. It increases access to information in institutions far away from the political process and limits access to the actual political process. It needs to be the other way around. We need to know what’s going on within the political process.”

Højsted said today's vote wasn’t the final word. Opponents are considering several options for challenging the law, including forcing a referendum.

Such a measure requires the approval of 60 MPs and after 43 of parliament’s 179 members voted against the law today, only 17 more would be needed to give the public a say on whether government’s should be entitled to withhold information from the public that explains how and why they make the decisions they do.

The law will take effect on January 1, and will be evaluated and debated in parliament after three years. 


Share

Most popular

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to receive The Daily Post

















Latest Podcast

A survey carried out by Megafon for TV2 has found that 71 percent of parents have handed over children to daycare in spite of them being sick.

Moreover, 21 percent of those surveyed admitted to medicating their kids with paracetamol, such as Panodil, before sending them to school.

The FOLA parents’ organisation is shocked by the findings.

“I think it is absolutely crazy. It simply cannot be that a child goes to school sick and plays with lots of other children. Then we are faced with the fact that they will infect the whole institution,” said FOLA chair Signe Nielsen.

Pill pushers
At the Børnehuset daycare institution in Silkeborg a meeting was called where parents were implored not to bring their sick children to school.

At Børnehuset there are fears that parents prefer to pack their kids off with a pill without informing teachers.

“We occasionally have children who that they have had a pill for breakfast,” said headteacher Susanne Bødker. “You might think that it is a Panodil more than a vitamin pill, if it is a child who has just been sick, for example.”

Parents sick and tired
Parents, when confronted, often cite pressure at work as a reason for not being able to stay at home with their children.

Many declare that they simply cannot take another day off, as they are afraid of being fired.

Allan Randrup Thomsen, a professor of virology at KU, has heavily criticised the parents’ actions, describing the current situation as a “vicious circle”.

“It promotes the spread of viruses, and it adds momentum to a cycle where parents are pressured by high levels of sick-leave. If they then choose to send the children to daycare while they are still recovering, they keep the epidemic going in daycares, and this in turn puts a greater burden on the parents.”