To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider amending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to give those individuals about whom information has been requested the right to know the names of individuals or organisations who have made such requests.

My Lords, the Government have no plans to amend legislation in this way. Disclosure of the names of individuals or organisations making requests about other individuals would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis under the Data Protection Act, just as personal data falling within the scope of a freedom of information request would be. However, any individual who is the subject of an FoI request can make a subject access request, an SAR, under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act to find out the recipients of his or her personal data.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s Answer. It is a lot better than I thought it could possibly be. As a supporter of the Freedom of Information Act, I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that many of us want it to work well but believe that it should work fairly. If investigative journalists are going to have a field day at our expense, maybe we should know who they are.

I am glad to have pleased my noble friend; I have to say, I do not always do that. In fact, the Freedom of Information Act was drafted so that whenever there is an issue relating to personal data, the Data Protection Act regime applies and acts as the single scheme that considers whether personal data can be processed or disclosed. If the part of the Data Protection Act that I referred to in my original Answer was not as well known as it ought to have been, perhaps this Question and Answer will make the headlines today.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord’s Question. Like many of your Lordships, I, too, have been stalked. When I requested information, I could not get it, but I had my own methods. I said, “Why am I being stalked by you?”, and the cub reporter said, “We’re looking at Lords with Northern Ireland interests”. I said, “Well, why is Lord Irvine’s name on this?”, and he said, “Because his first name’s Derry”. That’s the quality of some of the reporting.

I remind the noble Lord that requesters, those who request, are required to give their name when making a request. That is a requirement of Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act. If it is thought that a pseudonym is being used to shield his or her identity, it is possible to avoid the request by considering it vexatious.

My Lords, in the event that an application were to be made under the section that my noble friend referred to, is it still possible for a refusal to be in place—in other words, that the information identifying the person concerned may still not be published?

Yes, it is possible. The considerations of the Data Protection Act apply, both to finding out who is making a request and to the subject of the request. It is quite possible that the answer would come back, “No, we can’t say because of data protection rules”, as it is equally possible for those subject to FoI requests to rely on the same defence.

My Lords, in common, I am sure, with many former Ministers, I frequently get letters from, in my case, the section of the Treasury dealing with this, saying that it has had a freedom of information request about something that occurred during my time as Chancellor and asking whether I have any observations to make. I say, “No, you go ahead, I’ve nothing to hide”. But it will never tell me who has made the request. Will the Minister tell all government departments that they should make it known who has made the request?

I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying and, yes, I shall pass that on.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is now time that we amended the Freedom of Information Act to bring all publicly funded bodies under its remit and that that must include all aspects of the BBC?

My noble friend will know that in July this year the Government published their response to a public consultation on extending the Freedom of Information Act through a Section 5 order. There is considerable support for extending the Act. Consultation is being undertaken with those bodies that were proposed at this stage for inclusion; namely, academies, the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admission Service—UCAS. I cannot comment on the BBC.

My Lords, we welcome the clarification about the subject access request, but the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is well made. How extensive is information on the subject access request on government websites and otherwise? I have spent two hours trawling websites and could not find any reference to it whatever.

Clearly, it is not extensive enough. I seriously hope that, as a result of my noble friend’s Question, it will become rather better known.

Can the Minister explain to us the timing of that subject access request? If someone applies for information, is an answer given instantly, or is there time for you to make the application? How long does it take for the subject to get an answer? I am interested in the timing of the sequence.

I cannot really give an exact figure. The subject of a request is given 20 days to respond, unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so. I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question, which was how long it would take make a request and get an answer under the Data Protection Act, but I shall write to her.

My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, every government department has a number of designated freedom of information officers. Will he ensure that his Answer to this House today is sent to every one of them?

Yes, I will. My department has overall responsibility for freedom of information policy, and I shall make sure that what my noble friend asks for happens. The Freedom of Information Act is one of the triumphs of this Government. For a Government who are sometimes described as authoritarian, it is unbelievable how much we have opened up to the general public.