The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act recently celebrated its first birthday. Before it became law, museums were among those worried that the legal requirement for public bodies to respond to requests for information would result in a huge administrative burden.
On top of that, many museums were concerned that they would be forced to reveal the monetary value of their collections. What has the reality been?
Of course, the majority of requests under the act are nothing to do with museums and have ranged from how much hospital managers fork out in taxi fares to the whereabouts of fake speed cameras. But museums have received their fair share of enquiries.
And when they are asked to reveal information, it's not just what stuff's worth. There have been requests for information about forward plans, the sites of archaeological finds, child protection policies and exhibition design to name but a few.
But perhaps inevitably many of the enquiries have been about value - of individual objects and of entire collections in some cases. At the moment, it is possible for museums to argue exemption for reasons of commercial sensitivity or security.
For example, last year the Glynn Vivian Art Gallery in Swansea successfully argued that it should not be forced to reveal the value of items in its collection under the commercial sensitivity and security exemptions.
Which, you would think, would leave the coast clear for others to do the same. But a recent case suggests that museums will have to provide hard and fast evidence if they want to prevent this sort of information entering the public domain in the future.
Last year, journalist Matthew Davis asked for information about the value of an artwork commissioned by the National Maritime Museum. The museum refused to give the information citing the commercial interest exemption and this was backed by the Information Commissioner. Davis appealed to the Information Tribunal and in January was successful.
According to some in the legal profession, this means that the chances of relying on the commercial interests argument are getting slimmer. It looks as if the tribunal wanted to prove that the act has teeth and that public bodies can't get away with using blanket exemptions.
This probably means that museums are going to have to tackle the thorny subject of the value of their collections sooner rather than later. While the cultural value of objects is obviously more important than their monetary value, maybe museums need to get over the hurdle of price so they can start discussing what their objects are really worth to society.
The act has resulted in extra work, but it is in museums' interests to be as transparent as possible. The truth is that the FOI act is here to stay and, in the future, there may be fewer exemption clauses to hide behind.
On top of that, many museums were concerned that they would be forced to reveal the monetary value of their collections. What has the reality been?
Of course, the majority of requests under the act are nothing to do with museums and have ranged from how much hospital managers fork out in taxi fares to the whereabouts of fake speed cameras. But museums have received their fair share of enquiries.
And when they are asked to reveal information, it's not just what stuff's worth. There have been requests for information about forward plans, the sites of archaeological finds, child protection policies and exhibition design to name but a few.
But perhaps inevitably many of the enquiries have been about value - of individual objects and of entire collections in some cases. At the moment, it is possible for museums to argue exemption for reasons of commercial sensitivity or security.
For example, last year the Glynn Vivian Art Gallery in Swansea successfully argued that it should not be forced to reveal the value of items in its collection under the commercial sensitivity and security exemptions.
Which, you would think, would leave the coast clear for others to do the same. But a recent case suggests that museums will have to provide hard and fast evidence if they want to prevent this sort of information entering the public domain in the future.
Last year, journalist Matthew Davis asked for information about the value of an artwork commissioned by the National Maritime Museum. The museum refused to give the information citing the commercial interest exemption and this was backed by the Information Commissioner. Davis appealed to the Information Tribunal and in January was successful.
According to some in the legal profession, this means that the chances of relying on the commercial interests argument are getting slimmer. It looks as if the tribunal wanted to prove that the act has teeth and that public bodies can't get away with using blanket exemptions.
This probably means that museums are going to have to tackle the thorny subject of the value of their collections sooner rather than later. While the cultural value of objects is obviously more important than their monetary value, maybe museums need to get over the hurdle of price so they can start discussing what their objects are really worth to society.
The act has resulted in extra work, but it is in museums' interests to be as transparent as possible. The truth is that the FOI act is here to stay and, in the future, there may be fewer exemption clauses to hide behind.
