Many disputes over the legislation has resulted in some minor changes. The original draft was strongly criticised as being insufficient and weaker than the existing code of practice by Ministers of Parliament, Select Committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and campaign groups. The Campaign for the Free of Information, Charter 88 and 23 other organisations started a campaign to strengthen the law in June 1999.

   The proposals set by the government wanted to "end secrecy and increase openness". The government legislation promises to give the public "the right to information held by the vast majority of public organisations". The aim of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 "is to open up public organisations and make the whole of government more accountable to people".

   All organisations in the public sector at all levels, national, regional and local, and some monopoly organisations in the private sector such as British Telecom will allow the public to request documents.
The new legislation, which was received Royal Assent on November 30, will give the public the opportunity to get information about themselves and the day-to-day business of an organisation that may affect them.

    Even so under the present Data Protection Act 1998, members of the public may apply for information stored about themselves on various government systems, such as the Ministry of Defence for an administration charge of 10 pounds. This was illustrated when Channel Four presenter Mark Thomas, an investigative comedian, chose to base a programme on the rights of the individual within this legislation.

   The Freedom of Information Act will allow the public to question decisions made by all central government departments, local councils, schools, the national health service, and the police. The act is expected to come into force for central government departments in April 2002, and further authorities in stages afterwards.

   The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act is a move towards incorporating the European Convention of Human Rights into Britain's national laws. Article 10 guarantees everyone the freedom of expression. This gives the media a public interest defence which may override laws on privacy and court injunctions.

   In Britain before 1979, court injunctions issued by the High Court prevented the media from publishing any comment, which was likely to be judged a contempt of court even before the trial had been set. The Sunday Times decided to challenge this and ignored a court injunction in 1972. They choose to publish a campaign for compensation to all the children born deformed after their mothers took the drug thalidomide during pregnancy. In 1973, the drug's manufacturer Distillers gave in to pressure from its shareholders and customers and paid £28.4 million compensation.

    The Appeal Court had rejected the High Courts view that a writ must end all discussion while a case was in court. Lord Denning argued that apart from the interests of those involved, there was also the public interest for issues of national concern and "the freedom of the press to make fair comment". This judgement was later overturned by the Law Lords, but The Sunday Times took the case to the European Commission of Human Rights. They argued that journalists "had been deprived of their rights to receive and impart information under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which Britain had signed in 1953". The Sunday Times won the appeal to publish the full story in 1977.