National Assembly deputy Trịnh Thị Tú Anh from Lâm Đồng Province speaks at the first session of the 16th National Assembly (NA) on Sunday. VNA/VNS Photo

HÀ NỘI — Lawmakers continued deliberations on the revised Law on Access to Information at the first session of the 16th National Assembly (NA) on Sunday, stressing the need to strike a careful balance between State management of confidentiality and citizens’ rights to transparency and access to information.

NA deputies warned that if tensions between secrecy and transparency are not properly managed, expanding 'no-go' areas for information could inadvertently narrow citizens’ access rights.

Broadly agreeing on the need for a comprehensive revision, Deputy Nguyễn Thị Việt Nga from Hải Phòng City said the amendment aims to strengthen the legal foundation for transparent and accountable governance in the digital era.

Responding to concerns that the application of information technology could create barriers for some citizens, Nga argued that current provisions remain largely directional, emphasising 'promoting' and 'enhancing' digital application without establishing sufficiently clear legal obligations. If the goal is to build a digital government, she said, online disclosure should be treated as the primary mode rather than merely encouraged.

She therefore proposed revising Clause 3, Article 3 to strengthen accountability for publishing information in the digital environment, at least for categories of information that must be disclosed under Article 17 of the law.

Regarding cases where citizens may be denied access to information under Article 15 of the draft, Nga stressed that this provision is critical as it defines the boundary between safeguarding and restricting the right to information.

She raised concerns over Clause 4, which states that in cases not yet regulated by law, the head of an agency may decide whether to provide information based on practical conditions.

Such a provision, she argued, risks allowing agencies to both hold information and unilaterally determine its disclosure, creating a lack of checks and balances. She called for clearer criteria and stricter oversight mechanisms.

On timelines for responding to information requests, Article 26 of the draft stipulates a 10-working-day limit, extendable by up to another 10 days if necessary. Nga noted that while this may be appropriate for complex cases requiring verification and processing, it is too lengthy for information already digitised and readily available.

She proposed classifying response timelines based on the nature of the information: shortening deadlines for readily available digital data, while maintaining existing limits for more complex cases, in line with administrative reform and digital transformation goals.

Focusing on groups entitled to State support in exercising their right to access information, Deputy Châu Quỳnh Dao from An Giang Province highlighted that the draft affirms equal rights for all citizens, while providing additional support for persons with disabilities, ethnic groups and those living in border, island, mountainous or disadvantaged areas.

However, she cautioned that a list-based approach may lack inclusiveness, as it does not fully capture the diversity of vulnerable groups, each facing distinct barriers and needs. For example, elderly people may struggle with digital skills or visual limitations, requiring more direct guidance or larger-print materials.

Similarly, communities affected by natural disasters or pandemics may need urgent access to information, bypassing standard procedures to support timely response and rescue efforts.

Deputy Hoàng Thị Thanh Thúy from Tây Ninh Province echoed concerns over balancing confidentiality and transparency, noting that in practice, some agencies and organisations have misused state secrecy or internal information classifications to restrict access, undermining openness, accountability and public oversight.

She proposed narrowing the scope of classified information. For documents deemed state secrets, instead of denying access entirely, authorities should consider separating and disclosing non-sensitive portions that do not harm national or public interests, in line with the Law on Protection of State Secrets. — VNS