Inspired by @Bobson's answer, I would flip it around, to have a law somethig like this:

1. Any officer of the Government that provides factual information or responses to any person, in the course of their duties, shall be required to state on each occasion:

a) that the said information may be relied upon;

or, if the reliability of the said information is, or may be, significantly uncertain:

b) Their honest belief and knowledge as to the extent to which it is or is not to be relied upon.

2. Failure to explicitly make such statement when communicating factual matters in the course of their duties, other than in the circumstances stated in paragraph 3, shall be a criminal offence.

3. A statement referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be required in communications that are reasonably understood to be of a minor or transitory nature, unless any party to whom the information is communicated (directly or indirectly) requires the same to be made clear.

That neatly solves it. You effectively impose a duty to state if something is "on the record" (can be relied on), and a right for a third party to require that status to be clarified. You also provide a way to handle uncertainty, or if a member of the public just wants to know where the stairs are, or if the canteen food is good today, or what you got up to on your day off at home (that's a "statement of fact" too).

Inspired by @Bobson's answer, I would flip it around, to have a law somethig like this:

1. Any officer of the Government that provides factual information or responses to any person, in the course of their duties, shall be required to state on each occasion:

a) that the said information may be relied upon;

or, if the reliability of the said information is, or may be, significantly uncertain:

b) Their honest belief and knowledge as to the extent to which it is or is not to be relied upon.

2. Failure to explicitly make such statement when communicating factual matters in the course of their duties, other than in the circumstances stated in paragraph 3, shall be a criminal offence.

3. A statement referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be required in communications that are reasonably understood to be of a minor or transitory nature, unless any party to whom the information is communicated (directly or indirectly) requires the same to be made clear.

4. A statement required under paragraphs 1 or 3, may be reasonably deferred, but for a reasonable period only, and of the shortest practical duration, and for not more than 4 working days without judicial consent. The circumstances under which deferral is permitted shall be: to allow confirmation and ensure accuracy.

That neatly solves it. You effectively impose a duty to state if something is "on the record" (can be relied on), and a right for a third party to require that status to be clarified. You also provide a way to handle uncertainty, or if a member of the public just wants to know where the stairs are, or if the canteen food is good today, or what you got up to on your day off at home (that's a "statement of fact" too).

Inspired by @Bobson's answer, I would flip it around, to have a law somethig like this:

1. Any officer of the Government that provides factual information or responses to any person, in the course of their duties, shall be required to state on each occasion:

a) that the said information may be relied upon;

or, if the reliability of the said information is, or may be, significantly uncertain:

b) Their honest belief and knowledge as to the extent to which it is or is not to be relied upon.

2. Failure to explicitly make such statement when communicating factual matters in the course of their duties, other than in the circumstances stated in paragraph 3, shall be a criminal offence.

3. A statement referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be required in communications of a transitory nature, unless any party to whom the information is communicated (directly or indirectly) requires the same to be made clear.

That neatly solves it. You effectively impose a duty to state if something is "on the record" (can be relied on), and a right for a third party to require that status to be clarified. You also provide a way to handle uncertainty, or if a member of the public just wants to know where the stairs are (that's a "statement of fact" too).

Inspired by @Bobson's answer, I would flip it around, to have a law somethig like this:

1. Any officer of the Government that provides factual information or responses to any person, in the course of their duties, shall be required to state on each occasion:

a) that the said information may be relied upon;

or, if the reliability of the said information is, or may be, significantly uncertain:

b) Their honest belief and knowledge as to the extent to which it is or is not to be relied upon.

2. Failure to explicitly make such statement when communicating factual matters in the course of their duties, other than in the circumstances stated in paragraph 3, shall be a criminal offence.

3. A statement referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be required in communications that are reasonably understood to be of a minor or transitory nature, unless any party to whom the information is communicated (directly or indirectly) requires the same to be made clear.

That neatly solves it. You effectively impose a duty to state if something is "on the record" (can be relied on), and a right for a third party to require that status to be clarified. You also provide a way to handle uncertainty, or if a member of the public just wants to know where the stairs are, or if the canteen food is good today, or what you got up to on your day off at home (that's a "statement of fact" too).