The new Commissioner's challenge
The Information Commissioner's Office in Wilmslow is situated in an area popular with the purveyors of very fast cars, but its operations don't always seem to be speeding along the fast lane.
The new commissioner for the UK, Chris Graham, took up his post this week - and one of his main challenges will be to tackle the lengthy backlog of cases that the office has been struggling with.
The ICO has been strongly attacked today by the Campaign for Freedom of Information over the extensive delays before it issues formal decisions.
In the worst case identified by CFoI, the commissioner's decision notice was issued three years and 10 and a half months after the complaint was made. (My own oldest appeal has only been with the commissioner's office for three years and nine and a half months, and I'm still waiting on that one, so I don't know whether it might seize the record).
This is one example in a painstaking analysis [280Kb PDF] compiled by the campaign group of the time taken by the ICO to rule on those cases which involve formal decision notices.
The group's report [559Kb PDF] shows that the average wait between a complaint arriving and a decision notice was nearly 20 months.
The ICO states [46Kb PDF] that it is trying to speed up its processes and that most cases are resolved informally and more quickly. But the campaign argues that many of these complaints are trivial and it is the significant ones which are most likely to require decision notices.
Chris Graham ran the Advertising Standards Authority before becoming Information Commissioner, so he has experience of leading a complaints-handling body. We will see in due course whether this helps him speed up the time-consuming processes without undermining the quality of formal decisions, which has improved since the first couple of years.
The ICO published a new strategy [81Kb PDF] for considering FOI complaints last month. This shows that it will be trying to resolve an even greater number of cases informally in order to increase its productivity.
It will also be interesting to see whether Mr Graham adopts a more aggressive public stance towards pushing the Ministry of Justice for more resources. Matt Davies at FoiNews thinks he may already be detecting signs of a new, more outspoken approach.
Of course, delays in the freedom of information process are not limited to the ICO.
Last year, central government exceeded the recommended time limit for reviewing freedom of information appeals in one in three cases.
If you think you've read that sentence before, you may well be right. I wrote exactly the same sentence last year about the government's FOI statistics for 2007 [1.10Mb PDF]. And this still applies to the 2008 statistics [1.04MbKb PDF] which were published last week.
But the credibility of the commissioner in cracking down on delays in government is seriously undermined as long as his own office is taking an excessive time to deal with many complaints.
Update 1408: The ICO tells me that the letter to Matt Davies is "not indicative of any policy change".
A 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
As I pointed out in the last thread, some public authorities, among them the BBC, are rejecting requests that are in essence identical to earlier requests on which the ICO has ruled in favour of disclosure.
The ICO should at least be naming and shaming the miscreants, if not treating them as in contempt. This would certainly help clear the backlog.
Complain about this comment
Martin,
I have no hope whatsoever that a new Commissioner will make any difference in the speed decisions are issued from that Office.
I have been pondering where the gall comes from in - allegedly - certain outside bodies putting their oar in when it comes to issung decisions.
On family matters. I am 59 at the end of this month and I cannot get my real mother's information. From almost that long ago.
30 year rules? 50 year rules? What ARE we dealing with here?
And it is nowt to do with our discussions from all those years ago. I know that now and so I am afraid did others - allegedly.
Allegedly dabbling in family matters. Second guessing relationships and likely problems. Poor Great Britain. I plan to offer no easy get out clause.
How Mr Graham was persuaded to take the role I have no idea.
Complain about this comment
Part of the problem in obtaining information is that the de-regulation of public services has made it virtually impossible to ensure authorities are accountable for the spending of public money.
The autonomy of higher education institutions provide an impenetrable barrier to any sort of public scrutiny leading to suggestions that the only way around the problem is with the introduction of OFSTED style inspections, state run universities, and public naming and shaming.
The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) was served by a member of the public and the BBC for a copy of a report into the finances of the University of Wales Lampeter by consultants Haines Watts.
This university had to be rescued by an emergency fund and to quote Ed Balls the public is right to ask what went wrong and what was done about it. But you will never get an answer unless you are prepared to go to the High Court.
The information was withheld on the grounds it would damage negotiations in a merger and its commercial interests. Issues regarding payment of expenses and accountability have been ignored for the same reasons.
We the public or serfs have been banned from any form of complaint, consultation, debate, or participation in resolving these matters.
The size of the problem is a reflection of just how secretive government has become with decisions based upon secret reports that that the public and government committees are prevented from seeing.
With more open government there would less of a need to resort to the FOI laws to get the information we should be told about anyway.
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if Welsh Assembly Members will impose the same kind of standards and accountability concerning 'expenses' paid to other public servants.
Complain about this comment
2. steelpulse wrote:
30 year rules? 50 year rules? What ARE we dealing with here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not forgetting the 100 year rule.
Yes, the government has locked away secrets from the Second World War under this cover.
Makes you wonder what happened that is still so embarrassing, or terrible, that they feel fit to keep the facts away from us until everyone involved is well & truly dead & buried.
The Freedom of Information act has plenty of get out clauses that the government can hide behind.
What we are dealing with here is a government that is paranoid about you getting hold of the vital information that will enable you pass judgement on their decisions & hold them to account.
Just look at the trouble they went to in attempting to cover up the expenses scandal.
Its not just the government either, local authorities have hidden behind secrecy for years, the only thing they cant hide is the contempt they have for the ordinary voter.
As it is, all the authorities have to do is dig their heals in & that leaves the ordinary citizen with a choice of dropping a FOI request or pursuing it through the courts.
The latter option will cost money that, no doubt, Joe Six Pack can ill afford.
This leaves us with the only real option to getting the truth, that being investigational journalism.
Yes, there are still a few journalists who believe that there is more to life than Peter & Jordons marriage or Big Brother.
More power to them I say.
Complain about this comment
Is it the amount of information or the information that they try to hide that is the problem? Maybe both?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS