BBC BLOGS - Open Secrets
« Previous | Main | Next »

New crackdown on FOI delays

Post categories:

Martin Rosenbaum | 11:58 UK time, Friday, 1 October 2010

The Cabinet Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence are among public bodies now being targeted by the Information Commissioner's Office because of their bad record of delay in dealing with FOI requests.

The ICO has this morning announced a new intensive monitoring system [113.18KB PDF] it is implementing for public authorities that it says are not meeting the requirement to respond to freedom of information requests on time.

The 33 authorities picked on for their poor performance range across the public sector.

At central government level it also includes the Department of Work and Pensions, the Scotland Office, the Northern Ireland Office, and the Government Equalities Office. There are two police forces, the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police. It also features Transport for London and 18 councils, as well as some local NHS bodies.

The ICO's target list has been influenced by the number of complaints about delay it has received relating to particular organisations and also by authorities' own data on their speed of response. Their promptness will now be audited for three months.

This public "name and shame" approach by the ICO represents a significant toughening of its stance for cracking down on the extensive delays in the freedom of information system. The ICO's ability to take this action effectively has been facilitated by the progress it has itself made recently in reducing its own considerable delays.

Chris Graham

 

I interviewed the Information Commissioner Chris Graham last November a few months after he took up the role, he told me:

"I don't think the ICO will be listened to unless we are effective and that means being on top of the business. People say 'don't talk to us about deadlines when you're taking forever to do cases.'"

In the past FOI officers have often grumbled about being criticised by the Commissioner over delays when the timeliness of the ICO has frequently been even worse. It looks like Mr Graham now feels that his office's performance has improved enough to give him confidence in taking a harder line with everyone else.

This tension between the ICO and public bodies it scrutinises is illustrated by correspondence between the Cabinet Office and the ICO, which the BBC has recently obtained through an FOI request.

The ICO's concern about the Cabinet Office's extensive delays goes back over a year. Last May its enforcement team complained to the Cabinet Office about numerous instances where FOI requesters had experienced excessive waits, and also about a series of cases where the ICO itself had encountered lengthy time lags while the Cabinet Office dealt with ICO investigations.

The Cabinet Office response to this (which it took them three months to send) included a retaliatory list of examples where the ICO was taking an extremely long time to decide on complaints.

Anecdotal evidence from freedom of information requests made by the BBC suggests that the ICO has indeed identified some correct targets. We have also met particular problems with the Ministry of Defence, the Government Equalities Office, the Metropolitan and British Transport Police, and Islington Council. However, our experience with the Cabinet Office is that the efficiency of its FOI team has improved markedly in the past few months, which may reflect the ICO's pressure already exerted over the past year.

But the Campaign for Freedom of Information is complaining that the list does not include the Ministry of Justice, even though it says this responds to less than 85% of requests on time, one of the ICO's criteria.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 1:41pm on 01 Oct 2010, PPaddon wrote:

    Slightly off topic perhaps.

    I am surprised that London Borough of Sutton do not appear on the list.

    In my dealings with them over the last 15 months or so (on care issues for my sister), they obfuscate, delay, refuse to answer the question and ignore their own complaints procedure.

    In contrast, Wigan have been excellent in dealing with care issues for my father and trying to help in my sister's case.

    The Local Authority Ombudsman refuses to intervene until Sutton announce the complaint closed. What's the point of an ombudsman?



    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:04pm on 01 Oct 2010, stgr wrote:

    I'll believe that the ICO are serious about enforcement when they start issuing enforcement notices against the likes of the Cabinet Office, MOD and Home Office - publishing a list of those departments who are breaking the law is like publishing a list of people who are thieves - Who needs a list? People want enforcement, not talk, not lists, not excuse making - the ICO has always been the lapdog of the government departments it is supposed to regulate whether in the field of DPA or FOI - it is and remains an unfit for purpose joke - and all the lists in the world won't alter that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:10pm on 01 Oct 2010, stgr wrote:

    By way of an example of the above, months ago, the ICO were sent documented proof that an officer of the British Transport Police's Professional Standards Department was regularly committing criminal breaches of Section 55(3) of the Data Protection Act in that he was unlawfully accessing the police national computer to obtain information held on people who had made complaints about the conduct of BTP Officers - the ICO have still not even acknowledged the complaint and will no doubt come up with some excuse to justify why this corrupt police officer is not going to face criminal charges for the 40+ people whom he has unlawfully run PNC checks on this year alone. There are plenty of other examples I could cite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 9:03pm on 01 Oct 2010, Bob F wrote:

    At least the NHS won't be able to feature in the table in future.
    When the 150PCTs and 120SHAs are taken over by 500 closed consortia they will be exempt from the FoI.
    As will foundation Hospitals.
    £80 billion spent by bodies with no duty to let the public know why.(Private Eye 1272)
    Nice to see that 'Big Society' doesn't mean open government

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 3:22pm on 02 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Martin Rosenbaum.

    seems to me that there is one 'attribute' that the problem cases mentioned (including stgr's #3) have in common -- a lack of professionalism which, apparently, many Brits are proud of.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 2:45pm on 07 Oct 2010, Soloduck wrote:

    Sorry Bob F - how will consortia and foundation trusts be exempt? GPs are independent contractors and are named within the Act (although many have never had a request) and foundation trusts are include how & I suspect will always be - as are dentists, etc.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

More from this blog...

Latest contributors

BBC iD

Sign in

bbc.co.uk navigation

BBC © 2012 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.