Dear all, after a freedom of information request to the ICO, I have received quite extensive advice as well as documents and records on the subject of whether and how the Home Office and the MPS comply with the Freedom of Information Act and relevant guidance. The released files includes correspondence, meeting notes (ICO with Public Authority) and many internal comments from the ICO.
At least in my opinion, it provides quite interesting insight in a) how these two authorities exercise their functions under the FOI laws (I chose those two for the simple reason that they fail to carry out Internal Reviews in the ICO-suggested 20 days timeframe) b)how the ICO performs its audit and enforcement role. I am copying the full answer email below - I have also been sent three PDF attachments (one of the Home Office and two for the MPS), distributed over three ICO emails in total. In order not to overwhelm the list and its subscribers - the PDFs are several MB each - I have posted them on SlideShare where you can view and download them. Home Office: http://www.slideshare.net/mbimmler/home-office-1245234 MPS 1: http://www.slideshare.net/mbimmler/metropolitan-police-1-1245235 MPS 2: http://www.slideshare.net/mbimmler/metropolitan-police-2-1245236 I hope this is of interest to other list subscribers! Best, Michael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Internal Compliance Team <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:28 PM Subject: FOI request response 1/3 - Read this first [Ref. IRQ0238334] To: [email protected] 3rd April 2009 Case Reference Number IRQ0238334 Dear Mr Bimmler I write further to our acknowledgement letter to you dated 10 March 2009 and in response to your request for information. As you are aware we have treated your request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your request of 8 March 2009 asks for ‘all the records you hold on contacting these authorities with reference to this matter’, including ‘correspondence sent and received, internal memoranda on the topic, notes on draft replies, records on discussions of this topic etc.’ Having referred to your enquiry dated 2 March (and replied to by Cath Schofield), I have inferred that ‘these authorities’ refers to the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police. ‘This matter’ has been taken to refer to the practice of setting a target assessment period of 40 days to all internal review requests. You originally stated a preference for contact to be made by email in your general enquiry. Therefore, in accordance with section 11 of the Freedom of Information Act we have attempted to give effect to this preference. Therefore, all documents being supplied are attached as PDF documents, one containing all documents relating to the Home Office, and two containing all documents relating to the Metropolitan Police. Due to the limits on email sizes that can be sent, the documents have been sent across three emails, this email has the Home Office information attached, ‘FOI request response 2/3’ and ‘FOI request response 3/3’ have the information relating to the Metropolitan Police attached. If you require this information sending to you in hard copy form, or on a disc, please let me know. Having conducted a search, information falling within the scope of your request has been located in two enforcement cases, one for each authority. These then contain audits of cases that contain issues. I have then cross referenced these, and supplied information from them where relevant to the request. Background to monitoring/enforcement It may be helpful if we begin by explaining a little of the background to our monitoring activity. The Commissioner's monitoring of public authorities' approach to internal reviews is primarily informed via the complaints made to his office (section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Regulation 18 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). When incidences of non-conformity with the Codes of Practice or principles set out in guidance issued by the office occur, they are logged by the FOI Good Practice and Enforcement Team within ‘Enforcement cases’. Procedural issues highlighted, such as timescales for internal reviews, may also be highlighted by case officers whilst investigating a section 50 complaint, or be mentioned in a Decision Notice. Monitoring by the FOI Good Practice and Enforcement Team has taken place since the inception of the team in July 2006. Initial monitoring of internal reviews was restricted on account of the limited resources available; however in 2008 the FOI Good Practice and Enforcement Team was expanded, allowing them to carry out wider observation of both compliance with the Act / Regulations, and conformity with the associated Codes of Practice. You can find out more about the role of the FOI Good Practice and Enforcement Team, and the types of compliance and conformity issues they monitor at: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/enforcement_strategy_including_moj_update_30_05_07.pdf Some of the correspondence provided relates to current guidance on internal reviews. This can be found in the guidance section of our website. Although not stored on the cases, this guidance will have been provided to public authorities (including the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office) where issues with internal reviews have been highlighted. As the information is accessible to you on our website in the exact format it will have been provided (via the above link), it is exempt under section 21. I will address the information that has been collated that is relevant to your request (as well as that which is being provided under advice and assistance) by summarising what is held on each authority. Home Office Each document in the attachment ‘Home Office.pdf’ has been numbered. 1 Enforcement issues log This document is produced as an audit of complaints received and is part of the enforcement case (ENF0224204). The majority of the document is being released under advice and assistance, and shows details of internal review delays being flagged in the eighth column. The entries for case reference FS50221036 and FS50197657 are within the scope of your request as they highlight the practice of setting a 40 working day deadline for an internal review. Any information that falls within the scope of your request from these cases can be found in documents 7 to 9. 2 Home Office email delaying internal review A sample letter from the Home Office setting a 40 working day deadline for internal review on the enforcement case. 3 Recommendation for progression of case Pages 2 and 4 directly refer to the practice of setting a 40 working day deadline. The rest of the document is being supplied under advice and assistance to illustrate the issues considered by the case. The final recommendation on page 4 suggests ongoing monitoring, and that no contact should be made with the Home Office on this issue as part of this enforcement case at this point. 4 Correspondence between Home Office and ICO Provided under advice and assistance to give complete picture of the enforcement case. 5 Correspondence between Home Office and ICO Provided under advice and assistance to give complete picture of the enforcement case. 6 Correspondence between Home Office and ICO Provided under advice and assistance to give complete picture of the enforcement case. The table referred to contains no information within the scope of the request, or which relates to information within the scope of the request, and has therefore not been included. 7 Correspondence between ICO and Home Office re FS50187880 This letter, and the one in 8 are the only two letters held where the Home Office have been directly written to on the issue of 20 working days being a reasonable timescale for an internal review. Although the letter does not make specific reference to setting a 40 day deadline, it does refer to our guidance on the topic, and hence has been considered within the scope of your request. 8 Correspondence between ICO and Home Office re FS50197657 As above. 9 Note on case FS50221036 Internal note highlighting issue on a case. You will note that in some places names have been redacted. The names of complainants constitute personal data of someone other than the applicant. We have therefore considered whether disclosure of this information would be fair under the first data protection principle. We have concluded that it would not be fair to disclose this information; this is with particular regard to the expectations of the data subject (the complainant). Disclosure would contravene the first data protection principle and this information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). This section of the Act states:- Section 40 “(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied. (3) The first condition is – a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene – i. any of the data protection principles …” However, you will also note that some names have not been redacted but this is where the case has been appealed to the Information Tribunal and therefore these details are in the public domain. Metropolitan Police As with the Home Office, each document has been numbered and can be found in ‘Metropolitan Police 1.pdf’ and ‘Metropolitan Police 2.pdf’ in the two subsequent emails that have been sent to you. Due to the volume of information, I have attempted to highlight those parts of documents of relevance to your request by marking them with an asterisk. 1 Extract from enforcement log Provided under advice and assistance to show open enforcement case (from which information is taken). 2 Extract from enforcement referral log Issues with internal reviews marked with asterisk. ENF08152 and ENF08153 directly relevant to request with regard to ‘RN advises that IR can take 3 months’. Rest of document provided under advice and assistance. 3 Enforcement issues log Issues with internal reviews on cases marked with an asterisk, the rest of the document provided under advice and assistance (to give more complete overview of cases and issues). 4 Position at 7 May 2008 – Further enforcement log entries As above. 5 Recommendation for progression of case Gives the aims of the enforcement case. Internal review timescales highlighted amongst other issues. 6 Internal email discussing letter in 9 Notes on what to be included in letter 7 Internal email discussing letter in 9 Notes on what to be included in letter 8 Extract from ACPO manual Included on enforcement case to highlight source of ‘three months’ as a timescale for an internal review. Manual is used by police authorities in handling FOI requests and is produced by ACPO. Although the rest of the manual is not within the scope of the request, it can be found on the ACPO website. 9 ICO letter to Metropolitan Police Sections where issues relevant to your request are raised are marked with an asterisk. The rest of the document has been provided under advice an assistance. 10 Internal email between case officer and enforcement Mentions issue. 11 Metropolitan Police response to ICO letter All provided under advice and assistance, apart from section highlighted on page 7. 12 ICO response to Metropolitan Police – Draft 1 See below. 13 ICO response to Metropolitan Police – Draft 2 See below. 14 ICO response to Metropolitan Police – Final version Refers to our guidance on internal reviews on page 7. Only minor alterations between drafts, but provided as they all fall within the scope of your request. Also contains draft meeting agenda highlighting the timescales for internal reviews as an issue. 15 File note – new case Shows one way in which enforcement become aware of new complaints. Provided under advice and assistance. 16 Agenda ICO/MPS meeting Again, the timescales for internal reviews as an issue to be discussed. 17 Meeting report Section marked with asterisk within scope of request. 18 Updated case audit Issues with internal reviews on cases marked with an asterisk, the rest of the document provided under advice and assistance (to give more complete overview of cases and issues as previously). 19 Presentation brief from Metropolitan Police Relates to presentation below, provided under advice and assistance. 20 Presentation to the Metropolitan Police – 9 March 2009 Page 15 of particular relevance. Again, you will note that in some places names have been redacted. The names of complainants constitute personal data of someone other than the applicant. We have therefore considered whether disclosure of this information would be fair under the first data protection principle. We have concluded that it would not be fair to disclose this information; this is with particular regard to the expectations of the data subject (the complainant). Disclosure would contravene the first data protection principle and this information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). This section of the Act states:- Section 40 “(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if c) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and d) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied. (3) The first condition is – b) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene – i. any of the data protection principles …” However, you will also note that some names have not been redacted but this is where the case has been appealed to the Information Tribunal and therefore these details are in the public domain. Any further information Information relevant to your request has been collated by consulting our FOI Good Practice and Enforcement team, going through enforcement cases relating to the authorities, and cross-referencing any relevant complaint cases referred to within the enforcement cases. Although this should provide all the information within the scope of your request, it is important to highlight that I have not been able to search the contents of every record relating to the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office. A more detailed explanations of why this is the case follows, but in brief, section 12 of the FOIA makes clear that a public authority (such as the Information Commissioner’s Office) is not obliged to comply with an FOIA request if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the ‘appropriate limit'. The ‘appropriate limit’ for the Information Commissioner’s Office, as determined in the ‘Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004’ is £450. We have determined that £450 would equate to 18 hours work. Whilst all the information you have requested does sit within our electronic filing systems, these systems are not set up to easily provide us with the type of information you have requested. By and large this is not the sort of information we would need for our own day to day business purposes, as any relevant information should already be extracted for use on an enforcement case. The system allows us to search for the cases we have dealt with in a number of different ways, such as by the unique reference number the case was given, the name and address of the person who contacted us and the name of any organisation or individual that has been complained about. We can also search for cases on the basis of the broad nature of the complaint, but internal reviews are usually addressed as a secondary issue on section 50 FOI complaints. As there are in excess of 200 FOI complaints cases of all types relating to the two authorities stored on our case management system, all containing anywhere between 10 and 100 (or more) documents. Allowing 10 minutes as a minimum to check for relevant information on cases and then extract it, this would add up to in excess of 30 hours. This is well in excess of the 18 hours which would accrue a charge of £450 or less. Having said this, most, if not all, relevant information will have been found by using the audits and searches already used within the enforcement case. Review procedure If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Team at the address below or e-mail [email protected] Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40 working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the Commissioner. If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint handler under the legislation. To make such an application, please write to the Case Reception Team, at the address below or visit the ‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online. A copy of our review procedure is attached to this email. Yours sincerely Adam Stevens Assistant Internal Compliance Manager. ____________________________________________________________________ The ICO’s vision is a society where information rights and responsibilities are respected by all. If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy. Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law. The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks. __________________________________________________________________ http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email protected] Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 -- Michael Bimmler [email protected] _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
