A draft Structural Reform Plan has been published by the Ministry of Justice. Structural Reform Plans were announced by the Prime Minister in a speech at the Civil Service Live event on 8 July 2010. Each department must publish a plan setting out clear priorities and milestones for implementation of the reforms set out in the Coalition Agreement. 

The milestones set out in the MoJ plan for civil liberties reforms are:

A. Mechanism to prevent unnecessary criminal offences announced Jul 2010
B. Publish proposals for the storage of internet and e-mail records Nov 2010
C. Commission on UK Bill of Rights established 2011
D. Draft Defamation Bill for the reform of libel laws published for pre-legislative scrutiny Mar 2011
E. Freedom of Information Act 2000 extended Nov 2011
F. Freedom Bill passed Nov 2011

View the Structural Reform Plan here.

Press release
14 July 2010

The information watchdog is handling record levels of business and productivity is dramatically up, the Information Commissioner’s Annual Report for 2009/10 shows.

Speaking at the annual report launch today, the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham will say that the watchdog is in pole position to deliver on the agenda of transparency, accountability, privacy and freedom.

“We’ve never been busier,” says the Commissioner, reporting a 20% rise in freedom of information cases and a 30% rise in data protection cases. “But despite the surge in business, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is keeping on top of the demand for our services.” The office closed 39% more cases than in 2008/09.

Christopher Graham says: “Technology, concerns about data security and the welcome focus on transparency of official information mean information rights are centre stage. We have made some significant internal changes to ensure we are best placed to deal with the increasing demands and expectations placed upon us by the public and the organisations we work with. Respect for information rights is not optional.  Organisations that ignore their responsibilities will not only lose the confidence and trust of citizens and consumers but could face painful enforcement action from the ICO as well.”

In 15 months the ICO has reduced a historic backlog of freedom of information complaints. The number of cases closed in 2009/10 increased by 39% on the previous year to 4,196.  At the same time the ICO has dealt with more enquiries than ever – in 2009/10 the ICO received 3,734 freedom of information complaints, up 20% compared to 2008/09.

With a new ICO mission statement and increased regulatory powers, Mr Graham uses his annual report to call for the Information Commissioner to report directly to Parliament, as in the case of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, to increase transparency around the reporting and financing arrangements of the ICO.

Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner, says: “I believe that the ICO has not just to be independent of government, but be seen to be independent. To carry out my duties effectively and with the full confidence of all parties, now is the time to formalise the governance arrangements for the Information Commissioner, suitable for an independent public official whose accountability is fully to Parliament, rather than primarily via Departments of State.”

The annual report highlights that the ICO received over 212,000 calls to its helpline in 2009/10 – a 6% increase compared to 2008/09. It received 33,234 enquiries and complaints concerning personal information. Failing to adequately deal with requests for personal information topped the list of complaints to the ICO under the Data Protection Act. Lenders came top of the list of sectors generating the most complaints under the Act.

A full copy of the annual report can be downloaded from the ICO website.

The Academies Bill has been amended in the House of Lords to bring academy proprietors within the scope of the FOI Act. The amendment was passed at the Bill’s report stage. It was moved by schools minister Lord Hill of Oareford following an undertaking given to Lord Lucas, who had moved a similar amendment during the Bill’s committee stage (see earlier post here).

Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, in Committee I said that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Lucas that academies should be included within the coverage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I said that I would consider this issue further and come back to it on Report. Having thought about it, I can see no reason why academy proprietors should not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act in the same way as all maintained schools are subject to that Act. Amendment 47 would simply insert a new clause into the Bill that would amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to add academy proprietors to the list of public bodies covered by that Act.

The new clause brings academy proprietors within the coverage of the Act in respect of information that they hold for the purposes of their functions under academy arrangements. This will cover functions relating to establishing and maintaining an academy and the carrying on of the academy once it has been established. If enacted, it is our intention to commence this duty in sufficient time to ensure that any schools which become academies in September will continue to be subject to the Act after they cease to be maintained schools. In relation to existing academies which have up until now not been subject to the Act, we intend to commence this duty for them early in the new year in order to give them time to prepare.

We believe that extending the Freedom of Information Act to academies is right in itself, but it also has another advantage linked to our broader discussions in Committee and today about consultation and transparency. I believe that having information about academies in the public domain will help dispel suspicion and make people appreciate the positive contribution that they are making to raising educational standards. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will welcome this amendment and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for flagging the issue up with his original amendment.

Amendment 55 is a technical amendment required to ensure that Amendment 47, the main amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, will technically extend throughout the United Kingdom, even though it will apply only in England. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: Thank you.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords would thank the Minister for this. I wish to ask him a question. Yesterday we debated the small primary school that would have been able to become a foundation trust. Today, we have the announcement of the review of the UEA e-mail issue in relation to climate change scientific research, which in itself raises FOI issues. All of us who have been involved in public authorities know that establishing the apparatus and support mechanisms to deal with FOI requests can be considerable. I can envisage a school, perhaps not so much a primary but a secondary, dealing with admission issues and being subject to FOI requests, which is quite likely. My question for the Minister is: what support mechanism will be put in place to help schools deal with the FOI system, because they will need something.

Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, that is a very fair and sensible point. At the moment, maintained schools would be helped by the local authority. I take the noble Lord’s point. Academies which find themselves in that situation will need the kind of support that he is talking about. We will think about that within the department. I do not know whether the department is the right place to deal with this-it may well be. I take the noble Lord’s point; I agree with him and I will reflect on it. Perhaps I can let him know how we get on.

Amendment 47 agreed.

The Bill will have its 3rd reading in the House of Lords on 13 July 2010.

Hansard Lords report stage here.

The Public Sector Transparency Board papers have been published in a commentable way here.

The Board met for the first time on 24th June 2010.

The Review found an ethos of minimal compliance (and at times non-compliance) by the CRU with both the letter and the spirit of the FoIA and EIR.  We believe that this must change and that leadership is required from the University‘s most senior staff in driving through a positive transformation of attitudes.  Public trust in science depends on an inherent culture of honesty, rigour and transparency.  The requirements of FoIA and EIR must not be seen as impositions.  They are a necessary part of the implicit contract between the scientist and broader society.  Such an open culture will also lead to the best science.

The Review offers the following recommendations for action within the UEA:

•  Change fundamentally the perception that responsibility for FoIA/EIR compliance lies with administrative staff. University senior staff need to make clear their commitment to a culture of honesty, rigour and transparency, plus the supporting processes and resources.

• Review the resourcing and standing of the FoIA/EIR/DPA compliance and  request handling processes.  Our findings have highlighted significant problems in the areas of: imbalance of authority; lack of effective challenge at appeal; over dependence on single individuals; inadequate escalation processes and limited strategic oversight.  

•  A concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds.  This should include: promotion of the University‘s formal publication policy; incorporating more information on FoIA/EIR/DPA responsibilities in the induction processes for new staff members; developing a rolling awareness campaign to focus the attention of established staff, particularly in the context of the changing landscape e.g. Queens University judgment (see paragraph 34); and issuing annual reminders of the importance of transparency and of key FoIA/EIR/DPA responsibilities;

•  Once the improved awareness measures and processes are in place, to run a programme of independent, external, tests with requests for information to verify the continuing effectiveness of these operations.  This is a special case of the more general recommendation on ‗Audit processes‘ given in the Governance Chapter.

As a final comment we find that a fundamental lack of engagement by the CRU team with their obligations under FoIA/EIR, both prior to 2005 and subsequently, led to an overly defensive approach that set the stage for the subsequent mass of FoIA/EIR requests in July and August 2009.   We recognise that there was deep suspicion within CRU, as to the motives of those making detailed requests.  Nonetheless, the requirements of the legislation for release of information are
clear and early action would likely have prevented much subsequent grief.

The Ministry of Justice has today (6/7/10) published a Call for Evidence on how the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC and the Data Protection Act 1998 are working.

The Government has issued a Call for Evidence on current data protection law to help inform the UK’s position on negotiations for a new EU data protection instrument, which are expected to start in early 2011.

The Call for Evidence lasts for three months and is due to close on 6 October 2010.

At the same time as launching this Call for Evidence, the Government has published a provisional post implementation review impact assessment of the Data Protection Act 1998, on which we would also welcome comments. This impact assessment complements the Call for Evidence and publication of a full impact assessment is planned for the end of 2010.

Please note that the Call for Evidence is not a formal consultation, but an evidence gathering exercise.

The document states that evidence is particularly sought on the following issues:

• A. definitions;
• B. data subjects’ rights;
• C. obligations of data controllers;
• D. powers and penalties of the Information Commissioner;
• E. the principles-based approach
• F. exemptions under the DPA; and
• G. international transfers.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/call-for-evidence-060710.htm

Schools minister Lord Hill of Oareford has confirmed that the government accepts academy schools should be public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. In response to an amendment proposed by Lord Lucas during the committee stage of the Academies Bill, to add academy proprietors to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act, the minister said he supported the amendment in principle and promised to come back to the issue at report stage.

Moved by Lord Lucas

168: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause-

“Academy proprietors: freedom of information

In Schedule 1 (public authorities) to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, after Part IV insert-

“Part IVA Academies
56A A qualifying Academy proprietor, within the meaning of section 8(2) of the Academies Act 2010, when exercising functions under that Act.””

Lord Lucas: My Lords, the coalition agreement pledges to review the Freedom of Information Act with a view to increasing its scope. This, the first legislative act of the coalition, seeks to reduce its scope. It should not.

Lord Hill of Oareford: My Lords, in Amendment 168 my noble friend proposes inserting a new clause that would amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to add academy proprietors to the list of public bodies covered by that Act. Having thought about this, and having come newly into the department, I think that he makes a very good point in his new clause. I can see no reason in principle why academy proprietors, in relation to their function of running academies under academy arrangements, should not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act in the same way as all other state-funded schools are.

I am also happy to confirm that this Government, like the last one, accept that academies are public authorities for the purposes of the Act. In principle, then, I am completely with my noble friend on the merits of his amendment. It also helps us to address some of the broader debate that we have had about consultation, where I accept the points that have been made from around the Committee. Making sure that information is available and that there is as much transparency as possible is part of the process of helping to overcome suspicion, so it will help in that respect as well. I undertake to consider the issue further. If my noble friend would be happy enough to withdraw his amendment, I will come back to the issue on Report.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is very cheering news at this time of night, I shall go straight off and have a whisky to celebrate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The quarterly Freedom of Information statistics for central government have been published for January to March 2010. Credit to the Department of Health, which dealt with 98% of all requests within the standard 20 working day deadline. This is the second highest ever achieved by a Whitehall department. The Privy Council Office holds the record – it answered 100% of requests within 20 working days between April and June 2005 – but it only received 25 requests in that period. This is the second consecutive quarter DoH has achieved 98%.

Executive Summary
Volumes [see Table 1]
Across all monitored bodies, a total of 11,199 requests were received an increase of 9 per cent on quarter 1 2009.

93 per cent of requests received had been processed at the time of monitoring.

Departments of State reported receiving 6,857 “non-routine” information requests during the first quarter of 2010 (Q1). Other monitored bodies received 4,342 requests.

363 requests handled under the amended Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) which came into force on 1 January 2005.

Timeliness [see Table 2 and Table B]
During Q1 of 2010, 89 per cent of all monitored bodies’ requests (excluding those “on hold” or lapsed) were “in time”, in that they were processed within the statutory deadline or were subject to a permitted deadline extension. This figure is above both the previous quarter and the corresponding quarter of 2009.

Figures for individual Departments of State ranged from 55 per cent (Ministry of Defence) to 100 per cent (Department of Health). For the 21 Departments of State who received more than 20 requests in the quarter, 15 had more than 90 per cent of requests processed “in time”.

Outcomes [see Table 3 and Table C]
Of all “resolvable” requests received during Q1 of 2010 (i.e. requests where it was possible to make a substantive decision on whether to release the information being sought), 54 per cent were granted in full, slightly lower than both the previous quarter and the corresponding quarter of 2009.

Figures for individual Departments of State ranged from 24 per cent (Cabinet Office) to 77 per cent (Communities and Local Government and the Government Equalities Office).

 The stats can be downloaded in Excel format here.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has published a consultation document on its publication proposals relating to MPs’ expenses.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has taken enforcement action against the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for failing to respond to FOI requests within the 20 day time limit. The enforcement notice states:

This action was prompted by a letter from the IPCC which stated that it was experiencing difficulties in responding to requests for information under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”).  The IPCC confirmed to the Commissioner that it had a backlog of 72 requests, 69 of which were ‘out of time’.  In addition to this backlog, the Commissioner was aware that he had received nine complaints under section 50 of the Act which identified a failure to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits, four of which remained outstanding at the time of drafting this notice.
…
The IPCC has repeatedly failed to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits.  Further the Commissioner is concerned that the timescale proposed by the IPCC for the elimination of its backlog of overdue requests may not be met, unless the authority is compelled to take such action by way of an Enforcement Notice. 

This is only the second time the Commissioner has issued an enforcement notice under s.52 of the FOI Act. The first was in relation to multiple complaints about the non-disclosure of the Attorney General’s advice on the legality of military intervention in Iraq. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice could result in the Commissioner referring the matter to the High Court where it can be dealt with as contempt of court.

A copy of the enforcement notice is here. The ICO’s Enforcement Strategy is here.