Border Agency and Cardiff fail on FoI reviews
Keeping info in lock-down
The Information Commissioner's Office has ordered two public bodies to improve the way they deal with internal reviews
It has issued practice recommendations to both the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Cardiff Council over internal reviews, which someone refused data under Freedom of Information can require. Such reviews normally precede a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) about an FoI refusal.
The ICO said that UKBA has "failed numerous times" to conduct such reviews. Between January 2007 and July 2008, it completed just 17 of 46 reviews within the 40 working days allowed for exceptionally difficult reviews, while between August 2008 and January 2009 it only completed 10% of reviews within the 20 working days normally allowed, while more than half missed the 40 day deadline.
Cardiff was criticised for failing to complete internal reviews, with some open for more than two years, for failing to log and track requests and for holding inaccurate statistics. The ICO had already asked the council to clarify its processes for internal reviews, but it failed to do so within the required time.
"Authorities must understand that, although we will work with them to improve their practice, the informal resolution of compliance or conformity issues will not be pursued indefinitely," said assistant information commissioner Gerrard Tracey.
"We will take action against those who show a lack of progress, commitment and engagement with regards to their responsibilities under the Act."
This article was originally published Kable.
Kable's GC weekly is a free email newsletter covering the latest news and analysis of public sector technology. To register click here.
FIRE the b@st@rds!!!
I can't be the only one commenting here who is heartily sick and tired of the double standards that seem to exist between the conditions of ordinary working people and govt/local govt employees.
Out here in the real world we get FIRED when we fail to perform - and we don't get huge golden handshakes for the privilege either. Or a horizontal shift into another sinecure job.
As far as most of us are concerned, these constant expressions of concern have no meaning or merit whatever - it's unchecked incompetence - irresponsible at best, criminal at worst.
Until we start reading about people being fired - preferably the people at the top not the bottom, it's all just piss in the wind. And by fired, I mean fired - not early retirement onto an income most of us can only dream about, or a quiet shift to another cushy number.
Not the only ones
DCSF haven't been particularly good at FOI requests either, being very secretive and obstructive. They refuse to publish information and then whinge about costs when people ask for it via the FOI route, which appears to be a deliberate policy of secrecy to me.
ICO fail: "We will take action against those who show a lack of progress"
Bloody do something then!