PQs on compliance by departments being monitored by ICO for delays

Updated: 20 Oct 2010

19 Oct 2010 : Column 640W
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps her Department is taking to improve its level of compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [16939]

Lynne Featherstone [holding answer 13 October 2010]: The Home Office has recognised that its performance in handling Freedom of Information requests must improve. We have taken a number of steps to achieve this, including a full review of the process for handling requests and better monitoring and reporting procedures. These measures have led to an increase in each of the last three months in the proportion of requests answered

14 Oct 2010 : Column 408W
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to improve its level of compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [16998]

David Mundell: The Scotland Office endeavours to handle all FOI requests in accordance with statutory requirements and good practice. Internal procedures have been reviewed to ensure that all requests are answered as quickly as possible; all relevant staff have been briefed on the Information Commissioner's recent report; and the Scotland Office senior management team monitors performance on a monthly basis. For the most recent quarter, the Scotland Office exceeded 86% within 20 working days, which is above the Information Commissioner's acceptable level of performance.

13 Oct 2010 : Column 338W
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to improve its level of compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [16940]

Steve Webb: The Department takes very seriously its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. It has experienced a significant increase in the number of Freedom of Information requests received. Despite this, internal monitoring shows that more than 90% of the Department's Freedom of Information requests were dealt with on time in June, July and August this year, the most recent months for which figures are available. The Department is also committed to increasing the transparency of its responses.

PQ: ICO average case closure time

10 Jun 2010 : Column 213W

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average time taken to resolve complaints made to the Information Commissioner's office was in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [1517]

Mr Blunt: The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) divides the complaints it receives into two categories: Data Protection and Freedom of Information. The latest period for which figures for the average time taken to resolve complaints are available is 1 January to 31 March 2010.

The ICO closed its oldest FOI cases during this period which has affected the average age of cases closed. On 1 April 2009 the average age of live FOI cases was 286 days but by 1 April 2010 this had fallen to 150 days.

This information has been provided by the ICO.

Lord McNally: Govt considering how best to extend FOI Act

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Question Asked by Lord Lucas

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will be extended to academies, examination boards, the Higher Education Statistics Agency and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Services.[HL55]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): The Government intend to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency. We are currently considering how best to give effect to this aim, one option for which is making further bodies subject to the Act.

3 Jun 2010 : Column WA7

Question in the Lords on Government response to review of 30 year rule

There was a short debate in the Lords on 9 March 2010 on the Government's response to the 30 year rule review, following a question by Lord Lester.

Asked By Lord Lester of Herne Hill

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the recommendations in Review of the 30 Year Rule, chaired by Paul Dacre and published in January 2009.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government published their response to Review of the 30 Year Rule to Parliament and the general public on 25 February 2010. A copy of the response is available in the Library of the House. The Government also tabled an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill on the same day to bring forward the legislation necessary to implement the change to the 30-year rule and other key proposals set out in the response.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I greatly welcome the Government's response, both in their paper and in securing amendments that we hope will survive any wash-up and become law. My concern is whether the Government, having willed the end, have also willed the means. The Dacre report, as the Minister will know, recommended that the Government should make adequate additional provision in the 2011 to 2014 period and subsequent Comprehensive Spending Reviews for all records-related activities in the way that was spelled out. As I understand it-the Minister will correct me if I am wrong-the Government have rejected the notion of any additional resources. Will that not undermine the whole operation?

Lord Bach: My Lords, first things first. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. This is in a Bill that is to come before this House in a couple of weeks' time and then we will see what happens to it. I have no doubt that all its parts will be widely accepted around the House-certainly this part will. As to the future, we will see. We have made an impact assessment, which estimates a total cost of between £50 million and £80 million over a 10-year transition period. We shall work with central government and the wider archive sector to ensure that transition to the new rule can be achieved in the most cost-effective manner.

Full debate in Hansard.

EDM 589: FOI and companies owned by two or more public authorities

An early day motion has been tabled in the House of Commons calling for companies that are wholly owned by two or more public authorities to be brought within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Currently, companies that are wholly owned by a single public authority are subject to the Act, but those owned by two or more authorities are not. The motion calls for this loophole to be closed. It also calls for companies to be covered if they are 90% or more publicly owned, as opposed to the current 100% threshold.

The motion has been tabled by Conservative MP Peter Bottomley with the help of John Cross, a volunteer for mysociety's FOI website whatdotheyknow.com.

That this House notes that section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with certain exceptions, makes companies wholly owned by the Crown or by a single public authority subject to the Act; further notes that a company wholly owned by two or more public authorities or 95 per cent. owned by a single public authority will be outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and calls for the closure of this loophole and for companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities to be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The motion is open for other MPs to sign. Please write to your MP and ask them to sign EDM 589 on Freedom of Information and companies owned by two or more public authorities. 22 MPs have already signed - check the list here.

Written Answers: ICO investigations involving complaints from MPs

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many hon. Members have referred responses to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Information Commission in each of the last three years; and in each case how many such referrals were not resolved after 12 months of consideration. [287999]

Mr. Wills: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).


9 Sep 2009 : Column 2025W
Information about the numbers of complaints referred by hon. Members to the ICO and the time taken to resolve them is set out as follows. However, it should be noted that this information was identified on the basis of complaints made from a respondent address of the Palace of Westminster. It does not include referrals made by hon. Members from their constituency or other address or from MEPs or MSPs.

Number of hon. Members Total number of cases Resolved in over 12 months


The ICO is committed to resolving cases as efficiently as possible, and is improving its closure rates despite large increases in the volume of case receipts since the introduction of the Act.

This information was provided by the ICO.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 09 Sep 2009 (pt 0028)

MoJ PQ on FOI consultations

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what progress he has made in his review of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [279682]

Mr. Wills: In the Prime Minister's statement on Constitutional Renewal on 10 June, he emphasised our plans to look at broadening the application of the Freedom of information Act and reducing the time taken to release official documents.

We are considering carefully the responses to the public consultation on extending the Act through a section 5 order. This could include within the scope of the Act bodies performing functions of a public nature and contractors providing services that are functions of public authorities. We will publish our response to the section 5 consultation shortly.

In his statement, the Prime Minister also announced the reduction in the 30-year rule to 20 years. Our detailed response to the 30-year rule review will be published by the summer.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090616/text/90616w0023.htm#09061676000027

MPs' allowances

Written Answers 3 Apr 2008

Mr. Carmichael: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2008, Official Report, column 89W, on Freedom of Information to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, what further steps the Members Estimate Committee plans to take regarding FoI requests for data held by the House. [199136]

Nick Harvey: The House has appealed to the High Court against the Information Tribunal decision that full details of the additional costs allowance for 14 Members should be disclosed, on the grounds that the tribunal had misdirected itself in law, in particular in ordering the disclosure of private addresses.

Further decisions by the Information Commissioner now need to be addressed. The Members Estimate Committee has taken the view that two such decisions,

3 Apr 2008 : Column 1143W

which require that the House should disclose less detailed information about the allowances of seven Members should not be appealed. This information will be released to the requesters shortly.

The same principle will also be applied to requests for information on the claims of 14 Members about which the House has appealed to the High Court. Data on these 14 MPs will only be disclosed now to that lesser level of information (by category of expense but not down to receipt level). The appeal relates to more detailed information about addresses and receipts.

The same level of information (i.e. by category—not down to receipt level) will be released about the expenses of all Members in the autumn, for the years 2004-05 to 2007-08. For the future, information compiled on a similar basis will be released quarterly, starting with the information relating to the first quarter of 2008-09 (April to June). This release of information will also begin in the autumn.

The MEC remains committed to reviewing the allowance system and ensuring that there is probity and transparency.

ICO complaints

This PQ from a few weeks ago gives the current state of play regarding the number of complaints awaiting allocation at the ICO.

2 May 2007 : Column 1726W

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many complaints under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have been awaiting allocation to a case officer of the Information Commissioner's Offices (ICO) for (a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) longer, broken down by ICO (i) regional offices and (ii) teams; and if she will make a statement. [134506]

Ms Harman: As of 31 March 2007 the number of complaints under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 awaiting allocation to a case officer at the Information Commissioner's Office, broken down by time and team, was as detailed in the following table.

Constituents' privacy
Some recent PQs

4 Jun 2007 : Column WA157

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the extent to which the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1998 contain appropriate and necessary safeguards to limit or restrict the right of public access to information communicated to public authorities by Members of Parliament in their capacity as such, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, and to respect the right to private life and correspondence. [HL3926]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): The Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 were drafted by this Government with the need to protect confidential and personal information in mind. There are provisions within the Acts to protect such information where appropriate. The Government have not made a separate assessment of the safeguards within these Acts. The Human Rights Act 1998 contains provisions to give further effect to the convention rights, which include the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

4 Jun 2007 : Column WA158

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have reviewed the extent to which the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 need to be amended in the public interest so as further to limit or restrict the right of public access (a) to information about the activities of Members of Parliament, or (b) to information communicated to public authorities by Members of Parliament in their capacity as such; and, if so, for what reasons and in what respects are such amendments needed. [HL3927]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Government have not made a review of the kind suggested by the noble Lord. There are appropriate provisions already in both Acts to protect sensitive information.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received notification of any instances in which personal or confidential information communicated to public authorities by Members of Parliament in their capacity as such has been improperly disclosed, whether in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or otherwise. [HL3928]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Government have not received notification of any improper disclosure of personal or confidential information communicated to public authorities by Members of Parliament in their capacity as such.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What remedies are available to individuals whose right to respect for their personal privacy has been infringed by virtue of the unauthorised disclosure of personal or confidential information about themselves, communicated to public authorities by Members of Parliament in their capacity as such. [HL3929]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: An individual has the right to remedies following an unauthorised disclosure of personal information only where such a disclosure has been proven to contravene the relevant legislation (for example, the Data Protection Act 1998) or the common law (for example, where a duty of confidence is owed in respect of the information in question).

Prime Minister's Questions

Q4. [140252] Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend accept that among the important reforms and changes that have occurred on his watch over the past 10 years is freedom of information? Why should Parliament alone, of all the public bodies in this country, be able to contract out of a law? Can my right hon. Friend explain why the two Front Benches are supporting the private Member’s Bill, when it should be thrown in the dustbin?

The Prime Minister: Because I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend and because this may be the last time that he asks me a question at Prime Minister’s questions, I do not want to disagree with him—but if I were pushed to, I might. It is important—and this has been made clear—that on matters such as expenses, MPs continue to be very open. There is a consensus on that. A huge amount of scrutiny is given by the House about Members of Parliament and I do not think we should apologise for what we do in the House.

See Today in the Commons

Thanks to Paul Francis for pointing this out.