8 Conclusions and recommendations
First year of FOI implementation
1. It
is clear to us that the implementation of the FOI Act has already
brought about significant and new releases of information and
that this information is being used in a constructive and positive
way by a range of different individuals and organisations. We
have seen many examples of the benefits resulting from this legislation
and are impressed with the efforts made by public authorities
to meet the demands of the Act. This is a significant success.
(Paragraph 13)
Requesters' experiences
2. Indefinitely
delayed internal reviews conflict with the concept of the statutory
response time in the Act. We note that the Commissioner has the
discretion to begin his investigations when he judges that the
complaints process has effectively been exhausted. We welcome
the commitment he has now made to put pressure on public authorities
to complete internal reviews more quickly. (Paragraph 24)
3. Some public authorities
are not recognising the circumstances in which they should apply
the Environmental Information Regulations rather than the FOI
Act. We recommend that DEFRA and DCA work together to prepare
a shared code of practice for the EIRs and FOI. (Paragraph 31)
Public authorities' experiences
4. Whilst
central co-ordination of support and guidance to public authorities
can cause problems if it is slow or too directive, we believe
that when it is provided openly, it can be a valuable way of improving
compliance. We recommend that the DCA takes a more active role
in improving co-ordination and in disseminating advice from the
clearing house more widely throughout the public sector. (Paragraph
38)
5. The National Archives
has told us about the impressive range of guidance documents which
it has issued but the evidence suggests that records management
practices in some public authorities need substantial improvement.
More proactive leadership and progress management of departments'
records management systems and compliance with the section 46
code is required. We note that the National Archives will, during
2006, make plans to assess authorities' compliance with the section
46 code of practice and we look forward to the publication of
their findings at an early date. (Paragraph 41)
6. The National Archives
has been monitoring implementation of Electronic Document and
Records Management System in government departments in terms of
progress against the Cabinet Office targets for 2004. We recommend
that it publishes a report setting out the extent to which those
targets were met and the actions which should now be taken to
achieve the benefits from EDRMS. (Paragraph 43)
7. Baroness Ashton's
attitude that adequate processes for the long-term preservation
of digital records are in place contrasts with the views of the
National Archives. Her response to our questions does not accord
with the widely recognised view among industry specialists that
digital preservation of records is a complex and urgent problem
to which no satisfactory long-term strategy has been found. Difficulties
in accessing older electronic records could soon become a serious
problem for government departments. There is a serious possibility
that material over 10 years old will essentially be irretrievable
in the near future and complacency about this is not acceptable.
Plans are needed to handle the rapid and significant changes in
technology and the inevitable degradation of storage media. National
Archives and the DCA must take the lead in developing such plans.
We will monitor progress on this issue. (Paragraph 46)
The Information Commissioner
8. We
heard evidence from requesters and public authorities who had
waited months for the Information Commissioner to start investigating
their complaints. Witnesses also gave examples where the quality
of investigation and the information provided in the decision
notice were inadequate. (Paragraph 52)
9. The impression
given by our witnesses was that the complaints resolution process
was unsatisfactory during 2005, but we were pleased to note the
efforts being made by the ICO to learn from its first year's experience
of a challenging workload in order to investigate complaints more
efficiently. We are surprised that the need for additional resources
was not identified earlier in 2005, before the backlog became
such a problem, and we are not convinced that adequate resources
have been allocated to resolve the problem, or that they were
allocated early enough. The Commissioner has told us he will publish
a progress report in September 2006. We expect this to provide
measures of quality as well as quantity. We will use this report
to monitor the success of the recovery plan and to assess whether
further action by the Committee is needed. (Paragraph 62)
10. We support the
Commissioner's decision to adopt a firmer approach to enforcement.
We expect to see him use his full range of powers to improve compliance
and reduce the delays being experienced by requesters. (Paragraph
68)
11. We recommend that
the DCA takes a more proactive role in ensuring that government
departments co-operate fully with the Commissioner and provide
him with the information required for his investigations, within
the periods agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding. (Paragraph
69)
12. We believe that
to it is too soon to assess the role of the Information Tribunal
process in detail, but the Commissioner has made some important
points which should be considered at a later date. (Paragraph
71)
The role of the DCA
13. The
20 day response deadline is a statutory requirement and not merely
a target. The DCA, together with the Information Commissioner,
must work to improve compliance with the deadline and raise standards
so that authorities consistently provide a more timely response
to requesters. (Paragraph 79)
14. Routine time extensions
of up to several months undermine the spirit of the 20 day response
deadline in the Act and reduce the benefits for requesters. We
recommend that the DCA guidance be updated to reflect the Information
Commissioner's guideline that two months should normally be sufficient
to reach a decision about the public interest and the Minister's
undertaking that wherever possible all information should be
disclosed within 20 days. We recommend that the DCA publish data
to show how often and by how much this guideline is exceeded by
government departments. (Paragraph 82)
15. We recommend that
the target times and actual time taken for internal reviews by
government departments be included in the DCA quarterly published
statistics. (Paragraph 85)
16. The clearing house
must comply fully with the letter and the spirit of the FOI Act,
be openly accountable for its work and respond to any individual
requests for information which it receives in full accordance
with the Act. (Paragraph 91)
17. We recommend that
the clearing house publish quarterly statistics about its case
handling so as to provide clear information about its role. (Paragraph
92)
18. We would be concerned
if there were cases where public authorities were spending weeks
finding information. Since authorities may already include this
time within their calculations of chargeable limits, we do not
consider that it would justify a review of the fees regulations,
but it would demonstrate a serious shortcoming in some public
authorities' records management systems. (Paragraph 97)
19. We recommend that
problems with 'frivolous' requests should be dealt with through
the existing provisions in the Act. We do not consider that this
is an appropriate reason for reviewing the fees regulations. (Paragraph
100)
20. We see no need
to change the fees regulations. There appears to be a lack of
clarity and some under-use of the existing provisions. We recommend
that the DCA publish the results of its internal fees review when
it is concluded and that it conducts a public consultation before
deciding on any change. (Paragraph 104)
Relationship with the ICO
21. We
are not convinced that the relationship between the DCA and the
ICO is working as effectively as it might. We are concerned that
resource restrictions and staff salary constraints could limit
the Commissioner's performance as an independent regulator and
recommend that other reporting arrangements be considered if the
recovery plan does not achieve its stated objectives. (Paragraph
107)
22. We see considerable
merit in the Information Commissioner becoming directly responsible
to, and funded by, Parliament, and recommend that such a change
be considered when an opportunity arises to amend the legislation.
(Paragraph 108)
| 
