Memorandum from Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB
(CSE 01)
Thank you for inviting me to appear before
your Committee on 11 October.
When I met with you, I undertook to write to
you on two matters, one relating to the Freedom of Information
Act, and the other the Child Support Agency. I am now in a position
to deal with each in turn.
CHILD SUPPORT
AGENCY
Your Committee asked about automatic payment
reminder notices generated by the Child Support Agency's computer
system. It was suggested that people whose direct debits fell
due on a Sunday were receiving automatic reminder notices on the
following Monday (because the payment had not gone through with
Sunday being a non-working day).
Both of the Agency's computer systems only schedule
payments to be made on Bankers' Automated Clearance System (BACS)
working days. This, of course, excludes weekends and bank holidays.
Where, for example, a client arranges to make payment on the first
day of every month and that date falls on a non-working day the
collection date for the money is `rolled forward' to the next
working day. This is not counted as an overdue payment because
it is in line with the collection schedule.
The direct-debit process means that a reminder
for an overdue payment would not be sent the day immediately following
the due date. Where payment is not received on a direct debit,
the Agency is notified by the bank on the third day after the
payment due date and this is input into the computer system overnight.
The earliest a member of staff would be able to issue a reminder
is the fourth day after the payment due date. Notifications to
clients about missed payments are not automatically generated
at present. The caseworker, once notified by the computer system
that the payment is late, should issue a reminder only when they
are satisfied that a payment is genuinely outstanding.
FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT
I was also asked about reports of delays in
handling complaints under the Freedom of Information Act to the
Information Commissioner. When he appeared before the Constitutional
Affairs Select Committee on 18 October, the Secretary of State
for Constitutional Affairs gave evidence on his Department's funding
of the Information Commissioners Office and its backlog of unresolved
cases. He said specifically that he had "made it clear repeatedly
to the Information Commissioner that if he has got any difficulties
with resources he should come and speak to me and we will discuss
what, if any, further resources should be made available".
The second issue raised with me was requests
about requests, ie where people ask for information about the
internal handling of requests or about decision-taking on requests.
There is a clear public interest in making sure that information
is made available about numbers of requests to government, how
quickly they are being handled, and what the aggregate outcomes
were. The Department for Constitutional Affairs publishes comprehensive
quarterly information on the handling of requests, including statistics
for individual departments and some large agencies. Departments
are also encouraged to publish disclosure logs on their websites,
providing information released in response to Freedom of Information
requests.
At the same time, there is a danger that asking
requests about the handling of previous requests can become circular,
and create significant burdens on departments and thereby prejudice
FOI implementation. Departments are indeed receiving such requests
in increasing numbers. The Government is therefore working on
establishing suitable procedures to ensure that information, is
provided where that can be done straightforwardly, but without
imposing unreasonable burdens or providing a route to allow requestors
access to information that would otherwise be exempted under the
Act.
The final point your Committee made concerned
the use of "neither confirm nor deny" in response to
freedom of information requests. This was also covered in the
Secretary of State's evidence session before the Constitutional
Affairs Select Committee. The Freedom of Information Act recognises
that there may be occasions when it is inappropriate to either
confirm or deny whether certain information is held (eg where
confirmation could reveal sensitive information in and of itself,
such as that the police are surveying a particular house). Therefore,
rather than using "neither confirm nor deny" as a mechanism
for obstructing the operation of the Act, it is very much a part
of it. Departments are as entitled to rely upon it as they are
upon the exemptions within the Act.
I hope this letter is helpful, but please come
back to me on any points that require clarification.
Gus O'Donnell
4 November 2005
| 
