Commissioner reveals his Enforcement Log

This is how I would take enforcement action.

The Information Commissioner has given us a peek into his “Enforcement Action Log” which details those authorities that are being actively monitored by the ICO for not complying with the Act.

The data of who has fallen under the scrutiny of the ICO was released following a Freedom of Information question that was posted on WhatDoTheyKnow.

However, the Commissioner has only released details from the Log of those cases that have now been closed – all those authorities that are still being monitored have been redacted from the spreadsheet under S.31 (law enforcement).

But the spreadsheet which you can view here [Enforcement Action Log Closed cases] does make interesting reading. Those public authorities that have been probed by the Commissioner include:

Avon and Somerset Police: Issues relating to the way it was destroying information.

Birmingham City Council: Problems complying with the 20-day S.10 guideline for dealing with requests.

Department for Culture Media and Sport: Came to attention for late handling of requests and internal reviews.

Department for Work and Pensions: Problems with piecemeal disclosure.

Doncaster Council: Monitored by the ICO for six months for S.10 and other breaches. At the end of review the council was dealing with 94% of cases within 20 days.

Exports Credits Guarantee Department: Again monitored for six months in a bid to improve the time taken for requests and internal reviews.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: “Poor” public interest test arguments and long review periods.

Haringey Council: Provided monthly updates to the ICO because of poor S.10 compliance. Has to provide a report to the ICO in November 2009 to update on its progress.

Kent County Council: Case was closed after it gave a detailed response stating how improvements had been made and staffing increased.

Office for National Statistics: Call for greater staff training.

Rother District Council: Told to look at ICO guidance after making e-mailed FoI requests invalid.

It is interesting up to a point but what would really be fascinating is a list of the organisations the Commissioner is actively looking at.

Any guesses as to who might be on that list? The Ministry of Justice? The BBC?……..

Government’s London 2012 Olympic report to stay secret

No gold medals for disclosure

A document prepared for Government ministers about the potential pros and cons or winning an Olympic bid looks set to stay secret until at least after the London 2012 Olympics.

The report to ministers was considered before the Government officially threw its hat into the Olympic rings to bid for the 2012 games.

Although its contents will remain secret the Information Commissioner’s decision notice [FS50182402] suggests it offers a frank appraisal of the possible downsides of winning the race to host an Olympic Games.

The request for the report was turned down initially by the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) who relied upon S.35 (formulation and development of government policy). The decision was appealed to the Information Commissioner, where Deputy Commissioner Graham Smith upheld the refusal saying the exemption was engaged and the public interest test was not in favour of disclosure.

Read the rest of this entry »