Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
2
Recommendation
Ninth Report - The Cabinet Office Freed…
Accepted
A greater level of transparency is required about the Clearing House. To further allay concerns about the Clearing House, a greater volume of data on its performance should be published. As a minimum, the Cabinet Office needs to publish the same level of Clearing House information as previously on the …
Read more
A greater level of transparency is required about the Clearing House. To further allay concerns about the Clearing House, a greater volume of data on its performance should be published. As a minimum, the Cabinet Office needs to publish the same level of Clearing House information as previously on the number of referrals to the Clearing House split by Department and month. Echoing our predecessor Committee, this should be disclosed on a quarterly basis. The Cabinet Office should also publish data on casework volume split by referral category and timeliness against ICO and legal guidelines.
Show less
Government response AI summary
FOI compliance statistics are already published on a quarterly basis on gov.uk and states that in 2021, the Cabinet Office’s performance consistently met and exceeded the ICO’s published standard. The government has shared the letter from the Director General for Propriety and Ethics to the …
Read full response →
3
Conclusion
Ninth Report - The Cabinet Office Freed…
Accepted
It is disappointing that the Cabinet Office rejected the Information Commissioner’s Office’s offer to undertake a Freedom of Information Audit, and we are concerned both by this refusal itself and by the precedent this may set across Government. The Cabinet Office’s decision was misjudged given the Information Commissioner’s Office’s Freedom …
Read more
It is disappointing that the Cabinet Office rejected the Information Commissioner’s Office’s offer to undertake a Freedom of Information Audit, and we are concerned both by this refusal itself and by the precedent this may set across Government. The Cabinet Office’s decision was misjudged given the Information Commissioner’s Office’s Freedom of Information expertise and, importantly, the Commissioner’s independence. The Information Commissioner’s Office, as the official statutory regulator for Freedom of Information and Data Protection, is better placed than any other organisation to undertake a review of this kind. The basis for this rejection therefore remains unclear, and we are unconvinced by the explanations from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office’s internal review, launched only after the Committee initiated this inquiry, is no substitute for the independent assurance that the Information Commissioner’s Office would be able to provide.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government defends its decision to conduct an internal review of FOI handling, citing the Information Commissioner's Office's statistics on FOI compliance and stating that the internal review will provide further reassurance about the nature and role as well as looking to provide a positive …
Read full response →
4
Conclusion
Ninth Report - The Cabinet Office Freed…
Accepted
Further, the Committee notes with concern the Cabinet Office’s failure to deliver on its promise of a short internal review. The Cabinet Office also missed an opportunity to expose itself to a rigorous third-party review which could have improved its own Freedom of Information operations. It is now eight months …
Read more
Further, the Committee notes with concern the Cabinet Office’s failure to deliver on its promise of a short internal review. The Cabinet Office also missed an opportunity to expose itself to a rigorous third-party review which could have improved its own Freedom of Information operations. It is now eight months since the Cabinet Office promised its review to the Committee during which time it has failed to secure an internal reviewer or finalise Terms of Reference. This is an unacceptable delay.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government claims all FOI requests are handled on an applicant blind basis and that Clearing House's processes are compliant with legislation. It states it would be wrong for the Cabinet Office to intervene in another department's procedures and decisions.
Read full response →
8
Recommendation
Ninth Report - The Cabinet Office Freed…
Accepted
The Cabinet Office should review these practices and their own compliance with the Freedom of Information Act to model best practice. This should include, in particular, the adoption, where possible, of applicant-blind processing of requests; clear guidance on the very limited circumstances under which it may be appropriate for Ministers …
Read more
The Cabinet Office should review these practices and their own compliance with the Freedom of Information Act to model best practice. This should include, in particular, the adoption, where possible, of applicant-blind processing of requests; clear guidance on the very limited circumstances under which it may be appropriate for Ministers and Special Advisers to become involved in responding to Freedom of Information requests; and the establishment of appropriate timetables for the completion of internal reviews. Where it finds evidence that practices in Government departments are falling short of best practice, it should implement robust procedures to prevent their reoccurrence.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that all FOI requests are handled on an applicant blind basis and the Clearing House’s processes are completely in line with relevant legislation. They also state that it would be wrong for the Cabinet Office to intervene in another department’s procedures and …
Read full response →