Draft
MoJ / ICO Liaison Meeting
Friday 14 August 2009
Attendees
Information Commissioner’s Office
Christopher Graham Information Commissioner
David Smith Deputy Commissioner (Data Protection)
Simon EntwisleChief Operating Officer
Peter BloomfieldSenior Corporate Governance Manager
Ministry of justice
Belinda CroweInformation Director
Belinda LewisHead of Information Policy Division
Stuart WattsFreedom of Information Policy and Sponsorship
1. Introductions and apologies
1.1 There were apologies from Graham Smith. Stuart Watts was welcomed at this, his first, liaison meeting.
2. Minutes and matters arising from the meeting of the 6 May
2.1The minutes of the meeting of 6 May had been agreed by correspondence. Actions points and matters arising were discussed.
Action points from the meeting of the 20 January 2008
2.2Action point 1- surveillance report. The writing of a report by the ICO on surveillance arose out of recommendations made by the Home Office Select Committee. There had been concerns about funding, but given the need to get things moving and current availability of funds at the ICO, it was agreed that the ICO would write a report without new funding. The report would be published during the next financial year, although much of the work could be done this year.The ICO emphasised,however,that, normally, funding would be needed for extra work arising from select committee recommendations accepted by government.
2.3Action point 1a – Framework Document. The Framework Document defines the relationship between the ICO and the MoJ. The MoJ is keen to amend the document to better follow the Treasury model, and to provide consistency in the handling of MoJ arms length bodies. There is also a need to update the document in some areas and to discuss end of year flexibility and delegated authorities.
2.4The spirit of the relationship between the two organisations was also discussed. The Framework Document, or possibly a memorandum of understanding, linked to a Framework Document might be a way of articulating and improving this.
Action point 1 (14/08/09): Peter Bloomfield to meet with Stuart Watts and finance colleagues to ensure a shared understanding of outstanding issues and to agree on the format of any new document.
2.5Action point 4 – sampling of freedom of information cases. It was agreed to cover this under agenda item 4.
2.6Action point 5 – co-location of London based staff with The National Archives (TNA). Millbank Tower was expensive as a base, and a cheaper option could be to co-locate with the TNA or another MoJ arms length body. There were concerns about the need for the ICO to be independent of MoJ, but it was felt that these were not insurmountable. It was agreed that the MoJ would investigate this further. There was a need to rationalise MoJ office space in London and, as part of this, MoJ was looking at how it housed arms length bodies. The ICO would need eight to ten desks.
Action point 2 (14/08/09): MoJ to investigate further the possibility of ICO London staff collocating with TNA or another similar body and to report back.
2.7Action point 8 – Personal Information Promise(PIP). Belinda Lewis reported on discussion with ICO for taking forward the PIP within central government, which included re-drafting Information Charters. Within central government there were presentational and operational concerns about the relationship between Information Charters and the PIP, and also some legal concerns. It had not proved possible to come to agreement.It was agreed that Belinda Lewis and David Smith would discuss the matter further.
Action point 3 (14/08/09): Belinda Lewis to provide David Smith with a copy of possible changes to the Information Charter wording and for Belinda and David to discuss and agree the way forward.
Action points and matters arising from the meeting of the 6 May 2009
2.9Action point 3 – guidance on handling freedom of information requests from employees. Peter Bloomfield had discussed this with Graham Smith. The guidance had not been started due to other priorities.
Action point 4 (14/08/09): Peter Bloomfield to feedback to Graham Smith on the need to keep MoJ up to date on this guidance.
2.10Action points 4 and 5 had been cleared.
2.11Hampton Review (para 10). David Smith explained that the Hampton Review report was likely to be published in September. ICO had a near final draft. The report was positive in that the ICO was moving in the right direction in terms of regulation. Performance in meeting accepted recommendations would be monitored.
2.12The review did refer to the relationship between MoJ and the ICO. It was agreed to discuss liaison later in the meeting. It was also agreed to discuss the final report and its impact when available.
2.13Freedom of information memorandum of understanding (para 11). TheICO had been updating the memorandum of understanding between the ICO and the MoJ. The memorandum covered the handling of freedom of information complaints involving central government by the ICO and was signed by the MoJ on behalf of central government.
Action point 5 (14/08/09): Graham Smith to advise the MoJ as to the current position in respect of updating the memorandum of understanding.
3. Expenditure Report
3.1Simon Entwisle introduced the expenditure report for the quarter up to the end of June.
3.2In respect of freedom of information expenditure the ICO expenditure was up to budget.
3.3The biggest financial challenge for the ICO was balancing data protection fee income against expenditure. The new fees regulations would become law next week and the ICO was on track to introduce the new £500 tiered fee from 1 October. Leaflets would be going out next week to those data controllers due to re-notify. There had been little adverse reaction from data controllers as to the rise in fee. Whilst the new fee income had been modelled, there were uncertainties. The ICO would therefore not be sure of its income for some time. Adding to the uncertainty was the impact of the recession, but these fears had not and fee income was up 1.5%.
3.4There was an underspend in the staffing budget but it was expected that recruitment in the second half of the year (to make full use of the ICO’s new powers) would offset this, along with possible temporary staff posts to help on data protection casework.
3.5The MoJ raised a concern that MoJ and ICO accounting did not match up in respect of the treatment of data protection fee income. This was a known issue and it was agreed that discussion of this could be linked to discussion on the Framework Document (see action point 1 above).
3.6It was confirmed that the ICO would be able to account for the use of the increased fee income on implementation of its new powers. There was a need, however, to go further than just accounting for financial expenditure and to be able to report, possibly in the Annual Report, on the impact of the new powers.
3.7The need for a business case to justify the increased £500,000 in grant in aid for freedom of information work was raised. The ICO had been expecting a template.
Action point 6: Jill O’Sullivan to provide Simon Entwisle with a business case template.
4. Operational report
4.1Simon Entwisle reported that, across both data protection and freedom of information, there had been a rise in referrals. If the rise was to continue freedom of informationreferrals could be over 1,000 more than last year.
4.2The ICO was exceeding projections for clearing referrals, and in the short term the average ages of cases at closure had reduced. However, against the backdrop of the rise in referrals, in overall terms the situation could get worse.
4.3In respect of the older freedom of information cases, these were being targeted by using more senior caseworkers but these cases were proving difficult to clear.
4.4For data protection casework in particular there were huge receipts but teams were fully staffed and trained. Closures exceeded receipts and the ICO was focusing on bringing down clearance times. The recruitment of extra temporary staff to help stabilise the data protection caseload was being considered.
4.5Information requests made of the ICO were increasing, driven by having a backlog.
4.6The possibility of the MoJ encouraging government departments to review outstanding freedom of information cases was discussed. MoJ confirmed that they would be targeting director generals in the near future.
Action point 7: MoJ to consider the involvement of Christopher Graham in the director general meetings.
4.7It was recognised that there needed to be a change in approach in respect of freedom of information. Christopher Graham explained that he was spending the first three months of his tenure listening to staff views and learning from current experience at the ICO, with the aim of making any necessary changes as soon as possible. In parallel there was an organisational design consultant looking at how the ICO could best introduce its new powers and penalties, and another consultant was looking at the ICO audit capacity. The aim was to ensure that the ICO was effective as possible before seeking cooperation and support in making freedom of information work better outside the organisation.
4.8Christopher Graham was aiming to discuss the future with Executive Team colleagues on 21 September and staff on 5 October. There was therefore a need to update the MoJ with a meeting at the end of September or beginning of October.
4.9There would be an impact on funding decisions from any changes the ICO made, and being able to argue for grant in aid from a strong position would be essential.
5. Key projects
5.1Simon Entwisle updated the meeting on the extension to Wycliffe House. Planning permission had been provided and the lease would be signed shortly.
5.2In respect of IT, the ICO would be refreshing its current IT infrastructure by October. The possibility of allowing card payments for notification fees using the current DUIS system was also being explored.
6. Data Protection Issues
6.1David Smith introduced a report on current data protection issues.
6.2In respect of the Coroners and Justice Bill David confirmed that he had met with the CBI to discuss the power to inspect private sector bodies.
6.3Decisions still needed to be taken on how monetary penalties would be calculated and on an implementation date. To help the ICO plan a decision by early October would be helpful.
6.4The Culture Media and Sport select committee had invited Christopher Graham to appear before it on the 2 September to discuss concerns about the press hacking into voicemail systems.
7. Freedom of information issues
7.1The ICO had been consulted about the EC INSPIRE directive on geospatial data, sponsored by DEFRA. There was the possibility of the ICO taking on a new enforcement role. This made sense but there would be funding issues.
Action point 8: Christopher Graham to advise DEFRA that MoJ needed to be involved in discussions about any ICO role and funding for it.
7.2Recent MoJ guidance on the collection of statistics on freedom of information requests made of local authorities was discussed. There were concerns about the impact on resources of collecting the statistics.
Action point 9: Belinda Lewis and Graham Smith to agree a form of words on the issue.
7.3The handling of the issue informed discussion as to the ICO MoJ relationship. It was recognised that there was often a need to follow up conversations in writing, to be proactive andto ensure regular (monthly) meetings. Doing so would help ensure that both sides were fully informed as to the other’s position. In respect of the quarterly liaison meetings in future the intention was to hold them just before the ICO Management Board meetings.
Action point 10: Peter Bloomfield to liaise with Stuart Watts and to map current regular contacts between MoJ and ICO staff and to identify current issues.
7.4The probable extension of the Freedom of Information Act to other public bodies would not, it was felt, have a large impact on the ICO. It was possible that there would be a two year lead in time before these bodies were covered which would give them, and the ICO, time to prepare.
7.5Stuart Watts asked about ICO plans to review the new publication scheme. The ICO contact was Dawn Monaghan.
8. Communications and External Relations Report
8.1The report was commended by the MoJ. There was no specific discussion of its content.
9. Human resources report
9.1Christopher Graham advised that he was chairing the ICO’s Joint Committee meetings with its unions, at least for the first year.
9.2The careers micro-site was due to be launched shortly.
9.3Belinda Crowe was keen that ICO vacancies be advertised within the MoJ.
Action point 11: Peter Bloomfield to advise Vicky Best of the MoJ interest.
9.4There was discussion as to ICO involvement in university recruitment fairs.
Action point 12: Belinda Lewis to check on Cabinet Office involvement in recruitment fairs to help inform ICO decisions.
10. Risk Register
10.1The risk register was tabled. There was no specific discussion.
11. Any other business
11.1Belinda Crowe advised that there was a need to agree a date for a round table meeting on removing silos. Dates needed coordinating for Belinda, Christopher Graham and Robert Heath.
Action point 13: Peter Bloomfield to ensure a date is agreed.
11.2Christopher Graham updated MoJ on recent decisions on replacing non-executives. It had been agreed that David Clarke and Alistair Graham would stand down after the November quarterly Management Board meeting; Clare Tickell would stand down after the April meeting and Bob Chilton after the June Audit Committee meeting.
Peter Bloomfield
1