Disclosure log - April 2010
Date of response: 19/04/10
Request: Salary information of the ICO staff by department please plus expenses, pensions, company cars etc.
Also senior staff contracts and a summary of supplier contracts.
Request Ref: IRQ0303676
Date of Response: 14/04/2010
Request: 1. Could you please provide me with details of what qualifications your investigating staff require to enable them to carry out their work?
2. Why can you not prosecute retrospectively? Do prosecutions not occur when the information first comes to light?
Date of response: 30/04/10
1) Broken down into the following financial years of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. (Calendar year if this is not possible but please specify):
a) the number of FOI requests received by the ICO?
b) the number of FOI requests which exceeded the 20 days time limit for which no exemptions applied?
c) the number of FOI requests which exceeded the 20 day time limit for which you applied an exemption and what that exemption was? For clarity this needs only be the total figures.
d) How many internal reviews were requested?
e) How many internal reviews resulted in the original decision being altered?
f) How many days did each of those internal reviews take?
g) How many complaints has the ICO received for failing to comply with the 20 days limit?
h) a copy of the response to those complaints (all personal data to be removed)
2) As all public authorities are obliged to have a publications scheme could you please provide me with a copy of the publications scheme which the ICO is obliged to have in place i.e. what does your publications scheme look like?
3) Who is responsible for monitoring the ICO's compliance with the publications scheme?
4) Please provide me with a copy of rational for the ICO's Disclosure Log only providing copies of responses which ‘we [ICO] feel are of wider public interest’ and not all responses.
Date of response: 14/04/2010
Request: I was curious to read that you have produced a report regarding the release of government legal opinion on the legality of the marriage of Prince Charles. Apparently it is 19 pages long and was produced by you personally. I very interested in your report and would like to have a copy of this report sent to me as soon as possible.
Request Ref: IRQ0301988
Date of Response: 09/04/2010
Request: I request a copy of all the information commissioner’s decisions relating to the Data Protection Act 1998 (not upheld, partly upheld and upheld). Only some is available on-line in the document library at the ICO website, and they are ordered by name which is least helpful to me; I would prefer section of the act ordering, for example to search for decisions on fair processing. Please provide as a preference an electronic version of all decisions with any explanatory information that would make it easier to search the data.
Request Ref: IRQ0302317
Date of Response: 12/04/2010
Request: Can you please tell me how many breaches of the data protection act were reported to the Information Commissioner's office in 2009?
Request Ref: IRQ0307261
Date of Response: 15/04/2010
Request: Could you please confirm the relationship of your organisation with the Ministry of Justice, especially in relation to accountability and responsibility for complaints lodged with your organisation.
Request Ref: IRQ0307278
Date of Response: 16/04/10
Request: On the web page at http://www.osborneclarke.com/publications/commercial/Alert/12834.asp Osborne Clarke indicate that the ICO has made an important determination about information held by private companies now performing similar functions to those formerly performed by public utility companies. The page says "the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has confirmed that water companies are not subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the 'EIRs')" but that "Unusually, ICO has to date said that it does not propose to issue its findings as a formal decision notice".
I would be pleased to know
a) if the comments on the website are broadly correct
b) (if the answer to a) is "yes") whether there is an intention to publish details of this determination (as it would appear to be a matter of some public interest)
c) (if the answer to be is "no") whether you will disclose to me copies of the correspondence you hold between your office and Osborne Clarke on this matter (I accept that some information might need to withheld or redacted).