Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Incomplete publication scheme'.

REPORT TO: Strategic Command Team

DATE: 28 January 2010

SUBJECT: BTP Compliance with the Information Commissioner's Office

Publication Scheme

SPONSOR: Deputy Chief Constable

AUTHOR: Jeremy Carlaw

  1. PURPOSE OF PAPER

    1. This document outlines the results of a gap analysis of British Transport Police's (BTP's) Publication Scheme and identifies areas of non-compliance with current statutory requirements.

    2. The Paper makes recommendations to address non-compliance and ensure that in future the required information is kept up to date and published in a timely fashion.

  1. BACKGROUND

    1. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 every public authority is required by law to adopt and maintain an approved publication scheme that routinely and proactively provides information to the public. The definition document for police forces as agreed between the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) was introduced on 1 January 2009.

    2. Although the BTP website does include a Publication scheme page, a significant amount of the required information is missing or incomplete. Currently, compliance with the publication scheme is managed entirely by the Disclosure Unit. Due to the volume and scope of the information required, this is no longer a feasible option.

  2. OPTIONS

    1. A do nothing option is not viable. The gap analysis attached as Appendix A shows that several documents specified within the definition document are not currently published, leaving BTP in breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and open to legal challenge.

3.2 It is recommended that BTP seeks to comply fully with the agreed scheme by publishing the missing information and ensuring that, in future, effective processes are in place and compliance is maintained.

  1. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

    1. No significant financial implications exist; maintaining the current the Publication Scheme is already undertaken as business-as-usual by the Disclosure Unit. While it is proposed that responsibility for the Scheme is to be redistributed across BTP departments, the overall scope of the work required remains the same.

  2. RISK IMPLICATIONS

    1. Failure to meet minimum compliance standards can result in the ICO serving an Assessment Notice on BTP (forcing compliance within a particular time frame). Ultimately, continued non-compliance could result in BTP being required to appear before the High Court where non-compliance is treated as contempt.

    2. In addition to the above, public awareness of non-compliance and any resulting legal issues could result in damage to BTP's reputation.

  3. DIVERSITY ISSUES

    1. No diversity issues exist.

  4. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Relevant Departments are given responsibility for the information that comes under their remit. Appendix B sets out recommended Departments for ownership of each document covered under the Publication Scheme. Appendix B also specifies the minimum update frequency for each document in line with the agreed schedule.

7.2 With immediate effect; departments will undertake a full audit of the current published information and assess whether the information is up to date and relevant to the Scheme. Any identified issues must then be rectified as a matter of urgency. The deadline for full compliance with the Scheme should be set no later than 1 April 2010.

7.3 The Disclosure Unit provides ongoing guidance to Departments in the interpretation of the Scheme; disseminates information regarding changes to the Scheme and undertakes bi-annual audits of the published information to ensure compliance. The audit process shall check that all required information is both present; and that it has been updated within the required time-frames.

    1. The process in which information is physically published is to remain unchanged. Documents are to be submitted directly to Media and Marketing (as publicly available documents), whom will then arrange publication on the website.

    2. If approved, the Strategic Development Department contacts all relevant Departments to ensure that the recommendations within this paper are actioned.

PROTECTIVE MARKING: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE

Page 3 of 3 DRAFT

Version 3.1 Dated 22/01/2010

PROTECTIVE MARKING: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED