Dear Sir or Madam,

Can you please produce to me any guidance, requirements, protocols,
procedures or information that relates to how the Home Office
ensures full and effective scrutiny and accountability of its
quango the IPCC?

For instance how would the IPCC generally operate as regards data
loss at the IPCC as similar to that at the HMRC, how would it
generally deal with deliberately unlawful activities as regards
personal data sharing within the IPCC in the current climate, how
would the Home Office react to criminal allegations made against
the IPCC and brought to their attention that the IPCC choose to
ignore, how would the Home Office react to criminal allegations
made to the police as regards the IPCC that the police choose to
ignore.

Are the Home Office directly responsible for criminal and other
conduct at the IPCC that has been raised directly with them or
would their approach be to ignore it? Would the Home Office
intervene when there are allegations, for instance, of the police
criminally colluding with the IPCC when considering the critical
place of the IPCC as guardians of the whole police complaint's
system. I f you require any clarification or any further
information please feel free to ask.

Yours faithfully,

Pendragon.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I sent the request below under the Feedom of Information Act 2000 a
week ago. I trust that it has arrived safely.

Can you please produce to me any guidance, requirements, protocols,
procedures or information that relates to how the Home Office
ensures full and effective scrutiny and accountability of its
quango the IPCC?

For instance how would the IPCC generally operate as regards data
loss at the IPCC as similar to that at the HMRC, how would it
generally deal with deliberately unlawful activities as regards
personal data sharing within the IPCC in the current climate, how
would the Home Office react to criminal allegations made against
the IPCC and brought to their attention that the IPCC choose to
ignore, how would the Home Office react to criminal allegations
made to the police as regards the IPCC that the police choose to
ignore.

Are the Home Office directly responsible for criminal and other
conduct at the IPCC that has been raised directly with them or
would their approach be to ignore it? Would the Home Office
intervene when there are allegations, for instance, of the police
criminally colluding with the IPCC when considering the critical
place of the IPCC as guardians of the whole police complaint's
system. I f you require any clarification or any further
information please feel free to ask.

Yours sincerely,

TONY

Reference : T19686/8

Thank you for your e-mail enquiry of 02/09/2008 17:13:01

A reply is attached.

show quoted sections

Reference : T19242/8

Thank you for your e-mail enquiry of 27/08/2008 12:25:10 AM

A reply is attached.

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Request 10163.

Please conduct an internal review of this request. I have requested
this for the following reasons.

You state in your response that:

a/ The IPCC is subject to scrutiny and accountability and as in the
case of all NDPBs are required to adhere to the basic principles of
Risk Management Policy that include:

• Identifying risks to the protection of the public, finance,
delivery of objectives and reputation – drawing on the knowledge of
frontline staff. • Assessing the scale of individual risks looking
at the likelihood that they will happen, and the size of the impact
if they do. • Identifying the actions needed to reduce the risk and
mitigation action owners. • Recording this on a risk register. •
Checking frequently on progress. • Applying healthy challenge – but
do not blame people for identifying and highlighting risks or
considering that they are being unduly negative in doing so. •
Having a mechanism to escalate the most severe risks and use it.

AND:

b/ All criminal allegations will be referred to the police to
investigate. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the
matter will then be referred to the Courts to decide.

Who subjects the IPCC to the indicated scrutiny and accountability
if the IPCC deliberately or otherwise doesn't enact the
requirements as outlined above? How is this scrutiny and
accountabilty exercised by the Home Office, as the sponsoring body,
if the IPCC doesn't meet these requirements deliberately or
otherwise if such failings are brought to the attention of the
IPCC. Further if well evidenced and prima facie criminal
allegations are brought to the attention or made against the IPCC
how does the Home Office ensure that such allegations are properly
referred by the IPCC in accordance with your solemn claim that "All
criminal allegations will be referred to the police to investigate.
If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the matter will then
be referred to the Courts to decide". Clearly it would not be in
the public interest for the IPCC to ignore and not refer prima
facie allegations of their own criminality purely because such
allegations and referral could or would impact upon the IPCC's
public perception or reputation. Clearly, as a public Ministry, the
Home Office cannot be seen to allow a quango such as the IPCC to
pick and choose which requirements it meets or which criminal
allegations it refers to the police purely to save face or avoid
public embarrassment. This would be a recipe for disaster to a
Ministry such as the Home Office which has previously been referred
to as "not fit for purpose" by a previous Home Secretary. How does
the Home Office ensure, in the public interest, that the IPCC,
adheres to all requirements as published by the sponsoring Ministry
to ensure, for instance, that embarrassment never comes back to the
doorstep of the sponsor Ministry because of failings or otherwise
that have been brought to the attention of both the NDPB (quango)
and the sponsoring Ministry (the Home Office).

If such clear failings as not referring criminal allegations or
ignoring statutory requirements by a quango such as the IPCC are
brought to the attention of the Home Office, as the sponsoring
body, is it official Home Office policy to ignore such public
interest questions against its quangos. And then to merely instruct
concerned citizens to take independent legal advice and sue the
quango unilaterally having taken no action itself against the
highlighted deficiencies. If that is the case it would surely be a
state sponsored abrogation of democreacy.

In a nutshell is it Home Office policy to not take action against
the IPCC as regards well evidenced and prima facie concerns that it
deliberately ignores and have been brought to their attention,in
good faith, and to rely on citizens to take legal action
themselves?

Can you please provide answers to these questions during your
internal review because these strands of essential public
accountability in important areas have not been explained or
addressed in your initial quite brief response?

Sincerely,

TONY

Yours sincerely,

Tony

Dear Mr Pendragon,

Please find attached correspondence in relation to your internal review.

Many thanks,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

show quoted sections

Dear John Bragaglia,

The Information Commissioner's current guidance advises that 20
working days is a reasonable timescale for a public authority to
complete an internal review. Why does the Home Office stipulate
exactly twice as much time in order to provide a response?

I was also provided with virtually nothing in the first response.
My main concern is that I haven't got a clue, as a citizen, what
the Home Office does about criminal allegations made against its
quangos when the quango refuses to refer them as required by the
Home Office itself. Nothing was made clear as regards the first
response to my request. For instance is it formal policy at the
Home Office to condone criminality at its quangos by doing nothing
about such criminal allegations when they are actually referred
back to it as the sponsor Ministry? If that is the case then the
"not fit for purpose" allegation can only still apply. Such
possible neglect at the Home Office being reinforced only today by
the worrying revelations as regards under recording of serious
violent crime by various police forces.

I am very interested in whether it is formal policy at the Home
Office to condone criminality at its sponsored quangos by inaction
when evidence of criminality is even raised with them. Does
criminality raised directly with the Home Office against its
quangos have to be dealt with by the individual citizen via
independent legal action? Or does the Home Office itself deal with
prima facie allegations of criminal conduct at its sponsored
quangos?

Lastly is it policy at the Home Office to block public email
contact to citizens who raise criminal allegations against their
quangos?

Thanks.

TONY.

Dear Mr Pendragon,

Thank you for your email below.

As stated in my letter of last week, it is Home Office policy to
complete all internal reviews within a period of 40 working days. In
some cases it is possible to complete reviews within this time and
indeed within 20 working days. This is very much dependent on the
complexity of the matter at hand. I am working on your review at the
moment and do hope to get a response to you as soon as possible.

With regard to your additional questions, I should remind you that I am
conducting an internal review of the handling of your original request.
The purpose of an internal review is for an independent official to look
over the decisions of the previous caseworker to ensure that they were
fully compliant with the provisions of the Act. Such a review includes
issues of timing and the application of any exemptions that may have
been used. If you have any questions/requests that are in addition to
the ones made in your original, you will need to make a new request for
information.

I hope this makes sense. If you would like any further information
please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

show quoted sections

Dear Bragaglia John,

Just as long as you are well aware that the Home Office is
massively in breach of Information Commissioner guidance in
relation to internal reviews

Yours sincerely,

Tony

Mr Pendragon,

Please find attached response to your request for an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

show quoted sections