Original Message -----
From: Healy, Susan
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: School Records - ICO Decision Notice [UNCLASSIFIED]
<<Bear in mind also that the decision might be appealed to the First Tier
Tribunal (Information Rights). I've just checked the list of current cases
and it is not there, but the list was last updated on 30 March and any
appeal might not yet have been lodged.>>
Fair point, and if the decision was modified on appeal one would obviously
need to think again. But if there is no appeal (and one surely cannot wait
indefinitely - up to 28 days are specified), then it might well become
necessary to reconsider the implications.
<<Picking up on Steven's point first, the cost limit cannot be used for
extraction/copying that is necessary to apply an exemption ... We have to
remember that this is a decision on the facts of the case and a different
decision might be made on a different set of school records. A lot depends
on what sort of information a particular register or log book contains.>>
The cost in staff time (presumably to be absorbed by the Archive Service)
of thoroughly vetting every single register or log book in order to
determine the issues of continuing to allow free access would surely far
exceed any cost limits mentioned in the legislation. That's not to mention
having to explain any new restrictions to possibly sceptical researchers.
But does the information in school admissions registers relating to
individual pupils vary so very much? Amongst a number of potential
factors, one considered by the Data Protection Office in the Powys case
seems to have been the possibility (and only the *possibility*) that
allowing access might lead to disclosure of "details of children living in a
children's home or children who were adopted or fostered". This in turn
might ultimately lead to personal distress.
The majority of schools admissions registers are likely to give the child's
name and date of birth, together with the name of parent or guardian (who
might or who might not have the same surname, and who might or might not be
the natural parent). There is also usually a home address (which might or
which might not happen to be easily recognisable as a local children's
home). These were also the details requested by the complainant in the
Powys case.
Irrespective of one's personal views on the Data Protection Act, the recent
decision seems to be that in refusing access for up to 100 years, Powys
County Council was merely complying with their data protection obligations
under the act as it currently stands. The corollary would seem to be that
any councils or archive services which do not impose a 100 year general
limit will henceforth be vulnerable at any time to accusations of failing to
meet their data protection obligations. How would these councils respond
to such a charge?
Regardless of whether or not this particular case goes to appeal, isn't
there the underlying point that any archive case considered by the
Information Commissioner's Office is quite likely to have significant
implications for other archive services if they happen to be holding similar
categories of records?
Aidan Jones
Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask]
For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=archives-nra
|