Reference: FS50564161
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice
Date: 22 January 2015
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Address: BC2 B6 Broadcast Centre BBC White City 201 Wood Lane London W12 7TP
Decision (including any steps ordered)
1. The complainant has requested all correspondence between [named individual] and the following three Director Generals, Sir Ian Trethowan, Alasdair Milne and Sir Michael Checkland, relating to three specific subject matters. The BBC provided the complainant with information relevant to the scope of the request. It said that it did not hold any further information other than that which was provided to the complainant under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
2. The Commissioner considers that the BBC was correct to confirm that it did not hold any further information under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Request and response
4. On 8 October 2014 the complainant requested information of the following description:
1. All correspondence between the [named individual] and the following
1 Reference: FS50564161
three Director Generals Sir Ian Trethowan, Alasdair Milne and Sir Michael Checkland which in any way relates to the following subjects.
a. [named individual’s] role in liaising with MI5 and or the vetting of job applicants, interviewees and appointments at the BBC.
b. The possible and actual infiltration of the Corporation by political extremists and foreign agents.
c. The relationship between the BBC and the security services including MI5.
5. On 31 October 2014 the BBC responded. It provided the complainant with information in response to the request.
6. The complainant requested an internal review on 3 November 2014 as he considers that the BBC holds more information relevant to the scope of this request. The BBC wrote to the complainant with the outcome of its internal review on 28 November 2014. It confirmed that no further information was held other than that which had been provided to him.
Scope of the case
7. The complainant contacted the Commissioner on 5 December 2014 to complain about the way his request for information had been handled.
8. The Commissioner has considered whether or not the BBC holds any further information other than that which has already been provided to the complainant.
Reasons for decision
9. Section 1(1)(a) of FOIA states that, “Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled – to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request”.
2 Reference: FS50564161
10. The BBC explained that Correspondence files are arranged in it’s archive according to their provenance and subject matter, rather than according to the sender or recipient. Accordingly, it said that it is not possible to search the archives using the names of staff who wrote or received the correspondence and there is no ‘[named individual] correspondence file’ which can be searched to see if it contains any of the correspondence which the applicant has requested.
11. It said that a search of the BBC’s database has been carried out using the search terms ‘vetting’ and ‘formalities’. These terms were identified by the BBC’s Senior Media Manager as the terms most likely to identify any relevant file titles or index entries. It explained its initial index search using the term ‘vetting’ showed a cross-reference to the term ‘Security (BBC)’, and it therefore amended its index search to include this term also.
12. It said that its search identified 261 files. It explained that a large number of these files (208) could be disregarded because they were clearly not relevant (for example, the term ‘vetting’ had been used in a different context or the date range covered by the file could not possibly have related to the requested information). It said that there were also several files which had been destroyed or had been returned to the creator of the record and were no longer held by the BBC in its archive. It said that this was because the majority of the files were several decades old.
13. It explained that it had reviewed the remaining 48 files and it confirmed that the only information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request had already been provided to him within the initial response dated 31 October 2014.
14. The BBC confirmed that the searches were carried out electronically within a networked database. It said that due to the age of the information requested, no searches had been carried out on personal computers or laptops or in email systems. It also said that due to the age of the information requested, if it were held it would be held in manual records.
15. It explained that it is unable to say conclusively whether any information falling within the scope of the applicant’s request had been destroyed. It said that two files were noted to have been destroyed as part of a normal records management process, but it was not possible to say whether they contained correspondence between [named individual] and any of the three former BBC Director-General’s referred to by the complainant because its files are not catalogued to that level of detail. It said that one file was destroyed on 24 October 2007. It said another file had been marked as destroyed but there was no destruction date
3 Reference: FS50564161
recorded in the BBC’s database. It clarified that this means the file would have been destroyed prior to the introduction of its database in 2002.
16. It confirmed that these types of records are not specified in the BBC’s current retention schedule. It said that records of this nature were previously appraised as part of a whole deposit once the records were over ten years old.
17. It therefore considers, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no further information held by the BBC under section 1(1)(a).
18. The Commissioner considers that the BBC has conducted thorough and appropriately directed searches given that it is unable to search its archive using the name of a recipient or sender of correspondence. Through the searches conducted the BBC did identify information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request which was provided to him. On the balance of probabilities the Commissioner considers that there is no further information held by the BBC falling within the scope of this request.
4 Reference: FS50564161
Right of appeal
19. Either party has the right to appeal against this decision notice to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Information about the appeals process may be obtained from:
First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) GRC & GRP Tribunals, PO Box 9300, LEICESTER, LE1 8DJ
Tel: 0300 1234504 Fax: 0870 739 5836 Email: [email protected] Website: www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/general-regulatory-chamber
20. If you wish to appeal against a decision notice, you can obtain information on how to appeal along with the relevant forms from the Information Tribunal website.
21. Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 (calendar) days of the date on which this decision notice is sent.
Signed ………………………………………………
Rachael Cragg Group Manager Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF
5