Shared Services 020 7035 4848 Directorate (switchboard) 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF www.homeoffice.gov.uk Shona Scott request-179846- [email protected] January 2015 Dear Ms Scott, Reference number: Internal Review 29198 – Dickens Dossier Thank you for your e-mail on 18 May 2014 in which you asked for an internal review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your request. I would like to apologise on behalf of the Department for this delay. I have now completed the review and have examined all the relevant papers. I have considered whether the correct procedures were followed, and can confirm that I was not involved in the initial handling of your request. I have carefully reviewed the handling of your request and I consider that the exemptions at sections 36(2) (b) (i), 36(2) (b) (ii) and 36(2)(c) of the Act were correct and properly applied. My findings are set out in the attached report. This completes the internal review process by the Home Office for reference number 29198. Details of all the correspondence with regards to the above matter can be found via this link: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/geoffrey_dicekns_dossier_1_and_d. Yours Sincerely N Rawell Information Access Team Switchboard 020 7035 4848 E-mail [email protected] Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 by Shona Scott Responding Unit: Crime and Policing Group (CPG) Chronology Original FOI/Acknowledgement: 4 October 2013 Chase-up Email (requester)/ 9 November 2013 Acknowledgement: Internal Review (Time complaint) / Acknowledgement: 11 November 2013 Further Chase-up Email for FOI (requester)/ 11 November 2013 Acknowledgement: Time Complaint response sent 25 November 2013 Further Chase-up Email (requester)/ Acknowledgement: 19 January 2014 FOI response: 16 May 2014 Internal Review request: 18 May 2014 Subject of request 1. The request of 4 October 2013 is set out in full at Annex A. The response 2. The response of 16 May 2014 is set out in full at Annex B. The request for an internal review 3. The request for an internal review is set out in full at Annex C. Procedural issues 4. The Home Office received the FOI request via email on 4 October 2013. 5. In line with section 10(1) of the Act the Home Office was obliged to provide a response within 20 working days (by 1 November 2013). The final response was sent to Ms Scott on 16 May 2014, which was not within the 20 working days deadline. The internal review (time complaint dated 25 November 2013) response correctly identified the fact that this requirement was not met. However the internal review of the time complaint did not include any apology for the delay. 6. As required by section 17(7) (a) of the Act Ms Scott was informed of her right to request an independent internal review on the handling of this request. Ms Scott was also informed of her right of complaint to the Information Commissioner, as set out in section 17(7) (b) of the Act. 7. The response was compliant with section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act in that it stated that an exemption applied, specified the nature of exemption and the grounds on which it applied. Consideration of the response (Date 16 May) 8. I have reviewed the original FOI request (Annex A) the Home Office response to this (Annex B), and consulted the team responsible for handling it. Section 21 9. The Home Office applied Section 21 of the FOI Act to some of the questions asked by Ms Scott. Section 21 allows for information to be withheld if it is ‘reasonably accessible’ to the requestor. 10. I am content that section 21 of the Act was applied correctly as some of the requested information is reasonably accessible. 11. Answer to questions one, two, eight and nine are contained within the executive summary and final report that are published on the Government website www.Gov.uk; they were also attached in the original response. Answers to question six and seven are easily accessible on the internet. 12. A substantial response to question five was provided in the original response. 13. Ms Scott requested an exact date for commissioning the review. Due to the nature in which the review was commissioned, which included a series of emails, an exact date cannot be confirmed. Section 36 14. The Home Office applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) of the Act to withhold information requested in questions three and four of the request. These provide that information can be withheld where disclosure would, or would be likely to: inhibit the free and frank provision of advice [section 36(2)(b)(i)] the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation [section 36(2)(b)(ii)] otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs [section 36 (2) (c)]. 15. I consider these exemptions were correct and and were properly applied. However, the arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest, and the reasons for our conclusion, were very brief and would have benefitted from further explanation. I have expanded the arguments for and against disclosure below. Considerations in favour of disclosing the information 16. The Home Office recognises that there is a public interest in openness and transparency in all aspects of government. There is a clear public interest in disclosing information which provides the public with a better understanding behind the Home Office’s decision-making processes and holding it accountable for decisions made. There is a significant public interest in the operations of the Home Office, regarding historic child abuse. 17. Given the key role of the Home Office in protecting the public, it may be argued that the public interest favours the disclosure of all material facts. Disclosing the requested information would provide the public with knowledge of the measures taken by the Department to ensure that the correct level of consideration was given to the information at hand. Considerations in favour withholding the information 18. Disclosure of the information requested would undermine the safe space afforded to officials to outline and debate matters of sensitivity and may possibly inhibit any future commissioning of reviews into serious issues. There is also a need for officials to undertake rigorous and candid assessments of the options on offer and to be able to put forward frank advice. The Home Office believes that these processes would be inhibited through disclosure. 19. The Home Office argues that disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to, harm this process and impact the way Ministers and their officials can think through all the implications of options when deciding matters. Given the sensitive and controversial nature of the subject this may suggest that, in order for all options in this area to be discussed thoroughly and robustly, it is necessary for this to take place in a private space away from the possibility of disclosure. Conclusion: 20. The Home Office is mindful with regards to its duty to transparency around this sensitive area. The Home Office believes that in disclosing an Executive Summary of the findings of its independent review, it has properly achieved a balance between satisfying the public interest whilst safeguarding the effective conduct of public affairs. 21. It is important that Ministers can receive advice from officials and experts. This advice must be detailed and candid to be of value. For this to occur, officials must be free of any inhibitions that might interfere with their ability to offer comprehensive input based on free and frank discussion with external stakeholders. If such information were to be disclosed, sensitive issues might not be raised in the future. It is in the public interest for Ministers and officials to be able to have confidential dialogue in the execution of their duties and for them to exchange views freely and frankly with external bodies. Concern that information about such issues might be disclosed and be exposed prematurely to public scrutiny and comment may limit advice provided and discussions undertaken. Disclosures of the detail of these exchanges would undermine the quality and nature of this dialogue in the future and would not be in the public interest. 22. I have concluded that the balance of public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions at section 36(2)(b) (i) and (ii) and (c). 23. You were also interested in knowing “what a qualified person is”? Please note section 36(5) defines a qualified person. Further guidance and explanation is available on the matter from the ICO: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of _Information/Detailed_specialist_guides/section_36_prejudice_to_effective_conduct_of_p ublic_affairs.pdf. Conclusion 24. In conclusion, I find that the FOI response (29198) of 16 May 2014 was not sent within 20 working days; consequently the Home Office failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOI Act. 25. The FOI response adequately addressed all questions within the FOI request, and complied with the requirements in section 17(7)(a) and 17(7)(b) as it provided details of the complaints procedure. 26. The Home Office was correct to cite section 36. However, a more detailed public interest test was required. N Rawell Information Access Team Home Office Annex A – FOI request From: Shona Scott 4 October 2013 Dear Home Office, Re the Inquiry into the Geoffrey Dickens Dossiers 1 and 2, Please could you say 1 When the Inquiry was commissioned? 2 By who was it commissioned? 3 How was it commissioned? If there is paperwork please could you send it? 4 What was it set up in response to? If it was in response to Tom Watson, then what were his questions? or if it was to something else please give their questions.