Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Communications with Nektus'.
(Word document)
|
|
|
6 October 2009 |
Dear Ms Walton
I refer to your request for an internal review which was received on 5 August (case reference 2009/0057579).
Before informing you of the outcome of the internal review I should like to apologise for the delay in replying. The Department is aware that there has been a very considerable delay. I much regret this. While I appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should like to explain that the Department makes every effort to respond quickly to requests for internal reviews, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of requests the Department has received in recent months.
On 24 June you requested
`copies of all communications between dcsf and it's agents and Nektus Ltd between october 2008 and june 2009'
The Department has now completed its internal review process and has carried out a thorough review of the case, chaired by a senior officer who was not involved with the original request.
The Department has decided to uphold the original decision not to disclose the information concerned, for the same reasons as set out in the Information Rights Manager's email of 22 July 2009
In addition the following points were noted:
The type of harassment and vilification that had taken place on a number of websites.
That the Department had initially been drafting a response that included the release of invoices with only personal data redacted. But before the draft was complete it was apparent that there was a campaign of harassment and vilification against Graham Badman and other individuals/organisations that had contributed to the Report. In the light of this, at the weekly review meeting of FOI cases, it was considered that the balance of public interest might have shifted towards withholding.
That a public interest test on section 38 had subsequently been run and pointed towards withholding.
That a letter had been written from the Department to the ICO, dated 17 July 2009, about the campaign of harassment and vilification and advised the Department's views/reasons for possibly not releasing information under section 38 which the Department considered might intensify the campaign. A copy of this letter was subsequently released in response to another FOI request, and can be found at:
That a response had been sent to the request on 22 July which set out the balance of public interest.
The panel discussed whether release of invoices was still likely to provoke harassment. It concluded that this was, sadly, in the light of the campaign, still the case.
The panel noted that the response had made clear that should circumstances change, and the prospect of harm, harassment or distress to individuals no longer be a factor, the Department would be prepared to reconsider its use of section 38.
It was agreed unanimously that the balance of public interest - both at the time of the request and at the time of the internal review - remained in withholding the information requested, and that the decision to withhold the information under the exemptions at sections 38 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would remain.
However the panel considered that it would have been helpful to clarify the Department's interpretation of your request i.e. that your reference to `all communications' referred to all communications with Nektus Ltd regarding the review of elective home education. Because of the time frame specified in your request it is unlikely that that there are any communications with Nektus Ltd within scope of your request other than regarding the review, but if you would like the Department to make a further search please let me know. The panel also considered that it would have been helpful to have advised you that the communications considered to be within scope of your request consisted of two invoices. I am copying this email to the information Rights Manager, who has asked me to offer apologies on his behalf for this oversight.
If you are unhappy with this decision, you have the right to appeal directly to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Case Reception Unit
Customer Service Team
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Further information about the Information Commissioner's complaints procedure can be found on the Information Commissioner's Office website: http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom_of_information.aspx
Yours sincerely
Penny Jones
Deputy Director
Independent Schools and School Organisation.
3
