Final
Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information
(FoI) Act 2000 by Dr Geraint Bevan (reference 12316)
Responding Unit: Identity and Passport Service
Chronology
Original FoI request:
1 July 2009
Acknowledgement
6
July
2009
IPS response:
29 July 2009
Request for internal review:
29 July 2009
Subject of request and IPS response
1. Dr Bevan asked for information about when any reports on the mylifemyID
consultation wil be (a) available within government, and (b) published.
2. The IPS response was that the information requested is exempt from disclosure
under section 22(1) of the FoI Act (future publication). IPS said that it was their
intention to publish the information that Dr Bevan had requested in the near future.
3. IPS also explained in their response that the objective of the Home Office
mylifemyID website was to conduct research into young people's lives and how an
identity card can help make their lives easier. By making it an open community,
utilising web 2.0 technology, it offered an opportunity for people aged 16-25 to
have their say about identity issues in the UK. The website closed on 15 October
2008 and since then IPS had undertaken a number of projects with young people.
However as this work was stil continuing, IPS had decided to wait and publish a
full picture of the insights gained at the end of the process.
Procedural issues
4. Dr Bevan’s original request of 1July, sent by e-mail, was acknowledged by IPS on
6 July. The IPS reply of 29 July was sent 20 working days after receipt of the
request, within the limit imposed by section 10(1) of the FoI Act.
Dr Bevan’s request for internal review
5. Dr Bevan asked for an internal review of the IPS response in an e-mail of 29 July.
Dr Bevan said that he understood that the report on mylifemyID would be
published in the near future and that the FoI Act may provide an exemption from
releasing the content of such a report. Dr Bevan pointed out, however, that his
query related specifically to the timing of publication. He said that "The near
future" is very vague and asked whether he should expect the document to be
published for example within the next week, month or year.
6. In his request for an internal review Dr Bevan also said that given the imminent
roll-out of ID cards to young people in the North West of England, it was surely a
Final
matter of great public interest to know the findings of a tax-funded opinion-
gathering and suggested that it was reasonable to expect some indication to be
given of when the results will be available. He asked for details of the continuing
work with young people that is delaying the publication of the report.
Consideration of the response
7. The first point to note about Dr Bevan’s original request is that he did not ask for a
copy of any report. As he has pointed out, he simply asked for information about
when any reports would be (a) available within Government and (b) published.
This should arguably have been treated as general correspondence rather than a
FoI request. In any event, the use of section 22(1) to withhold information, on the
ground that a report would be published in due course, was inappropriate.
8. The IPS response to the request gave some helpful and relevant background
information about the mylifemyID website. To that extent it complied with the duty
to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of the FoI Act. It did not,
however, provide the information which had been requested. References to “the
near future” and “the end of the process” are not sufficiently specific to answer a
request for information about when something wil happen. If this was not known
with any certainty, then it would have been preferable had the response said that
the information requested (i.e. the date of publication) was not available.
9. I understand that IPS have always intended to publish the findings from its work
with young people, once it is complete. I also understand that, although the
preliminary research work was completed in 2009, further evaluation work has
been undertaken (including with young people) in 2010. IPS have taken the view
that publication prior to the completion of this work could have prejudiced the
outcome of the evaluation. I understand that IPS are stil looking to publish the
findings from its work with young people, including the mylifemyID findings, in
Spring 2010. Given that the outcome of the general election is not yet known,
publication cannot be guaranteed or predicted with any certainty. We therefore
cannot give Dr Bevan a definite publication date.
10. I also understand, in answer to Dr Bevan’s question as to when the mylifemyID
findings became available within government, that the findings were first provided
to IPS in December 2008.
Conclusions
11. The use of section 22(1) in the response of 29 July 2009 was inappropriate, given
that the request was not for copies of any actual reports.
12. The response of 29 July 2009 was in breach of section 1(1) of the FoI Act in failing
either to provide the information requested or to say explicitly that it was not held.
13. The information which Dr Bevan requested, to the extent that we hold it, is given in
paragraphs 9 and 10 above.
Information Access Team
Home Office
6 May 2010
