This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'British Embassy funding for "Palestinians [to] better understand and effectively use the Israeli planning laws"'.

03 March 2010

Near East Group

King Charles Street

WH 323

London

SW1A 2AH

Mr Guy Freeman

By email: [FOI #15606 email]

Dear Mr Freeman,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE: 0614-09

You requested an internal review of the decision, conveyed to you in October 2009, our Ref: 0614-09, of your FOI request into the British Embassy funding for Palestinian understanding of Israeli planning laws. This review is looking into the decision to use the public interest test which led to the withholding of some information under section 35 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).

Search for information

I have conducted a full examination of all the material, both released and exempted, of relevance to your request, including email correspondence and the appropriate records containing the information relating to your request. I have also looked for further statistical information relating to this case, which could be classed as background information and therefore released, and any other appropriate factual information that could have been released as background. I have not found any further detail which would satisfy these categories. I am therefore content that a reasonable search was carried out in relation to your request.

Use of exemptions

The exemptions applied, in particular Section 35 (1) (a), relate to government policy decisions which have an ongoing and current relevance. The detail relating to the formulation of these decisions was appropriately exempt from release under this section, and this is also true for the detail and discussion of policy formation which was eventually discarded in the process. The funding decisions taken do have a relation to the development of policy in this area as the two are linked, and the effects also relate to policy review decisions due to be taken in the future.

As such, the decisions and discussions taken by officials in a number of these cases are still part of the current policy decision making process which is still current. This is why premature disclosure was originally cited as being on of the reasons for the original decision.

After the internal review, I have therefore concluded that the initial decisions taken in this case were correctly derived.

If you are not content with the outcome of this Internal Review you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Victoria Dunne

2

2

Foreign &

Commonwealth

Office