Information Access Team
Shared Services Directorate
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
M Bimmler
[FOI #22262 email]
6 April 2010
Ref: CR13266
Dear Mr Bimmler
Freedom of Information request (our ref. 13266): internal review
I am writing further to my e-mail of 9th February, regarding your request for an
internal review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request
about the Home Secretary’s decision to ask Professor Nutt to stand down as
chairman of the ACMD.
I have now completed the review. I have examined all the relevant papers,
including the information that was withheld from you, and have consulted the
policy unit which provided the original response. I have considered whether
the correct procedures were followed and assessed the reasons why
information was withheld from you. I confirm that I was not involved in the
initial handling of your request.
My findings are set out in the attached report. My conclusion is that the
original response was correct.
This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain
dissatisfied with the response to your FoI request, you have the right of
complaint to the Information Commissioner at the following address:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Diana Pottinger
Information Access Team
Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of
Information (FoI) Act 2000 by Mr Bimmler (reference 13266)
Responding Unit: Drug Strategy Unit
Chronology
Original FoI request:
30 October 2009
Interim response/PIT letter
30 November 2009
Drug Strategy Unit response:
27 January 2010
Request for internal review:
28 January 2010
Subject of request
Mr Bimmler asked for
:
•
The letter to Professor Nutt asking him to stand down as chair of
the ACMD
•
The response letter from Professor Nutt
•
Al internal drafts of this letter and all memoranda, notes, e-mails
and other documents which were produced in connection with
the preparation of this letter.
•
Any internal advice which suggested that the Home Secretary
should ask Professor Nutt to resign
The response by Drug Strategy Unit
The Drug Strategy Unit provided Mr Bimmler with a link to the information
requested in questions 1 and 2, which is in the public domain. Drug Strategy
Unit confirmed that the information requested in was held by the Home Office,
but informed the applicant that it had decided that the information requested in
questions 3 and 4 was exempt by virtue of section 36(2)(b) and (c), and 42 of
the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr Bimmler’s request for an internal review
Mr Bimmler has requested an internal review into the public interest test on
questions 3 and 4.
Procedural issues
Drug Strategy Unit confirmed that the information requested in was held
therefore section 1(1)(a) of the Act was complied with. This is the part of the
Act which requires public authorities to say whether or not they hold the
requested information.
A response was not issued within the 20 day deadline. Section 17 of the Act
allows departments to extend the deadline for a reasonable period of time
beyond 20 days to consider the public interest if a qualified exemption is
under consideration. In this case, letters were sent on 30 November, and 16
December extending the deadline to consider the public interest test.
The letter sent on 30 November provided the applicant with a link to the
information requested in questions 1 and 2, informed him that more time was
required to consider the public interest test, and gave him a date by which he
might expect a response. A further letter was sent on 16th December, giving a
new deadline of 20 January.
Two qualified exemptions were being considered, section 36(2)(a) and (c) and
42, therefore the public interest extension was applied correctly and, although
the final response was issued after the second deadline, this was within 40
days of the original target date, which would constitute a reasonable amount
of time to consider the public interest test. Therefore section 10 of the FOI Act
was complied with.
A clear explanation of why sections 36 and 42 of the Act are engaged, and
consideration of the public interest in applying section 36(2)(b) and (c), and 42
were included in the response letter. Therefore the response complied with
the requirement in section 17 of the Act to name the exemptions being relied
on, and to explain their application.
Consideration of the response
The Drug Strategy Unit argued that the draft letters, emails and submission
relating to the decision to ask Professor Nutt to stand down were exempt by
virtue of 36(2)(a) and (c) because disclosure would lead to civil servants being
under pressure not to challenge ideas, which would lead to poorer decision
making, and 42 because there is an in-built public interest in maintaining legal
professional privilege to ensure that lawyers are able to present the full
picture, including arguments for and against the final conclusion.
As section 36(2)(a) and (c) and section 42 are qualified exemptions, they can
only be applied where the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. Mr
Bimmler has challenged Drug Strategy Unit’s conclusion that, in this case, the
balance of the public interest favours applying the exemptions.
Drug Strategy Unit have acknowledged that there is some public interest in
disclosure, as this is a high profile subject, and openness would aid public
debate on the subject. However, I concur with their conclusion that the public
interest falls in favour of maintaining the exemptions, because of the inhibiting
effect disclosure would have on the decision making process, and the ability
of Home Office Legal Advisers to offer full and impartial advice.
Conclusions
•
Section 10 was complied with – an extension was correctly used in
order to consider the public interest test on qualified exemptions, and a
full response was issed within a reasonable time
•
Section 1(1)(a) was complied with – applicant informed that the
requested information was held.
•
Section 17 complied with – applicant was told which exemptions apply
and why.
•
The exemptions in sections section 36(2)(a) and (c) and section 42
were applied correctly
Information Access Team
Home Office
6 April 2010
