Information Access Team
Financial and Commercial Group
Ground Floor (NW), Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail [email address] www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Andrew Watson
Our Ref: 13416
Your ref:
Request-23716-
[email address]
Date:
18 January 2010
Dear Mr Watson
I am writing further to my e-mail of 22 December about your request for an internal review of
the response from the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) to your Freedom of Information
request about the post of Identity Commissioner.
I have now completed the review. I discussed your complaint with the relevant staff at IPS
and my findings are set out in the attached report. My conclusion is that it was unfortunate
IPS used unclear terminology when replying to the final point in your request for information
about the number of people interviewed for the post of Identity Commissioner. I have brought
this to their attention and would ask you to accept my apologies.
This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain dissatisfied with
the response to your request for information, 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
Steve Kirk
G:\My Documents\Word\Home Office
Letter Template.doc
Internal review report
Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 by
Andrew Watson, reference 13416
Responding Unit: Identity and Passport Service (IPS)
Chronology
Original FoI request:
25 November 2009
IPS response:
17 December 2009
Request for internal review received
21 December 2009
Subject of request
1.
Mr Watson asked for information about the recruitment of the Identity Commissioner:
• The amount spent on recruitment consultants and advertising for the office of the
Identity Commissioner
• The dates advertisements for the post appeared and in which newspapers
• What other methods of advertising the post were used
• How many people completed application forms for the post
• How many applicants for the post were interviewed.
The response from IPS
2.
IPS replied to all points raised by Mr Watson, but when replying to the final point,
asking how many applicants for the post were interviewed, the reply said that six people had
been selected for interview.
Mr Watson’s request for an internal review
3.
Mr Watson has queried the final response in the letter from IPS as he had asked how
many applicants for the post had been interviewed, but IPS had told him the number of
applicants who were selected for interview.
Consideration of the response
4.
In order to consider Mr Watson’s complaint, I contacted IPS to establish how many
applicants for the post of identity Commissioner were interviewed as opposed to the number
who had been selected for interview. This was necessary as Mr Watson had asked for the
number interviewed for the post, but was instead told how many were selected for interview.
5.
IPS told me that six people had been interviewed for the position of Identity
Commissioner.
Conclusion
6.
The terminology used by IPS to the final point of Mr Watson’s request for information
was unfortunate. It was perfectly reasonable for him to query the point as the number of
applicants selected for interview for the post of Identity Commissioner would not necessarily
be the same as the number who were interviewed for the post. In this instance the number
G:\My Documents\Word\Home Office Letter Template.doc
was the same, but I would recommend that IPS take steps to avoid such confusion in the
future.
Steve Kirk
Information Access Team
Home Office
December 2009
G:\My Documents\Word\Home Office Letter Template.doc
