Tuesday 11th November

Dear Dr Tai,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOI”)

I refer to your FOI request in which you seek copies of all correspondence between DIUS and the British Standards Institution regarding the standardization process of Office Open XML (OOXML) at the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), in particular, the draft international standard DIS 29500.

I enclose a copy of the majority of the information this Department holds which is covered by your request. You will see that we have redacted some of the information. The redactions seek to remove information which is capable of identifying individuals. In withholding this information we rely on the exemption in section 40(2) FOI because the information constitutes personal data and disclosure would breach the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. Section 40(2) FOI is an absolute exemption, therefore requires no public interest test consideration.

There are also two further items of information that we are withholding because it is the Minister's reasonable opinion that disclosure of these items would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. In these circumstances the exemption in section 36(2)(b)(i) FOI applies. This exemption is a qualified exemption so before relying on it the Minister must be satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Before explaining the factors which the Minister considered when conducting that balancing exercise I wish to explain why it is that the exemption applies.

The British Standards Institution (“BSI”) is the National Standards Body (“NSB”) of the UK and develops standards and standardisation solutions to meet the needs of business and society.  They work with government, businesses and consumers to represent UK interests and facilitate the production of British, European and international standards. British Standards' products and services help organisations to successfully implement best practice, manage business critical decisions and achieve excellence.

However, BSI is independent of government and as an organisation they are not subject to FOI. Furthermore, their objects permit them to provide other services such as certification and product testing in the same way as many other companies who operate in those sectors. As regards its role as the UK's NSB the government provides some funding and seeks to foster a close relationship with BSI in order to ensure that the public interest in standardisation is adequately served but the government has no control over what BSI does. In those circumstances it is essential that the relationship of trust and confidence with BSI is maintained and part of that process involves having a free and frank exchange of information with BSI in order that officials can provide ministers with appropriate advice on matters that relate to standardisation.

The Minister is satisfied that disclosure of the two items of information being withheld in this case would lead to BSI being much more circumspect in the information they choose to share with us and if the information exchange reduces or dries up that would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. Good advice depends upon adequate sources of information.

In conducting the necessary balancing exercise to decide whether or not to withhold the information the Minister took into account the fact that the public do have a legitimate interest in the transparency of the work of the Department, making Government more accountable to the electorate and increasing public trust. There is also a public interest in ensuring that there are adequate opportunities for members of the public to feed in their views.

However, against this, good decision-making needs to be based on a broad assessment and discussion of options. Officials need space in which to develop their thinking and explore options in communications and discussions with other officials both in this Department and in other Departments or organisations. This allows Ministers and officials the opportunity to weigh up advice and a wide range of options. An essential part of this process is ensuring access to as wide a range of information as possible.

In concluding that the balance in this case came down in favour of withholding two items of information the Minister was anxious to avoid any steps by BSI to be less forthcoming with information. He was conscious that they themselves are not subject to FOI and that, for the reasons set out above, it is necessary for government to keep closely apprised of the work of the NSB. In addition the Minister was conscious that apart from personal data the vast majority of the information held by the Department was being disclosed to you as requested.

I hope you feel that I have adequately explained the reasoning behind our decision to withhold two items of information.

I attach details of our appeals procedure should you be dissatisfied.

Yours sincerely

K. Willcocks

Innovation Delivery Unit

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills

Appeals procedure

If you are unhappy with the result of your request for information, you may request an internal review within two calendar months of the date of this letter. If you wish to request an internal review please contact me.

If you are not content with the outcome of the 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

1

3 of 3

Kingsgate House, 66-74 Victoria St, London SW1E 6SW

Tel: +44 (0)20 7215 5555 Email: [DIUS request email]

www.dius.gov.uk